Matthew Franck is surprised by the reaction he is receiving to his defense of traditional marriage:
After publishing articles recently in the Washington Post and First Things, both arguing that the defenders of conjugal marriage between a man and a woman should not be tarred as irrational bigots, “haters,” or “theocrats” by the advocates of same-sex marriage, I received e-mail messages from likeminded friends hailing me for my “courage.” I was grateful for their appreciation, but a little mystified at what I took to be overstatement. I find little reason to hail the “courage” of someone who defends the consensus view of the whole history of human civilization—that marriage is a bedrock social institution that unites a man and a woman in order to make a family—as rational and well intended. But one of the kind notes came from a friend who was about to leave for Cuba to help beleaguered Christians there, persons of whom the word “courage” can be used without embarrassment. So what was going on?
It was simple: my correspondents were academics, writing from within the establishment of American higher education, where it can be very uncomfortable to speak out against the idea of same-sex marriage. Are people’s jobs on the line if they dissent? This is harder to say with certainty, and the circumstances will not be the same everywhere. The deadly combination of unchallenged liberal presumptions and casual intimidation of dissenters is probably at its worst in the most prestigious universities, which set the tone for the rest of the country, on this issue as on many others. But in all except the most resolutely religious colleges, there is no doubting that the default position of the American academy is to dismantle the institution of marriage and remake it on a new basis. The result is a good deal of self-silencing—self-exile into the “new closet” on issues involving sexuality—not just by students but by faculty, too. The path of least resistance turns out to be the path of no resistance. For institutions that claim to be homes of diverse views and free inquiry in the pursuit of truth, this creeping orthodoxy is a sign of wounded institutional integrity and failed leadership.
The rest of Franck’s excellent article addresses a concern within law schools and the legal system. But I think the reaction by his colleagues is worth noting for what it says about conservative academics, particularly orthodox Christians in secular institutions. The sad fact is that the reason they find it “courageous” to defend, as Frank notes, “the consensus view of the whole history of human civilization”, is that they are cowards.
I don’t use that term lightly and am hesitant to apply it broadly. But I believe the term is justified in this context: If you’re afraid to defend your core convictions because of what your peers might think, then you’re a moral coward.
Although I’ve never put it in quite those terms, I’ve touched on this subject before. In January I offered some “unsolicited advice to young conservatives” which included the admonition “Don’t hide who you are”:
If you are conservative, don’t be afraid to be a conservative. There is nothing inherently immoral, shameful, or unsophisticated about being culturally or politically conservative—so don’t give the impression there is hiding what you really believe. Fooling yourself into thinking there is an advantage in keeping quiet until you have job security is a frequent failing of ambitious but inwardly tepid young conservatives. For thirty years they have entered the academy with the idea that if they manage to hide their true selves until they gain tenure, they will then be able to speak boldly for the cause of conservatism. It never happens. If you are too sheepish as an adjunct to be honest about who you are, you won’t become leonine speaker of truth when you become the department chair.
While I think young non-tenured academics who refuse to say what they really believe are also cowards, I can at least understand their reasoning. Choosing not to be honest about your convictions when it could cost your career has the illusory appeal of being pragmatic. But I cannot fathom the justification of the tenured professors. Why are those who are secure in their positions so weak-kneed and chicken-hearted that they will not even speak out in defense of the most ancient of God-ordained human institutions?
Obviously, there are some exceptions to the rule for not everyone who holds their tongue is timorous. For instance, there are some singular-minded academics who make it a point of never publicly expressing an opinion on any matter outside their field. But that is a rare breed of scholastic bird. Most professors are more than eager to opine on any number of issues—from the idiocy of George W. Bush to the wisdom of cap-and-trade laws—provided that their views don’t shock the sensibilities of their liberal colleagues.
It is this group who deserves our attention and censure. Indeed, something needs to be done to stiffen the spines of these scaredy cats. As an advocate of shame-based behavioral conditioning, I propose that we ask these closeted conservatives in academia why we shouldn’t be ashamed of them when they they lack the courage to defend their own convictions. We should look them in the eye and ask them to give an account of their spinelessness.
We should be selective in our approach, so for now let’s give the non-tenured a pass. Although they are not off the hook, they have so few tenured exemplars to show them how to defend their convictions with integrity and courage that they they may simply not know how to be brave.
Who’s with me? Who agrees that it is time for submissive conservative academics to grow some spines? Who will join me in calling out the craven conservatives cowering in our colleges?
April 29th, 2011 | 9:44 am
It helps to be forearmed for this struggle with scripture. Here are some I have found helpful as I speak out, or not:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
– Prov 26:4-5
“Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.”
– Prov 29:25
“There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
…
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak”
– Eccl 3:1, 7
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
– Matt 7:6
“But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.”
– John 2:24-25
“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”
– 1 Peter 2:23-25
(all quotations from NIV 1984)
April 29th, 2011 | 9:48 am
“I’ve seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.”
- from the film ‘Gladiator’
Hold the light up high, men, so that your comrades may find you to join with you…and so you can look enemies in eye before they flee in terror.
Rome is not lost. We may yet save her.
April 29th, 2011 | 9:49 am
I see your point, Joe, but I only sort of agree with you. It is absurd that anyone would call defending traditional marriage “courageous,” but in point of fact, to stand up for traditional marriage really does require courage in some cultures. I am in the media, and I assure you that nearly every one of my colleagues believes that those who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots on the same moral plane as racists. My own views, and the fact that I am a Christian, are known in my workplace, because I have (perhaps unwisely) not kept them hidden, and in fact wrote an essay defending the traditional position on marriage. Because of this, there are people in my own workplace who will not speak to me, and I have prepared myself for the likelihood that should I leave this job, it will be more difficult for me to get a job, because I have this scarlet letter around my neck. As time goes on, and same-sex marriage becomes more normalized, I am reasonably certain that my employment prospects in mainstream journalism will wither away to nothing. I anticipate that the national gay journalists’ organization will maintain a blacklist of media figures who have come down on the wrong side of the question, and will make sure any future employer knows that there will be a price to pay for hiring such “bigots” in the future. I am a very minor figure in journalism, but there are so few of us who have gone on the record in any way as opposing gay marriage that we will not be difficult to identify, especially by those who make it their business to enforce political correctness on this issue.
You see how the Atlanta law firm folded on DOMA because of gay activists’ pressure? That’s what we’ll see with MSM institutions too. It is hard to overstate how frightened TV producers, newspaper and magazine editors, and their ilk are of certain favored constituencies — especially if they already agree with the cause.
I ask you, Joe, to consider how a professor or a reporter would be treated by his professional colleagues, including his supervisor, if he were known for advocating against interracial marriage. That is what it’s like in newsrooms! Believe me, I have had these conversations many times. People have decided that the only possible reason to oppose same-sex marriage is bigotry, and we all know how bigots are to be treated. And that is that.
I recall reading that Maggie Gallagher article in The Weekly Standard a few years back, in which she discussed the looming battles over religious liberty coming about because of same-sex marriage. Both liberal and conservative legal scholars see this coming. There was this interesting passage:
Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead–perhaps because they tended to find it “inconceivable,” as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.” That’s a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a “long way” from equating orientation with race in the law.
By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.
Joe, believe me, we who live professionally in cultures where this shift has occurred — academia and mainstream journalism, in particular — know that it takes courage simply to stand up and be counted as a supporter of what most people in this world, and in any world that ever was, believe is the right and natural order of marriage. To identify yourself not only as a traditional Christian on the marriage question, but as a normal person, is to accept that you will be seen by your peers as a bigot, with all that means for one’s social and professional standing. It is bad now, and it will only get worse.
I have sensed that I am not the only one in the newsroom who believes as I do, and I wish those who agree with me would come out of the closet, as it were. But I know why they are silent. I don’t agree with their silence, but in the media, we are facing an ongoing collapse of our industry. People are frightened for their jobs. They don’t want to give vindictive editors an excuse to fire them. It is common in American journalism to hire people on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation; it’s called “diversity.” It would be much easier for an editor who has to downsize his staff to fire a known Christian “bigot” than a gay reporter. This lesson has not been lost on any traditional Christian working in media. I am sure it has not been lost on academics, even non-tenured academics, who can see the coming collapse of the higher education bubble, and who know that their days may be numbered.
So, yes, I am all in favor of stiffening spines, but permit me to say that it is a lot easier to make that sort of call if you work at First Things magazine than if you work at a liberal arts college, a big-city newspaper, a TV network, etc. I wonder if you have given serious thought to what you are asking of your fellow social conservatives in these professions. I know I’m marked, and if I have to suffer for having taken a stand, then that’s just how it’s going to have to be. I’m fortunate enough to work for a boss who strongly disagrees with me on this issue, but who is a liberal in the best sense, and understands that people can disagree in good faith on this issue. Should my boss be promoted or take another job, I’m an open target — and if I lose this job, I am pessimistic about my ability to work in this field ever again, no matter how strong my skills as a reporter and a writer. That might be the cost I and my family are asked to pay for standing up for traditional marriage, and yes, it’s insane. But we live in crazy times, and that cost is significant. Perhaps you, like the conservatives in Gallagher’s article, don’t fully appreciate the full ramifications of this issue because you (lucky man!) aren’t part of a professional culture where this shift has already occurred.
April 29th, 2011 | 9:49 am
“Obviously, there are some exceptions to the rule for not everyone who holds their tongue is timorous. For instance, there are some singular-minded academics who make it a point of never publicly expressing an opinion on any matter outside their field. But that is a rare breed of scholastic bird.”
What we need are more birds of this sort, not Christian or conservative versions of the secular or liberal birds who rule the roost in the academy.
Scholars should argue from their core convictions in their scholarly work, and they should let their students know what the full range of points of view are on questions that arise in their fields, including Christian and conservative points of view that dissent from the
academic status quo.
They should in fact let their students know that there *is* an academic status quo and that there *is* dissent from that status quo and that such dissent is welcome and worthy of respect.
But all of this should take place *only* within the bounds of that scholar’s professional field.
A professor’s opinions on the vast majority of matters about which he or she has no more qualification to profess opinions than anyone else, he or she should keep out of the classroom and out of his or her scholarly work.
Pressuring secular-liberal academic establishmentarians to abide by these appropriate norms would do much more to help the cases of those who dissent from the academic status quo than attempting to fight what can only be a losing battling if fought on the establishment’s terms, where professors are empowered to pontificate on everything under the sun, regardless of field, so long as they do some from a secular or liberal point of view.
April 29th, 2011 | 10:01 am
There is an alternate explanation besides moral cowardice. If you don’t believe that there is anything that happens at your institution that is important enough to get worked up about, then avoidance of the issue is simply recognition of the fact that one’s colleagues and students don’t actually want to debate anything, which makes “debate” rather pointless.
April 29th, 2011 | 10:22 am
Anonymous I wonder if you have given serious thought to what you are asking of your fellow social conservatives in these professions.
That was a good question. To be honest, despite my harsh tone, I bit my tongue on saying what I really thought. I can completely understand the point you are making and am quite sympathetic to it until. . . well, until the point where I really do give it serious thought. It has always taken courage to stand for what is right. Southern Christians who believed in abolitionism had a lot to lose. So did those who opposed racial segregation. I can just imagine what they would think if they could look on our generation: “Wait a minute, we were willing to sacrifice everything and you guys are afraid to speak out against traditional marriage because it will hurt your employment prospects?”
