Faculty Friday: OBU an Indoctrination Station?

One of the most surprising, frequent, and outrageous claims our critics make is that OBU's professors are too liberal and that they are seducing students away from their faith commitments with the allure of worldly knowledge.

When this preposterous idea stopped being funny, I realized that it's actually pretty sad, paranoid, and frankly a big part of what enabled and sustains the new status quo at OBU.  Forget the fact that OBU professors would be seen as conservatives (or even extreme conservatives) on any state or most nonsectarian private university campus.  Forget the fact that almost every OBU graduate credits one or more of their professors with strengthening their religious faith.  Forget the fact that OBU professors go out of their way to try not to offend, shock, startle, or oppose the many avowedly fundamentalist 18 year olds who appear in their classrooms each August, but rather nurture them in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

The bizarre thing here is that someone, somewhere, is giving people the idea that OBU has liberal professors.  And that professors somehow separate students from their religious beliefs.  And the people pushing these falsehoods have been so successful at promoting these lies and irrational fears that there is enough cover for administrators to now actually hire and fire based on ideology/doctrine rather than achievement.  In any normal world, administrators who acted so brazenly, irresponsibly, and unethically would be laughed out of town.  Instead, they are rewarded with pats on the back from their Baptist Building buddies.

I decided to do some digging.  Who is planting the fear in people's minds that professors are leading young people away from the Right?  Turns out it's a pretty common delusion.  To cite just one example, here is a column from the Rev. Dr. Albert Mohler.  Al Mohler is the man Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's newly fundamentalist Board of Trustees elected president in 1993 at the ripe old age of 33.  Fundamentalists gained control of the Board in 1990, gave students permission to tape professors' lectures, and eventually became so hostile to longtime Baptist educational administrator Rev. Dr. Roy Honeycutt that he finally resigned.

Playing to fundamentalist fears, Mohler sounds the alarm on professors' sinister agenda:

They see their role as political and ideological, and they define their teaching role in these terms. Their agenda is nothing less than to separate students from their Christian beliefs and their intellectual and moral commitments.

Mohler goes on to explain that "a good many of these professors deny this agenda, but from time to time the mask is removed."  He cites as evidence one professor who wrote an opinion column suggesting that students should spend as many years in school as possible in order to gain exposure "to the world outside their own, and to moral ideas not exclusively derived from their parents' religion."  Another faculty member suggested elsewhere (in the context of comparing demographic trends in "red" vs. "blue" states) that even if conservatives have more children earlier in life, many of those children will pursue higher education in "blue" areas.

Watch how Mohler takes one flippant comment from one professor and ascribes it to pretty much the entire academic community:

“The children of red states will seek a higher education,” [the professor] explains, “and that education will very often happen in blue states or blue islands in red states. For the foreseeable future, loyal dittoheads will continue to drop off their children at the dorms. After a teary-eyed hug, Mom and Dad will drive their SUV off toward the nearest gas station, leaving their beloved progeny behind.” 

Then what? He proudly claims: “And then they are all mine.” 

And then they are all mine. That’s right, a significant number of professors are happy to have parents spend 18 years raising children, only to drop them off on the campus and head back home. These professors are confident that the four or so years of the college experience will be ample time to separate students from the beliefs, convictions, moral commitments, and faith of their parents.

Mohler isn't talking primarily here about Christian universities, but I've heard people express the same or even more paranoid concerns about sending young people to OBU.  The truth is, now that Mohler and people of his ilk control what remains of "Christian" higher education, we have some even greater concerns (that are based on actual evidence) to worry about.  I couldn't help but think of OBU when I read Mohler's conclusion:

But [students] should not be subjected to the ideological indoctrination and intellectual condescension that is found in far too many classrooms and on far too many campuses. If nothing else, these remarkable statements of professorial intention should awaken both students and parents to what passes for education within much of higher education. The open hostility and contempt toward Christianity and Christian convictions is truly horrifying. 

Yet here we are, faced with a university run by people who seem intent on indoctrinating to the greatest degree possible, hold increasingly blatant contempt for (or at least badly misunderstand) academic freedom (and, ironically, other Baptist freedoms as well), and frankly seem to want to step in where parents and churches have failed and make students more fundamentalist, not less.

