On January 2 I wrote a short piece about how Jack Hawkins, the chancellor (i.e., president) of Troy University, a public university in Alabama, sent a 90-second video (below) to all the students and faculty of his university. As the Telegraph reported, the email was meant to be
. . . a “reminder” of what [Hawkins] called the “blessings” of American democracy – and its vulnerability to secularisation.
Here’s the short video circulated by Hawkins. It was originally put up on YouTube by Brigham Young University’s School of Law, and features features Clayton Christianson, a professor at Harvard’s School of Business:
Hawkins’s promulgation of that video is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which forbids public officials (Hawkins is one) from proselytizing for any religion—or for religion as a whole. The video clearly promotes religion and warns of the dangers to American democracy of “secularization.”
Reader Jerry (not me) wrote a letter of complaint to Troy University and received a copy of following email, written by Hawkins, from Andy Ellis, Troy’s director of University relations. Jerry forwarded Hawkins’s email to me, and I’ve put it below, bolding the weasel words:
Dear Trojans:
As we begin 2015, I welcome you back to campus and I look forward to another year of teaching, scholarship and service. In its evolution as Alabama’s international university, Troy University has become Alabama’s most diverse institution. Students come to us from more than 70 countries, represent all segments of the global community, speak more than 80 languages and they are people of many faiths. We honor their spiritual commitments and we emphasize the importance of tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and beliefs.
The recent New Year’s message I shared with the university community was not intended to offend. It was intended to encourage recipients to embrace the year ahead and to stimulate thought and discussion as to “why” America appears to be challenged at home and abroad.
Of course it wasn’t intended to offend! It was intended to tout religion!
It is regretful my message was found offensive by some due to their assumption it was based upon my intent to promote religion. Nowhere in my personal message did I mention religion. It is also ironic the genesis of the video message narrated by Harvard professor Clay Christensen was an observation made by a visiting scholar from China—a Marxist economist spending time at Harvard as a Fulbright scholar.
There we have the musteline phrases. Hawkins didn’t say he erred, or shouldn’t have sent out the video, but simply expressed “regret” that some found his actions distasteful. That’s the classic notapology. And Hawkins’s claim that the promotion of religion involved an observation from a Marxist economist does not in the least de-fang that video as a vehicle for faith.
The email goes on:
The Marxist economist concluded that American democracy has worked because the historic role of religion as a cornerstone of our society leads most Americans to “choose to obey the law.” Dr. Christensen expressed concern that as the influence of religion wanes in America, our nation will be left without institutions to teach this valuable lesson.
American higher education values academic freedom and free speech. It also holds dear its role as offering a marketplace of ideas for this country and the world. Those ideas should span a broad spectrum—even if segments of our society are offended by the views and observations of those with whom they disagree. In the end it is truth we seek as a university community.
As Chancellor of Troy University I have the obligation to share information with students, faculty, staff and alumni which I deem helpful in building a stronger community. In sharing the New Year’s message for 2015, information was presented which I believe will be helpful to all of us. Thus, regardless of your religion or political persuasion, I encourage all Trojans to work together as we address problems of concern to our state, nation and world. Happy New Year!
Unfortunately, Chancellor Hawkins seems to misunderstand the notions of academic freedom and free speech. Free speech does not give public officials the right to force religion, religious tenets, or atheism on their employees and students. The courts have already decided that in the case of Bishop v. Aronov (ironically, at the University of Alabama), where a professor was told he couldn’t use his class in exercise physiology to promote his religious views.
Hawkins has no obligation to share the promotion of religion with his students, regardless of whether he thinks it helps build a “stronger community.” In fact, he has an obligation not to. The American Atheists have demanded an apology and retraction from Hawkins, but it looks as if they aren’t going to get it. I have no idea whether a lawsuit is in the works.
It would be salutary if all the officials of Alabama and Georgia’s public universities were required to take a workshop on the First Amendment.
1st Amendment workshop, certainly; and I recommend one for writing quality at the same time. For this university president cannot write clear and effective English prose.
sub
My guess is that Hawkins is not just passing the buck here (“it was the guy from China!”) but he’s also throwing out one of the most popular deepities concerning “religion.” Sometimes that word means “religion” as we all recognize and understand it (belief in the supernatural and aligning our lives according to this presumed knowledge.)
