![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Job Opportunities
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 10/06/99
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1692 Wednesday, 6 October 1999. From: Mike Jensen <MJENSEN@mayfieldpub.com> Date: Tuesday, 05 Oct 1999 13:34:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Job Opportunities Comment: SHK 10.1683 Re: Job Opportunities Bruce, Since you went to the list with your comments about BYU's hiring policies (as you warned me you may), I find myself making some comments publically that I intended to make privately. As you know, I thought I detected a blind spot in your defense on the basis of pluralism. I took a few days to think it over because I wanted to be fair and be sure the blind spot was not my own. I'm now ready to respond. First a couple of corrections. You perhaps don't recall, but I did say in my message that I supported a school owned by a religion hiring its members. You seem to have missed that. The practice seems reasonable to me, given that the goals of the school are not just educational, but also religious. I did not use the expression "hypocrisy" about your post, but "apparent hypocrisy" and did so very deliberately. I know that some things that seem hypocritic to an outsider make sense to those involved. I wanted a bit of deniablity in case I heard a good explanation. After reading your response, I'll amend that to "unintended hypocrisy." I find it ironic that you invoke the concepts of pluralism and totalitarianism in defense of BYU's preference for Mormon teachers. You treat these concepts as if they only work in selected realms: BYU needs to be as Mormon as possible to support pluralism, and if that is not allowed, it is a kind of totalitarianism. This seems like a kind of double speak. Pluralism, real pluralism, is not the ideas of one school against another. It takes place within a single school, city, or nation. On the campus, real pluralism is when students are exposed to a variety of ideas. I suggest BYU does not have real pluralism. You suggest there are a few non-Mormon teachers, though you don't seem to know them very well. Please explain BYU's pluralism to Gail Houston, David Wright, Steve Epperson, Martha Nibley Beck, Cecilia Conchar Farr, David Knowton, and Michael Quill. All have failed to gain tenure at BYU or lost their positions because they did work acceptable on nearly any other campus in the nation, but was too against the party line of your church. To look briefly at two of them, David Wright after leaving BYU, has pretty much proven that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century document, not the ancient document the church claims it to be. Michael Quinn is a superb historian who published suppressed church documents that were embarrassing to the church. Both published what many people believe is the truth, but could not have done so and stayed at BYU. Indeed, some of those now working elsewhere have used the word totalitarianism, but used it to describe the academic atmosphere at your institution. You see why I find your use of the words pluralism and totalitarianism ironic? Even worse, students are not exposed to a pluralism of ideas. Because I married into a largely LDS family and many of my wife's old friends are still temple recommend Mormons, I know about 20 BYU graduates. Their most common complaint is the lack of diversity to which they were exposed. This is a real shame because once upon a time there was tremendous respect for academic and scientific learning in the church and at BYU. Today there is tremendous pressure to conform, which is anathema to real learning. There used to be leaders who claimed that truth was more important than conformity and that Mormons should be willing to jettison the stuff that could not stand up under scrutiny. Now at BYU there is the sense that students must be protected from viewpoints that the institution disagrees with at precisely the time in their lives when they should be learning how to deal with a diversity of viewpoints. Pluralism? Bruce, we are putting the accents in different places. I believe I speak of a real pluralism. Your pluralism seems a bit self-serving to me. This is especially true in light of the recent decision that local bishops - usually not academics - now can influence the fate of a BYU professor. Staff can now be fired from BYU if they do not qualify for a temple pass. Some have lost their jobs over it. Others, good people, have resigned in protest, as you well know. Sure, you can make a case that this is totalitarianism, but pluralism? No way. This is way off the subject, which was whether or not preferring LDS hires is out of line with the concept of equal opportunity. Apparently it is, in legalese. I can accept that. It is a tribute to the legal profession that they have managed to find a way to reconcile those concepts. Don't tell Jack Cade. In closing I want to thank my friend Sheldon for helping me remember some half the names mentioned above. Bruce, I'll write you off list about Shakespeare films soon, and I promise in a friendlier tone. All the best, mj
|
|
|||||