It is common to read about hypocrisy in nearly any human activity, but the embarrassment is particularly heavy on religious persons and their institutions. With the orientations of the humanist, the naturalist, the neutralist, if they are sincere in their beliefs about God, the hypocrisy of religious folks should not be quite as accented as it is made to be by the media. But it is made important, and the stories, sometimes lurid and sometimes sad, can appear for weeks, long after other more important news for the public has faded. The stories of hypocrites do not offer support or denial for faith based persons. No group should accept evaluation of its meaning and value based on hypocritical conduct. If we did every institution mankind has designed would have to close its doors. Marriage hasn’t failed because there are those who have broken its vows. Government hasn’t failed because some public servants draw graft from the system.
Writing about the recent accent for diversity in public institutions the columnist, Katherine Kersten expressed her concern about a major university that argued for diversity, but had turned away candidates for openings because of an issue of diversity. For example, a candidate with high recommendations, and student approvals, was turned down at this university, apparently because she was a registered Republican, assumed to be conservative. She was applying for a position to a law school where there were 50 professors. One of the fifty was a Republican. Another person was approved for the new position holding less support in resume and recommendations. The department decided to proceed only with the accepted applicant even though two additions were approved. The hypocrisy seemed obvious, with this and other indications, that the applicant took the matter to a favorable court committee. The column closed with these words: Unfortunately, though today’s universities purport to worship at the altar of diversity, the first rule in their creed is that diversity of ideas will not be tolerated. The statement, though somewhat severe and sweeping, points to some hypocrisy. Accusations might be leveled at many institutions.
For a Christian college to argue that it does not approach learning from a point of view would be hypocrisy. A Christian institution may welcome diversity, but also openly protect its distinctive identity. It also holds that to meet the competition of public education, devoted largely to humanism, there must be clarity about intellectual context in faithful presentation. Hypocrisy for the Christian would be to claim that it is Christian, but bow to alleged diversity that dilutes Christian orientation. Failure of major universities to recognize diversity so to exclude someone who would hold to a more conservative interpretation of government, or to hold to a right to life position relative to abortion, is hypocrisy. It is a severe matter that ought to be addressed by the highest authority of the institution, if the decision was made on a lower level. In some instances administrations appear to leave the matter with departments guarding their special positions. For the public institution, the matter is inconsistent, claiming as it does to be diverse. For the Christian college it would be hypocrisy to claim public diversity in advertising that its context is Christian. Public institutions are oriented for all. Christian institutions are for those seeking a spiritual orientation. As the president of an accredited college (accredited because it was doing well what it said it was doing),
I attended a meeting sponsored by the accepted regional accrediting association. The issue before the academicians/administrators was: complaints against several large and impressive colleges/universities. There was heated argument. I was stunned that sophisticated persons in a problem solving forum could become so vehemently competitive about the resolution. I rose to speak, as a matter of privilege, and was granted time. I asked why we were engaged like this, when the issue might be reserved to a committee, investigated, and solution recommended. The reply came from the representative of one of the most respected universities in the world who arose and said: We come to these impasses, sir, because we don’t trust one another. I believed educated persons of good will could solve basic issues with attention to evidence, perhaps to some experimentation, but the matter was shelved for that meeting. Human beings demand honest options. I left the meeting strengthened in my Christian context. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020