Other times, “religion” means “man’s different ways of interpreting God.” In other words, the existence of God is a given, religion is a particular sect or viewpoint. Thus you get this sort of ingenuous but strangely sincere protest: “Nowhere in my personal message did I mention religion.”
Meaning “I didn’t mention Christianity. I wasn’t trying to convert anyone.”
That’s supposed to be enough. To people steeped in religious privilege, all cultures believe in God. All people, all students, believe in God. Look, this is common ground. We need to fight encroaching secularism … which is apparently coming from no one in the “we” arena.
Yeah – look, the godless Chinese guy said religion is good. I was just repeating what that guy said.
Probably. But more like “if I promote the value of religion in general and don’t mention the specific one I believe in, then I’m neither promoting nor mentioning religion.”
There’s a lot of sliding around going on in that.
Do we even know if that anecdote true? Or is it just another urban legend passed on by a Harvard professor?
“The recent New Year’s message I shared with the university community was not intended to offend.”
That’s like saying “The B.S. I fed you was not intended to make you vomit.”
Or, “I realize that I was driving 100 mph through a school zone and passed an ambulance by driving on the sidewalk, but I didn’t intend to hurt anyone”
“American democracy has worked because the historic role of religion as a cornerstone of our society leads most Americans to “choose to obey the law.” Dr. Christensen expressed concern that as the influence of religion wanes in America, our nation will be left without institutions to teach this valuable lesson.”
Is this a defensible point? I seem to recall rates of incarceration in the USA is quite high compared to the godless (relatively speaking) Europeans. Higher rates of incarceration are seen especially in the south where religosity is more pronounced. Lots of other factors are at play of course hence my initial question.
Apparently the gentleman from China never considered that people are more likely to “choose to obey the law” if they think those laws are fair and something they chose in the first place. Just the way people who “choose to obey God” do so only if they believe God exists, think God is fair, and therefore choose to follow God.
That’s assuming, of course, that you don’t think religion is effective only because it ain’t wrong if you don’t get caught.
The word religion was not used and the fact that the guy in the video is a Mormon was not a problem either. Just another guy at Harvard
Interesting how the “Marxist Economist”, who is obviously deeply deluded when it comes to grasping economics, has it all figured out in terms of why American democracy has succeeded thus far and must of course in this assessment be correct. Nice cognitive dissonance.
> The Marxist economist concluded that American democracy has worked because the historic role of religion as a cornerstone of our society leads most Americans to “choose to obey the law.”
Which the Orthodox Church in Russia and Confucianism in China didn’t teach? Does not sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer, as Marxists go – assuming the good chancellor has not misrepresented him.
Assuming this unnamed “Marxist economist” exists, you mean.
Lying for Jeebus isn’t the bad kind if lying, donchaknow?
“It is to be regretted” that he really needs someone to edit his writing for style as well as content. Of course, I’ve noticed that, when trying to say nothing, good grammar tends to get in the way.
“Supernatural Extortion and Representative Democracy”
Troy University has set new standards for future dissertations.
I am starting to think the genuine apology, in which a person unequivocally acknowledges being wrong, exists only in the same sense as Platonic forms exist.
Its a classic notpology and since the original letter went out to students, yeah it’s a first amendment issue.
But a question about the video: I can’t watch it where I am now, but the fact that BYU put it out immediately made me suspect that it’s about something he said off-campus (at BYU?). Government officials are allowed to promote religion off the job, could tht be what he was doing? And just to reiterate, I can’t watch the video so I’m not claiming he was giving a private speech, I’m asking whether he was because I can’t see it for myself.
As I understand it the problem isn’t that he made the video or sent it to people: the problem is that he sent it to university faculty and students as part of his role as administrator.
Otherwise he’s no more at fault than Jerry is when giving interviews, speeches, or writing on the website … assuming that we ignore the actual content.
