Today’s guest editorial out of “Inside Higher Education” shares only two examples of Christian discrimination in higher education, but it is pervasive across the academy.

Especially this time of year, it saddens me that many strong Christian families are sending their children off in to schools who blatantly discriminate against Christians in the classroom.  And these students don’t yet have a clue of what they will be facing, and the damage it will do to their faith.

Research shows that 50% of Evangelical students who attend a secular university lose their faith before they graduate.

These type stories make me humble in thankfulness to God that Belhaven can be a bright and shining alternative that builds up a student’s faith and provides an excellent and rigorous education.

No Christianity Please, We’re Academics
July 30, 2010
By Timothy Larsen

I had lunch this summer with a prospective graduate student at the evangelical college where I teach. I will call him John because that happens to be his name. John has done well academically at a public university. Nevertheless, as often happens, he said that he was looking forward to coming to a Christian university, and then launched into a story of religious discrimination.

John had been a straight-A student until he enrolled in English writing. The assignment was an “opinion” piece and the required theme was “traditional marriage.” John is a Southern Baptist and he felt it was his duty to give his honest opinion and explain how it was grounded in his faith. The professor was annoyed that John claimed the support of the Bible for his views, scribbling in the margin, “Which Bible would that be?” On the very same page, John’s phrase, “Christians who read the Bible,” provoked the same retort, “Would that be the Aramaic Bible, the Greek Bible, or the Hebrew Bible?” (What could the point of this be? Did the professor want John to imagine that while the Greek text might support his view of traditional marriage, the Aramaic version did not?) The paper was rejected as a “sermon,” and given an F, with the words, “I reject your dogmatism,” written at the bottom by way of explanation.

Thereafter, John could never get better than a C for papers without any marked errors or corrections. When he asked for a reason why yet another grade was so poor he was told that it was inappropriate to quote C. S. Lewis in work for an English class because he was “a pastor.” (Lewis, of course, was actually an English professor at Cambridge University. Perhaps it was wrong to quote Lewis simply because he had said something recognizably Christian.) Eventually John complained to the department chair, who said curtly that he could do nothing until the course was over. John took this to mean that the chair would do nothing and just accepted the bad grade.

I suspect that many readers are already generating “maybe …. ” scenarios that fill out this story so that John was actually treated fairly. Blaming the victim is a familiar response to reports of discrimination. Maybe John is just one of those uppity believers who don’t know their place.

Maybe. Maybe John got an F purely as an academic judgment. I’ve seen the marked paper (and my own view is that it is academically weak, but certainly not deserving of an F), and I’m not in a position to hear the professor or the chair’s explanation of the broader context. But the wider point is that those of us in Christian higher education often hear such accounts. We also experience similar incidents ourselves. Here, for instance, is a story of my own:

“Rethinking the Western Tradition” is a Yale University Press series that reprints influential texts along with original essays. It has an editorial committee of eminent academics. I submitted a proposal for a volume on The Idea of a Christian Society by T. S. Eliot (you remember Eliot — for much of the 20th century he was a prominent pastor). Perhaps the committee members did not realize their comments would be passed on, making them unusually frank. They agreed that my proposal was well-crafted, drawing on well-chosen experts to write the essays, including an outspoken atheist. Nevertheless, most did not want this volume in the series and the reasons for rejecting it which they gave were often explicitly anti-Christian.

One of the few who said they would begrudgingly allow it to go forward justified their decision by conceding, “It is worth considering why ideas we find not just impossible to believe but even impossible to believe that others believe — such as the ideology of the Taliban or Saudis — have such appeal.” (That urbane Modernist poet, Eliot, the voice of the Taliban?) One of the “nos” wrote a four-page anti-Christian rant. Here is just a bit of it: “In order to believe in that I fear, you have to believe in something like the ‘Holy Catholic Church’ (which we who were brought up as Anglicans were taught as children to say we believed in as we recited the Nicene Creed – not understanding even half of what we were professing so fervently to believe.) … But who – other than someone willing to swallow all the offensive nonsense in the same creeds (the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the trinity, complete with the filioque) – can believe in that? Surely no one who pays any heed to the historical evidence.” (The filioque? As if the double procession of the Holy Spirit was conclusive proof that Christians always take things too far.) Another was unsympathetic to the proposal, but candidly admitted that “this is doubtless prejudice to some extent.”

A persecution complex is not a healthy thing. A mantra among Christian academics is that if your work is rejected, assume it was because it is not good enough. Like others experiencing discrimination, we expect that we might need to do significantly better than the competition to have a chance and think that we should primarily just get on with trying to do exactly that. We are apt to apply to ourselves the Canadian politician Charlotte Whitton’s observation about gender discrimination: “Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”

So, although we hear these stories frequently, Christian academics are the first ones to respond to them with suspicion. Maybe John got a bad grade because his work was not very good. Maybe my proposal was written in an irritating tone that baited some members of the committee to respond that way.

Nevertheless, scholars ought to be concerned that Christians often report that the academy is a hostile environment. Are academics generally glad that such a perception exists? If not, how might it be dispelled? If it is based on genuine experiences, what can be done about a climate that tolerates religious discrimination? If the two stories presented here are merely assailable, anecdotal evidence, then why not gather information on this issue more systematically? Do academic institutions ever try to discover if their Christian students or scholars experience discrimination?

I am hereby calling for such an effort. This could be done through surveys, or focus group discussions, or even just by inviting people to tell their experiences and following up on them, seeing if certain patterns emerge. If these are not the best methods, just think of what you would do in response to reports that a university or academic society was marked by institutional racism or sexism and then apply those same strategies of listening, investigation, and response. Like John with the department chair, however, I too am tempted to be defeatist about the academy being willing even to investigate the possibility of discrimination against Christians, let alone attempt to eradicate it.

Timothy Larsen is McManis Professor of Christian Thought, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. His most recent monograph, A People of One Book: The Bible and the Victorians, is forthcoming in January from Oxford University Press. The author provided Inside Higher Ed with the comments Yale University received about his book. The press declined to discuss the matter.

I’m a regular contributor, writing about topics of leadership, to Faith and Leadership, the online discussion for issues of the Church, sponsored by Duke Divinity School.

Since I’m from Mississippi, their editor, Dr. Jason Byassee, asked me to write this month about the gulf oil spill.

Getting all I might want to say into their limited word count is difficult.  So here is the first part (they had to cut for space) and then it picks up with the article running on their blog:

————————-

BP’s Other Toxic Spill

Here in Mississippi, the oil spill in our Gulf is personal.

It is our families who will be bankrupt because of tourism losses, our wetlands and beaches trashed for years to come, our fish and wildlife threatened, and our coastline home prices that will plunge.

Most tragically, it is our spirit that has been broken by BP.

After five years of tenaciously pulling our bootstraps to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina’s head-on collision with the Mississippi coast, we in the Gulf are now held hostage to an oil company who will not tell us what the future holds.

Katrina brought us to our knees.  The oil spill brings us to tears.

While their oil flow pollutes our environment and our economy, BP’s other toxic spill of misinformation has become just as damaging.  Their limited communication, filled with blaming, selfishness, and the slow drip of compounding uncertainty, magnifies the pain of the crisis.

If we had we known what was coming from the beginning (up to 40,000 barrels a day instead of only 1,000), we’d have reached for our bootstraps again and worked for solutions. All we’d ask now is to know as much as they know, even if they don’t have all the answers. Isn’t that what all of us want when we feel overwhelmed in a crisis?

In the Church, all leaders will eventually be called on to manage a crisis that is beyond our control.  And while pressing to finding solutions to the problem itself — economic challenges, moral failing, or dramatic change in direction — we must also communicate properly to those in our care, so we don’t also create a subsequent culture of anxiety that will become even more damaging than our root challenge.

A popular poster from the satirical Despair.com reads, “The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures.” And placing blame on those whom God has entrusted to us in ministry is just about that blatantly silly.  Leaders who carry the burden of bad news will be respected and trusted in the long run and are best equipped to offer comfort in time of crisis.

Three tools are critical for sharing bad news without placing blame.

Be Direct

Bad news needs to be shared quickly as soon as the initial facts can be gathered and the analysis of the situation is clear.

Occasionally leaders who enjoy the spotlight will rush the stage, running ahead of the assessment, but doing so creates mistrust if the information is not reliable. More typically leaders try to shield or downplay the bad news from others with the hope that a solution can be found before the circumstances become public.

Those under your care are part of the solution to any problem and you need them to know so they can help you.  Further, they are most likely to be resilient in the pain of a crisis when brought into the discussion early rather than being held at arm’s length.

Be Disclosing

The Apollo 13 spacecraft trouble became known to the world with the infamous words “Houston, we have a problem . . . ”.

Don’t sugarcoat, underplay, or discount the fullness of your challenge.  If the scope of the problem is uncertain, it is better to discuss the worst case among the possibilities and later to be pleasantly surprised than to offer rose coloring that is the first of many disappointments.

Good news can be leaked, allowing it to spread across your ministry team because it is likely to retain its integrity of factual base. But bad news must be announced, or the gossip and speculation will run far ahead of the facts.  Without the full story, those in your care will become fearful, assumptions will run rampant, and energy will be drained by uncertainty.

Be Discreet

It is important to understand the difference between correcting and blaming. The first is done in private. The second occurs in public.

Leaders must privately correct those who make mistakes and create personal growth plans to assure coworkers learn to fulfill their responsibilities. Part of that entails the leader forgiving for the mistake so they can get a fresh start and move forward rather than being weighed down by their errors. This is much different from pointing out the flaws of others publicly.

Shouldering blame won’t hurt leaders in the long term. But even if it does, the Bible clearly guides us on this point: “Remember, it is better to suffer for doing good, if that is what God wants, than to suffer for doing wrong!” (1 Peter 3:17).

Leadership during a crisis demands that we present the facts as fully and accurately as we can. This is a time when others need to feel confident they know as much as the leader about the challenge. Leaders may have learned to live comfortably with a high level of ambiguity and uncertainty, but others have not and they need to have as much detailed information as possible.

Leaders who cannot transparently define the problem in a crisis cannot be trusted to find a viable solution.  Having all the answers is not vital. “I don’t know” is not a bad answer if you don’t know.  But others will only trust you in the eventual solution if you don’t disguise the struggle ahead.

Whether you’re the fourth largest company in the world or a ministry leader in a crisis, trust cannot be bought with public relations campaigns.  One of these days soon, BP will tell us they have the crisis fixed and new safeguards in place to assure we will never have another oil spill like this. Will you believe them?

Roger Parrott is President of Belhaven University in Jackson, Mississippi.  He is the author of The Longview: Lasting Strategies for Rising Leaders (David C. Cook).

One of Belhaven’s great legacy faculty members passed away this morning.  Mary Harmon was a remarkable servant for the Lord, and we are especially thankful that she dedicated her life to God’s work here at Belhaven.

Larry Mills, Assistant to the President, told me “The Lord called Mrs. Harmon to her heavenly home this morning around 6:10.  Her mind stayed keen, but her 103 year old body just could not recover from a recent illness. She went into the hospital a little over a week ago.  It was a blessing to have had the article on her in the recent issue of the Tartan.”

That Tartan article can be found HERE.

On Mrs. Harmon’s 103rd birthday last year, October 26, 2009, I’d posted this about her here on my blog

Mary Harmon taught home economics at Belhaven from 1952 until 1982.  Today she is celebrating her 103rd birthday!

She grew up in Goodman, Mississippi and graduated from “the W” in 1932 where she studied home economics.

At the request of President Gillespie she joined our faculty in 1952 “to finish out a semester for another professor”  She stayed 30 years, and of course, is a member of our Legacy of Learning Faculty honor roll.

She taught our own Ms. Bettye Quinn at Belhaven.

I know from reliable sources that Mrs. Harmon took most of her paycheck while teaching and put it right back into her classes.  She especially loved the Dr. Ford choirs, and her classes would help make the costumes each year.

Mrs. Harmon says that every morning she reminds herself that “this is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice in it.”  That is a great way to live to 103 and make the most of each precious day the Lord gives us on this earth.

This afternoon we hosted guests from Kosin University in Busan Korea for a signing of a sister school partnership we’ve been developing during the past year.

Kosin is a strong Presbyterian school of 5,00 students. They build a understanding of vibrant faith into all their curriculum and teach from a Reformed perspective.  In many ways, they are like a Korean version of Belhaven.

Along with Belhaven, they have partnership arrangements Daystar University, Kenya; Dordt College, USA; Mongolia International University, Mongolia, along with four universities in China.

They have some wonderful exchange opportunities for our undergraduate students, and they offer in English both an MDiv and Master of Christian Education.

Below is the picture of one of their board members, Rev. Bae, exchanging the agreement today.  Joining Rev. Bae were his wife and two of his three sons – all three of which are studying at RTS here in Jackson.

This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that has far reaching implications for Christians, and especially universities like Belhaven as well as other ministries.

