Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been, a Member of a Christian Church or Front Organization?

As far as I know, the blacklisting of Trinity Western University is still on. The Canadian Association of University Teachers became alarmed last fall about the private Christian campus' longstanding requirement for a statement of faith from all professors, running more or less along the lines of the Apostles' Creed. This, says CAUT, is a violation of academic freedom.

Maybe so; it certainly does restrict faculty membership to those with specific beliefs. On the other hand, it is hard to see how a university could ensure a "Christian" character without something like this. Can't universities differentiate themselves in such ways? What about a college that, as my own does, advertises a "student-centred approach" in the classroom? Does it have no right to ask faculty to be, in fact, "student-centred"? What about any college that has any kind of mission statement?

Prohibiting such statements would, firstly, force a homogeneity on higher education which would kill diversity--a stated goal of higher education currently in the US. It would also take all educational choices out of the hands of students, paying parents, taxpayers, or the public, and pool them entirely in the hands of the priesthood of university professors. This seems a poor choice for a democracy.

In fact, the CAUT's claims seem to have no legal merit. So far as I know, Canada has no statute law on academic freedom; hence, the authority becomes other major English-speaking jurisdictions: Britain and the US. In the US, the precise terms of academic freedom are set out in an agreement between professors and institutions, the "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure." This document expressly permits "limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims," so long as they are "clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment." Trinity Western is in clear compliance. In Britain, academic freedom is understood to reside with the institution, not the individual professor. Again, Trinity Western is in clear compliance--and, in fact, CAUT is in violation of its academic freedom.

It is also hard to see, as a practical matter, how one can get or give an education without some agreement on what education, and education's purpose, is. You can't take a trip without going somewhere. There has to be _some_ shared core of values; it is only a question of what it is, and whether all colleges and universities should or must have the same values, or whether they can or should differ from institution to institution.

That, and the fact that we should be aware, honest, and up-front about our values, as Trinity Western is, and should give other views a fair hearing.

Just this, CAUT itself apparently does not do. For there are other "faith statements" floating around that apparently do not trouble the CAUT. The following example is from a US campus--but, given the overall political climate in Canada, and our generally lesser protections for free speech, there are surely worse Canadian examples to be found. At the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity [sic] asks search committees to ask all faculty applicants questions like the following:

"How have you demonstrated your commitment to women?"

"Which of your achievements in the area of equity for women gives you the most satisfaction?"

"How would you demonstrate your concern for equity for women if you were hired?"

"In your opinion, what are the three major problems for women on your campus?"

"How are general issues in higher education related to women's issues? What is the link?"

And so on, for something like a page.

The point of these questions, the document explains, is to determine "if a candidate is aware of and responsive to minority and women's issues.... When prospective employees are asked 'are you concerned about and supportive of these issues?' they will invariably give an affirmative reply. Unfortunately, that gives little indication of their level of concern or commitment. ... These questions will, therefore, be useful in drawing out the candidate's opinions rather than the 'correct answer.'"

In other words, this goes far beyond requiring a statement of faith--and well into inquisition.

My source for this document is "Want to Teach? Then Tell Us Your Politics," at Minding the Campus (www.mindingthecampus.com).

There's lots more where this came from, though. Consider the University of Minnesota, which requires all graduating Education majors--and hence, all faculty-- must be able to "discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, hetero-normativity, and internalized oppression." (Foxnews.com, December 10, 2009).

And consider this: unlike Trinity Western, these are public universities, funded with tax dollars, not just by those who agree with the opinions required.

CAUT, are you listening? Where are your principles now? Can we have an investigation into such hiring practices, please?