Education?

There is an odd belief that seems to have permeated much of the thought of the western nations that we should not present our beliefs on various issues because it might be perceived as domineering, bullying, even imperialistic.  Not only must we respect the beliefs of others, we are cautioned not to even mention our own.  This is particularly true in the world of education, where, seemingly, every idea must be accorded equal respect and equal credibility.  To do otherwise would, it would seem, be dogmatic, seemingly the worst insult one might hurl at modern educators.

There is only one small problem with this position: it is patently idiotic.

The thing of it is, education is about being dogmatic.  To educate is to choose, it is to present one particular concept and not another, recommend a handful of books to be read, and ignore 10,000 others. Those are choices, choices based on the knowledge, perceptions and opinions of the one making the choices, based on the simple concept that the one making the choice, the one constructing the reading list – the teacher or professor – knows more about subject X then do the students, the students’ parents or friends, or anyone else.  If we reject that idea, then we should reject being taught by that teacher or professor.  So, when a professor insists that he will not be dogmatic, he is insisting that he will not teach.

This all occurred to me when I read about the foolishness at Vanderbilt University.  In case you have not been keeping up on it, the ‘leadership’ at Vanderbilt weighed in on the guiding principles of one of the clubs being formed on campus.  So far, so good.  Presumably, they are insisting on their responsibility to guide the students, implicitly stating that ‘we know better then you, you will act in accordance with our guidance.’  Very dogmatic and very appropriate.  Presumably, this is what the parents are paying for.

But it is what they came up with that makes me wonder if they – the ‘leadership’ – slipped and hit their heads.  The group in question wants (or wanted to – presumably this is over?) to start a group to engage in Bible studies.  They issued, (per University rules I suppose all groups on campus must have guidelines (which seems far to organized for me)) guidelines for the club.  The University’s ‘front office’ reviewed the guidelines and ordered changes.  Here is the text in question and the recommended changes:

Original: “Criteria for officer selection [for officers of the club] will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

The university directed the group to change the statement to read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”

The line dropped was 'personal commitment to Jesus Christ.'  I’ll return to that in just a second.  But first, let’s consider a simple analogy.

Let's say you want to form a group that will promote love of Italian cuisine - an 'Italian Food Club.'  Perfectly fine, feel free to do so.  And if you were feeling particularly motivated you might want to provide structure to your club and select people to run the club, make schedules, keep track of members, order pasta with a light cream sauce, all that sort of thing.  You might even want to write down some guidance on how to do certain things.  One thing you might write down is guidance on selection of the head of the club, the treasurer, the secretary, etc.  It would seem that one of the more reasonable criteria is that you pick people who really are interested in the club.  After all, we wouldn't pick someone who loves Scottish food more than anything else to head the club, would we?  We would want someone who loves Italian Food.  (Does anyone not love Italian food?)

Let's restate that for our Italian Food club: criteria for officer selection will include “commitment to the organization [which is about loving Italian Food], and has demonstrated a personal commitment to Italian Food.”  But wait, they aren't allowed to say that they have demonstrated a 'personal commitment to Italian Food.'  Well, how can you join an Italian Food Club and want to go eat Italian food and talk about Italian food and not be committed to Italian Food?  Here's a hint: you can't.  Just as obviously, no one is going to care about the Italian Food Lovers Club or its guidelines.  They will slip in under the radar.

Not so for the Christian Club (which isn’t actually its real name – they chose anonymity). 

Well, it’s fairly obvious why they are insisting on the changes; as they say, they don’t wish to bully anyone, to restrict membership in a group would be exclusive, not inclusive, it would be imperialistic, it would be dogmatic.  And that must not be allowed to happen in a modern university.

It is possible that the folks in the ‘front office’ at Vanderbilt really are genuinely afraid and concerned that someone will be offended or feel excluded or put upon because the words 'Jesus Christ' appear in the by-laws of a Christian Club.  (Never mind that Vanderbilt was founded as a Methodist University.)  It may well be that they truly cringe from the idea of forcing people to choose, to voice an opinion, and are equally reticent about voicing one themselves.  But, I ask you this: go back and read the recommended change to the bylaws (above).  Can you see any meaningful change in the outcome of the bylaws based on their changes?  Is it possible that an atheist could attend club meetings and show a commitment to the club that would result in his being elected?  I suppose.  Certainly, I would guess there are folks in the administration at Vanderbilt who would salivate at the thought.  But is it likely?

Perhaps it is purely malicious and they really just don’t like Christianity and the opportunity to force someone to delete 'personal commitment to Jesus Christ' either gives them great glee or at least lets them hide their fear and loathing of Christians and the anger and frustration at those who would practice Christianity.  But, at the same time it is apparently okay to have a Christian club wherein selection for officers will include 'commitment to the organization' - which is studying Jesus Christ. Which leads to my suspicion that some of them at least don’t really understand the words, nor do they understand their role – as educators – to tell people to do things: read a book, write a paper that discusses a particular thing from a particular point of view, etc.  And if they really don’t get that, then they really have serious issues, particularly as leaders of a once great university.  Or are they simply afraid of the words ‘Jesus Christ?’

In the end, there are only a few possibilities in how we define the professors and leadership at Vanderbilt: they may not understand what they are saying, in which case, they are idiots; they may really have a great dislike of Christianity, but lack the courage to say so, in which case they are cowards; they may simply recoil from their roles as educators – who are their to lead students to acquire knowledge, in which case they shouldn’t be teaching (one might argue that they are Not in fact teaching).

This is not an issue for lawyers or Constitutional scholars.  Vanderbilt is a private institution and if they want to act this way, they should feel free.  But they should also pay the price.  Their actions are the actions of idiots, fools, slouches or cowards.  None should be allowed to teach.  Here's my recommendation: to all parents and to all you people out there who hire folks: pass the word: Vanderbilt is run by a low and disreputable lot.  (Sorry for all the folks who are going there right now, I would advise you to leave; you aren't getting a quality education except by accident.)  If you ever find yourself in a position to hire someone and he or she went to Vanderbilt, take an extra hard look at them; there is a reasonably good bet that there are major gaps in their education.