Alternate title for this post: In which Chris reminds that to wait is often wise. :)

Seriously: It may be that #1 implies the following, but just to be clear, I would expand it:

1. What was the means by which these “Core Values” were drafted? This is a way of discovering whether they were lifted from the U’s charter, composed in a meeting of administrative minds, drafted by order of the faculty senate, levied by fiat of the office of president, or ______.

I also might expand on 2. to inquire into the extent of faculty autonomy to abide by, redefine, or disregard any or all Values.

by greg—Feb 13, 11:16 AM

Oops. make that

I also might expand on 2. to inquire into the extent of faculty autonomy to abide by, redefine, or disregard any or all Values.

You already included it in #1, and there’s no sense in unnecessary repetition.

by greg—Feb 13, 11:58 AM

wow. you close read and then revise your comments. you take this business seriously.

by chris—Feb 13, 12:06 PM

However, much of what I hear you asking, Chris, which I’m also stabbing at in the crossed-out part above, is

How are these CVs to be incorporated into the broader mission of the university? For some points it’s easier to see than others: e.g., the emphasis on servant-leaders translates pretty easily into a service-learning curriculum. But what about families? GR’s post on that CV addresses one major problem in that vein, but there are others: Does it mean that HU will be pumping more money into its Home Economics Family Sciences department? Is Church and Family going to become a flagship journal of the u? And every one of the points makes for difficult incorporation into the humanities and social sciences, where studies often must run contra to the values here stated.

by greg—Feb 13, 12:10 PM

i had a post brewing on this…though, i almost didn’t want to tread into these waters more than i already had.

in a way, though i contributed to the firestorm over at someone else’s blog, it really is a storm in a teakettle of their own fabrication...both the storm and the teakettle. at least this is what i think. what i mean is, that all the people who are alarmed over the content of the article really shouldn't be. and that if we are going to start critiqueing HU, we should leave the money out of it...it's really a naive attempt to appear sophisticated...it's all money...they are whores...and, it does a great injustice to B and to the Board, who affirm these beliefs not because somebody's gonna give them 10 mil, but because they, in fact, no doubt, really believe these...it's just really nice that, in this case, $ and belief are hand in glove.

it seems that B has only affirmed traditional CoC doctrine and published a creedal statement, like every other christian insitution of higher learning, affirming traditional CoC beliefs. just, it’s not as good as calvin’s calling and mission nor as open as goshen’s.

yet, it affirms both the beliefs of B and of HU and of the CoC, whether certain people agree with those beliefs or not.

it would be nice, i think, to see something along the lines of calvin and goshen…how do these play out and make HU distinctive. at the same time, it does just this. by affirming that HU is of the CoC, and of its more traditional line of thinking, it proclaims HU’s uniqueness. Here you get an education from persons who believe and who practice CoC’s Christianity.

I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem, however, with B’s affirming that there is no crisis. Simply by referencing the crisis and crafting this reaffirmation of traiditional CoC beliefs, he tacitly, and really not so tacitly, acknowledges that there is a crisis…but that HU takes its stand on the side of the traditionals and not on the side of those who would want to rethink CoC doctrine.

and, my problem with this, more than my disagreement with this or that doctrinal position, is that it is a chicken way of addressing the issue. the issue is there and calling it a non-issue all the while reaffirming the traditional stance only tries to ignore the problem, rather than address it. (not that this is the forum to do that…they could do a lectureship, or an entire issue of HUMag, but acknowlege that we are in crisis and that this is a response to that crisis.)

maybe more latter, i don’t know.

by hermit x—Feb 13, 01:41 PM

and, i probably will post here. mainly because nobody reads us except us. and at other places, things too quickly turn into ad hominems and no real discussion of ed-phil seems to happen. also, my reference to whoring and money do refer to the discussion on another blog...however, i've checked out of it.

and, despite greg’s disbelief that i would enter into christian ed-phil, since i am at a worldly, secular, dangerous, promiscuous, urban, liberal, state institution…i do think that there is a place for religious institutions of higher learning.

i must also say, thank you to greg kendall-ball for editing out my more barbed comments about harding’s new dean of spiritual life. even though i stand by them, they were rather harsh…though, nobody commented on what i’d said.

so, word to you GKB…you might be a rabble rouser, but you’re stand-up in my book.

by hermit x—Feb 13, 01:58 PM

It’s more like I think it must be a very special religious univ to truly entice you to its halls. One that, among other things, has an institutional identity that is at base dialogic. DB’s CV statement is at core defensive, a shield constructed around these values to keep them from harm. Frankly, I believe that’s just not how values are protected.