While OBU faculty continue to do the very fine job they've done for all these years, they are under increasing scrutiny and pressure from the BGCO-controlled administration.  While I'm sure it's tempting for Mohler and others to peddle their baseless fear-mongering, the truth is that the tables have finally turned.  If fundamentalist college administrators think what happens in an alarming number of college classrooms has been debased, the need to look in the mirror.  There's indoctrination, condescension, and contempt all right.  But it's coming from the young fundamentalists, not the aging moderates.  And administrators cannot escape the fact that this time, they're the ones who caused it.

Faculty Friday: The Long War

On Fridays, we usually look at the recent changes at OBU through the lens of faculty.  Perhaps since a number of faculty support us (quietly, from the sidelines) or perhaps since students and alumni have such great affection for OBU professors, these posts are among our most-read.  I have linked to some previous Faculty Friday posts below.

Today, I just want to make a small point, but it has big implications that outlast our present concerns.  Right now, the pace of negative changes seems to have slowed at OBU.  A lot of the bad changes still have lingering adverse effects, of course, but there seem not to be a lot more of these changes on the immediate horizon.  It was easy for the fundamentalist agenda to advance when protests were small and isolated.  The bookstore stunt was pretty easy for them - it didn't generate a lot of criticism at all.  Certain curriculum area decisions were small and localized enough that they only affected a small number of constituents, and so the protests were also localized.  The actions that generated the most sustained criticism were, of course, the two badly-botched forced dismissals.  But even then, the pushback was disparate enough and short-lived enough that administrators could go on with other parts of their agenda.

If they tried anything right now, however, the protest would be loud, widespread, and very public.  So they have to lay low.  And presumably wait for faculty, students, parents, and alumni to let their guard down.  And when we do, and life goes on, and months or years pass, they can continue acting on other parts of their agenda.  But if you really think that firing two professors and installing a crappy bookstore is the extent of the BGCO's design for OBU, you are badly mistaken.

Be warned: The moment they feel like they can get away with it, the agenda will advance.  Not from President Whitlock, I predict.  The near-unanimous consensus is that he is more interested in leading a great university than abetting the BGCO's wish to turn OBU into a fundamentalist preacher boy camp.  Unfortunately, he probably had to wink-and-nod when BGCO leaders expressed their expectations in that area as a condition of supporting his election to the OBU presidency.  Let's hope he uses his considerable administrative skill, business acumen, and personal warmth to advance OBU's mission.

Given how badly Dr. Norman's enforcer role has gone over and how painfully clear it is that he is just not a good match for OBU, it's obvious that the fundamentalists overreached.  When a university's chief academic officer is afraid to say much in a meeting with faculty for fear that he'll be quoted out of context later (as recently happened), clearly the relationship is so broken that he needs to think about moving on.  It's easier for one person to leave than 25 professors, though I wouldn't put it past some people to push for the latter.  Hopefully he'll realize this of his own volition to avoid undermining Dr. Whitlock's presidency and to preserve his chances at becoming a senior administrator at a Bible college or "seminary" that wants a hatchet man.  If he ever has to undergo any performance evaluation that involves faculty input (from which he has been thus far exempt), the results will be disastrous and might endanger his prospects at any reputable institution in the future.

But even if Dr. Whitlock acknowledges the mistakes that have been made (a little acknowledgement would go a long way) and even if Dr. Norman moves on (as seems increasingly likely because after all that's happened, his presence guarantees a poisonous relationship between the administration and the faculty), we won't be out of the woods -- not by a long shot.  The search for a new chief academic officer will be an epic battle between a newly-emboldened senior faculty and a handful of BGCO elites who still unfortunately wield considerable influence with the president and the trustees.

For all these years, regular attrition was the BGCO's only hope for a fundamentalist faculty at OBU, and that strategy did not work very well for them.  Now that the BGCO knows it can get administrators who are willing to use hiring, tenure, and dismissals as tools (one might say weapons) to create a fundamentalist faculty, they will not easily accept a competent, ethical chief academic officer.  On the other hand, now that the OBU faculty have seen firsthand what one fundamentalist administrator can accomplish, they are not going to accept another hatchet man (or woman).