While the case focuses on the rights of religious organizations at state universities, legal scholars predict that a loss in this case could, eventually, over time, open the door for religious based institutions like ours to be challenged over our ability to hire based on our faith standards.

Leading up to the oral arguments there have been several key editorials in support of the position supported by Belhaven University and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

Washington Post

Jonathon Turley of George Washington University

Wall Street Journal

We expect to hear the court’s ruling in June.  I trust you’ll be praying for this important decision.

Below is an editorial from Christianity Today which summarizes the issue and is a wonderful reminder that God has always provided protection as the Christian faith has been threatened through the centuries.

The End of Religious Freedom?

The nightmare scenarios could very well unfold, but they are not the last word.
A Christianity Today editorial | posted 4/19/2010 09:52AM

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken on many significant religion cases lately. Perhaps the justices were resting up for what could be one of the biggest rulings yet: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which went before the court April 19, is in some eyes the title fight between anti-discrimination laws and religious identity. It’s a case that both sides have long been waiting for.

At issue is an anti-discrimination rule at Hastings College of the Law (part of the University of California). Hastings says the rule means that the Christian Legal Society’s (CLS) on-campus chapter cannot make its leaders sign a statement of faith and abstain from “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.” The school said student group leadership positions must be open to all students—even to those who would seek such positions precisely in order to destroy the purpose of the group.

If CLS loses the case, in time it would mean that “religious and other groups that adhere to traditional moral views could be driven from the public square in the name of enforcing nondiscrimination,” CLS told the court.

A loss could “effectively remove evangelical organizations from state college and university campuses throughout the United States,” according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Association of Evangelicals and other evangelical groups.

Even more than that, “It is not hyperbole to argue that … this case ultimately threatens the future of public education as we know it,” said a friend-of-the-court brief from the Rutherford Institute. Hastings is subjecting the freedom of association on campus “to state censorship grounded in political ideology,” the organization said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, on the other hand, argued that a CLS win would “considerably weaken our civil rights protections” and set civil rights law back to the days of state-funded racism.

Other friend-of-the-court briefs referenced a related debate that’s even more core to the debate on anti-discrimination laws and religious identity: hiring at faith-based institutions.

“If this court determines that CLS does not have any constitutional right to religious association in the context of this case, then there will be little constitutional protection for religious employers, particularly if they receive any kind of government benefit, use government buildings such as schools and convention centers, and/or participate in government-funded programs,” said a brief from World Vision, Compassion International, Prison Fellowship, Samaritan’s Purse, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and others. “[H]ow this court characterizes the religious associational policies and rights of religious organizations … will likely establish the framework for future deliberations within all branches of government on questions of religious hiring.”

The CLS v. Martinez decision will be widely cited, no matter the outcome. But as CLS made clear in its own briefs, it’s very much a separate battle. (The CLS case is mostly about speech at a university forum, and money is not central.) If CLS loses, it is far from a foregone conclusion that religious groups that partner with the government will lose their ability to consider faith commitments when hiring. And it’s a far journey from that step to the much-discussed scenario of protesters joining organizations en masse to nullify the groups’ religious identity or ethical commitments.

Defenders of religious identity safeguards are not scaremongers. The scenarios they propose are actually quite likely if government entities like Hastings or the Supreme Court treat biblical principles as invidious discrimination and then shun organizations with faith commitments.

But none of these scenarios represent the end of the story. In our 2,000 years of history, this would not be the first time Christian behavior has been treated as bigotry. We have seen states take control of religious organizations and churches. And we have seen restrictions on assembly, speech, and free exercise of religion lead to human suffering. We have also been reminded time and again of God’s sovereign rule.

Hastings’s lawyers say CLS attendance has actually doubled since it was denied recognition as a campus organization. All’s well that ends well? No: justice and legal precedent should prompt a ruling for CLS regardless.

CLS says, to the contrary, that “non-recognition has nearly destroyed the CLS chapter.” The light of the gospel that CLS proclaims is in no danger of being extinguished. Some evangelical organizations will meet off campus if they have to—in the catacombs, if it comes to that.

Meanwhile, we will work for justice in the courts, and pray for a day when those who conspire to infiltrate Christian organizations would find the Leader whom our leadership requirements point to, and enter into the relationship that our sexual standards model. Ours is a God whose stories end in redemption and reconciliation, not nightmare scenarios.