Administrators at the University of Wisconsin apparently skipped out on the civics class that explained the First Amendment.
Posted by Alan Allport at January 16, 2006 12:18 PMWhy Alan, I had no idea you were one of the theocrats trying to take over the academy!
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 16, 2006 02:11 PMI'm reading Orhan Pamuk's Snow and it's extremely strange to reflect that right here in the U.S. we have this same paradoxical politics of obedient-religiosity-as-defiance-of-authorities. For those of us who have nothing to gain from theocracy, it's just a little bit marrow-freezing.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 17, 2006 06:28 PMMartha, I assume that you're willing to endure some chill in your marrow for the sake of free speech.
Posted by: Ralph Luker at January 17, 2006 06:49 PMI'm reading Orhan Pamuk's Snow and it's extremely strange to reflect that right here in the U.S. we have this same paradoxical politics of obedient-religiosity-as-defiance-of-authorities.
Are you suggesting that knuckling under like good boys and girls would be a more constitutionally appropriate thing for the UW RA's?
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 17, 2006 07:11 PMI'm having to assume a few things about Snow here, but I'd answer that leading a study group is hardly "obedient religiosity" in the same way as — say — wearing hijab is.
Or at least not by Western standards.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 17, 2006 07:35 PMSorry, no, you've fallen for yet another right-wing variation on "pity the poor suffering majority." Of course students have free speech rights. Free speech rights belong not only to members of a secure Protestant Christian majority, but also to students who are not religious, or who practice other faiths, who also may happen to be supervised in their living quarters by these Bible-study-leading RAs.
Suppose, for example, that the Protestant Christians of a given dormitory floor are cozily gathered in an RA's quarters sipping cocoa as they read to each other beamingly from the New Testament -- and everyone else on the floor is left out, not to mention mildly disapproved of as a sinner? Isn't the RA in some sense acting on behalf of the university in hosting such a gathering, and shouldn't the RA by preference host an event where all students can feel equally welcome? To take this a step further, suppose there is a dispute between a member of the religious study group and an outsider. Whose story will the RA hear first?
It's terribly depressing that these kinds of debates even happen in the United States, let alone that people I tend to like and respect fall for the evangelizing arguments. The America I come from was a secular society. I liked it there.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 17, 2006 10:25 PMMartha, would you feel the same way if the RA's were cozily gathered together sipping cocoa and discussing The Female Eunuch or the constitutional merits of Roe in their own time, thus 'excluding' everyone else on the floor who might happen to disagree with them, and incidentally casting about rather a lot of disapproval? (For that matter, what if it was a women's-only Take Back the Night discussion group in which the exclusion of approximately half the students was quite explicit and enforced rather than presumptive?) Would those RAs' ability to arbitrate fairly between adherents and non-adherents to the cause be held in similar disdain?
Or is that A Different Kind of Thing Altogether?
I am left wondering if you too understand the First Amendment. That the establishment clause is intended in part to be a shield against religion, the guarantee of a secular state (not society), is to my mind incontestable. But what you seem to have forgotten is that the establishment clause is also intended to be a shield for religion. The administrators of the University of Wisconsin do not have the right to tell their employees what they can or cannot do in their free time, and that includes the exercise of their Christian faith, should they have it (just as it includes the exercise of their feminist and pro-choice beliefs, should they have them). Your 'all must be welcome' litmus test is inherently absurd; almost any opinion of a non-trivial kind is open to objection by somebody or other. Does that mean that any one student should have the power of veto over the private actions of every other? And of course the more controversial the speech, the more potential objectors - and the more reason the First Amendment was put in place to defend it.
I too find this conversation depressing, because I had hitherto always believed that your enthusiasm for free assembly and speech rights did not vary in proportion to your enthusiasm for the speech being uttered. I will have to qualify that assumption from now on.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 04:00 AMThe America I come from was a secular society. I liked it there.
This is precisely the kind of "we wuz robbed" mentality that fuels the support for Sekulow and his gang.
I don't know about your background, Martha, but the America I come from opened every meeting and sporting event with a prayer, voted for "chaplain" each year as just another student council office, and "what church do you go to?" was a friendly greeting. From my perspective, the retreat of that sort of public religiosity is certainly not a construction of right-wing propaganda.
