The Academy - here in Texas.
What is the Academy? This translates to Universities and the like.
Lately, in Texas, there is a legislative push to hire creationists in some fair and proportional numbers. The TX HB 25 states, "An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms." Roughly speaking, this means creationists should have a representation on the faculty, or at least not be denied representation.
The outrage of my colleagues is without limit. In this short note we omit details about the definitions of who are the creationists and their latest reinvention as advocates of intelligent design. Mostly, they give a secular argument that we, this world, this universe, could not exist without a guiding hand. Consider this approach specious or not. In fact, few of their arguments stand up to current academic standards for methods of proof. This is neither here nor there. What we focus on here are the comments of the intelligencia within the Academy.
Here are two quotes from esteemed colleagues.
Most depressing. If creationism is accepted, we are no longer a
university, and should accept astrology, alchemy, and witchdoctor
studies while we are at it - and leave. Yet, this colleagues adds that if grant money is involved, well then... . All in good humor, I suppose.
This is extremely dangerous. I can see 'faculty candidates' from the Creation Institute claiming undue discrimination in the hiring process and suing the university so they can be hired. Once one of those loonies gets into academia, they will have the legitimacy they so far been unable to acquire.
My views are a little different, as I responded with "Speaking of legitimacy, I do believe by now the academy is fully discredited for its previous "in"discretions. We have Marxists, communists, compassionate conservatives, liberals, Islamists, Jihadists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Freudians, Jungians, supply-siders, Keynsians, and fascists, not to mention activists of every stripe, all well within the academy. Has this legitimized them? A creationist or two wouldn't upset the mix too much,I think. Indeed, it would expose them to the rigors of the academic world. Those rigors are without compassion, without prejudice, and without forgiveness. Few institutions offer more severe criteria for research acceptance. I'm not generally in favor of an even further dilution of our so-called erudite profession.
Beware, academy members may appear to think in a lofty manner, but this does not diminish the smallness of their thoughts even when they use big words. :)
What is the Academy? This translates to Universities and the like.
Lately, in Texas, there is a legislative push to hire creationists in some fair and proportional numbers. The TX HB 25 states, "An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms." Roughly speaking, this means creationists should have a representation on the faculty, or at least not be denied representation.
The outrage of my colleagues is without limit. In this short note we omit details about the definitions of who are the creationists and their latest reinvention as advocates of intelligent design. Mostly, they give a secular argument that we, this world, this universe, could not exist without a guiding hand. Consider this approach specious or not. In fact, few of their arguments stand up to current academic standards for methods of proof. This is neither here nor there. What we focus on here are the comments of the intelligencia within the Academy.
Here are two quotes from esteemed colleagues.
Most depressing. If creationism is accepted, we are no longer a
university, and should accept astrology, alchemy, and witchdoctor
studies while we are at it - and leave. Yet, this colleagues adds that if grant money is involved, well then... . All in good humor, I suppose.
This is extremely dangerous. I can see 'faculty candidates' from the Creation Institute claiming undue discrimination in the hiring process and suing the university so they can be hired. Once one of those loonies gets into academia, they will have the legitimacy they so far been unable to acquire.
My views are a little different, as I responded with "Speaking of legitimacy, I do believe by now the academy is fully discredited for its previous "in"discretions. We have Marxists, communists, compassionate conservatives, liberals, Islamists, Jihadists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Freudians, Jungians, supply-siders, Keynsians, and fascists, not to mention activists of every stripe, all well within the academy. Has this legitimized them? A creationist or two wouldn't upset the mix too much,I think. Indeed, it would expose them to the rigors of the academic world. Those rigors are without compassion, without prejudice, and without forgiveness. Few institutions offer more severe criteria for research acceptance. I'm not generally in favor of an even further dilution of our so-called erudite profession.
Beware, academy members may appear to think in a lofty manner, but this does not diminish the smallness of their thoughts even when they use big words. :)
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.