Re: Dembski clarification from Baylor

From: Bryan R. Cross (crossbr@SLU.EDU)
Date: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 20:17:39 EST

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Evolution Dropped in Ottawa"

    Glenn and others,

        I never claimed that Bill was a martyr. Nor did I claim that Bill's press
    release was tactful and conciliatory. I'm inclined to believe it was neither.
    (All I asked of Glenn was that Bill be treated respectfully, and that we be
    careful to get the facts straight. Now I'm asking that Glenn use care when
    publicly posting his unverified assumptions about what I believe.) In my view,
    however, Bill's faux pas pales in comparison to the more significant issue, i.e.
    academic freedom. Glenn has repeatedly mentioned typical employer-employee
    responsibilities in defense of Baylor's decision. But with respect to faculty in
    institutions of higher education, employer-employee relations are not supposed
    to operate like those in businesses. This is why there is tenure (something Bill
    does not have). As an example, on 60 Minutes this past Sunday Prof. Cohen of the
    University of Michigan took his employer to task before the whole nation
    regarding the university's acceptance policy. Is Prof. Cohen in danger of losing
    his job? No. Why not? Not just because he has tenure, but because institutions
    of higher learning are supposed to value freedom of expression so much that they
    permit public expression of dissenting opinions by their faculty. There are
    limits to freedom of expression of course, but, at least in his press release, I
    don't think Bill crossed them. The unbelievably harsh attacks on him by certain
    Baylor faculty members since this past March were far more virulent, and yet of
    course those faculty members were not disciplined. To be sure, the standards for
    administrative staff are significantly different than they are for faculty. As
    director of the MPC Bill was standing in both sets of shoes (and that itself was
    part of the problem, especially without tenure, effectively eliminating the
    protections of academic freedom). That makes it much harder to determine where
    the line between academic freedom and administrative responsibility meet. I
    think Mike Beaty is a reasonable, fair-minded person, and I assume that he used
    his best judgment in making the decision that he did. But I also know that Bill
    has endured a tremendous amount of public criticism this year, even by those who
    knew nothing of Bill and hadn't read a page of his work. Often such criticism
    was motivated by worries that Baylor (esp. its science dept.) would lose its
    academic reputation by sanctioning 'creationists'. The worries extended far
    beyond Bill and ID to Baylor's history in relation to its Baptist roots. In
    light of all this, it didn't surprise me at all that Bill would seek publicly to
    vindicate himself and his *academic* work, and the External Committee's decision
    was in fact such a vindication. I understand that Bill needed to stand up for
    himself and his academic work, and I think he should have the academic freedom
    to do so. I also think I understand Mike Beaty's decision, because even without
    Bill's press release, just the effect of being the object of faculty invective
    for seven months may have made some of Bill's administrative activities (esp.
    those requiring work with other Baylor faculty members) quite difficult. I hope
    that academic freedom has not been compromised, that we will learn some lessons
    from the unfortunate affair, and that the hoopla can die down soon so we can all
    get back to work discovering the truth about God's creation.

    - Bryan

    glenn morton wrote:

    > It is interesting that Baylor is saying the same thing that I am
    > saying--that Dembski was not the victim of persecution and thus was not a
    > martyr to the evil evolutionists. I am sure that there are some here who
    > still won't believe this, but Dembski simply isn't a martyr in spite of the
    > fact that he is about to be turned into one. Any response, Bryan?
    >
    > This was on metanews:
    >
    > http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?S2=metanews&L=metanews&q=beaty&
    > s=&f=&a=&b=
    >
    > Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:43:44 -0400
    > Reply-To: "Michael D. Beaty" <Bruce_Gordon@BAYLOR.EDU>
    > Sender: Metanews <metanews@META-LIST.ORG>
    > From: "Michael D. Beaty" <Bruce_Gordon@BAYLOR.EDU>
    > Subject: Baylor University Responds to Misconceptions about the
    > Polanyi
    > Center Controversy
    >
    > In light of remarks on the META list that indicate a significant
    > misunderstanding of the recent events surrounding the Polanyi Center at
    > Baylor University, most particularly the removal of Dr. Dembski as its
    > director, I think it is important to clarify the significance of what has
    > happened.
    >
    > Dr. Dembski was not removed from the directorship for any academic failure.
    > Baylor recognizes the value and legitimacy of his academic work, as did the
    > External Review Committee. Baylor fully supports his academic freedom to
    > pursue his research and hopes that he will continue to do so. Dr. Dembski
    > was removed from his post as director on administrative grounds. In order
    > to
    > function in his administrative capacity, it was necessary that Dr. Dembski
    > be able to work well with other Baylor faculty, first and foremost an
    > advisory committee. It was the judgment of the administration that some of
    > his recent actions severely compromised his ability to perform his central
    > administrative duties. It was for this reason, and this reason alone, that
    > he was removed from his directorial post.
    >
    > There also has been a suggestion that the removal of Dr. Dembski as
    > director
    > is a sign that Baylor has succumbed to political pressure to squelch work
    > on
    > intelligent design. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having been
    > freed from administrative tasks, Dr. Dembski will be able to devote himself
    > exclusively to research, which arguably is the most valuable contribution
    > he
    > can make to design theory.
    >
    > Finally, some have claimed that this sad episode suggests that Baylor is
    > weakening its commitment to being a Christian university. Baylor University
    > remains committed to encouraging a faithful intellect and an intellectually
    > responsible faith.
    >
    > Michael Beaty
    > Director, The Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning
    >
    > glenn
    >
    > see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
    > for lots of creation/evolution information



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 20:18:08 EST