Just because it existed doesn't mean it was right, however. I find it far more comfortable being religious in a secular city than I did as a rationalist agnostic in a religious town. I got into a lot of arguments about school prayer, and my opponents seemed to have an almost magical belief that being prayed at was a Very Good Thing. I'm a bit more charitable to them nowadays than I was then, but still...
America is a big place. It's possible that your experience was radically different from mine — perhaps a society in which nobody would think of putting a Jesus fish on their car lest it offend someone, and where discussion of religion in the public square didn't happen because of a unanimous consensus against it. If so, it's no wonder you see this news as something other than I do — a rearguard action in the long, sad retreat of Christianity from American life.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 07:38 AMBen, considering the amount of harm that majority-enforced single-faith religiosity has done in this world, I can't understand your nostalgia for it. Here we go with "pity the poor majority" again. The alternative, of course, isn't excluding "discussion of religion in the public square." It's making clear that religion is a private personal matter, to be discussed only by consent of the people involved. Their "opt-in" consent, that is, not the kind of "opt-out" consent that forces people to dissent conspicuously if they don't want to join a majority.
Ralph, you're trying to make the Wisconsin debate a simple question of free association or free speech by ordinary students, and in fact it has to do with whether a resident advisor in a dormitory, when interacting with the students in that dormitory, is still acting as a representative of the university in evening or other apparently "off" hours. Naturally the RA has a right to attend religious services at a religious institution, to become a teacher there, etc. -- and also a right to join or lead political meetings of a non-religious nature, in their appropriate places. But if the RA is the officially assigned supervisor of a dormitory, then the RA's political *or* religious activity should be outside the dormitory. I can't see why the Bible study *or* the "Take Back the Night" planning meeting (or both at once for that mattter) can't be conducted outside the dormitory to make clear the RA is not acting in an official capacity.
Don't you tell me I'm losing enthusiasm for free speech rights. I'm siding with the free speech rights of the minority while you side with the free speech rights of the majority. Freedom *not* to speak is an essential part of freedom of speech. The establishment clause, in fact, protects a negatively expressed right: a right to be free from being pushed into religious activity.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 18, 2006 09:53 AMI can't see why the Bible study *or* the "Take Back the Night" planning meeting (or both at once for that mattter) can't be conducted outside the dormitory to make clear the RA is not acting in an official capacity.
If the UW was conducting such a content-neutral policy, and defending its restrictions on the strict principle of time-manner-place, then that wouldn't necessarily make it right, but it would at least change the basis of the complaint. But they're not, are they? The original article point out that the UW actively encourages its RAs to take part in events which are at least partly politicized, and which are certainly less than inclusive of all the resident students. So it seems to me that either you have to condemn the UW for its inconsistent application of principle, or admit that this argument is in bad faith.
What would your position be if the UW also banned the private organization of Jewish RA's, or Hindu RA's, or Muslim RA's? What about a ban on a gay or lesbian RA talking group?
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 10:10 AMI've already given you my position: if a person is put in charge of students, it should be clear to students when that person is acting as a formally sanctioned advisor, and when in a private capacity. It's a matter of good manners as well as professionalism not to blur the distinction.
I don't know anything about this religious lobbying group you started from, but the UWisconsin page they link, at http://www.wisconsin.edu/RAfeedback.htm , enunciates a group of "principles" that say nothing about meetings in the dormitory:
1. RAs are expected to work with student residents to create an open, inclusive, and supportive residential community.It's clearly #5 they're worried about when it comes to holding majority-group religious events, within the residence hall so that no dissenting student can stay home to avoid them, with the apparent sanction of a university-assigned residence supervisor. Religious observance is fine in itself, but using an official position of authority to proselytize is uglier and more complicated.
2. RAs are expected to encourage student engagement in campus activities and organizations, and to promote opportunities for student residents to explore their values and beliefs.
3. Because the University encourages student engagement in campus activities and organizations as an essential component of students’ educational experience, and because individuals holding RA positions are students, RAs are encouraged to participate in campus activities and organizations.
4. The University, as employer, has the right to establish reasonable restrictions on RA activities as a condition of employment, due to the unique requirements of the RA position.
