Federal Judge Upholds Thought Reform at EMU
Yesterday, good news, since we were elated to acknowledge FIRE’s victory for academic freedom at a California community college. Today, back to the more familiar bad news, since a federal judge has upheld the right of Eastern Michigan University to expel Julea Ward, an evangelical Christian student who was training as a high school guidance counselor. Ward, as we’ve reported previously, was just shy of graduating from EMU’s counseling program when she was mugged by PC ideology. Because of her religious convictions, she could not agree to counsel prospective homosexual clients in the affirmative manner required by EMU’s program. Should such a case arise, she said, she’d simply refer gay clients to other counselors able to accomodate their needs. Oh no, said EMU, that’s not good enough, not by a mile. Sign this paper, or out you go. I can’t, she insisted; you’ re gone, they replied. Supported by the Alliance Defense Fund (read the ADF’s press release here and an Inside Higher Education article here), she sued the school, contending that her First Amendment rights had been violated. Ordinarily, you’d expect First Amendment claims to weigh especially heavily in a case such as this, but the judge, alas, bought the university’s argument about needing latitude in designing its curricula and programs, and the courts have always deferred in such instances, etc., etc. This isn’t about thought control, insisted the counseling program’s directors, it’s simply a matter of recognizing the need to deal with a wide variety of clients, including those with beliefs different from one’s own. Who could disagree? Maybe I’m cynical, but I somehow don’t think a gay atheist will be required to declare that he’s willing to counsel Southern Baptists in a manner that affirms their beliefs. ADF is appealing the case, and we wish them well. Increasingly though, it seems that the acceptable parameters for discussing homosexuality on campus these days are narrowly one-dimensional. And if you don’t see the issue that way and you’re a faculty member without tenure, or if you’re a student and want your degree in counseling or social work, better keep quiet or go elsewhere.
Maybe conservatives will rediscover the value of tenure! Would be nice if there weren’t so many references on this site to “tenured rage”, “tenured savages”, etc. Even David French of the Alliance Defense Fund seems to be coming to the conclusion that tenure is not all bad.
Glad to see that you’re back, Jonathan, but you’re confusing me again. I mentioned tenure tangentially, but my post was chiefly focused on the First Amendment issues raised by EMU’s dismissal of Julea Ward. What do you think about that? And who are the “conservatives” you’re referring to, in reference to the issue of tenure? I don’t see how this can be cast as a “conservative” issue. Have you seen this article in the not-very-conservative Atlantic this month? NAS as an organization has no position on tenure, and our members line up on both sides of the issue. Several years ago, we ran a syposium in Academic Questions on the subject, and it generated some lively, even heated, discussion. For myself, I’ve indicated here and elsewhere that, whatever tenure’s faults – nothing’s perfect, right? – I’m still in favor of it, since I would otherwise have been toast long ago. Oh and by the way, are you going to write that article for us?
You mentioned tenure in your concluding sentence. Which conservatives am I referring to? Your own Peter Wood, who mentioned “tenured savages” in his recent piece on Hamilton College, if I am not totally mistaken. OK, maybe he’s not to be considered a “conservative.” I have seen the Atlantic article. The attacks on tenure are now mostly from the right, but I’m well aware the wind can switch directions, or even gust in all directions at once. (Also, the notion of tenure must eat at those poor joes in the dying print media.) And, right, I know that you have supported tenure.
On the case at hand, I’m horrified at what’s happening in that program. But I’m not sure that First Amendment rights trump the right of the program to determine its own standards. I’m no constitutional scholar, however.
I do believe that tenure is probably the cornerstone of academic freedom. Without tenure, academic freedom is gone. Either they can get rid of you or they can’t, it’s almost that simple.
I also have to say, without the prospect of a tenure-track position, with the possibility of tenure down the road, an academic career would be of no future interest to me. The other rewards and opportunities outside academia are just too great. (Approximately double the pay right after Ph.D., for starters.) I’m talking about the natural sciences, I know little about the other fields.
Too busy trying to get out more of those worthless publications to write an article! But thanks for the offer. By the way, how much do you pay? Just kidding LOL!
Well, we’re in agreement on tenure, since that’s also my own position. As for Peter, I think he was referring to the bad manners of some people at Hamilton, not the institution of tenure, a separate issue. My impressionistic, non-empirical view of the subject is that it transcends easy classification within familiar politcal categories. I’ve been told by some colleagues that senior administrators at their institutions would love to get rid of tenure, or at least most of it, since they could then rely on adjunct faculty to carry most of the teaching load. Adjuncts, of course, can be sacked at the drop of a hat, without a leg to stand on; tenured faculty can’t.
I do have some familiarity with the application of the First Amendment to public colleges and universities and, as I noted in my post, there is usually a heavy burden of proof on an insitution to justify curtailing free speech or free expression of religion. We’ll see what happens at the appeals level. Anyway, if you do write something for our front page, it needn’t be terribly elaborate or lengthy, but you know the demands on your own time. Did you happen to see the comments thread for Kerry Emanuel’s article? I’d be interested in your thoughts there. In any case, please do consider yourself welcome, we appreciate your input.