Intrepid reader Casey McEnelly takes me to task for my blog on the Dr Mirecki "Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies" course that apparently has been canceled at Kansas University. Mirecki proposed this course apparently to slap religious fundamentalists in the face. It aroused an enormous wave of public hostility. I had the gall to defend Dr. Mirecki. Casey reacts:
I got a little lump in my throat when reading Professor Blanchard’s post. At first I thought I was getting choked up, then I realized it was a vomit bolus hurtling toward my larynx. The times I was offended during my college days weren’t when professors brought up arguments that challenged my beliefs but when they acted with such preening arrogance as to suggest that I was an idiot/bigot/pig not to swallow their swill. It’s too bad that that more professors don’t adhere to KB’s marketplace of ideas philosophy toward education. Too often class rooms become indoctrination centers where discussions take place on an emotional level rather than an intellectual one.
This case in KU is not as even-handed as the Prof suggests. This class was intended to “tweak the fundies,” rather than have a frank discussion about the intersection of religious and science in explaining the origins of man. Do you really think calling someone’s belief a “mythology” was an attempt to engage in a dialogue instead of an insult to their beliefs? It’s amazing who we are and are not allowed to insult these days. Hands off Islam, but go ahead and take an axe to the Christians.
I agree with most of what Casey says. But I did not claim that Mirecki was being even handed. In my post I pointed out that I would never have given a course such a title. It was obviously intended to insult a view held by many potential students. Nevertheless, I think that such a course ought to have been allowed, and the Professor's chosen title should have stood. It may be true that such a title could not have been allowed if it were similarly insulting to Islam, but that is a sign of the weakness of free conversation at the University. It does no favors to Islam to give it special protection. The creation story is strong enough that it can survive an unfavorable title in a course catelog. I think that Professor Mirecki's critics would have come off much better if they had enrolled in the course and engaged him in dialogue.
Interestingly enough, our beloved Northern Valley Beacon posted again on this issue, and (surprise!) insults us in the process.
Dr. Mirecki issued a written apology for e-mails and went along with the University of Kansas change of the name of a course he was scheduled to teach on intelligent design during the spring semester. Then more uproar ensued and Dr. Mireckie requested that the course be cancelled. However, the full story involves the National Review finding more e-mails in which Dr. Mirecki expressed his distaste for religious fundamentalism. Dr. Mirecki was followed by two men in a pickup truck Monday morning in an incident that resulted in the men beating him and him being taken to a hospital.
Furthermore, legislators in Kansas have vowed to extract more accountability from Prof. Mirecki. The National Review engaged in a tactic common to Sibby and South Dakota Politics, which is to take partial quotations and put them into contrived contexts in order to portray their author as a rabid hate-mongerer. The question of free speech and academic freedom discussed of late in South Dakota blogs is not really the issue. Academic honesty and accuracy in making representations about what other people say is the issue.
I am still not sure whether the NVB approves or disapproves of the way Kansas University and the State Legislature treated Dr. Mirecki. But when it comes to "accuracy in making representations about what other people say," surely he is a bit remiss here. Mentioning us in the same paragraph as the National Review, which sided against Mirecki, without mentioned that our lone contribution was to side with Mirecki, gives a misleading impression of what this blog said.
SDP secures its honesty by quoting liberally from all writings that we comment on, and including links so that readers can see if we have been fair or not. That is a standard to which the NVB has never risen.
Recent Comments