Thankfully, we have some great trustees who, though they are relatively deferential to the convention leadership that paved the way for their election, can be truly trusted to put OBU's true interests ahead of Baptist Building politics.  This might result in some unpleasant Executive Committee meetings for a while while things get sorted out.

Yet even as Save OBU supporters will cheer if some of these bad changes are reversed, our victory will be small and short-lived.  The trustee selection process is about to become exceedingly doctrinal, political, and against the spirit of all that is good and right (not unlike the OBU faculty hiring process of late...)  After this epic battle and this tumultuous year, do you really think Anthony Jordan is going to allow moderates (or members of CBFO churches, or people wary of hardball tactics) to be elected to the Board of Trustees ever again?!?  Of course not.  We're likely to see Fundamentalist Takeover-style boards of trustees like the ones that destroyed the SBC seminaries in the early 1990s.  That's why we must also strategize in the months to come about how best to protect OBU's interests in the trustee selection process for the next several years as the thornier legal and financial issues of OBU-BGCO separation get worked out.  We need every thoughtful, ethical person of conscience we can get.

As we look past some important coming victories (acknowledgement of mistakes in handling the two dismissals, Dr. Norman's likely departure, etc.), we must also realize that the cards are stacked against us in the long run.  The reason?  Because the BGCO owns and controls OBU.  I hate to bring this up over and over again, but this bad relationship is truly the cause of our problems.  And ending that relationship is the only necessary and sufficient condition to ensure a bright future for OBU.

Those of us who champion academic freedom, open inquiry, and a rigorous liberal arts curriculum have suffered some painful defeats (though none of us has suffered as badly as our two dear professors/colleagues who were forced out of their positions in truly shameful ways).  But the fundamentalists overreached, and we're due a victory or two.

As long as the BGCO controls OBU, we may actually win a battle, but make no mistake: We will lose the war.

Past Faculty Friday Posts:
Why Turnover Matters
Firing Professors a Favored Tactic among SBC Fundamentalists
Open Hostility on Bison Hill
Games Administrators Play

Faculty Friday: Games Administrators Play

Note: I had intended to follow yesterday's post about how the fundamentalists destroyed journalism in the SBC with a post on censorship of student journalism at OBU.  But like any good journalist, I need to do some fact-checking before I finish my report.

Since we've had hundreds of new readers in the past week, some people may not know that on Fridays, we usually focus on faculty-related issues at OBU and in SBC "academic" life more generally.  Last week, we documented the administration's hostility toward faculty on Bison Hill.  Previously, we looked at fundamentalists' penchant for unethical and unwarranted firings and how administrators can use faculty turnover to diminish an institution's academic strength and turn a moderate-to-conservative faculty into a fundamentalist one in just a few years.

Today, let's examine a new tactic administrators are trying to use in order to gain leverage over faculty and tip the balance of power in the fundamentalists' favor.  We've already discussed how administrators have ignored faculty search committee recommendations and offered positions to candidates who were not our first or second (or even third or fourth) choices.  In this way, OBU now shows a clear preference for fundamentalists in its hiring practices, as the provost's recent job interview questions obviously demonstrate.

But they are also using tenure ("senior faculty status" in OBU parlance) as a weapon in their war against moderate professors building a career at OBU.  One current faculty member explains:

The administration's actions raise a red flag as to whether tenure and academic freedom are being consciously eroded to vest more power in administrators to change OBU from within.  Along those lines, the administration is beginning to move away from granting continuing contracts for newly tenured faculty to more five-year contracts.  The latter were rarely used before, only in those cases where the faculty member was deemed fit to join the senior faculty, but needed to improve in some way, usually related to classroom performance.  Now it is being used for highly regarded candidates who receive a strong affirmation from the tenured faculty vote and have strong student evaluations.

The first ideologically-motivated firing was indicative of this changed outlook.  The administration wanted the professor to accept a multi-year contract (rather than a continuing contract) but did not allow the professor to stand for tenure and would not guarantee the possibility of standing for tenure at the end of the multi-year contract.  Unsurprisingly, denying someone the opportunity to stand for senior faculty status is itself a violation of the Faculty Handbook.  So if anyone tells you that OBU parted ways with a wonderful, well-loved Christian philosopher over a "contractual dispute," that is a lie.  He was treated in the most shameful and insulting manner possible.  I know what you're thinking: It's getting difficult to actually keep track of all the violations and unethical actions administrators have taken against our beloved OBU faculty!

