Atheist at catholic college...

[pgwenthold]

Again, it depends on the specific school. Similarly, the nature of the specific impact varies from school to school. At many Catholic schools, for example, the science curriculum is indistinguishable from that of a non-sectarian school.

I'd be interested in seeing a course catalog for Notre Dame biology classes, for example.

I can almost guarantee that there will be an evolutionary biology course there, taught by a world class biologist and not anything near a creationist.

 

[drkitten]

I'd be interested in seeing a course catalog for Notre Dame biology classes, for example.

I can almost guarantee that there will be an evolutionary biology course there, taught by a world class biologist and not anything near a creationist.

Ask and ye shall recieve. Google, and it shall be found for you:

In point of fact, Evolutionary Biology is something of a specialty at Notre Dame.

From the Notre Dame College of Sciences

305. Evolution
(3-0-3) Hollocher
Prerequisites: BIOS 156 or 202.
The mechanisms and processes involved in the production of life as we know it today, as well as a discussion on the impact current events may have upon life in the future. Index

310. Evolution and the History of Life
(3-0-3) Feder
Prerequisites: BIOS 156 or 202.
This course explores the origin, history, and systematics of life on Earth, starting from the hypotheses examining life's origin(s) and including current thinking concerning the systematic relationships of organisms and the evolution of humans. The class will be taught primarily from a macroevolutionary perspective. BIOS 310 therefore represents the complement to BIOS 305 (Evolution), which concentrates on processes generating gene-frequency changes within populations (i.e., microevolution). Spring. Index

If you want to see Hollocher or Feder's c.v., I'm sure they're both on-line somewhere. Hollocher appears to be a specialist in insect speciation, as does Feder.



In direct response to SirPhilip's claims -- Notre Dame is generally considered to be one of the more conservative Catholic schools, and you can see where they fall on the flat-headed approach to evolution line. I can't give a specific assessment of the school at which opening poster was offered a job, because to the best of my knowledge, he didn't name it. But the easiest way to find out what the culture is like is to experience it and to ask about it. Both of which he did -- he was told that he can teach what he wants.

What more do you expect? Obviously the dean will check the contents of his classes -- that happens at any school, religious or secular, as a simple quality control and to make sure that he's not varying too far from the specified content of the course. Father O'Malley would probably get angry if I started teaching Islamic religious doctrine in a freshman calculus class, but then so would Rabbi Winklestein or Richard Dawkins. That's not religious dogma, but a simple nod to professionalism. They'd have the same objection if I started teaching calculus in an Islamic studies class.

Oh, and Professor Richard Dawkins does teach at a university with a religious foundation. It's called "Oxford University." However, over the past eight centuries, they've backed off on allowing religious sentiments to influence course content. But they still have official, college-sponsored chapel at New College (Prof. Dawkins' actual affiliation).

Pretty chapel, too.

 

[Sinisterdan]

Hmmm, tough call.

Before I landed a tenure track gig, I considered applying for a position at a Weslyan college, until I read the application which required:

1) a letter from my pastor, and

2) a statement saying I neither swore, drunk or smoked (which reminded me, **** I left my cigs at the bar...)...

This is something that the OP could clear up for us, but there’s obviously a difference between a religious university that is private and one that is public. For the sake of clarity, this is in reference to schools in Canada, but I can’t imagine American Catholicism being all that different.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
If you are going to be working at the private or parochial, then expect to have your personal moral practices examined both openly and surreptitiously. When I looking at career options during my time in grad school I did interview at a theological college to teach philosophy and the questions were appalling – my wife asked me fewer questions before we got married. I was already a soft atheist at this point while the interview was very congenial, I’m sure my file was burned while Saint Ambrose of the Horrible Atheist Applicant was petitioned.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
If it’s a public institution with general admission that would obviously be a different story.

