Is the University Becoming Something Driven by Fundraising and Fear?

Photo by Donald Lee Pardue

Todd Gitlin, chair of the interdisciplinary doctoral program in communications at Columbia University, wrote an interesting op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times concerning the recent brouhaha at Brooklyn College. It seems the political science department co-sponsored a forum where an anti-Israel group was to provide speakers who would condemn the Jewish state and call for cutting off all economic ties. Given that 15% of Brooklyn's 2.5 million residents are Jewish, the backlash against the poly-sci department was severe and the college quickly found itself in a question of what its role is in providing a voice to people who hold unpopular opinions.

Gitlin used this example of just how far our institutes of higher education are moving from their original role as institutions that expose and build ideas and critical thinking to something... well... less.

He notes the Brooklyn College department chair told disgruntled students that "You and like-minded colleagues should attend the event, voice your views and use this event as an opportunity to generate more dialogue and discussion among students. Perhaps you and your colleagues could even organize a panel discussion of your own."

Gitlin goes on to explain:

With these words, Currah was channeling John Stuart Mill, to the effect that education and enlightenment benefit when minority views are heard, partly because these views may, in the end, turn out to be right to some degree, and partly because the majority, when forced to confront objections, may well find its understanding sharpened and its previously stale views refreshed.

Mill is evidently not so much in vogue now, as Israel-right-or-wrong advocates seem to believe that their case is a delicate hothouse flower that will wither under any adverse exposure.

He sums up the problem with keen insight later in the article when he writes:

There is a sinister pattern at work. Misunderstandings of the purposes of universities run rampant today in an America driven by fear that somebody, somewhere, may be thinking incorrect or unprofitable thoughts. Fundraising is paramount. Established universities expand by raising hundreds of millions of dollars, hoping that the research they cultivate will eventually profit the school financially. This can lead to remarkable new academic ventures, but also to timidity.

Christians have seen this same concept played out in their science classes, their ethics classes, and anywhere else groupthink is only to be allowed. I think Gitlin has nailed some of the problem.

Can We Be Equal on Evolution's View? (video)

"If evolution is true, then what makes all people equal to begin with?"

Here's a quick video clip to share with young people that will help provoke their thinking. I discuss the problem of anchoring equality of persons from an evolutionary viewpoint and how the early 20th century eugenics movement was the natural outgrowth of this view. Feel free to share with your friends!

Whether You Want to Be or Not, You Are Drafted into the War of Ideas

“Boy, I sure wish you could come with me and talk to my college professor!” “If only I had you with me at our next family dinner.” “Wow, I would love to have those guys at work come and talk to you for a while.” Have you ever said or thought a statement like that before? Many pastors and apologists are hearing phrases like these more and more. There are good reasons for why this is so, as students are facing increasingly harsh criticism when standing up for their Christian beliefs.

As a Christian, you're a target for others who hold ideas and beliefs different from you. And because you can’t have an expert beside you all the time, it’s going to be up to you to try and defend what you believe in many situations. Whether you want to be or not, you've been drafted in to a war — a war of ideas! The Apostle Paul tells us the very same thing when he writes to the church at Corinth: “We use God's power that can destroy fortresses. We destroy arguments and every bit of pride that keeps anyone from knowing God.” (2 Cor. 10:4-5 CEV)

Those fortresses that Paul talks about, those are the ideas that this world has on how to do things: what’s right, how we should act, how we should treat others, and how our faith fits into the picture. Most of the world's understanding of right and wrong, morality, the nature of man, and how our beliefs are worked out in our daily lives are opposite of what the Bible says should be so. Satan is the father of lies. He manipulates this world to believe some of the most unbelievable things, and as you've probably experienced, people don’t like it when you try to promote the Biblical way of approaching actions. You will find that people will tell you that you are being intolerant, judgmental, belligerent, narrow-minded, naive, or something worse. They are comfortable in their worldview and they don’t want to hear that they may actually be sinning or wrong. Their ideas are entrenched, and those are the “fortresses of this world”.