I’ve been thinking on another line today, too: in the 75th anniv book Against the Grain, DB wrote that he stood with Allan Bloom’s contention in The Closing of the American Mind that the Nietzscheanization of American education was bad. But Bloom’s whole book could be retitled, “Against values,” because, he argued, values were the direct philosophical constructs of Nietzsche and his followers. Bloom said this is bad. DB agreed with Bloom. Now DB writes about values. Does DB no longer hate values?

by greg—Feb 13, 02:54 PM

and, re:dialogism…i don’t know how you can have such an institution. i almost thought that catholic universities might be such a place…but, even without B16, it seems that there are some dogmas that just won’t get put into play…and most jesuit scholarship that i’ve read tends towards being very affirming of orthodoxy. not that there is anything wrong with that.

but, say in the case of sor juana, to ignore her heterodoxies seems to be unChristian, in that it silences an aspect of her work…that is, it does not follow the rule of charity.

back to dogmas and play…this seems precisely why you have to circle the wagons around something…call them core values, dogmas, doctrines, creeds…the institution can’t stand for those pilars to be put into play because that means that the ground gets shaky. and, only institutions whose calling isn’t to “protect and perpetuate” orthodoxy can put up with having non-believing but symphathetic or believing but heretical professors in contact with the student body…

by hermit x—Feb 13, 03:51 PM

But I don’t think it’s impossible to promote dialogue and still be relatively conservative. I mean, look at H’s sister schools: did you know Hauerwas will be at Rochester in May? And ACU has taken pretty dramatic steps in the past few years to Independents and others to begin to mend, or at least acknowledge, the common heritages of DoC and CoC, as well as to mend rifts caused by racism and segregation. It is possible, even within the arms of a definite tradition, to encourage those sorts of dialogues. Of course, it helps a lot (getting back to one of C’s points) if you let your faculty engage controversies in research.

Of course, here we are criticizing—completely against the dialogic nature of C’s post…

by greg—Feb 13, 04:14 PM

“and, only institutions whose calling isn’t to “protect and perpetuate” orthodoxy can put up with having non-believing but symphathetic or believing but heretical professors in contact with the student body”

Pardon me for jumping in halfway through the conversation, but this is where I get a little confused. The C of C isn’t actually supposed to have orthodoxy or heterodoxy, is it? I mean, we all know it does in practice, but it, in theory, is supposed to embrace the idea of a priesthood of all believers in the most extreme of ways.

I guess this is why it matters that DB is speaking for Harding and not for the Church of Christ. But I’m still not sure how the university can have an orthodoxy while the (un)denomination with which it is affiliated has none.

I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I just am trying to figure out how Harding would work in my perfect world without ceasing to be a C of C school.

by Gay Restorationist—Feb 13, 04:20 PM

j., i really appreciate your pointing out the simplistic analysis of those who wrote that the whole article was just about money. i, too, believe that dr. burks was sincere in his writing and that he is articulating what many at HU actually believe.

getting back to different kinds of christian univ’s, i work at a place where there is sometimes an uneasy tension between various departments but where there is a definite support for careful and honest inquiry. to be sure, we are warned not to try to shake kids’ faith just for the sake of doing so, but we are told explicitly not to shy away from topics just b/c we may incite phone calls from parents or from pastor so-and-so. of course, if one were a liberal demagogue she or he would get into hot water here much sooner than a conservative demagogue would…but as someone who avoids sharing personal opinions as much as possible, i feel free to say what i need to say to teach the whole of my discipline, to encourage students to examine their past experiences, and to apply what they have learned to the real “real world.” that being said, there is definitely a distinctive christian-school vibe around here. all that to affirm that careful and open inquiry doesn’t necessarily lead to sloppiness and anarchy and etc.

by chris—Feb 13, 04:37 PM

i didn’t mean to ignore what GR wrote…i had a student pop in in the middle of writing what i was writing. :)

obviously there is some type of orthodoxy/denominational vibe in most texts that include the following sentence: “we don’t presume to be the judge of anyone’s salvation, but…”

i think HU could work in my perfect world without ceasing to be a C of C school, but i don’t work there and can make only educated guesses as to how it might need to be changed to meet my standards. :)

i would guess that if i were trying to do the kind of research and teaching i think is most effective and engaging, i would fear being told that certain topics must be approached in certain ways (or not mentioned) and that they were not going to support my spending my time researching & publishing mildly controversial (by CoC standards) stuff.