So once again the not-apology is for those who may have been offended. Is it really personal offense that is being expressed? It’s an interesting an common dodge, and always strikes me as a covert slam against people for being big crybabies about tiny matters.
Part of the First Amendment Workshop should also be that an apology is not what is called for – simply an acknowledgment of the transgression and some kind of plan – if not a promise – for avoiding the transgression in the future.
By the way, I’ve come to think that’s what’s called for in human affairs generally: when one of my kids does something that upsets another, all I want is for the hurt party to explain why they are hurt and for the other kid to validate the hurt and acknowledge they would feel the same way. Empathy and care for one another is what is needed, and just saying one is sorry falls short of developing those skills.
This part suddenly struck me as weird. Without churches and temples there will be no institutions left to teach … basic moral philosophy. No places which can educate children. No places where adults may learn from trained experts. None. Nada. Zip.
Has this university administrator forgotten a possible role for schools?
Ah, wait. I get it.
The “valuable lesson” is not a concern for obeying the law, knowing right from wrong, or the standards and meaning of democracy.
The “valuable lesson” is that ‘democracy won’t work without religion.’ Without religious administrators and teachers, they won’t be slipping that in to the lesson plan.
Exactly.
And the notapology is classic Blame The Victim. He’s not sorry for doing something illegal – indeed he hasn’t even acknowledged he was wrong – he’s sorry someone who doesn’t agree with him has been brave enough to call him out.
His letter even sounds a bit like he’s genuinely bewildered that someone found something to complain about in what he did. He probably thought he was sharing a wonderful Good News message. Time for a four letter F word – fool, I meant fool!
Re the bewilderment, yes. It’s like when they reassure people that a religious service taking place on government property will be completely ecumenical and welcoming to all faiths — and the church/state separation people are still objecting. But how can that be?? Didn’t they believe me???
Yes. That was a point I noted in his notapology – he talks about all the different faiths at the university, but doesn’t even acknowledge those of no faith.
Funny, here I thought secular law was the cornerstone of our society. Further, I thought the fact that most people are consequentialists, whether they know it or not, is what leads them to choose to obey the law.
🐾
It seems to me that the sweating Professor Christensen has it quite right. Rule of law becomes the highest moral value when trying to preserve a system of privilege in a stressful environment of high inequality and low social mobility.
The Little People must be given the proper medicine to keep it going:
1) Opium. There’s pie in the sky when you die. Jesus cares. Plus, there’s a crazy 3-headed ghost peering into your bedroom.
2) Cocaine. Horatio Alger stories and Just World Theory. It’s your own fault that you didn’t work hard enough to be Mitt. So long as markets clear and people are paid their marginal product, all is fair.
3) Bed restraints. When all else fails, aggressive policing and heavy punishment on top of a culture of fear.
That’s what a Marxist economist would say.
He’s sorry if he offended anyone? Sorry, but I missed the part where anyone complained about being offended. As we’ve discussed extensively this week with the Charlie Hebdo murders, no one has a right to not be offended and, in turn, no one can make a legal complaint on the basis of being offended. The complaint was that he violated the First Amendment. I would not find it offensive if he’d promoted atheism but I’d still find it unconstitutional. The point seems to have been missed in an extraordinary way.
” . . . but simply expressed “regret” that some found his actions distasteful.
I’ve had said to me the non-apology, “I’m sorry you got upset.”
” . . . the historic role of religion as a cornerstone of our society leads most Americans to “choose to obey the law.”
More like COERCED to obey the law.
“Dr. Christensen expressed concern that as the influence of religion wanes in America, our nation will be left without institutions to teach this valuable lesson.”
That ol’ “assumes what one sets out to prove” thang.
As Chancellor of Troy University I have the obligation to share information with students, faculty, staff and alumni which I deem helpful . . . .”
He has received, and I trust will continue to receive, information others deem helpful to him.
“Unfortunately, Chancellor Hawkins seems to misunderstand the notions of academic freedom and free speech. Free speech does not give public officials the right to force religion, religious tenets, or atheism on their employees and students.”
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but those who want smaller gov’t want to privatize more and more, so that they are not obliged (otherwise as public officials) to refrain from forcing their views on employees and student and people in general.