 

[drkitten]

This is something that the OP could clear up for us, but there’s obviously a difference between a religious university that is private and one that is public. For the sake of clarity, this is in reference to schools in Canada, but I can’t imagine American Catholicism being all that different.

Actually, you'd be quite wrong about American Catholicism.

If you are going to be working at the private or parochial, then expect to have your personal moral practices examined both openly and surreptitiously.

Nope. In the States, all "religious" colleges are private -- public schools must not be religiously affiliated. Despite this, relatively few colleges with religious affiliations snoop into the personal moral practices of their faculty, precisely because the social pressure is so great.

One good source for material on this is the American Association of University Professors (www.aaup.org). Their 1940 statement on Academic Freedom remains one of the clearest statements by professional academics about what is and isn't relevant to one's teaching and scholarly performance.

The irony is that the 1940 statement was written at a time where such "moral examinations" were more acceptable and more commonplace. Since then, (in the AAUP's words) "most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not now endorse such a departure."

The colleges (in the States, at least) that seek to enforce religious orthodoxy upon their faculty are a dwindling and increasingly isolated group.

 

[Sinisterdan]

Well, now I know better.

This does seem to be quite different from the system in Canada. As I mentioned, I did some of my bachelor's degree at a college that was wholly owned by the Catholic Church but had general admission and shared its accreditation with a nearby, secular school. There was no religious reference during the admissions process and they had stopped the practice of even asking the question decades ago. Had it not been for the big ass chapel and the names of the buildings, you'd never have even known. Little places like that are fairly common, in fact.

The colleges (in the States, at least) that seek to enforce religious orthodoxy upon their faculty are a dwindling and increasingly isolated group.

This seems to bode well for the OP, though.

 

[drkitten]

Well, now I know better.

This does seem to be quite different from the system in Canada.

Canada doesn't have the tradition of church/state separation that the United States does (obviously); it does, however, have an equally strong -- arguably stronger -- tradition of antidiscrimination laws and policies. Perhaps even more importantly, it has a long and strong tradition of social disapproval of discrimination (I suspect we can credit the long history of Catholics and Protestants not shooting at each other for that).

It's not surprising, then, that religious discrimination wouldn't be acceptable at publically-funded institutions, even institutions that were religiously affiliated. That's also more or less the situation in much of Great Britain (including Oxford). You can be religious, but you can't (acceptably) be a jerk about it.

Unfortunately, the US seems to have been founded and largely populated by people whose ideas about religion included the idea that to be religious is to be a jerk. Thus, since religious people couldn't (and can't) be trusted not to be jerks, it's simplest just to keep religion separate from governance altogether.

 

[JoKiLlSyA]

Response on Scott's problem at the Catholic College

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.0 (Linux)"><meta name="AUTHOR" content="Johnathan Botha"><meta name="CREATED" content="20060914;21303900"><meta name="CHANGED" content="16010101;0"> <style> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> Scott.


You seem to have the capability to produce an intellectual argument in such a way that you will not project an image that some Xtians might find insulting to their faith, in producing this argument you might end up being respected by the faithful purely on the basis of intelligence. I do not think any person should tiptoe around because he is in the company of people who do not share his point of view, so as to avoid a degradation in status among peers and in your case students and/or your superiors. I think you must voice your opinions firstly: because it is the moral thing to do -for the sake of your students, and secondly: because you should not have to stand respectfully aside to any disposition opposing your own -provided you do not invoke the wrath of insulted opponents due to ill-picked words.


Kind regards


Johnathan.

 

[Sinisterdan]

Canada doesn't have the tradition of church/state separation that the United States does

I'd agree that Canada simply never needed it.

Unfortunately, the US seems to have been founded and largely populated by people whose ideas about religion included the idea that to be religious is to be a jerk.

If you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, I apologize, but I don't agree.