but that’s guessing and that’s faculty stuff and is prob not the types of issues you were talking about.

by chris—Feb 13, 04:54 PM

GR you and your comments, even half-way through are more than welcome…as are the comments of any other lurkers, should we have them. (sine i don’t keep track with who reads us, etc…i’m always surprise—genuinely so—to find other’s comments).

and, i should also say, that i thought your critique to be of a different nature than those of a few others…largely because you interrogated the content of one those core values rather than stating them to be incompatible with an institution of higher learning. (and i’ve got my reasons for thinking that to be wrong headed…but i’ve got to go finish getting dinner ready before the real breadwinner gets home to see her baby who turns a year this saturday!!! i promise pics soon to come)

but, despite rhetoric the CoC has doctrine, creed, and dogma. it’s not happenstance nor the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit that church in Texas and church in California, church in Tennessee and church in New York are the same in liturgy and beliefs. we can deny our creedal statements all we want…but even that denial forms part of our creed.

so, you’re right to point out that there is at heart a contradiction…but that’s only because good CoCers deny the truth of their own situation.

and, i stand corrected, there are such places…and, in way it seems that calvin, wheaton (though i couldn’t stomach their world view talk), and an undisclosed location a few hundred miles north of the mississippi delta are such places

but, academic freedom in these institutions always seems more precarious. largely because all it takes is the ascention of a more conservative, or at least, hardline, anti-intellectual administration to come in for the winds of change to blow chilly. but, maybe there is also some sort of untangible quality to this work precisely because of the tenuous relationship between orthodoxy and inquiry.

i guess, i had more to say on this topic than i at first admitted to myself

by hermit x—Feb 13, 05:10 PM

chris posted while i was writing… :)

i’m a little long winded. :)

by hermit x—Feb 13, 05:12 PM

I, too, am cooking, but I’ll offer, briefly, a general question: C, do you think the relative freedom you enjoy goes hand in hand with your institution’s support of and for research? Which is another way of saying, does a Christian school’s relation to its faculty forecast that school’s core values?

I’d like to ponder more about the collusion between H and the CoC, and what makes H a CoC institution (and vice versa), but I must be off for a few hours.

by greg—Feb 13, 05:33 PM

i think that requiring research suggests an emphasis on employing professors who contribute to their fields in a serious way. this requirement is made more palatable to profs when accompanied by freedom of inquiry, but i suspect that one does not necessarily call for the other.

one fascinating thing i have learned is that requiring profs to do research makes it possible for them to acquire jobs at more prestigious institutions. (n.b.: i, personally, am not currently looking.) by not requiring research, HU has created a group of faculty who, unless they expend a lot of initiative to publish, are in general limited to lateral and downward inter-institutional moves. i don’t think HU’s intent is to limit mobility, but it is an interesting by-product of how the school relates to its faculty. (it should go w/o saying, but that is not intended as a slam on the HU faculty in any way…they have many engaging profs who do a good job.)

along similar lines, i wonder how easy it is for them to find new faculty w/ excellent academic credentials? speaking only from my position as an outsider but alumnus, i think it may not be easy to find active CofC-ers who would be happy to work there and who are excellent in their fields. of the seven or ten who graduated HU around the time i did and earned advanced/terminal degrees, none of them would be acceptable or interested…present company included.

by chris—Feb 13, 07:21 PM

happy early birthday to evan, and hope it’s happy for j & t as well…i cried the whole morning of r’s first birthday

by mary—Feb 13, 07:49 PM

H does its share of fostering prospective faculty by way of its pre-terminal degree hiring/sending said hires to school but keeping them on staff, but there’s no way that could supply an entire senate. (To put it crassly: Florida State just isn’t equipped to handle that many degrees so quickly.)

