Prior to last Friday, the famous pro-life philosopher Francis
Beckwith was at the pinnacle of his career. His latest book had
been accepted for publication by Cambridge University Press, one of
the most prestigious academic publishers in the world. The deal
with Cambridge was the capstone on several years of prolific
publishing in an impressive variety of journals. In an academic
world that is feared by many young faculty for its “publish or
perish” reputation, Professor Beckwith had nothing to worry about.
He’d published…and published…and published.
Tenure was surely a foregone conclusion. Or was it?
Last Friday, we found out just how ugly the politics of the
university can get. Francis Beckwith received formal notification
that his tenure had been denied by Baylor University. The word that
came to the lips of everyone I spoke to on Friday and over the
weekend was the same: injustice. Rank injustice.
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?
I’m a lot less naive about human nature today than I was on
Friday morning. Now I understand why my conservative and Christian
friends are so hesitant to write anything for publication using
their real names. I’ve taken it up myself. Starting today.
Some who read this story will wonder whether there is some other
serious weakness that has resulted in Beckwith’s being denied
tenure. The publication record is one of the best on campus. The
teaching evaluations were good.
Many suspect that if the university ever issues a justification
for its actions, “collegiality” will have been the all-important
factor. If so, I hope the always active Baylor chapter of the
American Association of University Professors will leap to Dr.
Beckwith’s defense. After all, the AAUP has had occasion to address
the prejudicial use of “collegiality” in tenure decisions
before:
Historically, “collegiality” has not infrequently been
associated with ensuring homogeneity, and hence with practices that
exclude persons on the basis of their difference from a perceived
norm. The invocation of “collegiality” may also threaten academic
freedom. In the heat of important decisions regarding promotion or
tenure, as well as other matters involving such traditional areas
of faculty responsibility as curriculum or academic hiring,
collegiality may be confused with the expectation that a faculty
member display “enthusiasm” or “dedication,” evince “a constructive
attitude” that will “foster harmony,” or display an excessive
deference to administrative or faculty decisions where these may
require reasoned discussion. Such expectations are flatly contrary
to elementary principles of academic freedom, which protect a
faculty member’s right to dissent from the judgments of colleagues
and administrators.
A distinct criterion of collegiality also holds the potential of
chilling faculty debate and discussion. Criticism and opposition do
not necessarily conflict with collegiality. Gadflies, critics of
institutional practices or collegial norms, even the occasional
malcontent, have all been known to play an invaluable and
constructive role in the life of academic departments and
institutions. They have sometimes proved collegial in the deepest
and truest sense. Certainly a college or university replete with
genial Babbitts is not the place to which society is likely to look
for leadership. It is sometimes exceedingly difficult to
distinguish the constructive engagement that characterizes true
collegiality from an obstructiveness or truculence that inhibits
collegiality. Yet the failure to do so may invite the suppression
of dissent. The very real potential for a distinct criterion of
“collegiality” to cast a pall of stale uniformity places it in
direct tension with the value of faculty diversity in all its
contemporary manifestations.
In short, it is likely that “collegiality” is often a code for
unjustified discrimination or the practice of ruthless politics.
Beckwith was one of a new breed of scholars brought to Baylor by
Robert Sloan, Baylor’s former president. Sloan was a key architect
of Baylor’s vision for Christian academic excellence and the move
toward true research university status. Rather than being a less
well-funded version of the University of Texas with a vaguely
parochial identity, Baylor would stand as a real alternative, a
daring affirmative statement of the broad intellectual horizons of
the Christian faith. Disgruntled veteran faculty managed to push
Sloan out, but the embattled president and others believed that the
school would continue along the path upon which he had set it. The
chairman of the Board of Regents, presumably speaking for a
majority of board members, proclaimed that message when, early last
year, Sloan announced his resignation.
Those of us who cared about seeing the vision fulfilled watched
hopefully to see what would happen next. We knew we’d discover the
real score when Francis Beckwith’s tenure came up for review. Out
of the class of faculty members under consideration, he was the
best-known and the most public symbol of Sloan’s vision. Either the
university would allow those who pushed Robert Sloan out to take
further revenge on one of his prize academic recruits or it would
ensure that the decision was made objectively and fairly based on
job performance. Regrettably, we now know which path Baylor chose.
Permission for political retribution granted.
This is a story that deserves to have legs. Baylor is
experiencing cognitive dissonance of its own. The university claims
to be committed to the integration of faith and learning and to
upholding and expanding the best traditions of Christian
scholarship. At the same time, it allows a faction of disgruntled
faculty who deny the possibility of the above project to exert
brute political force over decisions like the tenure of Francis
Beckwith. The two ideas can’t coexist. Frank Beckwith is an
outstanding Christian scholar. He’s an outstanding scholar period.
If there’s not room for him at Baylor, then the dream is dead on
arrival.
