I generally enjoy “The Ethicist,” the “Dear Abby” for liberal New Yorkers which appears in the Sunday NY Times Magazine. I look forward to seeing Randy Cohen dispense witty and decidedly lefty advice on sometimes outrageous scenarios. But, today’s Ethicist has me steaming mad.
The question goes like this: “I’m a history professor — my period is 1500-1800 — with an M.A. student who wants to pursue a doctorate. While she is smart and capable, she is very religious, subscribing to the ‘young earth’ theory that the world is only 6,000 years old. I am to work with her for a year and then recommend her to Ph.D. programs. Must I do so if I find her views incongruent with those of historians?”
Mr. Cohen replies: “Unless your student’s religious beliefs impair her work — and you don’t suggest they do — they are irrelevant. You should judge her on her scholarship, not her spiritual life. If she were studying the Sumerians, she might have a hard time working out how they accomplished so much so soon after the earth was formed, what with all those dinosaurs running around trampling the pottery. But this young-earth nonsense need not mar her understanding of, say, Oliver Cromwell or, indeed, much else in your period.” Read the entire response here.
There are so many things wrong about this response I hardly know where to start. For one, it suggests that intellectual knowledge is so compartmentalized that you can be a total idiot in one area but a genius in another. The idea that this woman could cling to her idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, but still be able to be a good historian is absurd. Her belief system is antithetical to historical knowledge, to the very practice of history as a discipline.
At the same time, the recommendation that the professor should be respectful of his student’s lunacy because that’s her “individual belief system,” at the expense of accepted knowledge within history (or, you know, the world of rational thinkers) is unacceptable. Of course teachers must respect their students’ beliefs but not to the extent of enabling them to remain ignorant.
As a professor who teaches in a conservative state where many of my students have out-dated notions of sexuality, gender roles, and race relations — much of which is underscored by the teachings of their churches — I often confront what to me seems to me like abject stupidity and backwardness. I strive towards a generosity of spirit towards these students and I DO NOT insult them. However, I do everything in my power to correct their misapprehensions. I work to provide opportunities for all of my students to be exposed to perspectives and opinions that challenge their own — that’s what teaching is all about. Being so respectful of difference or so cowed by diversity that we allow ignorance to stand is the opposite of good teaching — and decidely unethical.
Moreover, if the history professor were to heed these guidelines, work with the student and then pass her on to a PhD program, he would be failing her on many levels. He would have given her a false expectation that her beliefs are compatible with historical research, that she stands a chance of succeeding in academia. She needs to be told sooner rather than later that a career as a historian is not for her.
On a related note, why is “The Ethicist” called upon so often to answer questions from academics or about scenarios emerging out of higher education? If you look back over the archives, there is a strikingly high percentage of queries about academic matters. Are we such an ethically-bankrupt profession that we need The Ethicist (who, notably, has no academic credentials other than having been married to Katha Pollit) to set us straight?
After all, isn’t that what we have Ms. Mentor for?
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm
servetus
What the Ethicist said was problematic, but your answer is problematic, too. Indeed, I find your suggestion that her religious belief is antithetical to history as a discipline bordering on unacceptable–it is more or less the swing position from the stance fifty years ago that no one who did not believe in God (or the teachings of a particular denomination) should write religious history. And I can’t imagine what you mean by suggesting that your students’ beliefs about sexuality, gender roles, and race relations are outdated. I really thought historians had finally abandoned the notion of progress, but apparently not. You may not like what your students believe, but that does not make it outdated. Indeed, it comes out of a rich context of belief and cultural experience that derives precisely from their presence in our contemporary world. It is very up to date in that it is happening now and shaping their present experiences.
In that situation, it is up to the professor to comment on the student’s work under his or her supervision and speculate about whether she has the skills, preparation, and intellect to pursue an academic career. That student is going to have enough problems with those beliefs in the contemporary academy, anyway, and that will be her problem. I mean, seriously. How would you feel if someone had barred your access to the academy on the basis of his beliefs about creation?
February 3, 2008 at 10:51 pm
thefrogprincess
I’ve been reading your blog for a few weeks now and I usually agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I’m actually stunned by your take on this issue. Full disclosure: I grew up in a very religious tradition, one that believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible as well as the problematic ideas about race, sexuality, etc that you are referring to. Traumatic life events forced me to reconsider my entire belief-structure, a process I’m still going through but I have to admit that I still believe in intelligent design even if I’m willing to entertain discussions about the timetable of that design. And I’m a budding historian, still in graduate school. I don’t for one minute believe that I should not be a historian simply because I believe God created the earth.
There are certainly some problems with the student referenced in “The Ethicist.” The biggest question for me is why exactly the student’s advisor is so familiar with her religious beliefs when presumably she’s studying early modern European history. Like the Ethicist suggests, her beliefs should only be part of her scholarly picture if she were working on an early period that required some archaeological interpretations that challenged her 6,000 year timeline or if she were working on early Christianity or something similar. Since she’s not, I’m wondering why exactly her religious beliefs have become part of her discussions about her scholarly progress with her advisor.
Nevertheless, there is a dangerous double-standard that comes with claiming outright that students with certain religious beliefs are incapable of intellectual pursuit. What kinds of religious beliefs are we talking about? It seems to me that the venom towards “unsuitable” religions is really only directed to Christians. If we were to cast all people of any religious persuasion out of academia, how many people would we have left? More importantly, dismissing religious people as serious scholars implies that non-religious scholars come to their scholarship with no bias or preexisting worldview that influence their work, an idea which is dangerous in and of itself. The standard we should be measuring people by in this profession is their ability to think critically about the issues at hand, not for how they see the world at large. If a student has a set of beliefs that we don’t agree with but nevertheless they are able to do creative and rigorous work, then there’s no issue. If, however, their religious beliefs color their interpretations (which, by the way, is not a given) or if they are unable to handle and discuss even basic challenges to their beliefs, then they could plausibly be deemed as unsuitable for intellectual endeavor.
February 4, 2008 at 3:28 am
CBC
OK, some sanity please. Some fairness.
The young person referred to in the column in the NYTIMES chooses to believe, in college, as an aspirant to graduate school and the Ph.D. in history, that the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Let’s not get carried away now. She needs to shape up or ship out. She can believe whatever she wants but she is not cut out for academia with that attitude. And it is an attitude, a calculated and inculcated, political attitude of defiance against reason, against history and against modernity.
Yeah, I respect her to believe what she wants but that does not mean that she should be taken seriously as a prospective scholar and teacher. It does not mean I should hem and haw and look the other way. It is a professor’s responsibility to tell her straight out that such views are a professional and academic impediment. She has closed her mind to historical, archeological and paleontological evidence. If she can do that and get away with it, and get our approval out of some sense of “well, I respect your religion” then why bother having academic standards of any type? Why bother teaching critical thinking. Let’s not get carried away and start building soap boxes. Let’s look at the original problem, the original question: should a person who believes that the earth is 6 thousand years old be given a pass in a recommendation to graduate school. If the answer is yes, then let’s not bother with university and all just go home and use the internet instead.
Seriously people, let’s not get carried away.
Frogprincess writes: “The standard we should be measuring people by in this profession is their ability to think critically about the issues at hand, not for how they see the world at large.” And I agree. Precisely. And this young person has failed that test with flying colors. When the original post talks about her “belief system” being contrary to academics that’s quite right– any belief system that pushes the notion that the earth is 6 thousand years old is basically antithetical to reason. Such students, if unwilling to think, should go to religious school rather than expect coddling.
Seriously people, seriously. Some sanity. The earth is round and it revolves around the sun, let’s not forget that. Or maybe not, maybe because somebody sincerely, and religiously believes otherwise, we should asterisk that and say, well, maybe, only if you want to believe it and here’s my recommendation for graduate school. Hope you get in and everything will be just fine.
I realize Christians are sensitive because they feel persecuted in secular America. Just get over it. Most Americans identify as religious. 95% of politicians identify as Christians because they know to do otherwise is political suicide. In wide swathes of this country –like where I live– the vast majority of people are suburban Christians who live in soulless suburbs, driving tank-like SUV’s with no thought of conservation, defending the life of fetuses while celebrating the death penalty, defending the bombing of foreign nations in which innocents die and attacking the validity of global warming because the world is perfectly in balance and CO2 is actually healthy for trees.
I am tired of the American Taliban. I am tired of their children going to a public college and expecting accomodation and affirmation. I will affirm their right to believe anything they want with regards to their spirituality, but as intellectuals, they either shape up or ship out.
When students, armed with internet information and right-wing propaganda feel empowered to come to school and affirm the most basic of scientific and historical realities, and expect to be treated “fairly” because otherwise they will accuse the professor of being “biased” is an outrage that the above commenters should be talking about instead of criticizing Bittersweer for standing up for sanity. Because don’t be confused about this… if we go down this road, we lose everything. There can be no democracy without some reasoned, knowledgeable, secular public sphere. If anything goes, then to hell with it.
It’s a standards thing people. Not a religion thing. And yes, I’m an atheist and I have plenty of friends who are Christian. They are scientists and historians and literary critics and they are as wise as this young person is misled and confused. I hope, for her sake, she gets on track if she indeed wants to be an academic.
February 4, 2008 at 3:30 am
CBC
correction:
When students, armed with internet information and right-wing propaganda feel empowered to come to school ATTACKING (not affirming) the most basic of scientific and historical realities, and expect to be treated “fairly” because otherwise they will accuse the professor of being “biased” is an outrage that the above commenters should be talking about instead of criticizing Bittersweer for standing up for sanity.
Signed:
Insane CBC
February 4, 2008 at 5:57 am
Outraged in Illinois
Your latest entry greatly disturbs me. As a CHRISTIAN doctoral student in a highly ranked history department, I find your remarks stupid, prejudicial, and just down right sad. For a professor to assess someone’s scholarly abilities by their faith is ILLEGAL and inappropriate. My faith shapes every aspect of my life. I believe that God indeed created the world and that belief does not in anyway lessen my scholastic abilities. How is your way of thinking any different from saying that white people can never research and teach African American history because of limited perspective or that it is acceptable to determine one’s abilities on criterion not relevant to the matter at hand. I pity your students and I sincerely question the ethics and caliber of your entire department if your way of thinking is sanctioned in your own admissions process. If the student was of any faith other than Christianity, I highly believe you thoughts would be different. In the classroom, I refuse to be partial…be thankful that I would never question your abilities or the abilities of your children simply because you choose not to share my faith.
February 4, 2008 at 6:07 am
thefrogprincess
I’m still not convinced that this one issue determines whether this student is capable of graduate level historical work. Again, as I mentioned, my concern isn’t necessarily about this particular student because it seems odd to me that she and her advisor have had conversations about her religious beliefs. In the case of this particular student, it may be that she is unable to separate her religious beliefs from her scholarly work or that she is trying to force others to accept her views. That’s a different matter and one that we cannot properly judge without more information. That said, I’m concerned with the larger argument that this particular religious belief is necessarily antithetical to history AND that adherence to this or any other religious doctrine is an appropriate measure for suitability for graduate education. Students don’t and shouldn’t have to pass a religious litmus test to get into graduate school.
CBC asks “Why bother teaching critical thinking?” if we’re going to let these students continue with graduate education. But critical thinking shouldn’t mean that students have to end up with one specific answer or belief. And how many people who claim to practice critical thinking read their horoscopes seriously? There are many irrational beliefs that people hold that run counter to “reason” but nobody is asking about them or judging their capacity for intellectual work by them.
However, saying that these beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion of recommendations for graduate school does not mean that these students should be “coddled.” When appropriate, advisors and colleagues can and should challenge these students about the beliefs they hold that cloud their work. Nor is this about Christian persecution. I agree with CBC’s take on Christianity in America and I am extremely concerned by it, in part because I know exactly how poisonous and venomous it can become, particularly in these crucial political times. But Christianity in America is not the issue; the issue is whether someone’s religious beliefs are on trial when they apply to graduate school. They shouldn’t be and, if they are, I believe we’re headed down a dangerous road.
February 4, 2008 at 9:42 am
servetus
Yes, this is absolutely not about Christian belief. I am not a Christian. But I do belief in a G-d that created our universe. Thankfully no one tried to keep me out of graduate school because there are no historical sources for that. I would also characterize myself as part of the academic Left. However, the thing that continues to outrage me about the academic Left is that it is willing to stand up for the rights of anyone to believe what they want except Christians, especially conservative ones. Talk about a double standard.
February 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm
CBC
Servetus,
There’s no double standard. It’s about critical thinking and knowledge. People can believe anything they want as long as it is does not run counter to the fundamentals of historical and academic enquiry, which is the critical evaluation of evidence and participation in scholarly conversation. To throw it all out and say: I just don’t believe it so I am exempt from this protocol with no consequences is to basically factor yourself out of the intellectual pursuit as defined in public college.
That’s what this is really about, my objectionable rant and anger aside. It’s about whether we want knowledge and scientific enquiry to have primacy in our civil society and public education system or not. If not, if we want to make evolution optional, and accept creationism, then we collapse distinctions between knowledge and religion, science and faith. This country is backwards in many ways, as Bush’s stem-cell policies illustrate. The U.S. is taking a back seat to the rest of the developed world (in so many ways) in part because of the religiosity of our leaders.
I know I offend others with my anger, but that’s not the point. The point is that not all belief systems should inflect academic work without being singled out for criticism and yes, REJECTION.
Conservatives are always the ones who talk about how liberals corrupt academic standards with politics and ideology. Really? If they want to teach creationism everywhere and make all knowledge equal, be my guest. Just don’t call it “educational” or “rigorous.”
February 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Flavia
I find myself coming down somewhere in the middle here. It strikes me as distinctly problematic, as Frog Princess says, that this young woman’s advisor knows that much about her beliefs — because it suggests that the MA student is very actively and vigorously promoting her belief in a young earth. That’s worrisome because it suggests some problems with her understanding of historical evidence. I wouldn’t otherwise necessarily have a problem with her holding this belief (but then, I’m a literary scholar, so some of these issues are less relevant to my discipline), on the optimistic assumption that she’s really just focused on her particular historical period, and perhaps hasn’t had serious exposure to the archeological and other evidence for eras long before that one.
I do think people’s beliefs can change, and if she’s thoroughly and competantly trained, this is a belief she might well abandon. And as Servetus says, holding this belief will be distinctly problematic for her in ways both academic and social as she pursues a PhD. Should she make it through and get a job — both pretty big “ifs”! — she’s not going to be teaching Young Earth theory, anyway: presumably, she’ll be teaching the Renaissance or whatever. I don’t see that holding this belief, even though it’s one I object to and that makes me question some of her intelligence, would make her a bad teacher in the way that, say, I DO believe an advocate of Intelligent Design would be a bad teacher of evolutionary biology.
This is a thought-provoking post, though. Thanks for it.
February 5, 2008 at 10:35 am
servetus
If you want to see academically rigorous, you should look at the theological and analytical texts that are produced in many evangelical circles. They are anything but unrigorous. But it’s always easy to write off things you don’t understand as “not scholarly” or “not educational.” People, including the Pope, tried to do it to emerging scholastic philosophers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, so it’s nothing new. But at least the Pope read those texts before condemning them.
I agree, by the way, that someone who believes in a young earth should not teach evolutionary biology. My impression is that only people who absolutely hide their beliefs on creationism can get through such a program these days, although I did read something about a professor in Texas who refused to provide a recommendation for students who didn’t embrace evolutionary theory.
February 5, 2008 at 9:23 pm
cbc
Servetus,
I know evangelicals can do rigorous work. They have gotten A’s in some of my classes because I don’t care about religion in my classes. It’s the last thing from my mind (I realize that may not seem to be the case in light of what I’ve said here).
But let’s think about this differently. If a student comes to a program, subscribing to a theory that is not accepted by the discipline, and refuses to change his or her posture out of a sense of unwavering and unacademic personal belief, I think it would be a professor’s responsibility to have serious doubts about recommending that person for a Ph.D. program. I think it’s very legitimate, and an obligation to object.
The professor should be honest and respectful with the student, and give the student a chance to ask for a recommendation from someone else.
I disagree with people who’ve said that this issue is about “evolutionary biology.” That’s shirking the issue of whether or not pseudo-theories should get a free pass in the name of religious tolerance.
February 5, 2008 at 11:50 pm
thefrogprincess
CBC,
I can’t speak for anyone but myself here but I think the core difference between my view and your view is that, for you, belief about the formation of the earth is actively a part of historical understanding and therefore can be a test of someone’s historical acumen whereas, for me, how the earth was formed couldn’t be less related to the practice of history. To me, the choice between creation and evolution has always been a personal and irrational one, not one that underpins my scholarship in any way. That’s in part why I’m so surprised that this advisor knows the information at all since I would never share my personal beliefs on this issue in a professional setting unless I was directly asked.
bs girl, thanks for posting this, by the way. Just as it never occurred to you that anyone would disagree, I had never realized that many people view evolutionary theory to be such a foundation of the discipline of history.
