The Emerging Scholars Blog

What are you reading, watching, thinking about this week? As usual, here’s a few which have been on our mind. Let us know your thoughts on any/all of them. If you have items you’d like us to consider for the top five, add them in the comments or send them to Tom or Mike.

1.  Call for writers who can explore whole people immersed in the multifaceted nature of politics: Ready to answer the call or suggest a book/film which meets the challenge given by Ross Douthat in Hollywood’s Political Fictions (NY Times Op-Ed, 3/14/10)?

Explaining Why Americans Can’t Write Political Fiction in a 2005 essay for the Washington Monthly, Chris Lehmann noted the long-running tendency in American letters to depict politics as the preserve of debased cynics and moral monsters. … Lehmann suggested, they usually cast the entire mess as “a great ethical contaminant and task their protagonists with escaping its many perils with both their lives and their moral compasses intact.”  As it happens, this is a pretty good description of the arc of “Green Zone.” But it’s a lousy recipe for real art, which is supposed to be interested in the humanity of all its subjects, not just the ones who didn’t work for Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense.

2.  Will ‘The Dawn Treader’ Float? (Mark Moring, Christianity Today Magazine, 3/02/2010), Christian leaders get sneak peek of next Narnia movie, like what they see; filmmakers admit “mistakes” on Prince Caspian, vow to get it right this time. We’ll have a discussion about the upcoming film later in the year …
3.  Why There Is No Jewish Narnia (Micheal Weingad, Jewish Review of Books, No 1, Spring 2010).

So why don’t Jews write more fantasy literature? And a different, deeper but related question: why are there no works of modern fantasy that are profoundly Jewish in the way that, say, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is Christian? Why no Jewish Lewises, and why no Jewish Narnias?

My interest in these questions is partly personal. Tolkien and Lewis loomed large in my childhood and, as I read them to my own children, I wonder what they ought to mean to us as Jews. But my thoughts are also stimulated by the recent publication of some apparent exceptions to the rule: from the United States, The Magicians, a fantasy novel for adults by novelist and critic Lev Grossman, and from Israel, Hagar Yanai’s Ha-mayim she-bein ha-olamot (The Water Between the Worlds), the acclaimed second installation of a projected fantasy trilogy, which, when it is finished, will be the first such trilogy in Hebrew.

4. Evaporating First Amendment? (Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, March 18) – Jaschik takes a look at the case of Mike Adams, the conservative criminology professor at UNC-Wilmington who argues that he was denied promotion because of his conservative Christian beliefs. His lawsuit against the school was recently rejected by a federal judge. (See the Alliance Defense Fund’s statement on the ruling.)

5. Black Scholars and Professionals Conference: InterVarsity recently launched a new ministry to support, well, Black scholars and professionals. BSAP will be hosting a conference, Transforming Love and Truth: Self, Community, Vocation, in Cambridge, MA, on April 23 & 24. If you are in the Boston area, and you are or know African American students, faculty, or professionals who could benefit, you won’t want to miss it.

Books

Paul Froese, The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization – From Mike: I doubt that I’ll have time to dig into this, but it looks like a fascinating read: an account of the Soviet government’s attempts to eliminate religious belief and practice from its citizenry. (HT: Julie)

Update: 3/19/2010, 8:30 EST

Francis Collins

What do you think about Francis Collins Picked To Head NIH?  The NPR piece lays his credentials, faith, and embracing of the two out in the open.  I wonder how many hits there will be to BioLogos (which the NPR article links to) over the course of the next several days?  See BioLoguration for my earlier comments on the blog aspect of this amazing resource. And if you haven’t read Collins’ The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, it’s time to pick up a copy (or at least catch the NPR interview) so you can talk about it with your family, neighbors, and colleagues ;-)

That’s the title of Dennis Overbye’s NY Times essay on what it means to restore science to its rightful place.*   He begins by sharing how he too wept tears of joy at the words of President Barack Hussein Obama (reference to the NY Times article Scientists Welcome Obama’s Words).  Question:  If you’re a member of the scientific community, did you likewise become teary eyed (or even weep) at the words of our new President on your own (or with your colleagues)?  If so, why?  If you’re outside of the scientific community, what was your reaction (and those of your colleagues)?