The United States has religion in the mortar of its foundation, and of course many of its earliest and most influential settlers viewed themselves of needing greater religious freedom to practice more aescetic forms of worship than were viewed favorably in the British Empire. <o></o>

It should be further noted that the division between the church and the state was also very much intended to keep the government from limiting the acts that religious communities could engage in internally. The element of protection was bi-directional to be sure.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Canada by comparison had very little religious motivation in its foundation, virtually no modern fundamentalist movement. Our numbers for self described atheists and agnostics are much, much higher and our numbers for regular attendees of religious services are proportionally lower.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
That, and there’s something in the water that makes us not give a damn.

 

[pgwenthold]

Nope. In the States, all "religious" colleges are private -- public schools must not be religiously affiliated. Despite this, relatively few colleges with religious affiliations snoop into the personal moral practices of their faculty, precisely because the social pressure is so great.

.

As I related early in the thread, I do know of a faculty member at a catholic institution who's promotion was denied at the Board of Trustee level solely because she was divorced.

Her case was academically sound, and passed all the lower levels with flying colors. This can happen.

 

[Scottch]

Update on the job.

Well - I have now been teaching for two weeks and I have talked to the dean at a great social we had. Good thing about our college is that they serve free wine after every faculty meeting and he was pretty honest and open with me.

Pretty much he personally thinks that intelligent design and creationism are not appropriate to discuss in an education atmosphere. The college is a place of open, scientific learning and tolerance of all faiths, or lack thereof, is needed to advance intellectual pursuits. There is no mandate to include the Bible or any of the teachings in the courses (except for the obvious ones).

Faith is faith and science is science and there is room for both at the college - just not in the classroom. Open inquiry is what the college strives for and as long as I honor the opinion of others - life is good.

I have found out that there are many atheists and agnostics at the college that the dean recommended me to talk to. He assured me that the entire Biology department would be a great place to start as well as most of the Mathematics division.

All is well and actually I am really enjoying my interactions with all departments at the college. The best policy - as most of you stated - was to be honest and open at the beginning and I feel much better now. It is quite nice to have a forum to release one's frustrations since most of my colleagues really cannot understand the stress I felt taking the job.

I should have done a little more research before I applied for the college, but there aren't really any resources around and I didn't know anyone who went or taught at the college. I must admit that my prejudices and stereotypes were challenged (even at my age) and I feel a little guilty for thinking the way I did before. I fell into a trap that I often observe others fall into and feel pretty stupid. Oh well, I guess life is all about learning - I am just glad I can still recognize mistakes and change - even with a Ph.D.

Scott

 

[SirPhilip]

Well - I have now been teaching for two weeks and I have talked to the dean at a great social we had. Good thing about our college is that they serve free wine after every faculty meeting and he was pretty honest and open with me.

Pretty much he personally thinks that intelligent design and creationism are not appropriate to discuss in an education atmosphere. The college is a place of open, scientific learning and tolerance of all faiths, or lack thereof, is needed to advance intellectual pursuits. There is no mandate to include the Bible or any of the teachings in the courses (except for the obvious ones).

Faith is faith and science is science and there is room for both at the college - just not in the classroom. Open inquiry is what the college strives for and as long as I honor the opinion of others - life is good.

I have found out that there are many atheists and agnostics at the college that the dean recommended me to talk to. He assured me that the entire Biology department would be a great place to start as well as most of the Mathematics division.

All is well and actually I am really enjoying my interactions with all departments at the college. The best policy - as most of you stated - was to be honest and open at the beginning and I feel much better now. It is quite nice to have a forum to release one's frustrations since most of my colleagues really cannot understand the stress I felt taking the job.

I should have done a little more research before I applied for the college, but there aren't really any resources around and I didn't know anyone who went or taught at the college. I must admit that my prejudices and stereotypes were challenged (even at my age) and I feel a little guilty for thinking the way I did before. I fell into a trap that I often observe others fall into and feel pretty stupid. Oh well, I guess life is all about learning - I am just glad I can still recognize mistakes and change - even with a Ph.D.

Scott

Sounds like it's working out, then!

 

[drkitten]

If you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, I apologize, but I don't agree.

Not at all. The "religious freedom at the founding of the United States" is an enduring founding myth -- but a myth, up there with King Alfred's cakes and the Lancelot-Guenevere romance.

The United States has religion in the mortar of its foundation, and of course many of its earliest and most influential settlers viewed themselves of needing greater religious freedom to practice more aescetic forms of worship than were viewed favorably in the British Empire.

Except that a sophisticated reading of history doesn't back that up. The religious-based settlers were not looking for an opportunity to practice their religion. They had that already, both in England and in the Netherlands. What they were looking for was an opportunity to practice religious discrimination, by setting the legal, moral, and social norms of the new society to something that didn't involve dealing with the various forms of wrong belief that English society at the time demanded. For example, the hard-line Puritans were unsuccessful in banning theater "at home" until the military victory of Cromwell -- in the Plymouth Bay colony, they were banned more or less from the start. The ban on the celebration of Christmas is an even better -- if still more ludicrous -- example.

The Rhode Island colony, in turn, was founded as a breakaway theocracy by a group who had been expelled forcibly from the Massachusetts colony. Et cetera.

"Religious freedom" the founders had in abundance. Unfortunately, "religous freedom" applies both ways (as the current president still doesn't seem to realize), and that was what the Puritan settlers objected to.

 

[Almo]

Excellent to hear it's going well for you.

 

[Sinisterdan]

Except that a sophisticated reading of history doesn't back that up. The religious-based settlers were not looking for an opportunity to practice their religion. They had that already, both in England and in the Netherlands. What they were looking for was an opportunity to practice religious discrimination, by setting the legal, moral, and social norms of the new society to something that didn't involve dealing with the various forms of wrong belief that English society at the time demanded.

I agree, I must have been unclear.

It should be further noted that the division between the church and the state was also very much intended to keep the government from limiting the acts that religious communities could engage in internally. The element of protection was bi-directional to be sure.

I think we're on the same page.

BTW, Scottch, good for you.

 

[bigred]

I hope this is true, but I need to teach critical issues/evolution/religion is separate from science/etc.

You need to teach evolution is separate from science? ??? PS and FYI do not make the all too common atheist/agnostic mistake of lumping catholics in with fundamentatlists. VERY diff. beliefs (beyond the very basics).

Do you think I should perhaps lay low for a while and make sure that I get tenure before I rock the boat - or should I go out - guns blazing - and damn the masses (er - no pun intended)?

I think I know what I need to do, but since I have gotten my doctorate, I am not sure I am thinking clearly - with that whole ivory tower thing and everything.

Not sure if the ivory tower you refer to is the Catholic Church's or your own.

Anyway based on what you've said (and realizing it's hard to gauge the "mood" of the environment/situation from a simple online post) I think you should emphasize simply teaching the curriculum w/o getting off on some high n mighty "I'll enlighten these stupid catholics" BS. esp as I do believe that's what you're getting paid to do, although it sounds like they're willing to give you some slack in this regard.

If you insist on debate or on "needling" student's beliefs, I would hope you'd do so in a professional, courteous manner and not try to impose your beliefs on them or sneer down at them.....or let me put it this way: how would you feel if you were an atheist at some decidedly atheist college and a prof who was a catholic tried to push his beliefs on you? Or if you taught at a predominantly black college and espoused the benefits of segregation?

My point is how "right" you are or aren't is really what matters (presuming something as subjective as religious beliefs could even be conclusively settled anyway). Handling this with respect for other's beliefs and being restrained about ruffling feathers is. It's one thing to inspire critical thinking, which is all well and fine; it's another to say "you're wrong" just because you like ticking people off. Of course again just where to draw the line is impossible to say w/o being there, and it sounds like you may not care and will "damn the torpedos" anyway.....to each their own, but if so I wouldn't blame them a bit for giving you the ax quickly. (would you?)

Good luck regardless.