You see, most people assume that their faith is just one aspect of who they are. They believe that faith is important, but it is a personal thing. Most people are mistaken. Faith is so much more than just a part of us. It is the lens through which we see and understand the world.

The Bible takes this same view. It doesn't tell us just what to believe but provides us with a framework by which we can judge our experiences. If the Bible is the word of God, then it holds the truth in every aspect of life that it comments about. It is our guide to reality, not merely for religious worship but how we should act living our everyday lives. Therefore, it becomes a really big thing to understand and provide answers for what we think we believe and have reasons for why we would believe it. 

Looking for Real News? Let the Reader Beware.

 photo by Southwest

There's an old Latin phrase the Romans originated and most people have heard  even today: "caveat emptor," let the buyer beware. This holds true for even those consumers that want to be objectively informed by our news media. Before we go further, realize this isn't some type of "the newspaper's politics is slanted" diatribe. No, this is more about business than politics.

Today's Los Angeles Times ran a story in their science pages with the headline "Scientists infuse 'life' into inanimate compounds." Such a sensational achievement by science should be trumpeted across the headlines of all majors papers, no doubt.  However, this was carried in their regular science page, back on an interior page of a subsection of the paper.

Why would the Times choose to bury such a sensational story? The answer lies in the story itself.

The scientist had hundreds of bacteria-sized particles, each with an attached mineral hematite that stuck out on one end spread randomly in a drop of liquid solution. Because the solution included hydrogen peroxide and when exposed to a blue-violet light hematite reacts with the hydrogen peroxide, whenever the scientists turned on the light, a chemical reaction would start and the particles would gather together in crystal-like shapes. The article goes on to say "at first, the particles moved about at random. Then, about 25 seconds into the chaos, the limited space and directionless driving produced a traffic jam of particles." Because of the "jam" the particles forced themselves into these hexagonal structures.

This is an interesting and non-trivial find; I'm sure it can lead to efficient ways to do things on a microscopic level that we've not been able to accomplish before.  However, is this an example of infusing life into inanimate compounds?  It doesn't seem so to me.  Anyone who has studied systems restricted by some type of containment knows that such systems will sort themselves into a honeycomb shape. Cannonballs and oranges in crates are routinely cited as examples of this.  It is common enough that chemists even have a name for it: face-centered cubic packing.

Now, the fact that these particles are grouping in such a way because of the influence of the light is as I said interesting and could hold promise for many different uses.  However, this has nothing to do with making things alive. These particles are infused with life in much the same way a pinball machine comes to life when you drop a quarter in its slot. So why would the headline scream that scientist have succeeded in infusing life into inanimate objects? Of course the headline used scare quotes around the word "life" but they knew people glancing at the article would draw an implication. The newspapers bank on such sensationalism to get people to read the story.

As thoughtful consumers we need to be cautious and carefully read the claims made in the media today.  Supposed documentaries of the Discovery Channel and other cable shows will routinely use this tactic to try and grab viewers. Many times an unwitting public will buy a ridiculous idea that Jesus' family tomb was discovered or that the Gospel of Judas somehow overthrows two thousand years of Christianity. But the Romans knew better than to believe the first thing someone tries to sell you, even if what they're claiming to trade in is the truth.

Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women?

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting couple of articles earlier this year discussing the pros and cons of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It is clear to anyone who takes the time to look at history that humanity, and especially Western societies, underwent a fundamental change because of the separation of sexual activity from procreation.

In this article, Hoover Research Fellow Mary Eberstadt focuses on four myths that seem to still be prevalent today (especially by those with a certain political agenda) and she deftly knocks down each one.  The four she identifies are:

1. The "war on women" consists of tyrannical men arrayed against oppressed but pluckily united women.
2. If it weren't for the Catholic Church, no one would be talking about contraception anyway.
3. The "social issues" are unwanted artifacts of a primitive religious past that will eventually just fade away.
4. The sexual revolution has made women happier.

Eberstadt takes each of these in turn and shows how silly they are when looked at in real world contexts. She shows that even by looking at popular women's periodicals you can see these myths don't hold. You can read the short article here.