Academic Bias Against Evangelicals?

[jgredline]

The Institute for Jewish and Community Research recently conducted a poll of American college professors, asking them to rate their feelings toward specific religious groups. The report points to one glaring fact -- a majority of the polled faculty members said they held "unfavorable" views of American evangelicals.

Gary A. Tobin, the Institute's chief pollster and director, called this finding "explosive," according to The Washington Post.

Here's how the paper introduced the story:

Frank G. Kauffman was teaching a course in social work at Missouri State University in 2005 when he gave an assignment that sparked a lawsuit and nearly destroyed his academic career.

He asked his students to write letters urging state legislators to support adoptions by same-sex couples. Emily Brooker, then a junior majoring in social work, objected that the assignment violated her Christian beliefs. When she refused to sign her letter, she was hauled before a faculty panel on a charge of discriminating against gays.

The case has fueled accusations by conservative groups that secular university faculties are dominated by liberals who treat conservative students, particularly evangelical Christians, with intellectual condescension or worse.

The pollster argued that his report found bias and prejudice among the academics. Academic leaders offered rather embarrassing arguments defending themselves against charges of bias and prejudice.

From the article:

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, disagreed. What the poll reflects, he said, is "a political and cultural resistance, not a form of religious bias."

Nelson, a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians probably have two causes: "the particular kind of Republican Party activism that some evangelicals have engaged in over the years, as well as what faculty perceive as the opposition to scientific objectivity among some evangelicals."

William B. Harvey, vice president for diversity and equity at the University of Virginia, said that even if the survey has correctly identified a "latent sentiment" among professors, "I don't know that it is fair to make the leap . . . that this is manifested in some bias in the classroom."

Leave it to a professor of English to argue that the professors are displaying "a political and cultural resistance," not "a form of religious bias." No intelligent person should buy that argument. Couching their bias in the language of political resistance is obfuscation of the highest order.

The fact that such bias exists is significant in its own right, considering the fact that a majority of Americans at least claim to be evangelical Christians. The ideological chasm that increasingly divides the academic elite from the larger culture is in full view here. Many academics, by their own admission, look down upon evangelical students, evangelical churches, and evangelical citizens.

This means that many academics, comfortably situated in their tenured positions, willingly take tax and tuition dollars from a population they look down upon.

As Gary Tobin observed: "If a majority of faculty said they did not feel warmly about Muslims or Jews or Latinos or African Americans, there would be an outcry. No one would attempt to justify or explain those feelings. No one would say, 'The reason they feel this way is because they don't like the politics of blacks or the politics of Jews.' That would be unthinkable."

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php

 

[Veritas]

Nelson, a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians probably have two causes: "the particular kind of Republican Party activism that some evangelicals have engaged in over the years, as well as what faculty perceive as the opposition to scientific objectivity among some evangelicals."

I'm amazed they think that they are somehow being objective. :roll:

I think alot media and entertainment today engenders unfavorable feelings too. Just the other night I saw a couple of shows on TV that both were undermining and misrepresenting evangelical Christians. One was about how evangelical's will probably murder someone who is gay, and the other was about how evangelical's will probably murder someone who is teaching evolution. :-? The subtlety of the show was very effective, but that was what one would get out of it. It sure would make it hard on someone who is searching to find the truth.

He asked his students to write letters urging state legislators to support adoptions by same-sex couples. Emily Brooker, then a junior majoring in social work, objected that the assignment violated her Christian beliefs. When she refused to sign her letter, she was hauled before a faculty panel on a charge of discriminating against gays.

Good for Emily. ...This is a strange way for persecution to start. It's going to be an uphill battle for us Christians to explain that NO we are not going to hurt (certainly not murder) someone because they are gay. But we are going to continue to point out that its not the way God planned life for us and that it is a hurtful and sinful behavior in itself.

 

[Rick W]

Colleges: Bible verses contaminate textbooks

Lawsuit to settle dispute over religious references

Posted: May 2, 2007

Officials at the highest levels of the University of California system are stomping on constitutional religious rights by banning Christian perspectives from educational materials high school students may use to prepare for college entrance, according to a case scheduled for trial later this year.

The case was triggered by the university system's decision that basic physics, American literature and biology textbooks by major Christian book publishers such as Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book wouldn't qualify for core requirements in the state because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents schools serving more than 1.1 million students worldwide, brought the lawsuit against the system run by Robert Dynes, UC president, alleging violations of the freedoms of speech, religion and association, and U.S. District Judge S. James Otero has refused the university's demand for a dismissal.

