next »

[testingthewaters]

Yes, ask the hard questions of all of the candidates.

It may well be that this candidate is capable of performing the job at hand just fine, as with shrek´s example, and that one of the other candidates holds much more problematic views but just isn´t as public about it. You just don´t know yet.

[prytania3]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful feedback.  I have brought the issue to the attention of various members of the hiring committee and also to the president of the college.
When you Google the candidate's name, you are instantly smacked hard with the candidate's intense involvement (co-head) in a Bible-literalist sect. Creationism and other Bible-literalist beliefs strike me as wrong-headed in a dean of students in a public college.

I hope you didn't leave any kind of a paper trail because if you did, they may feel compelled to give her the job for fear of being sued. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their religion, dig? Doesn't matter if you don't like their religion or not, but whatever you do, don't complain about it in writing. You don't want a paper trail pushing a discriminatory practice.

[writingprof]

So, to summarize: Discriminate, but only against Christians, and only if you don't leave a paper trail.

[prytania3]

So, to summarize: Discriminate, but only against Christians, and only if you don't leave a paper trail.

Au contraire, I think fundamentalist Christians get the brunt of discrimination these days. If this person was an Orthodox Jew or even a right-leaning Muslim, no one would say boo.

But as a practice, it is never good to leave paper trails regarding candidates. It's looking for a lawsuit regardless of the person's faith--you know?

[writingprof]

Yes, Prytania, and I apologize for the snarky post above. 

The irony here is that the paper trail thing cuts both ways.  I, a closeted Republican and "Bible-literalist," just so happen to teach in Couleur's very own department--he or she just doesn't know it.  I've found that I can indoctrinate students all the live-long day so long as I don't do so via email, Twitter, telegram, or any other damningly permanent mode of communication.  My superiors and colleagues think I voted for Obama, but, just between you and me, I wrote in Glen Beck.  And voted twice.  And thought politically incorrect thoughts during the President's inauguration.  But Couleur will never out me.  In fact, hu was my chief champion during the search. 

(D-mmit.  The snark again!)

[couleur]

So, to summarize: Discriminate, but only against Christians, and only if you don't leave a paper trail.

Au contraire, I think fundamentalist Christians get the brunt of discrimination these days. If this person was an Orthodox Jew or even a right-leaning Muslim, no one would say boo.

But as a practice, it is never good to leave paper trails regarding candidates. It's looking for a lawsuit regardless of the person's faith--you know?

Writingprof: You are being very defensive about right wing fundamentalists/pentecostalists.  Yes, I mentioned creationism.  I wouldn't want the Dean of Students at my public institution to believe in creationism as opposed to evolution. It's just a little too flat-earth for me.
Larry: Yes, I have problems with fundamentalists/pentecostalists who are homophobic, sexist, and creationist.  Call me a bigot about this; that's fine with me.  And I particularly have problems with these people in college positions of authority. Thanks for your sample questions; I will use them.

[ideagirl]

I'm a faculty member at a small public college in a large urban area, and I was surprised to hear that a candidate for an important student-services dean position is also a lead preacher in a very fundamentalist and homophobic Christian sect. What are the legalities of objecting to a candidate because of the candidate's religious work? 
And secondly, does it make sense to hire a religious zealot/fundamentalist to a student-services position?  It strikes me as a serious error.  Am I just being narrow-minded?

No, you're not. What is the school's policy on gay rights/homophobia/gay student groups etc.? If there is any school policy that this person's sect is clearly in conflict with, then you have a leg to stand on. And is this person interviewing for a position where he directly interacts with students or has any control over, for example, student groups or policies that could affect gay students? There's another potential leg to stand on... especially if you can find quotes directly from him on that topic.

But obviously, don't phrase it as objecting to his religion. It's not because he's a fundie Xian that you object, it's because his church (and if you find the quotes, he himself) espouses views that are not only in conflict with university policy (if indeed that is the case) but likely to make him have difficulty treating gay students fairly.

[ideagirl]

What if I were to post that a candidate's dual-citizenship in a "fundamentalist and homophobic" Muslim country gave me pause?   I'd be crucified, and rightly so!  People's affiliations are significant, but they're much more complex than your assumptions suggest.

That analogy doesn't work. You can't reach any conclusions about a person's values and beliefs based on what country their passport is from. However, you can reach valid conclusions about a person's values and beliefs based on what religion they espouse and how active or vocal about it they are.

A religion IS a value and belief system. A nationality is not.

Furthermore, I think we can assert with confidence that this candidate's "sect" is itself a marginalized group in every meaningful sense of the word.  Note how ready you are to discriminate and make guesses.  The difference is that those who marginalize Christians hold power, and act openly. 

I'm going to object, on behalf of untold millions of socially liberal Christians, to your use of the term "those who marginalize Christians." There is a major difference between marginalizing Christians and marginalizing members of a particular sect (Christian or otherwise) that is known to hold and advocate specific discriminatory beliefs. The OP said nothing to lead me to believe that hu marginalizes President Obama or Martin Luther King or Matthew Fox, or my liberal and devoutly Lutheran sister-in-law for that matter. Marginalizing people like Fred Phelps (Mr. "God Hates ***s") is not at all the same thing as marginalizing Christians in general.