Professorial mobility is an intriguing angle that I had not considered before, but while interesting, I’d like to turn to what C said first: “i think that requiring research suggests an emphasis on employing professors who contribute to their fields in a serious way.” There’s a dynamism, a connection to the debates in the academy—and, in the case of Christian schools, to “the church”—which I think is necessary to the good health of a school. Or perhaps I should rephrase: which I think invites an institution’s dialogic relation to the world. (Of particular import in this is the College of Bible and Religion, which is one of the most insular among all H’s sister schools, and which is probably the only College that these Core Values is about.) That, I think, is why the whole CV thing seems beside the point—a retreat from debate, rather than an invitation to it.

by greg—Feb 13, 10:14 PM

So I dug into my box of Harding magazines to find the article DB says he wrote about five years ago; I thought it might shed some light on what it is, in fact, we’re discussing. It’s in the Winter 2000 issue, and it has essentially the same lede as the “Core Values” essay (I wonder if this mysterious alum ever existed, or if he is just a rhetorical construct?). minus the stuff that everyone’s already read, here’s David Burks:

When asked my goals for the year 2000 and beyond, I could spend time talking about our building plans or our endowment goals. [he did that in the next issue -g] But it sems to me that Harding’s spiritual goals are the only ones that will survive in the future….

Therefore, my goals for the future are the same as those that have sustained Harding since 1924. The most significant impact we can have on today’s students—one they will remember when they return to campus in the next 30 years—is in the spiritual arena. The list of spiritual goals that follows offers nothing new or trendy; rather it offers an eternal point of focus that will integrate the lives of students in 2000 and beyond.

Here’s his list then. The explanations are different, but most bullet points are exactly the same. His point in bold; my brief summary of his 2000 explanations in normal type.

• The sovereignty of God. World changes, God doesn’t. God wants us to look at Him.
• Jesus Christ at the heart of our curriculum. Faith in Jesus = distinctive in higher education. Quotes Paul/Ezell Bible building, “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
• A belief in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God. Faith in the Word yields communion with God. Lots of students read the Bible.
• Christ’s church is distinctive. We are the church of Ephesians 4:4; we are the bride of Christ, and the bride only sings a capella, has autonomous local congregations, observes the Lord’s supper weekly, and (I had to piece the sentence together for this) “to truthfully proclaim… the role of men and women in and out of the worship assembly.”
• Baptism is essential. Some people like to dis baptism, but I hope Harding never does; we want students to believe in it.
• Servant-leaders will change the world. ditto.
• Families must be nurtured. I’ll quote this one entire, because of what he has added to it since: “The traditional family is under fire from every side, so we must tirelessly protect and defend it. To support the foundational institution of society, we return to foundational values: Christ as the king of the home, the father as the head, and the Bible as a guide for family life.”
• “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.” I want H to love campaigns and evangelism.

To conclude:

There are no great surprises to this incomplete list, only great challenges presented by our culture, our society and sometimes our churches. Christians are truth-seekers, and God gives us the courage to teach even in the light of opposition. My goals and dreams for Harding in the future cannot simply be presented in a report of numbers and building plans, but must be the heart of what has sustained us thus far—our desire to follow God and humbly seek his guidance.

I’ll say three things: 1) The man gets points for being consistent. 2) these are much more innocuous when they are "spiritual goals" than when they are "core beliefs" 3) why didn't anybody bother to correct my calling these things “core values,” when all along they were always beliefs? The names matter, people! And I'm not always that observant!

by greg—Feb 13, 10:55 PM

because the v and the b are pronounced the same in spanish?

and, they only matter because you went all Nietzsche on his a**. :P

i’ll post a longer thing, after i’ve thought about this on my ride to school…should the cold not prevent me from higher cogitations.

by hermit x—Feb 14, 06:56 AM

The 2000 goals answer at least one of Chris’s questions and suggests answers to others. Clearly, it is the bullet points and not the explanations that matter. Although the explanations are similar, in the 2000 article, the explanations are pastoral in tone, offered as if by a minister on the pulpit without the benefit of a seeming real-world context. Granted, this may be due to the expanded nature of the 2006 article, yet DB seems more willing to opine on the questions that face “us.” On the “Church is distinctive” point, for example, in 2000 the exp is exclusively Pauline metaphor (bride of Christ, plus 3 ticks from CoC doctrine. In 2006, the appeal is less to Bride of Christ and more to “identity crisis” and a restoration/primitive appeal, plus 3 ticks from CoC doctrine.

