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

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:

gradschool.thrs@rug.nl

Additional information

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies

Qumran Institute

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mladen Popovic

Old Testament and Early Judaism

Director Qumran Institute

 

“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.

 

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.

 

Dear Member:

This is a friendly reminder that the call for papers period for the 2012 International Meeting will end February 1, 2012. Remember to submit your proposals to the program units listed here. Please note the details about participation, registration, and membership for the meeting, which are available here.

The Universiteit van Amsterdam will host the meeting July 22-26.  SBL will organize this meeting in conjunction with the 2012 annual conference of the European Association of Biblical Studies (EABS) and the triennial joint meeting of the Oudtestamentish Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België (OTW) and the Society for Old Testament Study (SOTS). With delight the organizations herald this congress as a unique opportunity to advance biblical scholarship, to facilitate broad and open dialogue, and to demonstrate the strength of global collegiality.

 

First, I do not “take off” points. You earn them. The difference is not merely rhetorical, nor is it trivial. In other words, you start with zero points and earn your way to a grade. You earn a grade in (say) Econ 100 for demonstrating that you have gained a degree of competence in economics ranging from being able to articulate the basic principles (enough to earn a C) to mastery and the ability to apply these principles to day-to-day affairs (which will earn an A). I’ve hurt my own grades before by confusing my own incompetence with competence and my own (bare) competence with mastery, so trust me: I’ve been there, and I understand.

…In this light, consider this: the fact that you “don’t understand” why you didn’t earn full points for a particular question might itself help explain why you didn’t earn full points. Don’t take this personally or interpret it as a sneer. See it as a learning opportunity. If you understood the material-and do note that there is a large difference between really understanding the material and being able to reproduce a graph or definition you might remember from class-you would have answered the question flawlessly. I recommend (as I have recommended to many others) that you go back, take another crack at it, and see if you can find where you have gone wrong. Then bring it by my office, and we will talk.

Then the responses, particularly to the second paragraph I shared (but do read the whole thing).

[Username] room101  1 day ago

“In this light, consider this: the fact that you “don’t understand” why you didn’t earn full points for a particular question might itself help explain why you didn’t earn full points.”

This is absurd. The student doesn’t understand why she didn’t earn full points and she is asking … but the teacher refuses to tell her why. She should just know.

No, she shouldn’t. She is a student. A part of your job as a teacher is to teach.

1. If I ask why I got 90 instead of 100 or 80 instead of 100, it is because I want to do better in the future. If you can’t be bothered to explain why I missed points, it indicates one or more of a few things:

2. You don’t care if I understand the material. Otherwise, you would at least say, “To understand the correct answer, review ch. 11.”

3. You don’t care if I do better in the future. Otherwise, you say, “In my essays, I am looking for students to use more primary sources.”

4. Your grading system is completely subjective and based on your feelings. You have no idea why you gave me a 93 rather than 100.

You are hoping I don’t continue asking you because you can’t be bothered to teach.

I go through this with most teachers. I’m a 4.0. When a teacher gives me a 93% on an essay, with no comment except “Excellent” I go up to her after class and say, “Thank you so much for taking the time to review my work. I am happy with my grade and not complaining, but I’m wondering what I could do in the future to earn a full 100.”

Most times, teachers do not tell me. But going forward, they give higher grades (they realize I will ask why they arbitrarily marked me down and they realize they have no explanation).

 

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

 

In a decision with major implications for church-affiliated colleges and their employees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held today that the First Amendment precludes the application of federal employment-discrimination laws to religious institutions’ personnel decisions involving workers with religious duties.

Many federal appeals courts and state courts had previously declared that there exists a “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws rooted in the First Amendment’s clauses protecting religious freedom. Today’s ruling, however, is the first in which the Supreme Court formally recognized the “ministerial exception” as legal doctrine.

 

Come to think of it “Faculty Toilet” would be a great name for a blog, don’t you think?