Does it come from the anticipated ability to properly address:

[i]ssues like stem cells, climate change, sex education and contraceptives, [which] the Bush administration sought to tame and, in some cases, suppress the findings of many of the government’s scientific agencies.  Besides discouraging scientific pronouncements that contradicted administration policies, officials insisted on tight control over even routine functions of key agencies.  In early 2004, more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement claiming that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. — from Scientists Welcome Obama’s Words by Gardiner Harris & William J. Broad in NY Times, January 22, 2009.

Or for the benefits given by the research, findings, applications of science, which is not given highest priority by Overbye.

Or was it for reasons similar to those given by Dennis Overbye, who sees science On a Pedestal with it’s twin democracy, more basic to human progress than religious claims.  Watch out China ;-)  **

Read the rest of this entry »

What are your thoughts on ‘the Rightful Place of Science’ and the topics mentioned below?

Many scientists have complained that the Bush administration relied on questionable science and disregarded the recommendations of scientific advisory boards, for example, in deciding to limit federal support of stem-cell research and to refuse to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions to deal with the threat of global climate change.

In contrast, Mr. Obama nominated Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist concerned with global warming, as his energy secretary. The U.S. Senate confirmed Mr. Chu and five other cabinet secretaries by voice vote just hours after President Obama took the oath of office. The newly confirmed cabinet members include Arne Duncan as education secretary. — from In Inaugural Address, Obama Vows to Restore ‘Rightful Place’ of Science, by Eric Kelderman, in Chronicle of Higher Education, January 21, 2009.

Have you been following the  inauguration?  Why or why not?  Does your campus have a special event?   Has any campus canceled classes all day or over the lunch hour?

With regard to the oath of office, my friend Andy Crouch had some questions regarding oath-taking which I found of interest.  What do you think about the taking of oaths?  What do they provide?  Do you take an oath in your profession, discipline, or institution?

As for praying for the President elect, our family used the framework of the one posted by Scot McKnight.  What have others prayed?  Does anyone have classic inaugural prayers which they find of great value?

InterVarsity’s Undergraduate Ministry at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) sponsored an Election Day panel on Religious and Secular Authority at Election Times.  What an excellent idea!  Why?  Because the panel, which included myself and a CMU History faculty, provided an opportunity to publicly present and wrestle with difficult culture-making concerns in real time.  I came away with the impression that some students, who wouldn’t let us go, couldn’t wait to field test some of the material in the midst of election coverage conversations. …

In my opening remarks, I briefly explored whether government would exist even without the fall, see below.  Have you given consideration to this topic?  If so, please comment.  If you have resource recommendations, please pass them along.  Seems like an important question for political scientists in particular, but of interest to many others as it informs our regular interaction with the state.

Would government exist even without the brokenness caused by Adam and Eve’s choice of willful disobedience? Now this is controversial, but my answer is Yes. Why? Government provides structure for the creative and healthy interaction of the various spheres of the Creation, e.g., creation care (remember naming of the animals in Genesis 2:19), marriage, family, school, business, guilds, arts parties. … But without the fall? As we live in the reality of the fall, it is difficult to envision how this would look except to say that God would rule over the structures as they serve Him to the blessing of all of creation. In addition, no use of force to suppress evil in the process of culture formation would not be necessary, except in restraining or resisting external evil influences/beings. So I’m asserting that government is not optional, even in the Garden of Eden at the beginning and the end of time. The various Utopian visions, both within and outside of the Church, fail to take into account the deep brokenness caused by the fall and the presence of evil across the layers of being, identity, and reality. My development of this perspective has been encouraged by The Basic Ideas of Calvinism (H. Henry Meeter, revised by Paul A. Marshall. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990, pp. 77-90) and C.S. Lewis’ Ransom Trilogy, referred to some as The Space Trilogy. This requires more thought. …

Today, the Chronicle reports ($) on a new book, Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities, and a new article, “I Think My Professor Is a Democrat: Considering Whether Students Recognize and React to Faculty Politics,” that look at political expression and influence on campus. The article, BTW, is written by April Kelly-Woessner and Matthew Woessner at Elizabethtown College and Penn State-Harrisburg, in my co-writer Tom Grosh’s neck of the woods.