February 6, 2008 at 3:53 am
Outraged in Illinois
Responding to CBC’s last post, for much of the thirties and forties, W.E.B. DuBois tirelessly worked to disprove the very commonly held ide that Reconstruction was a time of chaos and lawlessness because of unqualified black politicians. People that subscribed to DuBois’ school of thought were seen as “unscholarly” and unfit for graduate-level work. Years later, DuBois’ beliefs were vindicated. Reconstruction governments, led by former slaves, created universal education in the South and set up many social programs that still exist in some form today. Thinking about this in relation to CBC’s comments reposted below:
“But let’s think about this differently. If a student comes to a program, subscribing to a theory that is not accepted by the discipline, and refuses to change his or her posture out of a sense of unwavering and unacademic personal belief, I think it would be a professor’s responsibility to have serious doubts about recommending that person for a Ph.D. program.”
I would argue that the point of scholarship and historical scholarship more specifically is to advance and debate commonly held ideas and beliefs. Just because everyone believed Reconstruction was a period of lawlessness did not make it “truth.” I think the purpose of doctoral study is for a student to learn the discipline and then further debate within that discipline. If a Christian graduate student wants to assert her beliefs in her work, then so be it as long as she uses the same standards that others use. Who are you or I to dismiss her work because it does not match up with what we believe?
Like frogprincess, I too believe that evolutionary theory is not relevant to the discipline of history. As a history student, I can say that Judaism and Christianity are religions based on historical truths. Much of what is recorded in the Bible has been verified.
February 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm
cbc
Frog Princess,
I read your last comment with interest. In my experience, the most conservative, agenda-driven students, who come to college with a chip on their shoulder about the liberal establishment and PC professors being out to get them, are precisely the ones who are most conspicous about placing their religion front and center in confrontational ways, spoiling for a fight. We can’t know what the backstory is, unless the original author of the letter to Cohen pops up here, but I suspect this young person is no shrinking violet. Just my opinion. More below, in my response to “Outraged” in IL.
Hi Outraged,
You write; “If a Christian graduate student wants to assert her beliefs in her work, then so be it as long as she uses the same standards that others use. Who are you or I to dismiss her work because it does not match up with what we believe.” I agree with you about the standards issue. There are many things I believe about what I study and write about that I cannot articulate within academic standards and protocols, and which inform the ways I approach my scholarship. However, unlike you and Frog Princess and others, I think that the young earth issue speaks to a broader attitude and problem: do we accept the most basic tenets of science, and received scientific and rational tradition, or not? That is why, for me, this thing is not about biology per se. If we make carbon-14 dating optional and paleontology optional, then on what will the beginning of the stories that you and Frog P explore rest?
I appreciate your discussion of DuBois, and the issue of how received knowledge is continuously revised over time, that is very important indeed. You are completely right there. But I don’t consider the analogy an apt one. I could, unfairly, make analogies of other types of received knowledge that remain completely unacceptable, for more than a generation and which we may reasonably and hopefully expect will remain so for generations to come– the notion that women are biologically inferior, that people of color are inferior etc. etc.
February 6, 2008 at 8:52 pm
thefrogprincess
CBC,
Fair enough. I think you’re probably right when it comes to most students who are loudly trumpeting these beliefs. It seems to me then that the issue isn’t those students who may hold such beliefs quietly but instead those students who are making young earth theory part of the scholarly discussion. It’s also quite possible that I’m the only person who believes in creationism to some degree without attacking carbon dating and the like or who does not intend to convert people to my understanding of the origins of the world. To put that another way, I understand completely why most people believe in evolution because the scientific evidence points in that direction and I would never try to convince someone to believe in a young earth by negating the empirical evidence. Mainly because I don’t actually care enough to make it my life’s mission.
I think I would hope that professors in this situation wouldn’t automatically dismiss their students or refuse recommendations just because a student holds these beliefs as long as the student wasn’t actively and vocally arguing against the scientific evidence. Students with an agenda are a problem: agreed. I just don’t know that every single student with this particular belief has an agenda.
February 7, 2008 at 2:16 am
cbc
Frogprincess,
Agreed!
February 7, 2008 at 11:27 pm
more reasons why i may be unfit to be a historian… « lines ever more unclear
[...] the way, the title of this post is a tongue-in-cheek reference to an interesting debate over at The Bitter and the Sweet about history graduate students who may happen to believe in young [...]