I think it’s fair to say that all of those who are afraid to take a stand for the the relatively non-controversial issue of marriage would never have had the guts to speak out about slavery or segregation.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the “elites” within social conservatism convince themselves that they needed to aspire to positions of influence so that they could “speak truth to power.” But when they actually get the influence they realize that it comes with at 401K and great dental plan and decide that its too much to lose to stand up for what they really believe. What really worries me about this is not just what it means for issues like traditional marriage, but for more important things—like the Gospel.
If Christians are willing to cower in fear on issues like marriage for fear of being ostracized by their peers, why in the world would we think they are going to take a stand for Jesus?
April 29th, 2011 | 10:54 am
Here’s a sincere question, though: What happens when a gay mob (or just one out-of-line gay person) starts screaming in your face about their oppression, and how the stupid straights can never understand it? How can one defend the traditional definition of marriage and maintain one’s compassion? Silence on this issue isn’t always due to cowardice; sometimes it has more to do with restraint in the face of hysterical reactions. What good follows from speaking out and provoking the inevitable hysteria?
April 29th, 2011 | 10:54 am
With regard to associate and adjunct professors lacking tenure: If conservatives are to reclaim the faculty lounge, they must do so in the same manner as the liberals who now occupy it, the “Long March Through the Institutions”. Just as the tenured radicals now occupying department chairs all across the Academy his their radical viewpoints when they were seeking tenure, revealing their true nature only after receiving that sinecure, so conservative academics must hide their true beliefs until they have grasped the golden ring as well. In this way shall a combination of attrition and discretion result in a conservative majority over time. But displays of self-immolation, though they may be spectacular and momentarily edifying, gain us nothing.
2. Regarding tenured conservatives who hold their tongues: only one who has witnessed the intramural scrimmages of the faculty lounge can understand what an unpleasant place it can be, and how uncomfortable one can be made to feel by violating the various shibboleths therein. As someone once said, the reason academic disputes are so vicious is the states are so petty. And nothing is more annoying to people of principle than harping pissants.
Conservatives, as a rule, have lives that transcend their careers, and if the nagging gets too severe, they can always leave the Academy and get rich. In the meanwhile, the hold their tongues and concentrate on educating young minds in the time-honored precepts.
April 29th, 2011 | 11:06 am
I mostly agree with you, Joe, and I say that as someone who has taken a stand, and suffered for it actually (I’ve written to you privately to described that situation, which I won’t go into here). I don’t really care that my opinions make me unpopular in my workplace. If this is the stand I’m asked to make, then I’ll make it. I not only will make it, I have made it. The point I wanted to make here is that for some of us, taking this kind of stand does require courage. It’s not the kind of courage it would have taken to have stood against segregation in the Jim Crow South, but it takes a willingness to be openly hated and discriminated against in one’s workplace. You can and probably should say that Christians should be willing to accept this cross, but what I’m asking of you is to understand why it is not out of place to call it courage. I can’t think of a single other issue, not even abortion, on which taking the “wrong” stand would cost a journalist as much professionally as this one. And, as Gallagher wrote in her essay, once gay rights get written into constitutional law, as seems inevitable, there will be a legal basis for discriminating against traditional Christians. To openly affirm traditional marriage in certain workplaces will make the institution (college, newspaper) subject to “hostile workplace environment” lawsuits. For Christians to do as you ask under those circumstances will literally put their jobs in jeopardy.
In this economy, to put your job on the line to stand up for traditional marriage does require courage. That’s where we’re headed. I don’t mean to come across as someone who is patting himself on the back for being a brave little soldier — like you, I want to be able to say that I stood up for what was right when it might have done some good — but I just want to give you the perspective of someone who is inside the belly of the beast, so to speak.
April 29th, 2011 | 11:09 am
Yes, but for Christians who did stand up for abolition or … whatever else … they did it, but would we not say that it probably took “courage” on their parts? Like the journalist who commented, I’m all for spine-stiffening, but insulting the very people that we need to step up to the plate isn’t going to help things, I don’t think.
Simply because something is one’s “duty” as a Christian does not mean that there is no “courage” involved in doing it. Is there a place where courage, faith, and trust all sort of overlap? Did it take courage for Peter to step out of the boat? For him to ask Jesus to ask him to step out of the boat?
Better to say, “Yes, this does call for moral courage, particularly for those of you who work in certain sectors of society, and one must be ready to face the consequences for speaking the truth, but the courage to do so comes from the One who goes before you, the One who says, “remember that if the world hates you, it hated Me first.”‘
It seems to me that yelling at people to be more courageous rarely inspires actual courage.
April 29th, 2011 | 11:54 am
Katie, I half agree — we should concede that this requires courage, that it actually is asking something of people, and not dismiss it as something that would be no problem if people were just “man enough” or whatever.
But Jesus did not hesitate to scold His disciples for having “little faith” when they did not embrace a hard idea or step out in faith. “Yelling at people,” crassly put, doesn’t work — I know that well. But a fairly pointed exhortation that “your hard duty is X and you’re missing the boat, buddy” is sometimes called for, difficult as it is to do well.
April 29th, 2011 | 11:57 am
“… to stand up for traditional marriage really does require courage in some cultures …”
One might well ask what would happen to a Republican who criticized her or his leaders who have divorced one or more times.
It would be one thing if gay activists were insisting heterosexuals would marry of their same sex. But they’re not.
People are courageous most often about issues that affect them, their families, and their friends. Why risk the wrath of Mr Gingrich or Mr Dole when one’s political future might depend on it.
For heterosexuals to comment on same-sex marriage and link it to a man-woman institution with the words “defense.” That strikes me as rather cowardly. If a conservative were really courageous, he or she would move to outlaw sex outside of marriage. I don’t think that would be very pragmatic, but it would be morally consistent.
April 29th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
Katie Yes, but for Christians who did stand up for abolition or … whatever else … they did it, but would we not say that it probably took “courage” on their parts?
Yes we would, but only because those actions required courage. To stand up for abolition meant the possible loss of life or property. That’s not the case today. What’s the worse that is going to happen to a tenured professor who speaks out in favor of marriage? He get snubbed in the faculty lounge?
Simply because something is one’s “duty” as a Christian does not mean that there is no “courage” involved in doing it.
I agree. I don’t think I implied otherwise. But that does not mean that I think it takes “courage” in this particular situation. If we were talking about high school students standing up to their peers, then yes I might be willing to use the “c” word in reference to them. But a tenured professor? Shouldn’t we expect a bit more from them? A PhD candidate has to publicly defend their opinions in order to gain their degree. Sometimes their thesis is even controversial or unpopular. Do we say that they are “courageous” for doing what is required of them? (I sure hope we haven’t watered the word down that much.)
It seems to me that yelling at people to be more courageous rarely inspires actual courage.
It worked in the Marine Corps. ; )
No, I agree. You have a point. You can’t inspire actual courage in someone who lacks courage. But it is possible to shame people who do have actual courage and are only acting like cowards to do the right thing. That does work (at least in the Corps).
And for those who lack courage? Well, they should be ashamed of themselves. What is wrong with our culture when we shrug off cowardice as if it were the best we could expect of people?
April 29th, 2011 | 12:27 pm
Joe: What’s the worse that is going to happen to a tenured professor who speaks out in favor of marriage? He get snubbed in the faculty lounge?
I hate to be arguing against you here, Joe, because I too wish those who had less to lose would stand up, because it would make it easier for people who have a lot more to lose. That said, I know from some of my academic contacts that the pressure gay rights advocates bring to bear on anyone thought unreliable on the subject of gay marriage and gay rights in general can be substantial, and can affect one’s professional prospects. It is not merely a matter of being snubbed in the faculty lounge. As I have said, this will become far more apparent, and serious, once gay rights activists start using workplace discrimination laws to silence anyone who dissents from gay rights orthodoxy.
Bureaucrats hate controversy, and so do their insurers and lawyers. I have been warned by a former employee of my media organization who went through this in an earlier situation that I would be a fool to think they would stand behind me or anybody else, if the cost was adverse publicity, especially among their favored constituencies. It is often said, with justification, that journalists write for other journalists, not for the public. I have found that to be true in many cases, and have reason to believe a similar dynamic is at work in academia. For the Daily Bugle or Mount Sanctimony College to get the reputation for being hostile to minority groups favored by the cultural elite, among whom its publisher and editors circulate, is intolerable to many of these people. They will find a reason to get the offender out of the newsroom or the classroom.
To remind you of my point: I’m not saying that conservatives shouldn’t take a stand, but I am saying that taking these stands within certain professions could have consequences beyond what it sounds like you’ve considered.
April 29th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
Todd, plenty of Republicans criticize Republican leaders who have divorced. I’ve read many articles criticizing Newt Gingrich, for example. The issue is not that religious people would be made to “marry of their same sex.” The problem is that if the legal definition of marriage were changed to include homosexual unions, then it would become illegal bigotry to teach the traditional view of marriage publicly. Religious persecution would be inevitable under such a system.
April 29th, 2011 | 12:57 pm
I hosted Matt on my campus and wasn’t prepared for the firestorm his lecture, a revised version of which is in the current issue of FT, caused. That is, I was until then blissfully unaware of how same-sex marriage had become a “third-rail” issue. This wasn’t because I’d been silent about the issue myself, or because I studiously avoided ever revealing my own opinions about a whole range of political issues.
I’m thankful for some of my colleagues and above all for my “old-fashioned” interim Provost, who is deeply committed to academic freedom and believes that a college should be a venue in which there is a free exchange of ideas. How quaint!
As I reflect on what has changed over the years, it seems to me that the biggest difference comes from what my friend Peter Lawler calls the “creeping and creepy libertarianism” that on social and allegedly personal issues is the default position of many so-called thinking people.
I’m tempted to say that this position became especially respectable once it was prominently adopted by Supreme Court justices in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS and the Colorado Amendment I case. (But in saying that, I risk sounding like those who said that things started going downhill after ENGEL V. VITALE. Courage, I mutter to myself, courage.)
April 29th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
Before I begin, some context: I am an non-tenured academic at a public university. I hew to a very traditional Christian morality (although I would not characterize myself as an economic conservative). My PhD adviser was an outspoken Bible-believing Christian, and anti-evolution to boot. We are both in the sciences, and my adviser edits what is considered the premiere journal in our field. No one would ever confuse me with a Nobel Prize winner, but I have published several papers in international journals of high esteem.
I think the premise of your complaint is false. Neither my adviser nor I have been ashamed to state our beliefs. I, for example, display some religious images, including a cross. Students learn from my website that I am Catholic, and sometimes inquire about some aspect or another. If social issues should arise in conversation, my students and colleagues learn where I stand. For example, several of my students have learned that I am pro-life.
Of course, these are not topics that come up routinely in a classroom, which is our primary source of interaction with students. I sometimes take students to scientific meetings or conferences, but even then topics like this don’t come up.
My honest opinion is that people commenting here don’t understand what the mainstream media has done to mainstream youth culture. As for Christian youths, you underestimate the effect of peer pressure on children who have not been taught by their pastors or parents anything beyond “it’s wrong ’cause the Bible says so!” You also don’t understand how ridiculous some of the preachers sent here by fundamentalist churches, who claim to preach “true Christianity”, make our faith look to the average student.
True, most any university is dominated by left-wing politics; left-wing causes are favored at all levels of the administration. I suppose that conservatives might be discriminated against in non-scientific fields, but if it were common, then I would be surprised. That said, the occasional story I read in the news is frightening. I won’t deny that I feel intimidated, but not by anyone I actually know; it’s a general sense of increasing danger, fed by the occasional story in the news.