The 2000 piece also suggests something more about the composition of this list. In 2000, B suggested that the list comes from the university’s charter—if not formally, then implicitly. It gives the list a deeper history, one which might should be investigated further. (e.g. Did DB write this same article in 1995 and 1990? And how long ago did that alum celebrate his 30th reunion? What, exactly, does recently mean?)

by greg—Feb 14, 07:51 AM

well, the family thing is also in the mission statement

so, i have to take back what i said. HU does have a mission statement.

yet, i get the impression that you need the core beliefs to understand the mission statement…the core beliefs let you know this is what a christian is.

by hermit x—Feb 14, 08:43 AM

So, too, the service/mission points (which have similar thrust) are implied in the mission statement. Those 3 are more easily associated with curriculum development than the other, doctrinal statements.

by greg—Feb 14, 08:54 AM

I think now I would add another question:

Why did you change these points from “goals” to “core beliefs”?

I ask the question with followups in mind. A Google search for core beliefs shows that the identification of “core beliefs” is pretty popular among the managerial set. Institutions from nonprofits to school systems to universities to businesses, spurred by leadership gurus, are using lists like this to direct the language of their institutions. In my brief research I’ve seen CBs referred to as ways to create a shorthand which puts everyone on the same page. My followups, then, are along these line (and they follow also some of C’s original questions): Why do “core beliefs” say more than “goals”? Who are the real intended speakers for this lingua-franca?

Depending on what DB would say in response, I might ask a final, more pointed follow-up about why the change represents a necessary shift rather than managerial fad.

by greg—Feb 14, 09:57 AM

C is very wise to point out that by not encouraging its professors to do substantive research, H indirectly creates a scholarly barefoot and pregnant faculty that can’t move on if/when they become frustrated with the institution’s leadership. I think that’s why many of H’s alums who have earned terminal degrees aren’t interested in going back- how can one, when they’re in their late 20’s, know they want to park in one place for the rest of their lives, devil-may-care what kind of crazy things their administration may do in the future?

Hypothetically speaking, other quasi COC-related universities with stronger research bents might occasionally be interested in hiring away some of H’s faculty, but because they have no record of research, these profs would have to be hired as an Assistant I (first year on the tenure track; lowest salary range), a move that would not be attractive to said hypothetical H faculty members, some of whom may have earned the rank of full professor there. This is all hypothetical, of course.

by JAW—Feb 14, 10:14 AM

your hypothetical point is especially well taken when considering the hypothetical cost-of-living increases. :)

JAW (and J and G), why do you think HU doesn’t ask for research productivity? i am not sure, but i might guess they would say it is b/c of high teaching loads (although schools like mine require 4/4 and research).

by chris—Feb 14, 10:50 AM

Chris,

I’m really not sure. My first response would be the teaching load response as well, but you’ve pointed out that many schools with 4-4’s ask for research – we have friends at state schools in GA and MA who also have a 4-4 w/research expectations. Additionally, some of “our” schools with 4-4 loads (ACU, Rochester spring to mind) are beginning to expect more on the research front.

I think there (perhaps) could be a correlation between the number of PhD’s (not EdDs, btw) from research universities on the faculty of any school and that school’s scholastic environment. If one was socialized into academia in a research university, one will only assume that research is par for the course and will have friendly peer-pressure from grad school friends to keep up that work. Let’s not forget that in H’s history it did have reputable scholars (Muncy, Bales, Sears), but they all came from pretty good research universities. When a school begins relying on MA and EdD students from regional non-research universities, they don’t produce the critical mass to create an environment where research is expected.

H doesn’t have tenure, does it? That can weed out potential faculty who are looking for a more research-oriented environment.

There’s also the anti-intellectual bent of our faith tradition’s history.

There’s also the continual shift of the COC’s into the willy-nilly evangelical abyss.

And then there’s the barefoot and pregnant scenario, and though I seriously doubt that’s a major reason for a lack of research support, it can’t hurt that the faculty won’t challenge you (if you’re the admin.) because they know their mobility is limited.

I dunno.

by JAW—Feb 14, 11:08 AM

Oh yeah – I can’t believe I left out one other possibility. Shame on me.

If a university wants to encourage its faculty to do research, it must have a solid (or access to a strong) library. ACRL’s standard for college/university library expenditures is between 4% (low end) to 6% (recommended level) of the overall university budget. I do not know what H spends on its library, but I’m deeply suspicious that it isn’t in this range. We all know, of course, that while filling the library with thousands of new volumes would/could help, more immediate and important measures of service could be implemented on the electronic databases/journals front. Granted, H finds itself in a state that doesn’t have a very good library cooperative (a la OhioLink or Inspire/Indiana or SCELC-California), nor is there a good research library nearby (I don’t consider UALR’s a good research library).

In full disclosure, my place of employment isn’t spending 6% on its library, though we are on a glide path to hit that target by 2011. And while I’d describe our library’s collections as solid (at best), we have a nifty agreement with UCLA, a 30-minute drive away.

Sorry to have forgotten the library angle. My portfolio should be docked.

by JAW—Feb 14, 11:46 AM

The conversation, thanks to JAW, has moved into very interesting directions…which I will get to, hopefully.

I know that I, for some reason, was fortunate enough to be able to chose between various 4/4 xian institutions, a 4/4 state institution and a 3/2, 4th tier research institution. I chose the latter…largely because this would not only keep me current but also give me a modicum of professional mobility that other institutions wouldn’t because of the teaching loads.

And, though it might seem trite, being at a place that asks me to do research, though it means that I stay up late nights reading and writing, actually is helping me be a better teacher…or a more informed teacher, at least. But, research comes at a price. I get a “cushy” 2/3 load, which forced labor compared to the 1/1 or 1/0 of tip-top institutions, only because we have a host of underpaid instructors, visiting instructors, lecturers, visiting lecturers, and MA grad students.

Still, there are other places, like the state insitution and 2 of the three religious institutions where I could’ve gone that do require research, at least in name.

And, to echo what C. said…I think that there a lot of GREAT profs at H…

by hermit x—Feb 14, 12:44 PM

JA hits more possibilities re: “Why no research?” than I would have managed, so I’ll just say in reply, “What he said,” and claim that there’s a little bit of all that which informs H’s philosophy of faculty. What I don’t follow, though, and what I would like to understand, is which came first? Is no-research evidence of the “Core Beliefs,” or vice versa? (I return to this because I don’t want GR’s question to be lost in musings just about faculty.)

That reputable productive reputable scholars have been and in a few cases still are on faculty there suggests that some H administrations believed that research was congruent with Christian education, extending even to the College of B & R. Not so now. I see little else but entrenchment on all fronts: libraries, hires, “Core Beliefs”—all in what appears an effort to create a school which runs ever so fast, but only so deep. Is it a conscious attempt to make a Psalm 1 (“like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season…”) university? Perhaps, but I doubt there ever was such poetic thought behind it.

by greg—Feb 14, 12:55 PM

Yes, I’d be very upset if someone misinterpreted my comments: there are wonderful profs at H. My wife and I are especially fond of the VP for Academic Affairs; he preaches a good wedding. :)

Like you, Jeremy, my wife had a choice between a 4/4 teaching load from a closer-linked school to the COC’s and her present set-up (a 3/2 with moderate research expectations). While the 4/4 place was closer to our families, the 3/2 place will allow/provide mobility if that’s ever needed.

by JAW—Feb 14, 12:57 PM

My first year at H I was in Grad and lived on a wing with a bunch of Delta Chi Bible Majors. They were all juniors and seniors. And lore had it, which I have no reason to doubt, especially after meeting and getting to know the prof in question (who has since left…and his migranes are miraculously less severe—this is no joke)...anyway, the R.A. (bible major of bible majors) told me of how much he had wanted to take the apologetics class offered by said prof but that a few years before a kid had taken it…become an atheist and blamed this class. Apparently, it was never offered again.

Should this story be true, and I’ve various reasons to not doubt it, it is very telling about that institution’s commitment to the search for truth and to teaching challenging classes.

It seems that true inquiry can’t go on in a place (and not that it doesn’t go in certain professor’s classes, etc.) whose approach to truth is shutting off and closing down the bumpier roads to truth. How do we handle threatening avenues of inquiry, we cancel the class.

I won’t say anything about research because there is only a little bit of research being done.

Maybe rather than saying we will protect your children from disbelief or from the evolution of their theology into something that isn’t Stamps-Baxter CoCness…H should say we will inquire in an environment with other CoC Christians. We won’t because we can’t vouch for where they will end up…but they will have before them the example of professors who have walked down that path and are still CoCers. If H could say this and put this into practice, it move towards being a place that isn’t reactionary but proactive.

