Expelled Mormon Scholar Unhireable
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports:
In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him. At least three other secular schools plan new professorships in Mormon studies, but he appears to be a long shot for these posts, too -- not because he lacks qualifications, but because almost all the funding for the jobs is coming from Mormon donors.
“At this point, I’m unhireable,” says the 62-year-old scholar, who lives with his mother to save money in this town east of Los Angeles.
Mr. Quinn’s struggles reflect the rising influence of religious groups over the teaching of their faiths at secular colleges, despite concerns about academic freedom. U.S. universities have usually hired religious-studies professors regardless of whether they practiced or admired the faiths they researched. But some universities are bending to the views of private donors and state legislators by hiring the faithful.
“If you want to succeed in Mormon studies you have to make compromises and you have to tread gently,” says Colleen McDannell, a professor of American religions at the University of Utah. “Michael would not do that.”
This is absolutely disgusting. Academic freedom is an empty term if universities will making hiring decisions based upon what private donors decide is and is not “appropriate” for professors to believe. The schools in question should be ashamed, but they probably aren’t because they probably sincerely believe that it’s OK to put money above academics.
For that reason, they all should be named publicly because if they are incapable of being ashamed, perhaps they can be publicly shamed instead: the University of Utah and Arizona State University have rejected Quinn and should be considered unfit places for scholars of history and religion in the future — no one who goes there can trust that what they learn isn’t being censored by Mormon authorities and forces of religious correctness. Claremont Graduate University, the University of Wyoming and Utah State should want to hire Quinn but probably won’t. If they decide not to, they should be placed in the same category as the first two: unfit for scholars and students, fit only for those seeking indoctrination over scholarship.
Sadly, it’s only going to get worse. More and more, universities are filling positions in religious studies based upon what donors with deep pockets want. Students are going to get a biased, slanted view on religion based upon what rich donors and rich religious communities want students to learn. Ideology is trumping scholarship, and in the worst places possible:
In the 1970s, some universities pioneered the idea of privately funded professorships in specific religions by establishing Judaic-studies chairs. Now many universities have chairs for faiths ranging from Islam to Sikhism. They are usually underwritten by donors of the same religion, who generally expect that the scholar filling the chair will be sympathetic to the faith.
Because of the censors and cowards at places like the University of Utah and Arizona State University, Quinn sleeps on a futon in his mother’s apartment. He can’t afford health insurance, car bills, or internet access. His library is in boxes in her garage. This is what the Mormon church causes to happen to scholarly critics; it only works, though, because institutions like the University of Utah and Arizona State University are complicit the censorship and exclusion of “uncomfortable” scholarship.
There’s no amount of money you could pay me to either attend to teach at places like that. The people who are there should be too embarrassed to even admit that they’re there.
Quick Poll: Should universities allow private donors to dictate the beliefs and agenda of professors?
- Yes, it's the free market at work.
- Yes, it ensures that religious groups are treated with respect in the academy.
- No, it's a violation of the spirit of academic freedom, harms scholarship, and harms students.
- I don't know.
- I don't care.
Read More:
Comments
Yes for private universities, no for public ones.
It’s not a question of what’s legal, but what’s appropriate. It would be legal for private universities to allow private donors to dictate the beliefs and agendas of professors, but is this appropriate for a university to do? Is it consistent with the ostensible mission of the university? Is it good for the students to be receiving a message that has been bought and paid for by interested parties as if it were independent scholarship?
Given my political leanings it’s not often that I agree that what’s legal is also what’s moral or appropriate, but I think this is one of those instances. Certainly I think there is a possibility for bias when donors can attach strings to their donations, but this is not necessarily the case, nor is not having any donor influence any guarantee that classes will be unbiased and agenda-free.
With public universities there may be certain issues, e.g. if evangelicals wanted to influence the content of a biology curriculum, which may run afoul of, say, church-state separation (which I consider both a legal and moral issue). With private universities though, I believe that both morally and legally it is up to the university to determine how it wants to run its own programs, and that includes the decision as to whether or not to accept donations with strings attached. I may not like the results of such donor influence and certainly under some circumstances it may not be in the best interest of the students in cases of obvious bias, but I just don’t believe that that’s a decision I, you, or any legislature has the right to make.
There may be a case to be made for some sort of disclosure policy so that students are informed that a class they’re taking is a “sponsored” class, and by whom. Any students who don’t like that this is happening, can either not take the class or not attend that private university.
So, you are saying that it is moral or appropriate for private groups to fund a professorship and then dictate the beliefs and agenda of whoever is hired for that professorship: private Muslim groups dictating what a chair in Islamic Studies will believe and teach, private Christian groups dictating what a chair in Christian Studies will believe and teach, Scientologists dictating what a professor of Psychology & Mental Health will believe and teach, private political groups dictating what a chair in Political Science will believe and teach, etc.
How is this moral and appropriate? It’s legal, obviously, but that’s irrelevant because no one is talking about making it illegal. The question is how and why it is either moral or appropriate for universities to teach “sponsored classes” where the message is based not upon independent research and scholarship, or even upon general academic consensus, but upon the agenda and ideology of private groups with the most money.
Let’s review the question again: Should universities allow private donors to dictate the beliefs and agenda of professors? In what way is there only a possibility of bias here? Or perhaps I should ask instead: under what sorts of circumstances do you imagine that there would be nothing wrong with this?
Consider also the context of the question: an acknowledged expert who is unhireable because of this.
This is irrelevant because the question doesn’t ask if someone other the universities — you, I, or a legislature — should start running the university programs. The question isn’t whether the universities should be forced to turn down privately funded chairs that come with strings attached. The question is whether they should do it — i.e., whether they should choose to exercise their legal right to do it.
In what way is there only a possibility of bias here? Or perhaps I should ask instead: under what sorts of circumstances do you imagine that there would be nothing wrong with this?
WRT “sponsored” classes, I can think of two instances offhand. First would be a private donor (group or individual) conditioning their donation on having a more diverse curriculum in, say, some political or theology course. If a course appears too biased in one direction, alumni & contributors may take notice and demand a change in exchange for their contributions.
The second instance could be in the case of some company which, seeing a dearth of qualified candidates in some specialty, may sponsor a course dealing in the specialty they’d like to see more people take.
This is irrelevant because the question doesn’t ask if someone other the universities — you, I, or a legislature — should start running the university programs. The question isn’t whether the universities should be forced to turn down privately funded chairs that come with strings attached. The question is whether they should do it — i.e., whether they should choose to exercise their legal right to do it.
That was my whole point–that barring any legal compulsion to do so, I just don’t think it’s our place to say that they should or shouldn’t. It’s their university, if they run it poorly then they’ll suffer the results that a bad reputation brings.
This isn’t about an overall curriculum, but the beliefs, writings, and teachings of particular professors. There are many possible ways in which a curriculum might be improved through greater diversity; how and why is it appropriate to achieve this goal through allowing private donors to dictate the beliefs and agenda of a particular professor?
This isn’t about funding a specialty, but about demanding that a professor in a specialized field only hold certain beliefs and only teach certain things. I have no problem with private donors funding a narrow speciality; I have a problem with them conditioning that funding on the requirement that professors teaching it only believe and teach certain things that are consistent with the private group’s ideology. That may be an appropriate situation for a private think tank, but not a university.
So neither of your suggestions actually answers the question: under what circumstances is there nothing wrong with universities allowing private donors to dictate the beliefs and agenda of individual professors?
Why? Since when has “there’s no legal compulsion to refrain from doing X” mean that it’s not anyone’s place to say “you shouldn’t do X”? Does the absence of legal compulsions mean that your ability to make ethical evaluations evaporates? Or does it mean that there are no ethical components to the situation? Or, if ethics isn’t relevant here, there is the question about whether such conditioned funding is consistent with the mission of universities. I don’t think it is.
You’re contradicting yourself. A reputation involves people offering opinions — a good reputation involves people saying good things and a bad reputation involves people saying bad things. You can’t get a bad reputation unless people are saying “you shouldn’t do that” and you can’t get a good reputation unless people are saying “it’s good that you do this.” You can’t think “it’s not our place to say they should or shouldn’t do this” but then think that acquiring a good or bad reputation will be the appropriate consequences for what they do.