Generally, conservatives can speak our piece, and we are then mocked roundly, especially by the student newspapers, which always seem to be in the hands of left-wingers and/or libertarians. Christian students are generally ill-equipped to deal intellectually with these issues, and have in general never struck me as being interested in rational arguments for traditional morality (that is, something more convincing than, “the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it”). If you encourage them to look into rational arguments, they often grow angry or defiant. This is not helpful.
So if you aren’t hearing much from conservatives in academia, it’s not so much because we’re cowards as because there simply aren’t very many of us here, and we feel rather isolated. The general scorn conservative media harbors for academia doesn’t encourage too many people of conservative leanings to seek careers in academia. I have read several times in the National Review that universities are staffed with people who cannot be successful in the real world, and some comments to this essay (and others) imply the same. What do you think that does scorn to young conservatives with scholarly inclinations? It certainly doesn’t help us convince our peers that, hey, maybe we really aren’t anti-science.
April 29th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
The problem is that if the legal definition of marriage were changed to include homosexual unions, then it would become illegal bigotry to teach the traditional view of marriage publicly. Religious persecution would be inevitable under such a system.
I am just wondering if anyone believes Catholics are subject to religious persecution for teaching that divorce and remarriage, though perfectly legal, are prohibited. Or Christians who believe gambling is sinful are persecuted because a great many forms of gambling are not only legal, but sponsored by state governments (Powerball, MegaMillions).
April 29th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
I think the premise of your complaint is false. Neither my adviser nor I have been ashamed to state our beliefs. . . . If social issues should arise in conversation, my students and colleagues learn where I stand.
But you are exactly the sort of professor that this post is not condemning.
To be clear, my premise is the conservative academics shouldn’t go out of their way to hide what they believe for fear that it will make them persona non grata among their peers.
You also don’t understand how ridiculous some of the preachers sent here by fundamentalist churches, who claim to preach “true Christianity”, make our faith look to the average student.
Which is all the more reason why orthodox Christians in academia should speak up. If the ridiculous preachers are the only model the students are shown, then how will they know that isn’t what Christianity really is?
And what kind of message does it send these students when their Christian professors show by example that it’s best not to speak out about your beliefs for fear of reprisal?
April 29th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
“True, most any university is dominated by left-wing politics; left-wing causes are favored at all levels of the administration. I suppose that conservatives might be discriminated against in non-scientific fields, but if it were common, then I would be surprised.”
not THAT courageous, with all due respect, you clearly are not THAT familiar with the double standard that dissenters from secular-liberal orthodoxy face in the social sciences and the humanities.
“That said, the occasional story I read in the news is frightening. I won’t deny that I feel intimidated, but not by anyone I actually know; it’s a general sense of increasing danger, fed by the occasional story in the news.”
You are right in being frightened by the news that you read. The danger you sense is real, and increasing every day. It will become a general danger before too long, one that reaches even you in your current position of relative safety, just as it has already reached your less-fortunate colleagues in the social sciences and the humanities.
People in Joe Carter’s *very* fortunate and *very* privileged position will come out ok. But I’m afraid *most* dissenting intellectuals will have a very tough time in the years ahead and many of them are going to lose their careers, whether or not they choose to self-immolate as Joe recommends.
April 29th, 2011 | 1:43 pm
After perusing the comments above, maybe I should restate my point. In order for it to be productive to state one’s opinion, there has to be:
1. A venue that matters, in which to state it
2. The interactions in that venue have to be based on rules, rather than power.
I you haven’t got “1″, then you are just shouting your opinion to an empty universe, and if you haven’t got “2,” then all that matters is who has the biggest stick, not who has the best argument. Since those of us who are non-tenured faculty, “in the trenches” every day of the week, know full well the correct answer to #2 above, then all you are left with is the argument that there is inherent moral worth–as in “well, at least my conscience is clear”–to stating one’s opinion to an morally vacuous universe, populated largely by sneering colleagues (since they are the ones wielding the power, on the whole) and indifferent students.
In short, I have no problem with the argument that one should make the case for traditional marriage. I simply question whether the average college campus is a venue that matters, and the moral value of being the lone martyr when my four children need to eat. MLK had marchers with him. The lone voice of dissent in the modern academy will have no such companions on the road to perdition. (Re-read Eric Brown’s essay, “Alone in the Academy” from a few years ago in FT).
April 29th, 2011 | 1:45 pm
To be clear, my premise is the conservative academics shouldn’t go out of their way to hide what they believe for fear that it will make them persona non grata among their peers.
Fair enough, but you seem to have missed my point. Precisely how often do professors who hold traditional views of marriage actually fall silent? You imply strongly that most of them are. I don’t think that’s the case, and interestingly, Franck doesn’t mention any specific cases.
If it does happen frequently, then I’d support you. If not, then I think your outrage is misplaced. I’ll try to ask some of my Christian acquaintances within academia what they think. It’s possible that my field and the local culture affect the situation; someone mentioned that the most prestigious universities are possibly much, much more intolerant on this than others.
(As for my own anonymity, that’s because I comment frequently here & don’t want other readers to know who I am.)
April 29th, 2011 | 1:51 pm
not THAT courageous writes:
“You also don’t understand how ridiculous some of the preachers sent here by fundamentalist churches, who claim to preach “true Christianity”, make our faith look to the average student.”
Joe Carter responds:
“Which is all the more reason why orthodox Christians in academia should speak up. If the ridiculous preachers are the only model the students are shown, then how will they know that isn’t what Christianity really is?”
“And what kind of message does it send these students when their Christian professors show by example that it’s best not to speak out about your beliefs for fear of reprisal?”
What you fail to recognize, Joe, is the double-standard that Christian faculty faces in “secular” higher education.
It is generally considered absolutely “neutral,” “disinterested,” and “secular” both to critique and indeed to argue against Christianity on the basis of left-liberal ideology, which is generally deemed to be “non-sectarian” and therefore “non-partisan” where religion is concerned.
But one is generally *not* permitted to critique let alone to argue *against* left-liberal ideology on the basis of Christianity, which is deemed, before the conversation even begins, to be a kind of commitment on which it is not appropriate to draw in academic discourse.
You’re correct that an absence of advocacy *for* orthodox Christianity by intellectuals in the academy leaves a void that is filled by the sorts of know-nothing fudamentalists whom not THAT courages describes.
But that void is created more by the systemic norms of academic institutions, systemic norms which rule out Christian discourse right from the start, than it is created by the timorousness of Christian academics themselves, many and possibly most of whom would be more than happy to speak in more overtly Christian ways than they do, *if* doing so didn’t mean losing even the very limited and circumscribed chances they do have to bear at least *some* Christian witness in academic life.
I’ll grant that Christian academics and Christian intellectuals of all sorts should speak out collectively against the double standard that they themselves face in pursing their careers.
That ultimately seems a more effective means of fighting this fight than, say, an isolated, atomized Assistant Professor in some humanities field simply making it easier yet than it already is for left-liberal ideologues to root him or her out and drive him or her from the academy, such that the Christian witness there is even less than the very, very little that it already is.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
@ Tavener:
Exactly.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:12 pm
Once I was in our newsroom arguing about gay marriage with a colleague in management, and I said that given that, at the time, more than half the American population was against gay marriage, we ought to have more balance in our coverage of the marriage issue (our newspaper is heavily slanted to the pro-gay side).
Came the indignant reply: “I can’t believe you actually think we have an obligation to be fair to bigots.”
He was serious. As far as this man is concerned (and I know he’s not the only one), we really are in the equivalent of American under segregation, and decent people have as much obligation to treat social and religious conservatives with fairness and respect on the issue as they would to treat segregationists with fairness and respect. This must sound ridiculous to you FT readers who don’t work in these environments, but I’m telling you, it really is a third-rail issue, as Joe Knippenberg writes.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
@Tavener, for some reason, your comment reminded me of the kind of dilemma Christian leaders behind the Iron Curtain had to play in their relationship with their governments, and that the Coptic hierarchy has to deal with today, re: the Egyptian government. These bishops and others had to be very, very careful, because they were completely dependent on the goodwill of the power-holders for any freedom to observe their religion at all. What little they and their congregations had could be taken away at any time by the power-holders. It was easy for us who live in religious freedom to judge them harshly for not standing up for the faith more openly, but we may have failed to appreciate what this stood to cost them.
Please don’t misunderstand me as saying what Christian academics face today is even comparable, except as a very loose analogy, to the persecution Christian hierarchs under communism faced! Still, I see the logic here.
By the way, the Rice University scholar Elaine Howard Ecklund wrote a book last year based on her research into the religious attitudes of university-based scientists and science faculties. She published an essay about it on BQO, the online magazine I edit. In short, she discovered that among scientists, many more of them have religious beliefs than people think. What’s more, she discovered that among those scientists without belief, there is a lot more tolerance for religious believers than is commonly thought. But — and this is key — there is such a climate of fear among that profession over potential consequences of admitting to having faith that everybody agrees to be quiet about it, for fear of suffering consequences. Basically, the militant atheists among science faculties have most everybody else, religious and irreligious-but-tolerant, cowed into silence.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
@ Dreher:
“Basically, the militant atheists among science faculties have most everybody else, religious and irreligious-but-tolerant, cowed into silence.”
This was exactly what I had in mind, when I noted that it is the sneerers who hold all the cards.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
Perhaps persecution will ultimately do the Christian community some good. Perhaps this is the beginning of a purification of the Church from the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and comfortable, bourgeois milquetoast that seems to permeate much of the community.
Salvation history is the story of God choosing and siding with the rejected, the outcasts, the hated, and the “losers” in the eyes of the world. (“The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” Or if you prefer something a little more cute: “How odd of God / to choose the Jews.”)
The Beatitudes make sense only in light of this truth. The Cross makes sense only in light of this truth. God came to the world as the Crucified One. “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” I have to remind myself all the time that bearing witness to the truth means to allow myself to be martyred by the world, whatever that might look like. The martyrs were all “witnesses” to the truth.
A modern martyr, Bonhoeffer, reminds us: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” Let us all pray for the grace to remember that rejection by and hatred from the world puts us in good (the best) company. “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
April 29th, 2011 | 6:09 pm
When was the last time anyone heard a sermon that clearly stated same-sex marriage is wrong? My suspicion is that ministers preach against same-sex marriage in the church about as seldom as professors speak against it in the academy. Am I wrong?
April 29th, 2011 | 9:07 pm
[...] Carter has just called academics who don’t make their support for traditional sexual morality cowards. Although not [...]
April 29th, 2011 | 10:59 pm
Feels odd to be saying this as an ex-christian, but I don’t think it’s your call to tell someone how to carry his cross.
April 30th, 2011 | 3:09 am
First, I note that Joe did limit his cowardice charge to tenured professors. So he is letting assistant professors etc. off the hook.
Second, if opponents can credibly tag a tenured professor with a charge of discrimination he/she can get fired. Tenure would not allow one to advocate white supremacy and get away with it. In some quarters advocating traditional marriage is treated as the equivalent of advocating white supremacy.
Third, what is the strategy and what is the goal of Joe’s suggested course of action? It appears to be sounding off for the purpose of sounding off, or proving one’s bravery. Sometimes rushing into the arena where the mob is assembled is not the right thing to do. And the message always has to be tailored to the audience — Areopagos, all things to all men, etc. Joe is advocating what amounts to a gesture. If there is a strategy behind the suggestion he has not revealed it.
Fourth, there is a big difference between proclaiming the Gospel and proclaiming a position on same-sex marriage.
Finally, the post lacks Christian charity.
April 30th, 2011 | 9:55 am
It would be nice if the Catholic institutions led on this issue by adhering to the magisterium. There should be more Church control of institutions that claim the mantle of the Church.
April 30th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
Anonymous tells it like it is. I know this because about six months ago I sent a precis of an anti-same-sex marriage argument to about two dozen philosophy professors at evangelical colleges, including most of the colleges in the Christian College Consortium (including my own alma mater). I received not a single response, not even any courteous acknowledgments. Either the philosophy professors at Christian colleges are secretly in favor of same-sex marriage or they are too terrified to commit themselves (even in email messages) to standing up for traditional marriage.
April 30th, 2011 | 8:03 pm
Easy for you to say, sir.
April 30th, 2011 | 8:52 pm
Perhaps if Christian academics had had a bit of foresight and been diligent about speaking out on such things forty years ago, they could have avoided the situation their heirs now find themselves in. (The same is true of journalists, I imagine.) I agree with Anonymous In This Instance’s view of the situation. We are not in a situation such that “If we don’t speak out now, we may soon loose the right to express our beliefs”. That time has long since passed. The academy—supported by many self-professed Christians—already believes that speaking out against gay marriage is a form of hate speach. The irony, of course, for those who remained silent when one could still speak out freely on such issues, is that their silence will soon no longer protect them. When membership in the Catholic Church is already being equated with membership in the KKK, how long do you think it will be until those “silent” professors are required to disavow their beliefs—either formally or informally—on threat of losing their jobs? The gay rights movement is intent on gaining acceptance, not indifference.
April 30th, 2011 | 11:40 pm
JB, what I think so many people who don’t work inside professional bubbles like academia and journalism don’t understand is that to be against same-sex marriage is to many and I would say most of your colleagues the same as being against mixed-race marriage. That is, it’s a shocking and intolerable expression of bigotry. That doesn’t call for “understanding” and “tolerance”; it calls for expulsion. Because lots of people correctly don’t see homosexuality as analogous to race, they miss how serious the situation is for social and religious conservatives who work in environments where the culture sees no meaningful distinction between homosexuality and race in terms of discrimination — and don’t even see that it’s a point on which good people can disagree for understandable reasons.
As for myself, I think people who support same-sex marriage are wrong, and are supporting something destructive, but I understand why they support it, and I don’t hold that against them in any way. Reciprocity is not to be expected.
May 1st, 2011 | 1:09 pm
As an overseas reader, I am frankly astonished at the situation so many people have described.
France is hardly a country dominated by Throne & Altar conservatives and it has a strong Gay Rights movement. Nevertheless, in 1998, a symposium was held, of writers and teachers of private law, on the question of “The juridical notion of the couple?” – with obvious reference to same-sex couples.
158 people attended, including some of the most eminent jurists in France – M. Philippe Malaurie, Professor of L’université Panthéon-Assas, one of the leading law schools in Paris, M Alain Sériaux Professor of l’université de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne, Mme Catherine Labrusse-Riou Professor of l’Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne – The Sorbonne needs no introduction – and so on.
Not only did they unanimously reject the idea of homosexual marriage, they actually entitled their report « Sodome réclame droit de cité » [Sodom claiming citizenship] Not a title I would have favoured myself, but so it was. The report itself, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, was rational and secular in its arguments and, being written by Civilians, it was abstract and impersonal in tone – the title being the only rhetorical flourish.
Such determined support of traditional marriage, by so many leading jurists, was, perhaps, not without influence on the Court of Cassation’s rejection of SSM in 2007, ratified by the Constitutional Council (the nearest French equivalent of SCOTUS) in January of this year. I believe that it may also have influenced the 2002 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in rejecting SSM as a universal human right.
May 1st, 2011 | 4:42 pm
“When was the last time anyone heard a sermon that clearly stated same-sex marriage is wrong?”
Just a few weeks back, and periodically throughout the year, as well as in passing remarks of our beloved pastor, Fr. Joseph, today celebrating the 43rd anniversary of his ordination to the presbyterate of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
To the Archimandrite Joseph, peace, health, and length of days for many years!
May 1st, 2011 | 4:44 pm
“Tenure would not allow one to advocate white supremacy and get away with it. ”
Though, apparently, you can advocate black power or Native American irredentism or Latino supremacy and get away with it–indeed, be lauded for it. Only whites are capable of racism. I’m sure someone has written a dissertation to that effect.
May 1st, 2011 | 6:12 pm
I strongly sympathize with Anonymous, and think he has the better of the argument. He points out that when gay marriage inevitably becomes official, the next target will be Christians. No doubt! But the result of that confrontation could be a big surprise to the cognoscenti. As Anonymous pointed out, academe is a giant bubble, and when it bursts a lot of complacent people will be running for their lives. The public is a giant that may not be sleeping much longer. Let’s see how much strength academics have then in their convictions. This battle has just started. I admire Anonymous for his strength and courage, and don’t expect to see the same from more than one in a hundred. Mr Carter should be quiet until he has demonstrated his own cajones. It’s easy to send another into battle while you sip coffee in the baracks.
Michael PS’s report is astonishing. How was that possible in “secularized” France. They dynamics there must be very different from here.