I guess, all I’ve done is reiterate G’s point about dialogism.

by hermit x—Feb 14, 12:58 PM

All you guys’ qualifications about great profs is why, particularly in the case of H, I make a happy distinction between teachers and scholars, and don’t feel the slightest bit guilty about it. :)

by greg—Feb 14, 01:06 PM

Good point, Greg. I’ve often wondered if it would be possible for a Christian university to have a dual track for tenure: perhaps allow a 4/4 load for teaching-based tenure and a 2/2 load for research-based tenure. Each prof would pick one track and be judged/evaluated accordingly.

I think this approach could/would help a Christian university maintain its individual-centered teaching approach while improving its standing/reputation through its more research-oriented faculty.

Maybe it’s a ridiculous idea. But I would like to see someone try it.

by JAW—Feb 14, 01:16 PM

At least in name, BIOLA does this.

My uncle was there for a few years before going to ACU. He wanted to be in the penthouse by the sea, but they had left the CoC at the time and the great chilli pepper apparently had filled their quota of non-CoCers. Or, this is what he told me.

Still, at BIOLA you can chose between the service, the research and the teaching track. However, while he was there…he felt definite pressure to be as busy with teaching as with scholarship and service…that their teaching load compensation wasn’t really enough to provide time and space for research, especially when service expectations weren’t lifted.

Still, this kind of division might work…especially since not all people necessarily want to or are capable of doing all three well.

by hermit x—Feb 14, 01:31 PM

oh, one last thing…did you say your spouse does spanish stuff? when, where, what? asks the latin american colonialist…who avidly reads 16th and 17th century spanish lit, as well.

by hermit x—Feb 14, 01:34 PM

as j. said (who posted while i was writing this), i think some schools do have the kind of scheme your discussing, but i’m not sure if many christian schools do. i have heard from a job candidate at baylor that in her field she would get a 2/2 instead of a 3/2 if she publishes two articles (or a book, i guess) a year.

i have seen a 3/3 for teaching faculty vs. 2/1 for research faculty in place at a big state school, and it definitely led to a two-class system: the research upperclass and the teaching underclass (in terms of power and salary).

that’s not to say it is a bad idea, but it would have to be super-carefully regulated to make sure that neither the researchers nor the teachers were trying to get away with slacking.

by chris—Feb 14, 01:39 PM

Change of subject:

What’s the philosophy behind printing the same article in the same magazine for the same readers five years apart?

by greg—Feb 14, 04:55 PM

maybe it’s hard to come up with a presidential column for every issue? seriously.

by chris—Feb 14, 05:03 PM

No way. A trained monkey could come up with 4 spots a year—especially if said trained monkey had other trained monkeys working as administrative assistants! ;)

by greg—Feb 14, 07:47 PM

It would be wrong not to illustrate my last comment:

by greg—Feb 14, 08:21 PM

What would a CoC school look like if it had an actual graduate program (beyond MA’s in Bible, Phids in Education, and JD’s)? What would a CoC school that had a real Graduate School look like?

by hermit x—Feb 14, 10:32 PM

I have not been commenting on this fascinating discussion because I am a) not in academe anymore (and never really was—the MFA is a “terminal degree” in that it often leads nowhere—although I knew that when I started), b) I was raised as a worldly and decadent Episcopalian, and c) . . . drat, there was a c), but it’s gone. . . but anyway, it is all quite riveting. And it’s good to see another librarian in the comments!

by Laura—Feb 16, 07:42 PM

L, you sell yourself short. Even if you couldn’t claim legacy membership in academia, I think your 2 degrees, even if one is an MFA, are enough to suffice! I digress, though: it’s conversations like this that remind me how very different universities are from one campus to the next….

by greg—Feb 16, 08:17 PM

Thanks!

I don’t mean that I have no academic background—I just mean I’m not in the trenches. I’m not teaching or researching or serving on committees or worrying about tenure or lateral vs. vertical moves, etc., etc. That sort of thing.

I suspect, though, that a certain amount of my anxiety comes from having parents with seven degrees between them. . . granted, five of those are my mom’s, and even she admits she went a little overboard.

by Laura—Feb 16, 10:09 PM

Anxiety, schmanxiety. I’m in no kind of trench, either, or rather, my trench is of my own digging and sometimes looks suspiciously gravelike, yet here I yammer on and post pictures of chimps sitting at typewriters.

by greg—Feb 16, 10:38 PM