Blogging, Academia and Free Speech

Timothy Shortrell, a sociologist at Brooklyn College, has found himself in a bit of a tempest because of web article he posted a few years ago calling Christians "moral retards". He has been attacked by several groups and newspapers calling him intolerant and his

Several questions have been raised by this - should Shortrell remain chair of the Brooklyn College sociology department where he will presumably make decisions involving students who are Christian? As FIRE notes, even if Shortrell denies that his views on Christians influence his teaching or academic behavior - is there not a presumption that Shortrell cannot always act in such an unbiased fashion so that any Christian who feels that they have been unfairly treated has grounds for a suit?

What is clear is again the seriousness of blog posting or putting anything on the internet - one the one hand controversy attracts attention and if you want to get people's attention, get them visiting your blog - it helps to have controversy. On the other hand, what you post can sometimes come back to haunt you. Professor Shortrell may want to keep his private postings and his academic life separate but as he has found - that distinction is not truly possible in real life.

Professor Shortrell's article, Religion and Morality: A Contradiction Explained, displays some problems that have not been brought up by the critics so far that seem to be focused more on whether or not he can voice anti-Christian comments. As a teacher of history, I can say that there are many times when the behavior of Christians can be criticized and that the behavior of Christian institutions can be criticized as well. So, I don't think that this perspective of Professor Shortrell should necessarily serve as grounds for any sort of disciplinary action.

What I find more problematic is the lack of academic rigour and logical argumentation in his piece. There are several errors of fact and evidence which make me more suspicious of Professor's ability to speak on the issue of religion at all. Clearly the professor had memorized the vocab-speak of the sociologist in the Freud school using words such as "fetishization" but he makes a fundamental mistake in ascribing all truth to "scientific thinking" and none to "religious thinking". As if they were two diametrically opposed ways of thought. There are far too many religious scientists to note and the dependence of science upon religious thought has been too conclusively proved for Professor Shortrell to make such a sophomoric statement. Indeed it was the Christian belief that God could be discovered in nature that led to the early foundations of the scientific method and to major developments in science throughout history - I give Gregor Mendel's work on genetics as only one example. A professor of a "soft science" such as sociology should know better. Like history, another "soft science" at attempt to use a rigorous methodology may be made but since we are dealing with the actions of human beings who have freedom we can in no way ever put our explanations into practice. Those who do not know history are not doomed to repeat it because no historical or sociological event is ever repeated.

Moreover, the Professor commits the cardinal error of confusing faith for ideology as such his fails to see his own ideological problems. He can try to prove his point by the use of such charged words as "mental prison", "holy war", and "fantaticism" that can inspire emotions but contribute little to a rational argument. It is saddening that he can at the same time blame religion for promoting violence and hatred yet at the same time refer to those with whom he disagrees as "moral retards" does he not see that such dehumanization only leads to further violence? Yet, because he confuses religion and ideology he is blind to the problems of his own ideology, of his own religious faith - Shortrell heal thyself!

Let's just take one paragraph as an example of the Professor's short sightedness -

"In every religious tradition, there is an orthodoxy with an elite (priests, ministers, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) to enforce it, and considerable effort is made to suppress dissent. Where religion is still powerful enough to influence politics—in places such as the U.S., Iran, Israel, for example—religious leaders seek to extend the reach of orthodoxy to the public sphere. We live at a time, alas, when more and more people are demanding that unpopular ideas be suppressed. Speaking freely is now an invitation to serious trouble."

Now let's see what happens when we change a few words:

"In every academic tradition, there is an orthodoxy with an elite (faculty and administration) to enforce it, and considerable effort is made to suppress dissent. Where academia is still powerful enough to influence politics—in places such as the U.S., Canada and Europe for example—academics seek to extend the reach of orthodoxy to the public sphere. We live at a time, alas, when more and more people are demanding that unpopular ideas in academia be suppressed. Speaking freely is now an invitation to serious trouble."

Note that the second statement is also true. Once more I say, heal thyself!

Can religious faith lead to violence, of course it can and it has as has other ideology such as support for a particular political perspective such as democracy, capitalism, and communism. Should our response be to end all ideology - yet, that is an ideology itself. Welcome to the problem of humanity. Professor Shortrell, how can a sociologist understand so little about the subject that he studies?

I don't believe that Professor Shortrell should be censored for expressing unpopular views, especially in a medium outside of the classroom despite how little I think of his position. I do think some remedial courses in history and sociology might be helpful.