5. RAs should not use their position to inappropriately influence, pressure, or coerce student residents.
Over and over lately we have religious people making it as problematic as possible to simply want to be let alone without expressing *any* spiritual belief in public. Odd that this comes from Christians of all people: doesn't the New Testament even counsel believers to pray in private rather than risk committing the sin of ostentatious piety? Sermon on the Mount, I think, but I'm sure you can look it up.
I can't understand your nostalgia for it.
Reread my two bottom paragraphs. Nostalgia isn't my sentiment. I'm just trying to explain that the "secular America" you remember never existed in the experience of many people.
[R]eligion is a private personal matter, to be discussed only by consent of the people involved
You do realize that this is not only a political statement, but a theological one as well, right? Though I mostly agree with it, plainly it would have been incomprehensible to anyone in an advanced civilization before Cyrus the Great, and on the losing side of any debate before a couple of centuries ago.
Their "opt-in" consent, that is, not the kind of "opt-out" consent that forces people to dissent conspicuously if they don't want to join a majority.
Would you then ban any celebration of the Fourth of July, Valentine's Day, or student birthdays from classrooms that might contain a Jehovah's Witness? If not, how is that different from the "opt-out" consent you dislike?
Furthermore, you seem to be operating under the assumption that attendees at an RA's bible study would be in some way expressive of a majority group. I don't know for certain about UW, but I suspect that the attendence would be tiny. It certainly would have been at my college dorm.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 10:55 AMMartha, did I read that wrong, or did you just describe FIRE as a "religious lobbying group"? Wow.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 11:00 AMHmmm. Looks like Martha may have a point — the report of the working group is really quite broad, and seems to boil down to "we can tell RAs what to do in the rooms we provide for them."
The original letter applying the no-bible-studies rule can be found here:
http://thefire.org/index.php/article/6376.html
The relevant section seems to be:
I also want to clarify that I do not have a problem if you attend (not lead or organize) a bible study organized by a resident in your hall in other spaces, nor do I believe I have a right to tell you that you could not lead a bible study outside your hall. However, when you are in your residence hall, you are always a staff member and as such, need to follow these policies so that all students are more likely to feel that you are approachable.
Alan, this doesn't looks so much like the stifling of dissent it's made out to be. Care to explain exactly how RAs aren't acting in their official capacity whenever they are present in their dorm?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 11:16 AM--[R]eligion is a private personal matter, to be discussed only by consent of the people involved
-You do realize that this is not only a political statement, but a theological one as well, right?
Yes, and if I hadn't thought so before, Mr. Pamuk's certainly would have made that clear. But I do think I live in a country where the majority of people do believe religion to be a private personal matter -- a country that has at least given lip service to the separation of church and state for more than 200 years -- and I would like to stay in such a country.
Martha, did I read that wrong, or did you just describe FIRE as a "religious lobbying group"? Wow.
I admit their letterhead is a surprise. Daphne Patai especially. I gather they're not primarily concerned with religious expression, then?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 18, 2006 11:47 AMI gather they're not primarily concerned with religious expression, then?
Nope. Nor are they particularly right-wing, though given their focus on free expression on campus, the majority of their cases involve silencing unpopular conservative speech. Looking over their weblog, The Torch, they list involvement in:
Ralph's been involved with them a bit, I gather.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 12:16 PMI will pass over Martha's frankly bizarre characterization of FIRE as a simple error.
I've already given you my position: if a person is put in charge of students, it should be clear to students when that person is acting as a formally sanctioned advisor, and when in a private capacity. It's a matter of good manners as well as professionalism not to blur the distinction.
Since you opted not to comment on it, could you explain to me why partisan activities by the RAs which are actually promoted by the university are fine and harm no-one - well, no-one that matters anyway - whereas partisan activities by the RAs in their spare time, with no suggestion that their behavior is endorsed by the university or that any sort of mandatory participation by students is expected, will so endanger their fragile charges' sense of self that even being in the same building is too dangerous to contemplate? (Is it the presence of the Holy Ghost that is the problem?)