May 1st, 2011 | 6:33 pm
Anonymous, I think your analogy between same-sex marriage and mixed-race marriage is illuminating and accurate, as is your perception that those outside our “professional bubbles” lack a clear understanding of the situation. I also agree that we should understand the reasoning in support of same-sex marriage, despite any objections we may have to it. And I think I do. Moreover, I think I even understand—at least in some cases—how well-meaning Christians within our professional bubbles can spend their entire careers avoiding the issue altogether. But what I don’t get is how well-meaning Christians can sit by idly—especially if they’re protected by tenure—as their fellow believers are raked over the coals for merely expressing their reservations to such an arrangement. If we Christians actually stood up for each other, as I think we should, I’m convinced the climate would not have become so inhospitable. But we don’t, and it has. What’s more, it’s going to take a long, concentrated effort to reverse the trend and repair the damage. In the meantime, I hope there’s someone, Christian or otherwise, within your professional bubble who’s willing to stand up for you. One can feel terribly lonely—and abandoned—without that kind of support.
May 1st, 2011 | 6:57 pm
For an example of how a tenured professor can get fired for alleged discrimination see the case of Prof. Connell at Widener University School of Law:
http://volokh.com/2011/03/16/disciplinary-charges-filed-against-criminal-law-professor-for-classroom-hypotheticals/
May 1st, 2011 | 7:15 pm
Michael PS,
Perhaps one of the differences between France and the United States is that in the United States, the opposition is often not just to same-sex marriage. After all, the two major contenders in the last Democratic presidential primaries (Obama and Clinton) both opposed same-sex marriage, and Obama won the nomination and the presidency with overwhelming gay support.
Although there are people who oppose same-sex marriage based purely on the believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a great deal of the opposition to same-sex marriage is opposition to homosexuality. In 18 of the 50 states, constitutions have been amended to ban not only same-sex marriage, but same-sex unions of any kind. That puts things in quite a different light for gay rights advocates in the United States than in France, where at the national level a special union for same-sex couples was created over ten years ago. The struggle in the United States is not simply to achieve same-sex marriage but often to merely keep open the possibility of having something approaching rights for gays that were achieved in France years ago.
I have no knowledge of how the average person feels in France, but I do know that in the United States, those who oppose same-sex marriage are sometimes (often?) motivated not by a purely intellectual or religious belief about the nature of marriage, but by contempt for gay people. Take, for example, a statement like this: “Make no mistake; we are in fight for the future of our nation against an organized horde of miscreants seeking to remake this nation in their image.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 4:43 am
David Nickol
I agree there are important cultural differences. After all, in France the laws against blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were repealed in 1792 and discrimination on account of one’s “mœurs” [lifestyle] or sexual orientation (or one’s political opinions, for that matter) is a crime under Art 225 of the Penal Code .
Another very important point is that France did not create “a special union for same-sex couples;” in 1999, the year after the symposium, it created a Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) for all adults and, at present, PACS between opposite-sex couples outnumber those between same-sex couples by about 10 to 1. It did so precisely on grounds of republican equality, for there was no principled reason to deny the choice to opposite-sex couples. They are most definitely not a form of “Gay Marriage.”
Not that the jurists did not have a great wrangle over PACS, as to whether they fell under the Law of Persons (civil status) or the Law of Obligations (contract), but no one but a Civilian could get really excited over that.
What it did do was to allow jurists, and the courts, who invariably take their lead from the jurists, to focus on the precise difference between PACS (and unregulated cohabitation) on the one hand and marriage on the other. The Civil Code does not define marriage, but jurists have long found a functional definition in Art 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father.” From this, it was easy enough to argue for the exclusively heterosexual nature of marriage and to stress the connection between the laws governing marriage, adoption and assisted reproduction.
May 9th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
[...] I think about the cconservative Christian academics who are afraid to stand up for what they believe, I think of David Blankenhorn. Although he is a liberal Democrat with whom I have many policy [...]
May 11th, 2011 | 8:53 pm
I share many concerns expressed here about trends. But I also think the battle is ill-expressed as opposing “gay marriage,” as the line in the sand.
We in the West have been fortunate to have Christian marriage line up pretty closely with general society’s definition of marriage over the centuries. Although there is no big reason why it should.
One of the problems facing the church is that it stopped speaking strongly against unchaste living decades ago and in many if not most cases does not require what traditionally has been known as chastity for couples getting married.
So it’s a bit of a stretch to get all moralistic over man/man and woman/woman immorality.
I can see the strength of the argument to let secular society have their civil unions, their form of “marriage,” and re-gird our loins in the church to better teach, preach and practice Christian marriage.
Blowing our powder on the gay marriage might very well be a chimera, a feint, a red herring. Imagine that every legal battle, state and federal, is won against gay marriage. Do you really think that is going to be the start of some moral re-armament to re-capture the ground of marital purity?
The deeper problem is that Christians, individually and collectively, haven’t been on the ball (so to speak) with chastity and celibacy for a long time, and there is a certain humility to not throwing moral tantrums now about the sins of others.
If gay marriage gets legalized, I don’t think it will lead to any formal, state-sponsored censorship or sanction against the church teaching that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman; anymore than the past 30 years there has been formal, state-sponsored censorship and sanction against churches teaching that fornication and adultery are sins; (not that they have been LOUDLY teaching such things, exactly.)
What percent of any Christian congregation sitting in the pews on any given Sunday are living “in sin” as we used say, either intermittently, domestically, or solo? It’s pretty high. Allowing a similar tacit “fellowship” to sexually active gays and lesbians won’t destroy the moral and spiritual fabric and structure of the church, and might aid in teaching/preaching/practicing chastity ultimately.
Let’s keep a bright line fixed in our understanding drawn between the church’s teaching on one side and society’s mores and government’s dictates on another. The latter two aren’t under any compunction to follow the former and the former doesn’t depend, really, on the latter two.
We should keep teaching/preaching/practicing tradition and truth in the church. But Jesus never said we had to get the world to conform to the church. And the fact is, it doesn’t, hasn’t, ever and we are barking up the wrong tree to think we “must” keep civil, secular society from deviating from Christian truth. It always has, always will. We can be the salt; perhaps not the main dish.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact