pluralism

Principled Pluralism

gordon.govier@intervarsity.org — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:27:07 +0000

Alec Hill, President of ��ñ��

Principled Pluralism

A distorted and dangerous definition of pluralism is emerging in the academy. In a front-page article last June, entitled “Colleges and Evangelicals Collide on Bias Policy,” the New York Times reported several instances where new university non-discrimination policies – designed to foster diversity - are actually making campuses less inclusive.

At issue on campuses such as Bowdoin, Tufts, Vanderbilt and the California State University system is the right of faith-based student groups to use doctrinal criteria to select leaders. Accused of “religious discrimination,” these groups are at increasing risk of being derecognized on campus.

Aspen Institute Report

A year ago, the Aspen Institute addressed such concerns in a report entitled “Principled Pluralism.” Co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and David Gergen, the 25 member “Inclusive America Project” panel included university and seminary presidents, media thought-leaders, professors and social service providers. It was my great privilege to serve with senior religious leaders from various faith communities - Jewish, Moslem, Sikh, Humanist and Christian.

Together, we adopted the phrase “principled pluralism” to articulate two big ideas. First, we embraced the right of diverse religious traditions to self-define and to disagree – even adamantly - on matters of theology. Second, we affirmed a deep commitment to pursue the common good together in higher education, youth services, media and government. The first point distinguished us from those who seek to blur or mitigate religious doctrines; the second from those who seek to foster ill-will amongst faith communities.

The report specifically recommended that “institutions of higher learning should make the study of religious diversity a priority, and create campus environments that promote honest respectful exploration among students of the variety of religious beliefs.” I was particularly impressed by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam’s conclusion that religious diversity can (counter-intuitive as it may seem) actually be a source of social cohesion.

Universities as Hosts of Principled Pluralism

Principled pluralism encourages the academy to be a place where conflicting narratives and ideologies vie with each other freely and openly. As a former dean, I recognize that this involves a measure of messiness and discomfort for all involved. Every time a less-than-popular voice is silenced, students are denied an opportunity to engage the real world around them. Part of entering the adult world is the ability to process differing world views.

It is therefore of great concern that faith-based student groups are finding it increasingly difficult to find a seat at the table on some campuses. Their choices are being limited to: (a) allowing students who know nothing about their faith to lead their groups as a price for recognition, (b) compromising their integrity by signing off on university policy while secretly intending to choose leaders who abide by the tenants of their faith, or (c) refusing to sign the agreement and lose recognition.

As expressions of devout faith become less palatable at some institutions, will these student groups be allowed to freely associate, self-select leaders and share their beliefs with others? Or will campuses become - in the words of former Yale Law School dean, Anthony Kronman - increasingly “intellectually and spiritually frozen?”

The emerging false pluralism stifles religious expression, labels leadership selection based upon orthodoxy and orthopraxy as “religious discrimination,” redefines freedom of association as “exclusionary,” and condemns the sharing of one’s faith with non-adherents as “proselytizing.”

When pluralism is wrongly defined, nonsensical policies result. In the California State System, for example, sororities and fraternities are explicitly exempted from gender discrimination in selecting leaders, while faith based groups are not granted a similar religious exemption. (Of course, the underlying story behind such treatment – as told in a recent Atlantic article - is the political and economic power of Greek alumni).

My point is not to slam sororities and fraternities. To the contrary, I concur that they should be allowed to have female and male leaders, respectively. Likewise, Phi Beta Kappa should have smart leaders. The Young Democrats should have politically progressive leaders. And, in this same spirit, faith based groups should have religious leaders. It is telling that the conservative National Review and the liberal Mother Jones concur on this point.

University administrators bear great responsibility to ensure that principled pluralism thrives in their environs. The degree to which they provide – or fail to provide – truly open public forums will determine how our culture engages such issues in the future. How they define pluralism today will establish a cultural template for a whole generation.

A slightly different version of this article was published by the Huffington Post

News Keywords

pluralism

First Amendment

Diversity

Faith in the Campus Conversation

gordon.govier@intervarsity.org — Fri, 23 May 2014 19:21:19 +0000

News

Gordon Govier

Faith in the Campus Conversation

Universities exist to find what is true, to encourage vibrant discourse, and to nurture students. ��ñ�� Christian Fellowship, with its 70-year history of campus ministry, welcomes the opportunity to be involved with all of the increasingly diverse communities on campus. But diversity has also become a political football that complicates the work of campus ministry, particularly when nondiscrimination policies conflict with religious freedom principles.

Last year ��ñ�� President Alec Hill was a member of a task force that assembled a white paper called Principled Pluralism for the Aspen Institute. The white paper’s aim was to “increase respect for diverse religious identities in the public sphere, foster positive interfaith interactions, and form productive partnerships among people of different faiths in the service of the common good.”

In a panel discussion at Calvin College, cosponsored by ��ñ�� and the Aspen Institute, Alec said, “We have 900 chapters in ��ñ�� and we're facing a lot of issues on campus relating to the secular/religious divide, less so the religious/religious divide. For me this issue of finding people who have common values and spirit, of different faiths but who see the issues we're struggling with, would be helpful. ”

Agreeable Disagreements

Alec recalled that after 9/11 the ��ñ�� chapter at Wayne State University reached out to the beleaguered Muslim students on campus to befriend them. The Boston Globe reported on how much both sides valued the regular meetings. "Yeah we meet every month, we talk about what we believe, we try to convert each other, and we're friends," quipped one of the interviewees.

“That’s principled pluralism,” Alec said. “You may not agree, but you accept each other. You love each other, and you have that kind of dialogue and conversation, fully holding on to what you believe, fully articulating that."

Alec noted that the meaning of tolerance has changed. It used to mean respect between those who disagreed with each other. Today it means those who disagree need to change their beliefs until they reach the lowest common denominator, and convictions have become valueless.

“On campus tolerance is actually thrown in our face and it becomes anti-tolerance toward people who hold strong religious convictions,” Alec said. “It's a paradox and irony, a Nineteen Eighty Four use of the word.”

Helping Students

Joining Alec in the panel discussion on pluralism was Calvin College President Michael Le Roy, who agreed on the importance of respecting differences. "It's a mark of maturity when somebody can have their convictions and engage someone who is different, not compromising those convictions but listening and then responding in kindness and gentleness," he said. "These are the skills that we need to help students to develop."

The Rev. Julius Medenblik, president of Calvin Theological Seminary and the other member of the panel, noted that the participation of the Christian church in society was not always consistent down through history, but at many times the church has provided much-needed compassionate service and at other times bold leadership at critical times. “If we do not stand up [for what we believe in], what happens to our culture?” he asked.

The Genius of America

The distaste for discrimination and the desire for freedom are strong themes in American history and have been protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution. But that landscape seems to be changing and the change is perhaps most evident on U.S. college campuses right now.

“In the name of anti-discrimination, in the name of pluralism, in the name of tolerance, the opposite is happening," Alec said. "It seems to me it's the genius of America that we were many and yet one, and we allowed space for those differences. I fear that's under attack."

By advocating for principled pluralism, in partnership with the Aspen Institute and other organizations, ��ñ�� is working to make sure U.S. college and university campuses maintain the ideals of their (often Christian) founders.

For further information:

Listen to the panel discussion Time: 1:26:30

Principled Pluralism White Paper

On April 29, 2014, another panel discussion in this series was held at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois. On this panel, Alec Hill was joined by Dr. Philip Rykind, president of Wheaton College, and Dr. S. Alan Ray, president of Elmhurst College. A video of the panel discussion can be viewed here.

News Keywords