Mirecki's apology and the full e-mail
by KrauzeIn the proud tradition of politicians and business leaders, Professor Paul Mirecki has issued an apology for his public e-mail, in which he referred to his upcoming intelligent design course as "a nice slap in [the] big, fat face" of "fundies". I don't have time to offer much in the way of commentary, but if you look below the fold, you'll find the text of his apology, as well as the full text of the original e-mail that got him in trouble. Among related news, the University of Kansas will be releasing the course description, reading list and syllabus, and is considering putting the course lectures out on the internet.
Professor Mirecki's apology
"I accept full responsibility for an ill-advised email I sent to a small group of students and friends that has unintentionally impugned the integrity and good name of both the university and my faculty colleagues. My words were offensive, and I apologize to all for that.
"I especially regret that the email betrays what I have consistently practiced in the classroom during my sixteen-year teaching career at KU: I believe that civil discourse is vital to a democratic society, and we must, especially in a university environment, be able to discuss differing points of view in a open, fair and civil fashion. I have always practiced my belief that there is no place for impertinence and name calling in a serious academic class. My words in the email do not represent my teaching philosophy or the style I use in class.
"I have assured the provost of the university that I will teach the course according to the standards this university rightfully expects — as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."
Mirecki joined the KU faculty in 1989 and is chair of religious studies. He has a doctor of theology degree from Harvard University and is an expert in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions. He and a colleague found an ancient 5th-century manuscript in 1991 in Berlin's vast Egyptian Museum and verified it as an authentic early account of the teachings of Jesus ("The Gospel of the Savior"). The text is written in the ancient Egyptian language called Coptic and offered previously unknown conversations between Jesus and his disciples.
Professor Mirecki's e-mail
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005
Subject: I.D. & Creationism class to be taught at KU this spring!
To my fellow damned,
Its true, the fundies have been wanting to get I.D. and creationism into the Kansas public schools, so I thought "why don't I do it?"
I will teach the class, with several other lefty KU professors in the sciences and humanities. Class is:
REL 602 Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies.
Tuesdays 7:00-9:30pm. Smith Hall room 100. Open to undergrads and grads.
Enrollment limited to about 120. 3 credit hours.
The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category "mythology". I expect it will draw much media attention. The university public relations office will have a press release on it in a few weeks, I also have contacts at several regional newspapers.
Of course, I won't actually be teaching I.D. and creationisms, but rather I'll be teaching ABOUT I.D. and creationisms as modern mythologies, indicating that these ideas have no place in a public school science class, but can certainly be analyzed in humanities classes for their function in society. Basic approach is my usual: anthropology with a focus on religious thought and behavior.
Any ideas for textbooks, guest lecturers and panels would be appreciated.
So far, six faculty have eagerly signed up to lecture. I can probably pull Chancellor Hemenway into this also, especially in the light of his public comments supporting evolution.
Doing my part to p*ss of the religious right,
Evil Dr. P.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
[...] s not the last we'll see of Professor Mirecki. Update: Krauze at Telic Thoughts has a post on the apology including the full original e-mail that got Mirecki in trouble. In particular I no [...]
Pingback by Verum Serum » Professor Mirecki Apologizes — November 30, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
November 30th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
The anti-ID crowd has an agenda beyond, or rather before, science. No surprise there, but it's nice to have proof like this once in a while.
Comment by Foyle — November 30, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
November 30th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
[...] "tick" is not in the original. Update: (11/30) Krauze at Telic Thoughts has a post on the apology including the full original e-mail that got Mirecki in trouble. In particular I no [...]
Pingback by Verum Serum » Mirecki Hates Christianity — November 30, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
November 30th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
"My words in the email do not represent my teaching philosophy or the style I use in class."
I wonder what they do represent?
Comment by macht — November 30, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
December 1st, 2005 at 12:25 am
An American University Professor on ID
Note how he knows his allies in the Old Press as they tend to run in the same leftist Herd.
Trackback by Into Good and Evil — December 1, 2005 @ 12:25 am
December 1st, 2005 at 5:41 am
Now, what happened next when Dembski wrote his "met their waterloo" email? Is this likely to happen here?
Doubt it, somehow. As Mike Gatting said, "One rule for one, another rule for the others."
Comment by Exile From Groggs — December 1, 2005 @ 5:41 am
December 1st, 2005 at 6:03 am
Nothing happened next when Dembski wrote his various Waterloo emails, especially the Waterloos Dembski predicted.
Mirecki shows the grace that Dembski lacks. Mirecki shows the grace to apologize for offending those who, perhaps, richly deserve to be offended.
When was the last time Telic Thoughts apologized for anything half so offensive? When was the last time Telic Thoughts apologized for any error? When was the last time Telic Thoughts apologized for anything?
Comment by edarrell — December 1, 2005 @ 6:03 am
December 1st, 2005 at 11:55 am
"When was the last time Telic Thoughts apologized for anything?"
What do they have to apologize for?
Mirecki didn't need to apologize. He is receiving what he rightly deserves, he had the option to stand behind his email and his passionate feelings that he expressed. That's his fault for not, and it's his fault for what he said (since he did decide to apologize).
"Mirecki shows the grace that Dembski lacks."
That's precious. Mirecki got caught with his pants down and then tried to back peddle. You call that grace?
Comment by Doug — December 1, 2005 @ 11:55 am
December 1st, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Ed Brayton has some good remarks about fake apologies in general. When Professor Mirecki first heard that his e-mail was getting wide exposure, he could have apologized, explaining that it didn't reflect the way he intended to teach the course, or whatever the explanation was. But instead, he attacked the person who had forwarded his e-mail. Only now, when the reactions to the e-mail has started pouring in, did Professor Mirecki find it fitting to issue an apology.
Comment by Krauze — December 1, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
December 1st, 2005 at 10:05 pm
LOL. I almost fainted because I thought Krauze was saying Brayton critiqued Mirecki's "apology." This floored me because critics of ID are rarely, if ever, so objective about these matters. No worry, as it turned out Brayton was using a sports figure to make the point he could have made with Mirecki. Good catch, Krauze.
Mirecki's apology means he admits he was being needlessly offensive and the title change to the course tells us something was indeed fishy about it. Mission for the readers – can you find one "pro-science" blog that criticized Mirecki?
Comment by MikeGene — December 1, 2005 @ 10:05 pm
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:52 am
If Dembski were to apologize just once when he got caught with his pants down, it would be a step towards the grace of Mirecki. Or if Dembski were to stop his virtual mooning of everybody, it would be a step towards the grace of Mirecki.
Deft avoidance of the question, Doug. Deft avoidance of the question all around.
It must be tough on IDists to see the contempt religious scholars hold for their ideas. It's interesting this is such a flap, and that ID advocates fail to recognize it for outing them as it does.
Comment by edarrell — December 2, 2005 @ 5:52 am
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:33 am
"it would be a step towards the grace of Mirecki".
You wouldn't happen to be the president of Mirecki's fan-club, would you?
Avoidance of what questions, Ed?
Your perceived notions that the contributors at telicthoughts and William Dembski do things comparable to what Mirecki did?
There's no question I'm avoiding. I don't see how they all relate. Maybe in your slanted perspective they do; but in order for others to see it as well you will have to make your points more clear than just saying that it happens to be the case from the way you look at it.
Comment by Doug — December 2, 2005 @ 11:33 am
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Hi Ed,
Doug asked you to substantiate your accusation that Telic Thoughts is in need of offering an apology. Is there any reason why you want to avoid that?
Comment by Krauze — December 2, 2005 @ 11:51 am
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:21 pm
Ed's strategy is to pop his head in the door, shout some slogan, and the run away.
As for contempt, there is no surprise that someone like Mirecki would have contempt. That's dime-a-dozen stuff. I'm actually quite pleased to see him contribute another data point. Mirecki makes it clear that his mind hears "the religious right" when "ID" is spoken. I'm not sure how anyone could believe he was ever capable to objectively judging ID.
Comment by MikeGene — December 2, 2005 @ 10:21 pm
December 6th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Mike,
This might be off-topic, but is that kitten picture you use genuine, or doctored?
Comment by Douglas — December 6, 2005 @ 10:45 pm