In the field of literature, the Bible is signified as a classic. It is seldom included in a secular context (public education) because it is presumed to be, and is emphasized as, a sectarian document, so to be ignored or set aside because of that context. The paradox or contradiction of this viewpoint and general reality, is identified in the analyst at point, and does not apply in other similar situations. Students read classics in Capitalism and Communism, quite at odds with each other, and fraught with strong emotions of variant points of view. The student likely leans strongly in favor of the views of favorite professors. Controversy is not avoided in such contexts. In the university the liberal teachers attracted the liberal students and developed them. The conservatives attracted the conservatives and developed them. Was it in objectivity?
Latent in these contexts may be various motivations, some quite understandable even if they do not hold up in the most objective evaluation of the literary context of an educational institution. As a candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at a leading State University, I was asked to serve on a committee to evaluate the thesis of a candidate for a Master of Arts Degree. The student analyzed the rhetoric of Isaiah, from the Old Testament. The communication to me from the representative stated: We know rhetoric but feel we don’t have anyone who knows enough about the Bible to be objective in evaluation. It was known in the department that I had a Master’s degree related to biblical studies, and had served in the university in the assistant instructor program. I fully enjoyed the participation, and the excellent presentation of the student. I was the only one on the committee who knew if the student was faithful to Isaiah’s context and presuppositions to life, teaching, and rhetorical context, especially as the factors predated Aristotelian written theory. Isaiah was quite clear about persuasion and a base for study to persuasive conclusions.
In the meantime, institutions (some in Christian context) are implied to be of less than first rate because they do not include competent instructors who agree with some objectives and orientations of wholly secular institutions. In an article in a major publication, the reporter, an editor and book man, remarked about a Christian College who terminated a professor for instruction about Jesus’ resurrection as doubtful because of: “. . . conflicts between science and literal readings of gospel accounts . . .” The professor said that science had taught him: . . . that when people died they stay dead. The separation of the teacher from the college was in agreeable understanding. The reporter then wrote: Despite this peaceful resolution his departure raises questions about freedom of scholarship at the college. Accrediting bodies are concerned with evaluating the institution based on the claims of the institution and its performance in achieving the objectives. There is also investigation relative to the openness of all else related to the institution such as reporting of finances, quality of academic resources, competency of faculty and the related factors.
We can be rather sure the above does not mean what the reporter implies, or even affirms. One may learn more about the range of some ideas on a subject in a Christian college than in many secular ones, public or private. The institution not in the mainstream must know what it is so that its own departures from the general standard may be understood and managed appropriately. I well remember a year when there was an emotional response to the oldest seminary in the United States, begun as an institution espousing literal Scripture meaning. A faculty prospect of evangelical persuasion, fully equipped in education and skills for qualification, was recommended. The excellent candidate was scrubbed from the list because of his personal orientation. Freedom is protected when limits are openly admitted and not forced. Choices of inclusion/exclusion belong to freedom, and relate to purposes. Medical schools make clear their orientations, as to what is the best context to accomplish healing. A hospital devoted to children limits its approaches to that category. Elders are not included. Freedom is protected in the aggregate meaning. No one institution can do everything, so each decides for excellence with declared purposes. To raise the spectrum of academic freedom may become a red herring accusation to diminish any institution. Freedom includes permission to define limits, if independence for other institutions remains. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020