PDA

View Full Version : BYU Professor Fired For Op-Ed on Gay Marriage


midwinter
06-14-2006, 10:01 PM
Interesting story out here in Utah. A non-tenured (and I believe non-tenure-track) BYU philosophy professor, Jeffrey Nielsen, wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune challenging the LDS church's position on gay marriage (http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_3896635) and 4 days later was told his contract would not be renewed at the university, which has a policy that faculty may not contradict the "first presidency" of the Church (which is to say, you can't disagee with the church's stated positions).

Now, BYU was certainly within its rights to let him go, and the professor admits that and is uninterested in making a fuss about losing his job.

The result is that he made it onto one of our wonderful local public radio shows (podcast available here sometime on the 15th (http://kuer.org/2005_RSSinfo.htm)) and took part in a fascinating discussion about all of this.

A few things:

1) He is not angry with the church, nor has he left it. He repeats a number of times that he is still an active member (he teaches one of the core classes in his church) and that his ward (equivalent to Catholic parishes) is very supportive of him. And listening to him talk, it is clear that he is not bitter at all about it, but is instead interested in a conversation that he believes needs to happen.

2) One of the issues that he raises is obedience to authority within the LDS church. There is a tendency among many LDS around here to consider questioning or interrogation of authority figures as anathema; they are raised their entire lives to respect authority--some would argue (among them former BYU professor Brian Evenson [who I was lucky enough to get to know when he joined the faculty at my grad school; now he's at Brown], who left BYU in protest and then went on to write a book about child abuse among LDS families, which typically goes unreported because of this tendency toward obedience). Nielsen raises a series of questions about the relationship between questioning and faith and about obedience gone too far. When, in other words, does one have a moral imperative to speak out against one's own church? And then, in turn, after one willingly accepts the consequences of that opposition... how is one to have a conversation about the issue at all?

He closes his op-ed with this statement about the way he wishes the chuch would work:


We need to trust the membership of the church and treat them as adults, as equals. We are a church of brothers and sisters, not one of the few privileged leaders and the many subordinate followers. There might be a diversity of roles and responsibilities from prophet to Sunday School teacher, but we are all peers with one another and equally irreplaceable in God's thoughts and affections.


3) What are the difficulties that individual members of a faith find themselves in when the religious body makes political statements? Now, admittedly, I tend to see religion as politics by other means, but what are dissenting members of a faith to do when religion and politics become so clearly blurred, as they are with the issue of gay marriage? How do we draw distinctions between the two? Can we?

I highly encourage everyone to grab the podcast and give it a listen tomorrow (it's 1 hour). It's a remarkable discussion, and this show is really one of the crown jewels of Utah.

Cheers

southside grabowski
06-14-2006, 10:20 PM
Individuals in a faith always have to deal with differences between their opinion and that of the Church. The immigration issue is a big one for Catholics here in Texas. The situation is much more complicated when the Church is your employer. I don't think that there should be any penalty if you make a statement (i.e. an editorial) using your name as a private citizen. If you connect that opinion to your position at a company or a university, however, you are asking for trouble. Joe Smith can write what he wants. Joe Smith, Prof Saint Thomas University needs to watch his tongue.

BRussell
06-14-2006, 11:39 PM
That's quite depressing. I don't think there's much of an authority issue in Protestant denominations, or even in Catholicism, despite some examples. Mormons are just... all weird and Mormony.

Northgate
06-15-2006, 03:47 PM
That's unfortunate. And it's wrong. But he should've known better.

midwinter
06-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Again, the issue isn't that he was fired. He certainly knew that was a possibility/likelihood and he did it anyway because he felt it was his duty to speak out against his church's policy.

BRussell
06-15-2006, 05:37 PM
It's not an issue that he was fired? Have you been living in Utah too long midwinter? ;)

midwinter
06-15-2006, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
It's not an issue that he was fired? Have you been living in Utah too long midwinter? ;)

BYU is a private school and can do pretty much whatever it wants.

BRussell
06-15-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by midwinter
BYU is a private school and can do pretty much whatever it wants. They can legally do pretty much whatever they want, but hopefully we all set a higher standard for ourselves than simply what we are legally permitted to do. Allowing scholars to pursue ideas and publish them would seem to be a pretty basic principle of an academic institution. I guess I'm not sure I understand - if his firing isn't the issue, then what is?

Here's his response (http://toddshammer.blogspot.com/2006/06/byu-professor-fired.html) to his chair:
June 13, 2006

Daniel W. Graham, chair
Department of Philosophy
Brigham Young University

Dear Dan,

I regretfully read your letter of June 8 informing me that because of my opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune of June 4, you have decided not to rehire me to teach the philosophy courses I had already been scheduled to teach through next year. I have only the utmost respect and admiration for you and for the students, faculty, and staff in the Philosophy Department at Brigham Young University. In my experience, the students and faculty have always been engaged and lively participants in the academic pursuit of truth. Now let me address some of the issues you expressed in your letter.

Church leaders have consistently opposed same-sex attraction and gay marriage. I have never agreed with this position believing that it was based in misunderstanding and in a purely human bias of cultural place and time and not reflective of divine will. Yet I have never publicly, or in the classroom, opposed their policy. Yet when church leaders take a political stand on a moral issue, then I am not only engaged as a member of the church, but also as an American citizen. As an American citizen, I publicly expressed an honest opinion contradicting a political statement by our church leaders. I fear for the church and the university if the time comes when the members of the church, including faculty at BYU, are not allowed to disagree, either in public or private, with political positions taken by the church. If such conformity is required, then we deserve to be called neither a church nor a university.

I also strongly disagree with the implications of your statement that faithfulness and loyalty to the church and church leaders never permits expressions of disagreement, or questioning of our church leaders - especially in an academic setting. Unquestioning acquiescence and blind loyalty to leaders in positions of power over human beings have no place in any institution of higher learning that values the pursuit of truth and search for justice. And in my mind, what is philosophy but the quest for truth and justice. I believe that there is great potential at BYU that will never be realized if the faculty, in certain areas of study, are limited in their research and work by the necessity of arriving at pre-approved answers given by church leaders.

Finally, when it comes to the sustaining of church leaders, I will always argue for the privilege of church members to examine, question, and dialogue with each other and with their leaders in order to genuinely sustain and support church doctrines and teachings. I do not believe that sustaining leaders requires either silent acquiescence or unquestioning conformity, but it does require active engagement with one another and with our church leaders, regardless of our place or position within church leadership hierarchies. If sustaining our leaders is to be real and genuine - not a sham as are elections in totalitarian governments - then members must be free to examine, question and benevolently criticize. Ultimately, I strongly believe that every person possesses the privilege to speak and the obligation to listen.

Again, I have only respect and admiration for you. I have enjoyed our association, and I also wish you the best.

Sincerely,

Jeff

rufusswan
06-15-2006, 06:29 PM
The Higher Standard for the Morman church seems to be 'walk the gangplank..matey'!

midwinter
06-15-2006, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by BRussell
[B]They can legally do pretty much whatever they want, but hopefully we all set a higher standard for ourselves than simply what we are legally permitted to do. Allowing scholars to pursue ideas and publish them would seem to be a pretty basic principle of an academic institution. I guess I'm not sure I understand - if his firing isn't the issue, then what is?

What I meant by my quick response (composed mid-tile-laying) was that BYU, as a private religious school, can demand that its faculty not publicly contradict church doctrine, just as it can demand that its faculty and students all be members of the church.

The issue for me, and for Nielson, it seems, is what are we do to when religion is politics is religion? What obligations do members of a faith have to adhere to tenets that reside at teh nexus of this politics/religion mix? How our conscientious individuals to react when they disagree with a church that demands obedience?

midwinter
06-20-2006, 12:38 PM
They've done a follow up show (http://kuer.org/2005_RSSinfo.htm) about this. Interesting discussion about academic freedom, religious accommodations for students, and politics in the classroom.