In any case, the argument doesn't add up. If RA's are so poisoned by their religious participation that they will be automatically prejudiced against unbelieving students, then what difference does it make whether or not they practice their churchifying at the dorm or not? Surely in the application process any potential RA who demonstrates the slightest tint of faith (Christian faith, natch) should be excluded from the process by default if the little devils simply cannot be trusted not to interfere with the, erm, student body?
Alan, this doesn't looks so much like the stifling of dissent it's made out to be. Care to explain exactly how RAs aren't acting in their official capacity whenever they are present in their dorm?
Ben, I would take this kind of defense more seriously if as I said above the UW applied content-neutrality to itself. If the RAs are always acting in an official capacity, then why is the university encouraging them to take part in behavior which is clearly less than inclusive?
One thing I have learned from a decade in the academy is that university administraors make up the rules as they go along. They are able to do this because of a shocking lack of transparency of process, something that FIRE has been an attempt to address (and not - note, Martha - in an ideologically one-sided way. FIRE has amongst other campaigns lobbied to support faculty and students espousing controversial left-wing views on campus). The best way to challenge this is to strip as much of the nannyish apparatus of 'appropriateness' as possible. Frankly I am a little tired of in loco parentis and this condescending notion that adult citizens old enough to vote and die for their country are too intellectually vulnerable to exist in a world of ideological options.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 12:25 PM[T]he majority of people do believe religion to be a private personal matter
There's a big distinction between private and personal. At its best, the religious society I described is not exclusive or censorious — rather, a person's religion is treated as just another subject, neither flaunted nor hidden. People relate humorous anecdotes from church, or pull each others legs about being a sucker on Sunday morning and missing out on the great fishing. Denominational membership (or lack thereof) is treated in conversation about like sports team fandom.
If I feel any nostalgia, it's for that easygoing acceptance of the fact of religiosity, whether practiced or avoided. Instead, on the rare times it does come up in conversation among my peers, I have to preface whatever my point is with "So, I go to church...", which leads into about a five minute digression. After the "Really? Like every sunday and stuff? Wow." bit, it's rarely worth it.
Oh, and you haven't addressed my July 4th analogy.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 12:31 PMOh, and you haven't addressed my July 4th analogy.
Don't hold your breath ...;-)
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 12:32 PMThe best way to challenge this is to strip as much of the nannyish apparatus of 'appropriateness' as possible.
Hmmm. Care to address the Air Force Academy situation, and whether it's different? I certainly think so, but suspect you might disagree.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 12:35 PMYou'd have to bring me up to speed with a few links Ben. My vague understanding is that the students there were proselytizing in a very aggressive manner, which I don't think is defensible in the same way as the UW RA's case (like most rights issues, there is no clearly demarcated right and wrong here but a fuzzier line of reasonableness within which it's possible to stay - and beyond which it's possible to stray). But I can't pretend to know much about it.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 12:49 PMI gathered that proselytizing was comvined with the sort of shared-assumption kind of statements that are not directly proselytizing nor inappropriate at a religious school, but certainly don't belong outside that. Inspirational slogans in the gym that mention Jesus and such.
But I'm afraid I don't have any details at my fingertips.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 01:09 PMInspirational slogans in the gym that mention Jesus and such.
Well, while one doesn't want to be too pedantic about it, I'm certainly a believer that what happens in the Bible Class stays in the Bible Class.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 01:28 PMSince you opted not to comment on it, could you explain to me why partisan activities by the RAs which are actually promoted by the university are fine and harm no-one - well, no-one that matters anyway - whereas partisan activities by the RAs in their spare time, with no suggestion that their behavior is endorsed by the university or that any sort of mandatory participation by students is expected, will so endanger their fragile charges' sense of self that even being in the same building is too dangerous to contemplate? (Is it the presence of the Holy Ghost that is the problem?)
I don't think anyone is making the distinction you claim has been made. The university apparently encourages RA's to participate in campus activities, and in turn invites them to encourage students to be active members of their community. The university does not encourage RA's to push students into particular campus activities. That looks like it applies to religious and non-religious activities alike.
If I feel any nostalgia, it's for that easygoing acceptance of the fact of religiosity, whether practiced or avoided.
