Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Backgrounder on ID-friendly law prof: Tenure still hangs in balance

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recall Frank Beckwith, that gifted prof at Baylor, who specializes in church-state issues, who was mysteriously denied tenure recently?

Beckwith appealed, was turned down again* – by a narrower margin, it is said – and a decision is expected shortly. What’s come out since the first denial is that his former department chair, who is believed to have undermined Beckwith’s tenure chances, recently resigned amid allegations that he plagiarized the work of Ronald Numbers , a well-known American scholar, best known for his studies of creationism.

As World‘s Mark Bergin notes,

Beckwith is among academia’s foremost pro-life advocates and has written articles supporting the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The tenure committee accused him of inappropriately focusing on such areas of expertise in his courses on church-state relations. In his appeal of tenure denial, Beckwith responded that “because these ethical issues are central to the most important and disputed questions in church-state studies today, it seems to me to be not only permissible, but obligatory, for a professor in this area of study to address these issues.”

Well, um, yes. Anyone in the news business knows that stories about abortion or intelligent design lead over the mast. Should Beckwith have asked students to wade through tomes on interstate trucking rules instead? How about “Proper venting for turnips in transit – a federal or state responsibility?” or “Bovine-produced methane gas in re current environment regulations”?

The tenure committee further charged Beckwith with assigning only his published works for a class on religion and society. In fact, Beckwith’s writings amounted to only 15 percent of the course’s required reading.

Given that Beckwith has authored a fair whack of stuff on the subjects in question, it’s surprising he didn’t assign more of his own.

Bergin also notes that the chair was friends with the Dawsons, a powerful Texas clan. Seems the church-state center at Baylor, where Beckwith worked as associate director, was named after granddaddy Dawson, and the clan notables think that grandaddy would not have seen eye to eye with Beckwith. As a result, a whole heap of Dawsons has been campaigning against Beckwith for years, making Baylor sound like Hayseed U.

The whole story leaves me wondering why Beckwith even wants tenure at Baylor. But maybe if he gets it, he can help them recover the original vision to be a “Protestant Notre Dame.”

Some have wondered whether Beckwith’s association with the Discovery Institute and with ID mathematician Bill Dembski, whose ill-fated Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor, was holding conferences on intelligent design issues a few years ago, cooked his goose. Beckwith has defended the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design in publicly funded schools (but that’s not the same thing as thinking it is a good idea). But sources I trusted said no, it was mainly because he is pro life.

More generally, controversy has dogged Beckwith throughout his career, not because he is especially flamboyant but principally because he is a talented cultural conservative. Baylor is a Baptist university desperately seeking acceptance in a liberal environment; the last thing it needs is a prof who comes up with good arguments for cultural conservatism.

When the decision to deny tenure was first announced in March, a Baylor student lamented:

When I first heard the news I experienced for the first time what is known as cognitive dissonance. I couldn’t hold the two ideas in my mind. Professor Beckwith. Denied tenure. It was impossible to believe. There were people who told me it could happen, but I discounted the notion. After all, even political enemies have consciences, right? They have some commitment to integrity, don’t they?

No clear reason that makes any sense ever emerged for denying Beckwith tenure, though a lack of “collegiality” was mooted. The “collegiality” claim has become notorious, actually, as a way of getting rid of people who do not march in lockstep.

(Studying Beckwith’s case, I get the impression that it’s okay at Baylor to yay-hoo for Jesus as long as you make a fool of yourself and no one takes you seriously. Well, we’ll see.)

*Beckwith has written me to say, “The University Tenure Committee only recommends to the Provost. So, technically, I was not “turned down again.”

Comments
tribune7 re Hitler the abortionist. Can't say that I've heard that before. In the interest of an enduring emotional commentary that gets exactly nowhere I say we suspend Godwin's Law for the nonce.DaveScot
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Hmm. Am I wise enough to stay out of this dust-up? Probably not -- I haven't been in the past, so why should I start now? We'll see.Carlos
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Hitler was pro abortion (Really put the hammer down) :-)tribune7
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Well, now that the Hitler thread is dying down... I haven't been in a good abortion dust-up in quite a while. Two words guaranteed to cause blogsteria are Hitler and abortion. Never fails. I don't believe I've had liberal biologists in the audience before so this should be a treat. Maybe we can at least agree on some basic givens that the usual human physiology illiterates can't or won't acknowledge: 1) the life cycle of an individual human begins at conception 2) the fertilized egg is a demonstrably unique human Calling all biology PhDs. Is there a problem with either of the above? Once the above biological truths are accepted by all we move along to political/legal givens: 3) at some in a human's life cycle between conception and death he or she becomes entitled to a legal right to life 4) in most times and places the legal right to life is acquired at birth Now, as a thought exercise, I want the baby killers (no inflammatory language there, right? ;-) ) out there to count backward minute by minute from birth to conception and tell me exactly where and why (logically & scientifically) the human in question should lose its legal right to life. Back when I was in the baby killer camp (15+ years ago) someone asked me this very same question. I was unable to give a precise point at which a human ceases being human enough to have a right to life. Since that day I have not been able to support abortion-on-demand. I was persuaded. That's a very rare thing in my experience - changing someone's mind on abortion. In point of fact I've never observed a person (other than me) being persuaded to change their mind. I do believe in so-called choice, however. A person can choose whether or not to engage in the act which is well known to sometimes result in pregnancy. After that, provided it is a conscious decision made by adults, they are complicit and if a pregnancy results are personally responsible for that new human and may not erase responsibility by an arbitrary decision to kill it. (That only one of the parents gets a say in the matter is fodder for a related discussion). The parents, through their own volition, put the new human in harm's way and are thus obligated to protect it until it can protect itself or someone else volunteers to take over the task (adoption). Any other manner of dealing with this situation is, pure and simple, killing in order to establish a secure right to care-free sexual intercourse. No ethical/legal scaffolding I can support can trade in death this way. Death for sex. No way. Especially when there are so many ways to have sex that don't result in pregnancy. Abortion on demand is morally bankrupt.DaveScot
September 16, 2006
September
09
Sep
16
16
2006
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply