Hurd and Mirecki
by MikeGeneGary Hurd, from The Panda's Thumb, has weighed in on the Mirecki story. Apparently, most of the regular contributors at Panda's Thumb have been heatedly arguing about how to comment on the Mirecki story and Hurd has decided to break the silence before quitting the blog. Since The Panda's Thumb is a high profile blog and Gary Hurd accuses the police department of being part of some conspiracy to get Mirecki, we should take a closer look at his complaints.
Hurd begins with complaints about "swift boating," where he sees the Mirecki supporters as having been remarkably restrained, while the far right "strictly intolerant, ignorant, lame-ass cretins incapable of defending their blinkered view of the universe" have been flooding the blogosphere with hoax stories and accusations against Mirecki.
He writes:
Without any supporting evidence at all, or time to reflect, rightwing zealots began braying about Tawana Brawley and Al Sharpton, and comparing Mirecki with Kerri Francis Dunn. We have seen the far right employ this technique so often it is now known as "swift boating." I am reminded of the advice provided to the Army's Airborne Rangers if captured, "Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter-accusations."
There are also a scatter of left leaning blogs, and websites which have commented on the case.
Hurd is just relying on his stereotypes again. When the story of the alleged assault broke, I faithfully did a blog search on "Mirecki" for some time. And Hurd has it completely backwards. There was a flood of blog entries that took Mirecki's story at face value and used it as a rhetorical club to beat Christians/creationists/fundamentalists. I provided a nice snapshot of this back on Dec 7. At that time, there was only a scatter of blogs that argued as Hurd says. What's more, the Daily Kos is a far left blog that is also the most widely read. After immediately embracing Mirecki's account as Truth, the Daily Kos spewed all kinds of misinformation, causing many others to blog that Mirecki was almost killed for simply wanting to criticize ID. I also provided an update on Dec 14, where you can see the anti-religious blogs were still running strong.
Hurd then provides Mirecki's e-mail without offering any commentary. An urban legend is clearly evolving into place before our eyes, where many in the blogosphere now tell the story of a professor who insulted some fundamentalists and this caused those in political power to pressure his university to have him fired while taking away his free speech. But it's much more complicated than this.
While the media has latched on to the "fundie" and "slap their fat faces" comments for obvious sensational reasons, the other e-mails are what probably hurt Mirecki even more. They show a guy who was partying with his students and encouraging their anti-religious banter. For example, he schemed with them to pass out anti-Bible tracts and while Catholics mourned the death of their Pope, the religious studies scholar laughed with his students about "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." What's more, he even told his students that most of his colleagues in the Religious Studies department were atheists.
Remember, this is not some professor with a pseudonym making obnoxious claims on the internet. This was the Chair of the Religious Studies department who certainly appeared to be encouraging anti-religious bigotry among his own students. The Chair is a leadership position and even Mirecki himself admits his failures in his own apology: "I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner."
But the problems with the e-mails go further than this. When you read the e-mail that Hurd provides, it becomes clear that Mirecki was using his academic position and the classroom as a political prop. He designed the course for political reason alone and was going to use it to chase after the media spotlight. He even planned to "pull Chancellor Hemenway into" his political theater. Consider also that the e-mail was dated Nov 19, just a few weeks prior to the start of the course. And what was Mirecki doing? Asking his anti-religious students for textbook and speaker suggestions! You would think that a serious class would have had that all worked out by then. Instead, Mirecki was just being political and looking for academic window dressing. So while he had the University defending the course as a serious academic endeavor, he was really just politicking. Worse yet, he was intentionally trying to outrage and inflame his political opponents. His course was designed to "piss them off" as part of the theater that was supposed to ensue.
These are all important points. That Mirecki was caught trying to misuse his classroom as a political prop to inflame and offend religious people explains why he chose to cancel the course. How could one hope to teach such a politically-motivated, sloppily thrown together course that would be under intense scrutiny from all of his suspicious opponents? The e-mails also explain why his colleagues wanted him to step down from the Chair position, as he demonstrated a complete lack of leadership. There is no need to portray KU as having given in to the political pressure from the right – even if politicians were pressuring KU, Mirecki gave them no principles to stand on.
Hurd then turns his attention to the "The Political Whores." He criticizes several of the State Senators as "dishonorable bullies using their public offices to attack the Constitutional rights to freedom of religion and free speech of American citizens." I already harshly criticized these politicians about a month ago , so there is not much to add here. However, Hurd's attempt to equate Mirecki's anti-religious banter with his students with the words of Thomas Jefferson seems quite a stretch to me. It is concerning that the Chair of a Religious Studies department would encourage anti-religious stereotypes among his own students.
Hurd then relies on the forensic skills he has used to objectively debunk ID and finds himself supporting John Wilkin's hypothesis. Wilkins is the ID critic who has speculated that off-duty policemen assaulted Mirecki and are now busy trying to frame him. Hurd uses his expertise to add a few new twists to this hypothesis. First, he concludes that Mirecki was a "sissy." Second, he notes that Mirecki was lightly beaten. Third, he speculates that some ninja-like assailants were behind the attack. I would agree with his second insight, as the "head injuries" reported all over the blogosphere do look like the results of a single punch (there are no multiple bruises all over the face, no swelling, and no broken bones). However, the Wilkins/Hurd hypothesis is simply ridiculous. I don't want to debunk it at the moment because that would only encourage more speculation. But we can note two things.
First, notice that with so few facts to work with, Wilkins and Hurd are simply piling stereotypes upon stereotypes. First, we have the stereotype about the Religious Right and now we add a stereotype about the Police to the mix.
Second, notice that Wilkins and Hurd are setting up things so that they will be able to cling to the "Professor Beaten by the Religionists" meme that is so popular among those who dislike religion. If the police investigation supports Mirecki, then the police will become the respected authorities. However, if the police investigation fails to support Mirecki, or worse, finds him guilty of something, the meme is now supported by the OJ Simpson defense.
Hurd then lifts many comments from the internet to demonstrate "racist, religious bigotry and pure blood mindedness." Yet Hurd is simply using his stereotypes to cherry pick, even to the point of confusing the Drudge Report with the Drudge Retort. He fails to mention the even more bountiful examples of comments and blogs that use this story as an excuse to express some rather vile anti-religious bigotry.
Finally, let me respond to the points that Hurd makes in his summary.
Professor Paul Mirecki proposed to teach a course in creationism and mysticism. He used some references to "fundies" in an Email to a student group.
No, he did much more than make some reference to "fundies." I demonstrated this above.
In comparison to the common invective the far right, and religious right use to insult liberal Christians (or anyone not conservative), Mirecki's remarks were very tame.
One doesn't excuse Mirecki's attempt to use his classroom as a political prop to purposely inflame his opponents by claiming someone else has worse invective. Nor does this distract from the fact that a Chair of a Religious Studies departmenti was encouraging anti-religious behavior among his own students.
The Email was published by John Altevogt who somehow obtained it. Mr. Altevogt is not a member of the KU campus, and has carried on a campaign against Mirecki for some time.
Altevogt simply obtained the e-mails by registering with the Yahoo group.
The University administration at first voiced support for Mirecki. However, when mostly Republican politicians criticized Mirecki the KU administration abandoned their support for academic freedom and abandoned any claim to honor.
Mirecki decided to cancel this course when his e-mails became public. The e-mails also caused his own colleagues to ask him to step down from his Chair position. There is no need to blame this on "Republican politicians."
The politicians used far harsher language attacking Mirecki than the language of his to which they objected. The subsequent physical attack against Mirecki followed these politicians calling Mirecki a "disgrace," a "hateful" man, implying that it was illegal to criticize Christian fundamentalists, and demanding further actions against Mirecki. Well, they got what they were demanding, and have made no public apology.
Hurd seems to be implying that the politicians were somehow responsible for Mirecki's alleged assault.
University of Kansas's response was actually worse. Mericki was forced by the University Administration to resign as Chair of the Religious Studies Department.
Notice that Hurd makes no mention of the fact that Mirecki's own colleagues wanted him to step down.
Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shulenburger, and interim dean Barbara Romzek are cowards in the eyes of any person committed to academic freedom, and the provisions of the First Amendment. The University's public statement is so much like the extremist rightwing pack's "He Did It To Himself" as to lack any credibility.
Mirecki chose to cancel his course after the e-mails put him in an awkward position. His colleagues asked him to resign his position as Chair. Mirecki still has his faculty position and can speak out about ID and this event all he wants. No one has told him he cannot talk about ID, write about ID, blog about ID, publish about ID, etc.
The right has taken "swift boating" to new lows, and for the first modern instance I know of, physical violence has entered into the Evolution debate in America.
The Left has been just as active and busy using this story to support their attacks on the religious right. And there is no evidence that the physical violence has anything to do with the "Evolution debate."
In the end, Hurd offers not one word of criticism about Mirecki's behavior and e-mail and instead lashes out with an angry attack against everyone else – the "religious right," Republican and Democratic politicians, the police, commentators on the internet, Chancellor Robert Hemenway, Provost David Shulenburger, and interim dean Barbara Romzek.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Hi Mike,
Good comments. Also, the post at PT has been updated, encouraging people to comment over at this thread on the Antievolution board. Here's an interesting hypothesis offered by "sir_toejam":
… which would certainly be consistent with their previous silence on the issue.
Comment by Krauze — December 18, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Remember also that none of the so-called "pro-science" blogs have had any words of criticism for Mirecki in light of his e-mails.
Comment by MikeGene — December 18, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
This *Mirecki is a sissy* gem by Gary Hurd is an interesting twist to the *fascist police conspiracy* theory. LOL. Why is it a guy can't get punched in an old-fashioned traffic fisticuffing without there being wildfire speculations of police corruption, gay bashing, and theocratic takeovers?
I wonder why the darwinists care so passionately about "ACADEMIC FREEDOM" in this context, but lose that honorable principle when it comes to university and high school instructors daring to include pro-ID materials in their curriculum. I suppose consistency is indeed meant only for hobgoblins.
Comment by Simus1 — December 18, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Is that a problem? I have yet to see this blog criticize the Discovery Institute for such actions, or the Thomas More Legal Center, or any other player in intelligent design.
I really don't expect consistency from you guys — but this disparity is considerably greater than garden variety hypocrisy, I think.
Intelligent design is nothing but a political movement, and its founders brag about it. Academic freedom does not include license for prevarication. Nor have scientists sprung to defend Dr. Mirecki much, let alone wilthout reference to what is going on, as have ID advocates uncritically defended the incredible fictions of Jonathan Wells and the attempted subversion of science research at Baylor by William Dembski.
Hurd notes that there are many voices inside science, and many opinions. Science differs markedly from ID in that way, having a wide variety of opinions, and having people ready to criticize what they see as ethical lapses in their colleagues. Such diversity in opinion and striving to get the facts and find the truth must seem absolutely foreign to this blog. How sad.
Comment by edarrell — December 18, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
December 18th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
When I point out that Dr. Mirecki intended to use his classroom, department, University chancellor, and students as pawns in his political theater, what does Eddarell say? "Is that a problem?" Let that sink in.
It's a nice demonstration of how some of the ID critics are willing to use the end to justify whatever means it takes to "defeat the theocratic enemy." Ed complains about not seeing "this blog criticize the Discovery Institute for such actions, or the Thomas More Legal Center," but he apparently doesn't understand the difference between a state-supported university and a private think tank.
Being unable to come up with any decent criticisms of my blog, Ed merely lashes out (accusing us of hypocrisy) and then offers up nothing more than some stale clichés. He shot his wad and that's all there was. It's just another data point that supports my contention "“ if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge a good point from "your enemy," but have no counter-arguments, go for the personal attack and try to change the topic.
Comment by MikeGene — December 18, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
December 19th, 2005 at 1:41 am
One of Wilkins first posts about Mirecki argued that it was ridiculous to criticize Mirecki's comments as "anti-Christian" since he was a Christian himself. I left a comment asking Wilkins to explain where he got this and of course he couldn't. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me he's spearheading the atheist fringe on this one.
Nice rebuttal, Mike.
Comment by Foyle — December 19, 2005 @ 1:41 am
December 19th, 2005 at 1:47 am
edarrell says:
"Intelligent design is nothing but a political movement, and its founders brag about it."
edarrell will do us all the favor of citing to us where and when this bragging by the founders of intelligent design that they are nothing but a political movement took place. Piece of advice: next time, edarrell must pause and think before regurgitating neverending caricatures. Count to 10, then react.
edarrell continues:
"Science differs markedly from ID in that way, having a wide variety of opinions, and having people ready to criticize what they see as ethical lapses in their colleagues. Such diversity in opinion and striving to get the facts and find the truth must seem absolutely foreign to this blog. How sad."
edarrell could stop contradicting himself. For one thing, he refers to a mythological readiness of darwinists to criticize their colleagues. Huh? As Mike Gene has pointed out, this certainly has not happened with Mirecki. In addition, edarrell states "science" has a wide variety of opinions, a diversity in opinion, and that ID lacks that noble quality, but edarrell cannot see that darwinists prevent this exact diversity in opinion when they continuously launch these silly personal attacks on ID and "its founders." edarrell fails to see that ID is simply asking to be part of this scientific diversity supposedly treasured by darwinists.
I think I have figured it out. edarrell must be saying that diversity and academic freedom and consistency should be the guiding principles ONLY when darwinists want to state their opinions. This is a curiously bizarre, post-modern usage of terms like "diversity," "freedom," and "consistency." Darwinists are supposedly defenders of "DIVERSITY" because they have very minor disagreements among themselves, but are completely closed to any other viewpoint? Darwinists are supposedly champions of "FREEDOM" because they guard the freedoms of only those who agree with their position? Darwinists are supposedly "CONSISTENT" because… why? When? Have words lost their meaning?
Comment by Simus1 — December 19, 2005 @ 1:47 am
December 19th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I think that Hurd's piece was clearly written in a state of strong emotion. I do not quite yet understand why PT did not want a less inflammatory, more calmly reasoned review of the facts. I do believe that it is a little outrageous to accuse Mirecki of out-and-out lying about the beating he took, all things considered, and equally outrageous to point fingers at police, or anyone specifically, without any evidence. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I think it wise to accept the professor's word about what happened, and wait to see how the investigation and time spin out.
As for Ed's comment about the politico-religious nature of the ID movement, does it really take a genius to figure that one out? I mean, for god's sakes, their name was, "The Center for the RENEWAL of Science and Culture" until they figured out that they kind of gave away their agenda. How simple can it be before you admit it is right in front of you?
Do you disagree with Phillip Johnson, when he said, "We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." (- Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001. )
Do you disagree with Jonathan Wells, when he said, ""The ultimate question here is: Is God real? I mean, is there a God that we are answerable to who created us and gave purpose to our existence or not?" (- Jonathan Wells quoted, CNN NEWSROOM for May 3, 2001, Aired May 3, 2001 – 04:30 ET)
I think taking the words right from the horse's mouth makes it crystal clear how political ID is, and the Wedge removes any remaining doubt. In the DI response to the Wedge, they do not deny the authenticity of the document, nor that their main objective is to "overthrow materialism and its cultural legacies". In fact, they brazenly claim it, "The [CSC] does not have a secret plan to influence science and culture [you mean,"renew"]. It has a highly and intentionally public program for "challenging scientific materialism and its destructive cultural legacies"–the preceding quotation, by the way, is fro mour very first statement of purpose that was prominently and publicly featured on our website." (page 3)
Do you people call this a scientific endeavor? To "renew" cultural legacies? Are you that crazed? Gimme a break.
Comment by skiddum — December 19, 2005 @ 9:01 am
December 19th, 2005 at 9:31 am
skiddum:
I think taking the words right from the horse's mouth makes it crystal clear how political ID is, and the Wedge removes any remaining doubt.
Umm that can only show how political IDists can be. Is NDE an atheistic theory because Dawkins sez it makes it ok to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist?
skiddum:
In the DI response to the Wedge, they do not deny the authenticity of the document, nor that their main objective is to "overthrow materialism and its cultural legacies".