The current faculty member continues:

The standards in the Faculty Handbook, based on nationally accepted guidelines, are designed to protect academic freedom -- the integrity of the academic program, professors' right to teach and students' right to learn, according to the best standards of each discipline.  In theory at least, once a professor is deemed integral to the academic community through the tenure (or senior faculty) process, he or she can only be removed for serious and demonstrated causes, such as incompetence, dereliction of duties, moral turpitude.

This standard was ignored in the case of the second faculty dismissal.  While the faculty was justifiably outraged after the first dismissal, it was the second dismissal that truly rippled through the faculty.  This collective outrage led to Faculty Council resolutions sent to the administration.

Fortunately for OBU (I guess), we have not suffered the kinds of consequences that typically accompany these kinds of actions.  The first victim could have publicized his situation and brought widespread shame and embarrassment on OBU.  The second victim could have gotten a sizable settlement (based on violation of legal guidelines set forth in chapter 2 of the Faculty Handbook).  Not one but several attorneys with knowledge of the case believe that the second victim would have easily won a judgment against OBU in court, or at least a settlement out of court.

Obviously these two victims have much more integrity than they were shown by OBU administrators.

But the main point of today's Faculty Friday post is not actually about the two well-known dismissals.  Rather, the point is that administrators are now open to using tenure as a weapon in an ideological war to make the OBU faculty more fundamentalist.  Now that this practice has become widely known, there is a chance they will back down.  But don't be surprised if fundamentalist professors are fast-tracked for tenure and continuing contracts (just like they are now fast-tracked for hiring against the professional judgment of their colleagues) and moderate professors are denied their right to stand for tenure and/or asked to agree to multi-year or annual contracts.  The implications are huge.  OBU could become a majority fundamentalist faculty relatively quickly.  Of course, this would please BGCO elites (and at least one current administrator) to no end!

I truly hope that these unethical practices stop at once and that the two forced dismissals do not bring more shame and embarrassment on our alma mater (or harm our future application for re-accreditation). But what has happened is wrong.  There is no way to spin it.  It's just plain wrong.  While Save OBU brings together a number of constituencies (parents, students, alumni, etc.), our most passionate concern is for OBU's greatest asset: its dedicated faculty.  All the rest of us are free to raise our voices in protest against unjust actions and encroaching fundamentalism.  But in the current climate, professors' voices are effectively silenced.  We know many of them are cheering us on, albiet silently and anonymously, from the sidelines.  But let it be known to everyone: Until academic freedom is fully restored at OBU and all threats against it are eliminated, we will not stop advocating tirelessly for our wonderful faculty.

Faculty Friday: Open Hostility on Bison Hill

This is not going to be pleasant for anyone, but it needs to be said:  Relations between OBU faculty and administrators are at an all-time low.  Let's review some facts:

• Two professors have been dismissed for ideological reasons.  Luckily for OBU, we have not yet suffered the embarrassing consequences of these politically-motivated firings.  But just as Southwestern Seminary was put on probation in the mid-1990s because of fundamentalist meddling, when OBU applies for continued accreditation in the future, these unethical actions will reflect very negatively on us.  Don't be surprised if administrators try to abandon the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and pursue "accreditation" through some bogus second-rate fundamentalist-friendly entity that won't make them answer for their actions.
• Many faculty have retired quite a few years sooner than they might have.  They saw the writing on the wall and, understandably, did not want to be become targets of fundamentalist zeal in the waning years of their careers.
• Faculty Council morale is low because in spite of its best efforts, it could not successfully intervene in the two forced dismissals.
• Administrators routinely ignore faculty search committee recommendations.  This means that some recent hires were actually our third and fourth choices, but were fast-tracked for hiring because of ideological conformity and not because of their qualifications or promise for future success.  If this embarrassing and dangerous trend continues, the best applicants will be dissuaded from enduring the horrendous interview process at OBU altogether.
• More than a handful of professors fear for their jobs, and some have conceded that their work is much more joyless than it had been under previous administrations.
• In light of recent actions, many professors are reluctant to express their anger and disillusionment.
• While leadership starts at the very top, a lot of people feel that the provost is the real "hatchet man" or "enforcer."  Though Dr. Norman missed an opportunity to be a part of a fundamentalist house-cleaning at Louisiana College, where he applied for the presidency in the throes of a fundamentalist takeover, he seems to be relishing that role at OBU.  But he clearly overestimated the university community's tolerance for such a radical shift away from academic freedom and OBU's great liberal arts heritage.  (In fact, most would argue he misinterpreted the university's mission altogether.)  Many faculty are irate that Dr. Norman, whose position was created especially for him after he was passed over for the School of Christian Service deanship in favor of Anthony Jordan's close friend, has not undergone a traditional evaluation with input from faculty and staff.  His predecessor, a longtime OBU administrator, underwent such evaluations annually and was universally praised.
• Faculty have almost no recourse.  The university has shown in the past 18 months that it is not afraid to dismiss even the most capable and devoted professors.  As much as it pains them to do so, a surprising number of (mostly tenured) professors have declined to support the capital campaign in order to register their sadness at the university's direction.  Also, for the first time since the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, OBU professors are organizing a chapter of the American Association of University Professors.  Since faculty norms and advice are frequently ignored and they are in constant danger of dismissal in open violation of the Faculty Handbook and basic H.R. ethics, the faculty are at a loss for ways to protect themselves from retaliation and unjust termination.

The solution to this impasse is complicated.  While OBU and the BGCO coexisted tenuously but relatively peacefully for many years, that relationship has outlived its usefulness.  While OBU remained, until recently, a proud, moderate institution offering a balanced Christian liberal arts education, the BGCO has descended headlong into fundamentalism.  It no longer makes sense for it to own and operate a true liberal arts university.  To the extent that the BGCO cheerleads for fundamentalism on Bison Hill, it will meet relentless and increasingly angry resistance.  It has goals for evangelism and missions that OBU does not efficiently advance and it could spend Cooperative Program funds much more effectively elsewhere.  OBU, for its part, has constituencies including students, their families, faculty, and alumni that simply cannot abide the fundamentalist-inspired personnel and policy changes that are eroding at our alma mater's proud reputation, devaluing students' diplomas, risking parents' investments, and dispiriting professors' careers.

Trustees need to, at a minimum, know the whole story behind the actions they are asked to sign off on. Eventually, they will know the full story of the two forced dismissals.  But they also need to ensure, from now on, that the new faculty contracts they approve are actually for the people we want most, not the ones at the bottom of search committees' rankings who are being hand-picked for their fundamentalist views.  Unlike the situation at SBC-controlled institutions, where the trustees were the problem, we have very good trustees.  The problem in our case lies with administrators who are torn between what Anthony Jordan wants OBU to become and what the OBU community wants for itself.  Trustees are in a unique position to be a moderating influence on encroaching fundamentalism.  Hopefully, as they learn more about the history of fundamentalists taking control of state convention-run colleges (stories we are telling nearly every Sunday on the blog), they will  recognize the need to assert their independence from the BGCO.

Faculty are in many ways the heart and soul of a university.  Their time horizon is longer than students' and they typically outlast several presidents.  They are the ones whose day-to-day experience would be most significantly improved by a separation from the BGCO.  Of course, students, alumni, and Oklahoma Baptists all have something to gain.  If you won't do it for anyone else, please support Save OBU for the faculty's sake.  They are badly constrained and have little recourse.  The current situation is not doing any of them any good.  Senior faculty are seeing the institution they love and have served faithfully for years turned into something they would never have chosen to associate with all those years ago.  And the junior faculty are being done a disservice, too.  It's not a good feeling to know that you were not the first or even the second choice and that you got your job primarily because of your opinions and only secondarily because of your qualifications.

In some important ways, these are good times for OBU: growing enrollment, an exciting and promising capital campaign, the resumption of football as a varsity sport after 72 years, etc.  But we have to be most vigilant during apparently good times, because those are the times fundamentalists think they make their disastrous changes without attracting much attention.  Unfortunately for them, we are paying very close attention.