The move comes in a state where WND also has reported state lawmakers are considering legislation that also would ban many Christian perspectives from public schools as well. The plans would forbid anything that "reflects adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle, so any statement regarding the Bible's condemnation of that lifestyle choice as sinful would be an offense. Even "mom" and "dad" could be banned under the proposal.

The judge said in the Christian school case that the rejection by university officials of several school texts is the issue. "If in fact such rejection is based on Defendants' discrimination of Plaintiffs' applications solely because of the religious viewpoints … such action would run afoul of the limits of Defendants' freedom to determine its admissions policies."

At issue is a new and apparently standardized policy implemented by the UC system – and copied by California State officials – that rejected textbooks that addressed such subjects as literature and biology, but also included a Christian perspective.

The university's action creates issues for students in any schools using those texts, because without state system approval of the core classes during a high school education, students have little or no chance of being accepted to attend the university system.

The lawsuit alleges that the school is discriminating against Christians and the Christian viewpoint, because while a literature text with a Christian viewpoint was disallowed, "Gender Roles in Literature," "Feminine Perspectives in Literature," "Literature from the 60's Movement" and "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature" all were approved.

Burt Carney, an executive with the school association, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.

In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved…"

"It's egregious how they are treating Christian schools in California," Carney told WND. "They are basically saying that any textbooks that include overt Christian content or themes, they're going to reject it automatically."

"Here's the very university that talks about academic freedom," he said. "It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish [themes} or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme."

More at the link

 

[peace4all]

It makes no sense to teach students something that is academically viewed as wrong, and silly. If someone is about to take a science test to enter a state university, and the test includes questions pertaining to evolution, and they have been reading a creationism text, they will absolutely fail.

 

[Vic C.]

Lawsuit to settle dispute over religious references

Oy vey! We have a whole slew of "sayings" that were directly derived from the Bible. Do they want to remove them from every day language???

 

[Veritas]

It makes no sense to teach students something that is academically viewed as wrong, and silly. If someone is about to take a science test to enter a state university, and the test includes questions pertaining to evolution, and they have been reading a creationism text, they will absolutely fail.

I think its too bad that "academia" doesn't encourage and teach people how to think. Evolution, in the way that it is fully presented is still a theory. And there is nothing wrong learning about different theories but it should be understood that theories change - and change dramatically from time to time. Progress in science is based on the ability of those within the field to continually question theories.

As far as creationism being silly, I would disagree. I think those that hold resolutely to purely evolutionistic thought have a very weak stance intellectually and end up undermining and disproving the validity of their own thought and arguments in their initial postulations.

 

[MrVersatile48]

The bias is much worse in UK & worse again in mainland EU

Did anyone here see BBC 10pm News bit @ US evangelicals split over human responsibility for global warming?

Should be @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/science



Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

Wikipedia: Jerry Falwell

Offers an article on the American fundamentalist Baptist pastor. Includes a biography, career notes, social and political views, legal and financial actions, and notable quotes

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell - 82k - Cached - More pages from this site

Jerry Falwell Ministries

Official site sponsored by The Liberty Alliance, which aims to promote traditional family values.

http://www.falwell.com - 7k - Cached - More pages from this site

Jerry Falwell

Jerry Falwell is a prominent Southern Baptist Jesus freak, in addition to the ... 700 Club, fellow televangelist Jerry Falwell declares that America's immorality ...

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/relig ... ry-falwell - 18k - Cached - More pages from this site

Two Faces of Jerry Falwell, The

Articles and commentary about the controversial Rev. Jerry Falwell. Presented by The Religious Freedom Coalition.

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/falwell.html - 26k - Cached - More pages from this site

 

[Rick W]

The Democrats' big lie

I think this editorial hits the mark but can't really be aimed at dems only but rather anyone who cites tolerance for those who agree with them or support their views and intolerance to those who don't.

But anyway, I think all in all this one sums it up rather well.

Democratic tolerance means tolerance for secularism, but absolute intolerance for religion. Democratic tolerance means tolerance for their supporters, but absolute intolerance for their political opponents.

The Democrats do not stand for "live and let live." If you want to make a liberal utopian omelet, they say, you have to break some religious and constitutional eggs. And if you have to lie to the American people to do it, so be it.

 

[MrVersatile48]

See also http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 521#331521

Ian