So what? Science is about reality. Reality demonstrates that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes (materialism) is bogus. Therefore it should be overthrown.
As for Gary Hurd- reality is a mere concept he is also unfamiliar with.
Comment by Joe G — December 19, 2005 @ 9:31 am
December 19th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Skiddum:
Yes, we at Telic Thoughts have not been speculating about what happened that Monday morning. My analysis focuses on the blogosphere reaction (balancing and correcting some of Hurd's claims) and Mirecki's e-mail, helping us to see the reasons why Mirecki cancelled his course and his colleagues asked him to step down (points that are ignored by Hurd). If there is something wrong with my analysis, let me know.
As for the Wedge stuff, that's an attempt to change the topic. Further discussion of that will be moved to the Hole.
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2005 @ 9:52 am
December 19th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Hi Foyle,
I took an earlier look at Wilkins here.
Remember, that people like Wilkins and Hurd will insist they are being objective and fair-minded when weighing ID. They are, after all, the "peer reviewers."
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2005 @ 11:23 am
December 19th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
I'm not lashing out, Mike Gene. I merely point out that you're being quite hypocritical. From your actions, once could (and probably should) conclude that you think using a class, or a school board, or the courts, for purely political purposes. Using any institution for purely political purposes is problematic, to me. IN fact, using the Discovery Institute for purely political reasons tends to be against the spirit and the letter of the law under which the group is organized — is this one more occasion where Mike Gene simply doesn't have the facts, or is it an example of where Mike Gene bends the law simply to suit ID's political ends?
Remember, people like Mike Gene will insist they are being objective and fair-minded when weighing their own biases against science. They have no room in their world for anyone who might accurately point out that the emperor's new clothes are invisible and unprotective.
Your pique really shows, Mike Gene. Your continued failure to critically look at the many political (and moral) sins of ID advocates demonstrates why I was right in my criticism.
By the way, I don't think anyone can make a serious case that Mirecki was "using" students in political theater. His course outline discussed legitimate issues in myth and religion, and its probably a course that should be offered. The strident screech-owls of the religious right do not care for any scholarly analysis of any topic that hits close to their beliefs, whether in science, religion, ethics and philosophy, and especially not in religion. For the moment, the censoring of Mirecki has worked. So you kick the guy while he's down.
Still got no evidence of intelligent design? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain . . ."
Yeah, we know your number.
If you have a problem with such actions, you should say something. But as you phrase it, it's just more of your biased dudgeon against Mirecki.
Comment by edarrell — December 19, 2005 @ 1:20 pm
December 19th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Eddarrell says he is not lashing out when he clearly is doing just that. Simply read my lengthy blog and try to find the places where Ed provides a counter-argument. There are none. Instead of finding flaws in my arguments, he accuses me of hypocrisy and changes the topic. Heck, even Ed Brayton thinks I made a few good points, but Eddarrell can't bring himself to acknowledge this.
Ed writes, "I merely point out that you're being quite hypocritical. From your actions, once could (and probably should) conclude that you think using a class, or a school board, or the courts, for purely political purposes."
The last sentence makes no sense. This is understandable, because when you are lashing out, you tend to write from an emotional state and make such mistakes. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to figure out how I am being hypocritical.
But this is not true "“ we just saw that Ed has no problem with a university professor designing a class for purely political reasons. Let's review.
I said "“ "He designed the course for political reason alone and was going to use it to chase after the media spotlight."
Ed replied "“ "Is that a problem?"
Now, he suddenly changes his tune "“ "Using any institution for purely political purposes is problematic, to me."
First, it's "is that a problem?" and now it's probematic to him. Go figure.
Like I said, he's just lashing out and making things up as he goes along, hoping something, anything will stick.
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
December 19th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
People get beat up on the streets of Denver like clockwork.
The Highway Patrol responds to > 100 "road-rage" complaints a freakin' day. Before the end of August there were more "Hit-and-Run" fatalities in the Denver-Metro than recorded ever before. What's up with that?
A wholesale hate-crime, terroristic assault upon denizens of Denver by Theocrats? Republicans? Creationists? Hypocrites?
Are you nuts?!"”Or what?!
Do you hear my voice as if I'm speaking under water?
Do I sound garbled to you?
What are you arguing about? Is this an example of the kind of reasoning that goes into this "debate"
Comment by Rock — December 19, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
December 19th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Ed,
You come here and make claims that you don't back up. When someone requests you to substantiate your claims so that others can understand your position, you leave the forum. On top of that, I'm still waiting for responses from you in regards to other bold, currently unsupported comments that you have made in reaction to other threads on this blog.
Just stating that Mike Gene is hypocritical doesn't make is so.
Also, your posts are all over the map; careening from one topic to the other ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain . . ."—- just out of the blue).
Comment by Doug — December 19, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
December 20th, 2005 at 12:07 am
Surprisingly I liked Gary's post. I don't agree, but it actually had a few good points (which is more than I can say for the typical PT thread):
And Hurd had these words for a democrat:
And this one is worth going into the ARN quote mine:
What! Disdain and denigration of one Gary's fellow anti-IDists. That's no way to paint a fellow soldier as a hero for a just cause!
And Gary lashes out at his fellow anti-IDists:
I'll miss you Gary, I hope you reconsider coming back to PT!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 20, 2005 @ 12:07 am
December 20th, 2005 at 1:06 am
More Mirecki
You just can't get enough of the guy.
…
Trackback by Hennessy's View — December 20, 2005 @ 1:06 am
December 20th, 2005 at 6:13 am
skiddum,
This is what edarrell said:
"Intelligent design is nothing but a political movement, and its founders brag about it."
This was my invitation:
"edarrell will do us all the favor of citing to us where and when this bragging by the founders of intelligent design that they are nothing but a political movement took place."
NONE of your quotes show "the founders" of intelligent design "bragging" they are "nothing but a political movement." Why is it so unacceptable to you that proponents of a scientific theory would want to make it more well known and more accepted both in scientific circles and in society in general? Shocking! Scandalous! Political! skiddum, this dichotomy you set up that either ID must be completely silent and ghettoized or it must be painted as "nothing but a political movement" is plain silly. Read your history; Chuck Darwin and his followers did quite a bit of "renewing" of culture through organized & intentional spreading of their new theory themselves. Were they unethical and "nothing but a political movement" for doing so? Again, edarrell and skiddum preach about consistency and diversity, but fail to practice it.
I am still waitng for edarrell and skiddum to cite to us where and when this bragging by the founders of intelligent design that they are "nothing but a political movement" took place. Not surprisingly, skiddum (like edarrell) is CONFUSING the endless caricatures of ID with the real thing.
skiddum, do you agree with edarrell that darwinists in any substantial number criticized Mirecki? Show us where this took place. Most remained silent, several even defended him, and many made him out to be a martyr for their pet causes. This invisible "diversity of opinion" within darwinism, this inexistent readiness to "criticize what they see as ethical lapses in their colleagues" that edarrell mentions is what I was calling into question. Is some self-examination and consistency is too much to ask for?
Comment by Simus1 — December 20, 2005 @ 6:13 am
December 20th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Forgive me for not reading this entire article before commenting, but I'm at work. However in reply to your statements regarding Mirecki's being a poor fit for the job of Religious studies chair due to his personal beliefs, I'd just like to add that I have had many history professors who taught me about the wars of the past but who did not support war themselves. You do not have to believe a religion to teach it, just like to don't have to be bipolar to teach a psychology class. In fact I think you could say it would be best that a religious studies professor was an atheist, as it would be quite tempting for a priest to skew his teachings in favor of the god he believed was best. Priests belong in church, not in school.
I'm not even going to discuss his right to free speech as I am under the impression that that's simply something that should be beyond argument at this point, like his right to vote, or own property. It's ridiculous that people like you even still insinuate that people don't have such an intrinsic right.
Comment by jessehattabaugh — December 20, 2005 @ 11:40 am
December 20th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Jesse,
I have to admit that your bipolar line was quite funny.
No litmus test was applied based solely on Prof. Mirecki's personal beliefs (in fact, as Mirecki stated, most of the other instructors in his department are also atheists and anti-ID). He was encouraged to step down from his position of leadership over his entire department (not give up his tenure) because he had repeatedly embarrassed his colleagues through his completely unprofessional behavior. He had a rare, but brief, moment of temperance when he voluntarily agreed to that recommendation and had his secretary prepare his letter of resignation in his own office.
Who are these "people like you" who insinuated anyone doesn't have an intrinsic right to free speech? There is a difference between, on the one hand, one exercising his own right to free speech by criticizing the obviously imprudent actions and words of Prof. Mirecki, and on the other hand, one denying another his rights to free speech, isn't there?
Curiously, in the previous paragraph, you deny this very intrinsic right to all priests? If the right of free speech is intrinsic to all human beings, are you saying priests are intrinsically of another species–maybe, Gigantopithecus? http://www.bfro.net/images/lineupWeb_v4_1231.jpg
Sure, a priest might be tempted to present his views in a better light in front of his students. Can you explain to me, however, why you think this natural human tendency to favor one's leanings is supposedly completely absent in atheist instructors? I see a troubling double-standard (bi-polarism?) at work here.
Comment by Simus1 — December 20, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
December 20th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
jessehattabaugh said:
Hello, Jesse. While I agree that religious scholars should not profess a particular religious view in teaching situations, I fail to see how an anti-religious view serves the cause of objectivity per the material either. It would seem to me that an agnostic position is best for teaching about the relative dating of texts, textual criticisms and comparisons, archeological and anthropological hypotheses of religious origins and contexts, etc.
And this is of course purely on the professional level. Just as evolutionary biologists must operate via methodological naturalism and make certain naturalistic assumptions on that methodological basis in order to do quantifiable science, religious scholars must operate via a neutral position on the relative metaphysical veracity of the material they study and teach. Privately any scientist and/or scholar may believe as they choose, just like everybody else.
In the particular instance of the "Unfortunate Mirecki Incident" of recent note (and current blog subject), we have a perfect example of why personal beliefs should be kept apart from professional practice. Mirecki's anti-religious beliefs led him to make statements and plan a university-sponsored course that couldn't help but destroy his credibility professionally, and in many people's opinions (including mine) his personal credibility as well. A YEC professor who used his authority to evangelize students to his personal faith on company time, planned a course in, say, Hindu-bashing just to tweak the political noses of Hindus who sponsor and fund his school and his department, and revealed to his evangelized students that all his department colleagues believed Hinduism is total bunk, would find himself in just as much trouble if Hindus dominated the populace and government he was targeting. Rightly so, IMO.
The wisdom to behave with a sense of social, political and professional decorum doesn't come with a sheepskin. Some people are just not wise, and never will be. They usually undo themselves eventually, but who's fault is that?
Comment by Joy — December 20, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
December 20th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Jesse,
If you are going to attack me, you should have read my blog instead of relying on your stereotypes. No where do I argue that Mirecki is a poor fit for the Chair position because he is an atheist. In fact, in one of the Mirecki threads on this blog, someone did make that argument and I strongly defended Mirecki in this regard. The point is about leadership. Mirecki was posting on a list-serv with his students, where he served as their official faculty advisor and they knew it was him. Thus, this is a faculty-student relationship issue. And what was the faculty advisor doing with his students:
You skip around the fact that it was Mirecki's own colleagues, who have known him for over 15 years, who asked him to resign. Are you saying that his own colleagues wanted him to resign because he was an atheist? Because he said something that offended the religious right? Do you really think so little of his colleagues?
As for the issue of free speech, no where do I insinuate that people don't have such an intrinsic right. That's just another personal attack grounded in your stereotypes.
Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
December 20th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Joy:
Exactly. And we can add more to it. Imagine this department is used to having Hindu students complain the department is hostile to Hinduism and seeks to debunk Hinduism. The department responds by pointing out they are simply approaching the issue in an academic manner. Then along comes the YEC professor, telling everyone the department believes Hinduism is bunk while getting caught trying to sell his politically-motivated Hindu debunking class as an academic exercise. It certainly puts the department in an awkward situation.
Comment by MikeGene — December 20, 2005 @ 1:22 pm