In Defense of Religious Bigotry. (02/24/2002)
Candice de Russy, in her essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education (02/22/2002), entitled "Rule by Those of Little Faith," laments the fact that academic institutions, specifically state supported ones, are applying pressure to campus religious organizations to alter their constitutions to include language stating that they do not discriminate in membership qualifications on the grounds of sexual orientation. De Russy claims such organizations have the right to discriminate against anyone they believe to be in violation of basic tenets of their faith, especially the ones that are deeply held religious convictions, and that universities have no power to interfere with how they determine their membership, even if the institutions in question supply space and funding so that those organizations can exist and operate on campus. Part of her argument turns on historical circumstances that have reduced the importance of religion for many people since the beginning of the 20th Century. She states, for instance, that professors who were "steeped in a positivistic world view" were inclined to teach at "religiously uncommitted public institutions"; whereas, people inclined to hold strong religious convictions chose to teach at "religiously affiliated" schools. A problem, however, eventually surfaced, at least in De Russy's view, because "enrollment at religiously affiliated colleges steadily waned after World War II compared with that at state institutions, [and] so did the influence of Christianity throughout higher education" (B12). De Russy argues that because students have been moving steadily away from commitments to religious education, which is certainly one way to interpret the decline of enrollments at religiously affiliated colleges, the problem ought to be addressed, abridged and overcome, by allowing (or forcing) state colleges to begin offering courses in religious education.
She bases this idea on a treatise written by John Courtney Murray, which she refers to as having been "influential," entitled We Hold These Truths (1960), wherein the Jesuit theologian concludes "with a reminder of the limits of the modern university" by saying that
"It is not a messianic institution. Its responsibility is intellectual development, which includes character development. Insofar as the university provides that, and erects no barriers to salvation, it has done its job." (B13)
While this statement is a summary of Murray's position, and wholly the responsibility of De Russy for what it communicates (the quotation marks enclose her summary and not any of his statements), it seems that De Russy has added a certain twist to it that probably did not exist in anyone's thinking in 1960; that is, that state universities are responsible for developing the "character" of their students, even as a primary objective, and that such institutions are somehow prohibited from erecting "barriers to salvation." Since it is not clear in the climate of denominational diversity in the contemporary Christian church exactly how one achieves "salvation," it seems particularly difficult, if not practically impossible, for an administration or governing body of a state college to determine precisely how and when a course of study could be characterized as one that "erects no barriers to salvation." Given the fairly wide range of ideas and practices the religious right has been objecting to in our culture in recent years, any number of courses in the accepted curricula of most state institutions could be challenged as ones that offer impediments to salvation. Teaching evolution, for instance, instead of creationism, springs immediately to mind. Any course that might be offered on the road to medical practice could be outlawed because it might eventually lead a student into doing research in embryonic stem-cell technology, or worst, in the fundamentalists view, because it might facilitate knowledge of abortion procedures. Anatomy and biology are dangerous because such knowledge is essential to medical practices that are considered abominations by religious fundamentalists. Contemporary physics is another logical target because most current theory (dark matter, dark energy, and the origin and ultimate fate of the universe, for instance) tends to minimize, if not complete ignore, the role played by the Christian Creator in the way physical matter interacts in the real world. Such lists can probably be expanded to include almost anything currently taught at universities.
The fact that religious education has failed to attract a large enough audience of people who want to pursue it cannot be used as an excuse to expand university curricula to include religious subjects or to restrict them by eliminating course offerings that fundamentalists find objectionable on the ground that they might offer impediments to salvation. The idea that state governments should be held responsible for the failures of religious institutions to spread their doctrines is one that defies logic and comprehension. Were one to reverse the claim structure here and argue that religious institutions should be forced to teach science because students at state supported schools refused to enroll in them there would be no end to the objections raised by religious believers in every denomination in the country. Such objections would be justifiable as well on the ground of state interference in the establishment of religion.
Even more troubling in De Russy's argument is her insistence that the events of September 11 have somehow come to represent a kind of whip that can be used to force compliance with her perception that state institutions have become responsible for the dissemination of Christian value structures as thinly disguised "character" development for university students. She says, for instance, that
"The terrible crisis through which we are living makes it all the more imperative that such despotism [discrimination against religious believers in higher education] be eradicated. Signs point auspiciously toward such an outcome: Our nation has, in part, responded to the evil visited upon us on September 11 by returning to its religious heritage, and this response is occurring on our campuses as well." (B13)
The problem with this view is that our nation's "religious heritage," historically speaking and in contradistinction to its words, has always found its comfort zone on the side of enforcing discrimination against people it perceives as "evildoers." De Russy's objective here is to exclude homosexuals from seeking and gaining membership in campus religious organizations on the ground that such clubs have a right to bar whomever they choose when their behavior is perceived as an abomination to God. This same characterization has been applied to anyone who favors Islam over Christianity. The fact that De Russy links sexual orientation to the terrorist atrocities of 911, even in the same breath as it were, and celebrates the renewed commitment of Christians to anti-Islamic hatred in the form and context of the war against terrorism being played out in Afghanistan, certainly suggests that her view of non-traditional sexual orientation is somehow the same as choosing to fly commercial airliners into buildings. That Christian bigotry is on the ascendancy once again ought to act as a cautionary fable for our times, only strengthening our resolve to resist the temptation of easy solutions that stereotypically assign people to collectives subject to annihilation rather than inclusion.