Yes, Ben, I feel that way too. Time was when attending services was a thing some people did and some didn't, and people went to different services as members of different faiths, and nobody made a big deal out of it. To me, the folks who spoiled that came from the religious side, e.g. O'Reilly with his "war against Christmas" lies, or the Salvation Army in the '90s suddenly deciding it wouldn't accept public money to run shelters if it couldn't fire gay staff or make poor people pray for their suppers. Or, yes, people campaigning to hold religious events in public facilities, or to provide religion-inflected charitable services with public funds, with the specific idea of making such public spaces and public funds more religious and hence less broadly available to the public.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 18, 2006 03:22 PMAlan, try this: what if a campus RA held a campaign meeting supporting a certain political candidate in the dormitory floor's shared community room? What if you lived in the building and supported a different candidate? Wouldn't you find that troubling? OK, so I find the holding of specific religious meetings by officially designated authorities in common living space to be equally troubling for very much the same reasons.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 18, 2006 03:25 PMI find the holding of specific religious meetings by officially designated authorities in common living space to be equally troubling
Whoa, now — look at that letter again. The meetings were in the RA's own dorm room.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 18, 2006 03:32 PMThe university apparently encourages RA's to participate in campus activities...
Right, and many of these appear to have a distinctive ideological flavor. Unless this is one of those irregular verbs (you push a politicized agenda; I hold truths that are self-evident) then it seems to me pretty perverse to argue that students are more at risk at feeling 'excluded' from a tiny privately organized group than they are from a campus event with the full imprimatur of the university. The UW's gall is astonishing. If someone objects to the politics of the 'oppression tunnel' they are just supposed to get over themselves. If someone can't deal with the fact that other students want to discuss their faith, they have the power of veto without appeal.
Alan, try this: what if a campus RA held a campaign meeting supporting a certain political candidate in the dormitory floor's shared community room? What if you lived in the building and supported a different candidate? Wouldn't you find that troubling?
Erm, no. Presumably I'm supposed to, but why?
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 03:35 PM... and as Ben points out, we're not talking about a "shared community room." This campaign meeting is taking place in the student's own bedroom.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 18, 2006 03:38 PMIf I may say so, Martha, O'Reilly is offensive enough to Christians, as well as people of a more secular orientation, but the latter tend to operate on the assumption that their secularism is neutrality -- "shared community room," if you will. Secularism isn't neutral ground. It may be the ground on which you feel comfortable -- but let's be clear, it is _your_ ground. And, on your ground, I am obliged not to be wholly myself.
Posted by: Ralph Luker at January 19, 2006 04:02 AMRalph, I'm surprised that your definition of "secularism" — like Martha's — seems closer to French laïcité than to the older American model. Do you really think secularism implies the prohibition of religious expression from the public square?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 19, 2006 08:05 AMSome contemporary American secularists do act and speak as if they wish altogether to exclude religious expression from the public sphere. In that sense, it seems to me that Martha's misreading of the location of the Wisconsin bible studies was telling. If, as at Penn, administrators quickly conclude that they have no mandate to sanction students doing sex for public view from a dormitory room, it seems to me that Wisconsin administrators might quickly conclude that they have no mandate to sanction students doing bible study in a dormitory room. The fact that it was led by an RA is essentially irrelevant. Was anyone _required_ to attend or run the risk of punishment? Can an RA _read_ the bible _alone_ in her room? If so, can she allow a second person to join her? At what number of participants does the gathering become a threat to Martha's marrow?
Posted by: Ralph Luker at January 19, 2006 12:39 PMIf it's any help, the fact that this Wisconsin incident has become a nationally discussed talking point bothers my marrow a lot more than the original event would have.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 19, 2006 08:08 PMSometime you feel your marrow needs rousing, you should tune in to that Waco radio station in the morning, when they run a brief radio theater piece dramatizing talking points like the UW case. Shockingly dishonest bits of propaganda.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 19, 2006 08:51 PMIf it's any help, the fact that this Wisconsin incident has become a nationally discussed talking point bothers my marrow a lot more than the original event would have.
It goes without saying that if the UW hadn't implemented such a stupid rule (and incidentally, is there any evidence that it was students who were the motivating force behind this, or simply the administration declaring by fiat what the poor dears could or couldn't handle?) then there wouldn't have been a case for right-wingers to exploit in the first place.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 20, 2006 05:10 AM