Targuman Rotating Header Image

Academics

Vanderbilt discriminating against religious groups in the name of “nondiscrimination”?

I have just stumbled across this story, which has clearly been going on for quite a while. Murray (who, it turns out, is headmaster of the school the church I grew up in started a decade or so ago; I do not know him) has written a nice little piece providing a broader historical context. From a quick reading I probably agree with the governor in terms of non-interference with private organizations but strongly disagree with Vanderbilt’s decision.

I assume Vandy is allowing the College Republicans to only select those student leaders who adhere to the basic positions of their party or the LGBTA organization to insist that those in leadership are supportive of an LGBT agenda. Why not the same for Muslim, Jewish and Christian groups?

Last week, Tennessee legislators sent a message to Vanderbilt University: Religious liberty matters. Large majorities in both houses passed a bill to prohibit the school from interfering in the ability of student groups to select their own leaders and members, define their own doctrines and resolve their own disputes—or Vanderbilt risks losing $24 million in state funding.

The legislation follows Vanderbilts decision to stop recognizing campus religious organizations that require their leaders to accept certain religious beliefs on which they are founded. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Vanderbilt Catholic, Navigators and other groups—ministering to about 1,500 students—would effectively be moved off campus in the name of “nondiscrimination.”

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has stated that although he opposes Vanderbilts policy, he plans to veto the bill because it is “inappropriate for government to mandate the policies of a private institution.” Thirty-six members of Congress have urged the university to reconsider, stating that its exemption of fraternities and sororities but not religious groups “suggests hostility on the part of Vanderbilt toward religious student groups.”

Ironically, the very freedom Vanderbilt administrators have to make their unfortunate decision derives from a 19th-century Supreme Court case that led to the proliferation of Christian colleges such as Vanderbilt, founded under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1873.

On Feb. 2, 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth. Concluding that the Constitutions contract clause protected private corporate charters, the court paved the way for the founding of myriad private colleges during the 19th century—a large majority of which were affiliated with Christian denominations.

Scores of graduates became leaders in the abolitionist movement, champions of minorities and womens right to education, world missionaries as well as business leaders and influential government officials.Yet today, Vanderbilt officials are restricting the liberty of the very sorts of religious folks who not only founded the school but whose followers led many of the nondiscrimination battles of 19th-century higher education.

Does Vanderbilt really want to miss out on future student leaders who will no doubt choose other schools where they can join organizations that support rather than undermine their faith? As an educator and Vanderbilt alumnus, I will no longer be able to recommend the university to Christian families in good conscience.

I pray that Vanderbilt will reverse course and act in the spirit of Webster—setting a precedent for other universities defending religious liberty for the 21st century.

via John Murray: The Religious Battle of Vanderbilt – WSJ.com.

 

PhD position Hebrew Bible, early Judaism and Dead Sea Scrolls

Passing along an announcement from the Qumran Institute.
PhD position Hebrew Bible, early Judaism and Dead Sea Scrolls
The Qumran Institute of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen offers a four-year PhD position (0,9 fte) in Hebrew Bible, early Judaism and Dead Sea Scrolls as of the next academic year. This PhD position is financed by a grant of the SNS/Reaal Fund.
Research proposals should fit the research profile of the Faculty and of the Qumran Institute, which is aimed at studying the Hebrew Bible, early Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls from a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective within their ancient cultural contexts (ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman). For examples of the Institute’s research profile, see the two conferences in 2008 (Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism) and 2010 (The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives).
Candidates with a degree in Biblical Studies, early Jewish Studies, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, or Ancient History are encouraged to apply.
Contact:
In case you have any questions about the compatibility of your prospected research with the Faculty’s and Institute’s research profile and for further information, please contact the Institute’s director: Mladen Popović (m.popovic@rug.nl)

Deadline: May 22th, 2012
Please include with your application:
 - a curriculum vitae, including academic qualifications, grades, a list of publications (if applicable), two letters of academic recommendation from professors who can write knowledgeably about your personal and academic qualifications and your suitability for the chosen field of study
- a letter explaining your motivation, your interest in the project, and your competence in the research field
- a proposal of max 4 pages describing how you intend to conduct the project you are applying for
- your MA thesis


Send your application by email before May 22th, 2012 to:

Additional information

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Mladen Popovic
Old Testament and Early Judaism
Director Qumran Institute
 

Sacred Techs: New blog post

New blog: Academic Workflows on Mac A new blog about academic workflow on the Mac.

 

“Undue Weight of Truth” — Not just Wikipedia but peer review as well?

There is a very interesting article in the Chronicle Review today about the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints. His field and subject of this wikisode was the Haymarket riot and trial of 1886. Timothy Messer-Kruse has published his work in peer-reviewed journals and has at least one book on the subject. He corrected the Wiki-P entry with copious supportive evidence (so he recounts) and yet within seconds his correction was taken down.

“Explain to me, then, how a minority source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong majority one?” I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, “Youre more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, thats what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedias civility policy.”

I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was informed that my citations to the primary documents were insufficient, as Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources, or, as my critic informed me, “published books.” Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: “Wikipedia is not truth, Wikipedia is verifiability of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”

This is a good and stark reminder of the problems with The Wiki-P (I image “it” goes around with a big, gold and diamond encrusted Wiki-P necklace hanging round its rather corpulent neck) but it also occurs to me peer review has a habit of working on the same principle. I am not quite so cynical as some and I do believe, for example, that the current majority view regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls provenance is correct and not conspiracy, yet if we are honest we know that it is very hard to get a new and challenging paper into an SBL session or a journal. Of course we hope that the approach on a journal board would be something like, “I disagree with this article, but she has done her work, it is well documented and I look forward to rebutting it with an article of my own.” Too often I suspect that the response is rather “Nice try but we all know X to be true. Reject.”

So I wonder,  do our journals reflect “truth” (or at least the quest for it) or do they reflect the “verifiability of reliable sources”? Or as another Wiki-cop told Dr. Messer-Kruse

If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write ‘Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue.’

via The Undue Weight of Truth on Wikipedia – The Chronicle Review – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Is Praying for Academic Success Cheating? « Exploring Our Matrix

Jim asks an interesting question. Be sure to go to his blog to comment, but I agree with the fathers, prayer changes us, not God.

Jen McCreight posted on her blog about someone who gave thanks for having passed an exam, and expressed gratitude for prayers offered on their behalf. Jen made several comments, among which this seemed to me the most interesting:

“Seriously, if God really is the reason that some students were doing well, they should be expelled. A supreme deity isn’t enrolled in school, you are. If they’re altering your grades, that’s cheating.”

via Is Praying for Academic Success Cheating? « Exploring Our Matrix.