[couleur]

Thanks, Ideagirl.
I'm the OP, and I have no problems whatsoever with people of religion (the Kennedys, the Obamas, the Jains of India, Hindus, Zen Buddhists, Shintoists, Jimmy Carter, Muslims double parking in NYC by the big Mosque uptown east on Fridays, Jews eating Chinese and going to movies on Christmas day, Hajjis, Episcopalians, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
I'm clearly talking about fundamentalist/pentecostalists whose doctrine includes homophobia, sexism, creationism, and "the Rapture."  Some of these U.S. based sects fund efforts at strengthening homophobic laws in Africa.
I also have no use for right-wing Roman Catholics connected with Opus Dei and other right wing Catholic cults. (Opus Dei helped prop up Franco of Spain.)
The problem on our campus (and on many, many campuses) is the rampant homophobia.  Remember the Rutgers case just this past fall: the young man driven to suicide by cruel homophobic hazing.
And so I believe it's legitimate to expose the facts about a job candidate very much aligned (lead preacher!) with a right-wing religious sect that is homophobic.

[larryc]

Yes, ask the hard questions of all of the candidates.

That is really good advice. Not just to avoid looking like you are gunning for the guy but also because the contrast between the quality of the answers may be stark.

[neutralname]

couleur -- I agree with your views, but it sounds like you need to work harder at expressing your objections in ways that don't bring in religion or political views.  It has to be about the competency of the person to do the job.  As others have said, if you phrase your objections in terms of religion or politics, your tactics may backfire.  

[yellowtractor]

Yes, ask the hard questions of all of the candidates.

That is really good advice. Not just to avoid looking like you are gunning for the guy but also because the contrast between the quality of the answers may be stark.

x3.

[writingprof]

I have no problems whatsoever with people of religion (the Kennedys, the Obamas, the Jains of India, Hindus, Zen Buddhists, Shintoists, Jimmy Carter, Muslims double parking in NYC by the big Mosque uptown east on Fridays, Jews eating Chinese and going to movies on Christmas day, Hajjis, Episcopalians, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
I'm clearly talking about fundamentalist/pentecostalists whose doctrine includes homophobia, sexism, creationism, and "the Rapture."

Yes, I know the drill.  Christians as long as they don't believe literally in the Bible; Jews as long as they aren't Zionists; Muslims as long as they opposed the Iraq War; African Americans as long as they're Democrats; Republicans as long as they're David Brooks: All are welcome in academe.

The fact is that tens of millions of Americans believe in Creationism and "the Rapture."  Perhaps even more believe, however unpopularly, that a number of potential human actions are "sins" and that contemporary political orthodoxy isn't part of the formula for determing which acts those are.  Of these tens of millions, thousands have managed to sneak into colleges and universities--perhaps even yours, Couleur.  This is particularly true in the South, where I don't currently live but spent a good deal of my career.  If you haven't lived there, you might find it difficult to believe the extent to which evangelical Christianity informs the culture even today.  I personally know tenured evangelical Christians at Vanderbilt and Emory--not exactly backwoods colleges for hillbillies--and their research and teaching are widely praised.  Furthermore, the idea that they would discriminate against their gay students is absurd.

But that's just a smokescreen, isn't it?  Just look at the progression of your complaints, Couleur.

I was surprised to hear that a candidate for an important student-services dean position is also a lead preacher in a very fundamentalist and homophobic Christian sect.

Creationism and other Bible-literalist beliefs strike me as wrong-headed in a dean of students in a public college.

Writingprof: You are being very defensive about right wing fundamentalists/pentecostalists. 

I'm clearly talking about fundamentalist/pentecostalists whose doctrine includes homophobia, sexism, creationism, and "the Rapture." 

The list grows with every post! 

As a result, it's clear that your concern isn't with the treatment of marginalized groups but with the possibility that you might have to work with someone whose beliefs you find stupid.  But you already do, most likely.  How powerless, finally, is discrimination!

[prytania3]

Moreover, just because you belong to a particular sect doesn't mean you personally believe the entire creed of that sect. If the person was Catholic, would you be less upset? Probably because we all know good Catholics who don't buy in to all that Pope says, but in reality, Catholicism is no less liberal than Pentecostalism.

And I'm not talking about Opus Dei.

[ideagirl]

But that's just a smokescreen, isn't it?  ...

it's clear that your concern isn't with the treatment of marginalized groups but with the possibility that you might have to work with someone whose beliefs you find stupid. 

Let me rephrase that for you so it's accurate: "Your concern is with the possibility that you might have to work with someone whose beliefs you not only find stupid, but also fear--with good reason, given the public comments by this preacher and others in his sect--may be damaging to the very students that it would be his job to help."

Yes, I know the drill.  Christians as long as they don't believe literally in the Bible; Jews as long as they aren't Zionists; Muslims as long as they opposed the Iraq War; African Americans as long as they're Democrats; Republicans as long as they're David Brooks: All are welcome in academe.

Again, let me rephrase for accuracy: "Members of whatever religion, belief system or race as long as they don't espouse views that suggest they might discriminate against some of their own students." Sounds quite reasonable to me.

I'm not saying there is no intellectual snobbishness in academe, just like anywhere else that humans congregate, with regard to belief systems that diverge from the majority. (Not the national majority, but the local social group minority, if you will.)  That must be what you're reacting to.  But that's not the same thing as reacting to the OP's actual post.  Apart from the snobbishness, there is also entirely reasonable criticism of certain belief systems (not entire religions or political groups, but their interpretation by certain subgroups) on the grounds that they are willfully impervious to reason, or they involve such certainty about certain issues that their adherents promote discriminate against people who represent the "wrong" side of that issue (even where doing so involves invading the privacy of consenting adults engaged in harmless acts), or both.  I think the OP is in the latter category, though rather broad and blunt in hu's phrasing; you think hu is in the former category.  Guess we'll agree to disagree.