Here’s the Chronicle’s quick take-away from Closed Minds:

The overwhelming majority of professors do call themselves liberal, the authors say, but that doesn’t mean their classrooms are dominated by their political views. The survey found that 95 percent of professors believe they are “honest brokers” among competing views. Sixty-one percent said politics seldom comes up in their classrooms, and only 28 percent said they let students know how they feel about political issues in general.

“To our surprise, we found that, far from being saturated in politics, the universities generally have all but ignored what used to be called civics and civic education,” the authors write. [emphasis added]

The article, meanwhile, found “that students agree that most professors do not specifically state what political party they belong to.” It also finds that students tend to drift toward the Democratic Party while in college, but doesn’t find the drift correlated to professors’ political influence, because the drift seems to happen regardless of which party one’s professors belongs to.

Do you agree that universities are ignoring civic education? And is that a bad thing, or a good thing?

Is there an election this year or something?

Obviously, politics is on everyone’s minds, but I don’t want to get into a debate about politics, but rather a debate about, er, politics. Specifically, political expression on campus by faculty.

Recently, the University of Illinois issued a memo directing its professors (as employees of the state) not to wear political buttons, put political bumper stickers on their cars, or attend political rallies on campus. The memo has since been modified, but is still an issue of contention. The AAUP (whose president, Cary Nelson, teaches at UofI), FIRE, the ACLU [this is a letter on FIRE's website - I could not find it on the ACLU's website], the NAS, and even Stanley Fish have all weighed in. Wouldn’t you like to be in that strategy meeting?

Political expression can be a sticky situation for evangelical Christians, IMHO. First, evangelicals tend to lean toward political conservatism, and second, faculty in general lean strongly toward political liberalism (see this monograph by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research for some details on these differences). I think that it can be all too easy for one’s evangelical beliefs to be confused by others in the academy as political beliefs, which then becomes a major obstacle for being salt and light among your peers. I know that I have had some difficult conversations along those lines.

But those are just my thoughts. What have others experienced? What do you think about political expression by professors on campus? Do you think this interferes with – or supports – your identity as a Christian and your representation of the gospel on campus?

(Note: I’ll delete any comments that are just pro or con comments about political parties or candidates.)

(Two other quick links, both from the Chronicle, which means you have to pay for them: Robert M. O’Neil’s What Not to Say in Class During an Election Season, and How Good Scholarship Makes Good Citizens, by Joseph J. Gonzalez.)

Christian Colleges Increase Diversity

Inside Higher Ed, citing an analysis from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, notes that a number of colleges affiliated with ESN’s partner, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, have seen a dramatic increase in African American enrollment.

At Montreat College, in North Carolina, undergraduate black student enrollment increased from 3.7 percent in 1997 to 23 percent in 2007, according to the analysis. At Belhaven College, in Mississippi, black student enrollment climbed from 16.9 to 41 percent. At LeTourneau University, in Texas, the figure grew from 5.7 to 22 percent.

The editor of JBHE notes the ties of many historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to churches (indeed, almost all American private colleges were founded with a connection to a church).

link

Graduate Junction

The Chronicle of Higher Education highlights Graduate Junction, a new website aimed that helping researchers connect with other researchers who share their same interests.

link

Advocacy in Teaching

In Christianity Today’s Books & Culture, Abram Van Engen reviews Stanley Fish’s new book, Save the World on Your Own Time, which argues that political advocacy has no place in the college classroom.

Teaching Life, with Restraint