Academics and Mormons

Posted on June 23, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Religion |

A constant discussion at some of the more academically oriented LDS blogs is the relationship between Mormonism and Academics. Is there a tension? Does ones Mormonism influence ones intellectual pursuits? The one thing that I think most Mormons have emphasized is the strong push in our culture to gain learning. At the same time I think critics are right in that there are tensions. Some Mormons see a threat between certain investigations (typically philosophy and religious history) although I think this fear is very misplaced. But it is there.


The thing I just don’t understand though is dislike of Mormons among academics that goes beyond this. I had in the sideblog some links on this. I think some commentators are right. This is partially about a general dislike of religion leading to a confirmation bias and over-exaggeration of any perceived wrong. It is also partially due to the fact that American Mormons are culturally politically conservative. Thus negative attitudes towards “dumb Republicans” go over into negative attitudes towards Mormons. I can even understand the fact that many just don’t have much contact with Mormons while they are aware they are Mormon.

I think many of us who have been in more academic jobs have had the uncomfortable situation of someone making broad bigoted statements about Mormons while not being aware we were Mormon. It’s so weird when it’s by people in academics who purport to not go by ill informed stereotype. There’s just a certain level of hypocrisy in this that gets to me every time.

That’s not to say our own community doesn’t have our own hypocrisies. (There’s a weird tension between an element of Mormonism oriented towards Libertarian thinking and an element of Mormonism that likes community standards to be enforced) And there’s lots I think one can legitimately disagree over. The issue that Sean Carrol mentioned in his post was disputes about academic freedom at BYU.

But is that really an issue of Mormons and academics or is it that BYU is a weird hybrid between a religious institution and center of higher education? There may be intrinsically competing values that make that problematic. But that says nothing about Mormon commitment to academics. It may just mean that BYU is a problem when there’s an inherent conflict between representing Mormonism in a quasi-official capacity and having a commitment to pure academic freedom. (Not that I think there’s anything akin to real pure academic freedom at most universities)

Let’s say though that the Church decides having BYU as an official college is a bad idea and does what it did with most of its schools and colleges in Utah and divests itself of it. Suddenly BYU is no longer a church school. Does that mean if BYU does something stupid it reflects on Mormons in general? If it embraced pure academic freedom would that mean people like Sean Carrol suddenly would see Mormons as being pro-intellectual? Probably not.

My sense, and perhaps it’s a bit unfair, is that most people using the academic freedom issue - even if they have legitimate points - are using it as a kind of trump card so as to not need to investigate their real motivations. Even if the BYU situation is a huge issue from them it’s very hard to see how on earth it could justify their views of a whole religion.

Comments

6 Responses to “Academics and Mormons”

Your post got me wondering about how BYU views itself—and more importantly, how often it views itself. Is part of the problem that BYU tries so hard to “represent the Church” that it falls short of its potential to do what academic institutions are meant to (namely, teach and discover)? And then the whole “represent something greater” attitude rubs other academics the wrong way?

I sometimes meet people who work so hard to be a good example that they don’t accomplish nearly as much of what they hope to exemplify as they would if they just worked hard at their job. Did Michael Jordan win so much because he was trying to set a good example of how to play basketball or because he was trying to win?

I think there are two big problems (tensions?) at BYU.

The first is the whole issue of CES. You have parents who are also often big donors who want BYU to be a “safe” place to send their kids to college. That’s a ridiculous expectation on so many levels its not funny. (The main one being that these are adults and they have to decide their own views of religion for themselves) This puts pressure on the religion department which isn’t really academic in the normal sense of the term. It’s really early morning seminary moved to college for the most part. It could be more but it isn’t and honestly from what I hear it’s because of the influence of parents. While the Church lays out a lot of money to pay for BYU as with any college it depends a lot on donations from alumni or other interested parties. And so it’s in constant fear of silly expectations. (I think this is what happened with the Rodin exhibit for instance)

The second issue is more justifiable. You have professors who are expected to be worthy Mormons since there is a view that they aren’t just teaching academics they are also mentors to the students. And that’s the big benefit of BYU over other colleges. I transferred into BYU and for all its flaws the professors are amazingly approachable and do really work with students in a way I’ve never seen or heard of elsewhere. Obviously that varies from department to department. But, for instance, we regularly hung out with the dean and joked around a lot and even got him to teach a few custom classes for us based upon the interests of some of the students.

Given that relationship and the fact professors aren’t just viewed as academic mentors but also mentors in a more religious sense there’s an innate tension. (Remember that many professors are also leaders in Stake Presidencies or in Bishoprics or at least High Councils) If a professor suddenly is seen at directly attacking the basic legitimacy of the church or at least perceived to be engaged in a political battle with the church how should they react? It’s a tough call and I can see both sides of it. Is it fair for a professor who loses faith or wants to publish works critical of the church to be unable to do so? Why should active membership for members be required? What if a professor loses faith? Why should they be fired?

That last one is the main problematic tension between being a religious facility and an academic one. I’m not sure it’s resolvable.

While I really like the idea of there not being a large univocal sense of a college I also have to admit that the idea of a religious college seems difficult. So while I ultimately disagree with Sean’s comments, I fully understand where he is coming from.

To your larger point about being more focused on perceptions than just being oneself, I do think that true often of BYU and Mormons. In a certain sense we all are a bit immature in that sense. We’ve moved out of the seige mentality after centuries of varying degrees of persecution. Now we’re in a stage where I think we’re so desperate to be taken as legitimate and mainstream that we act too insecure and sometimes neurotic. (That’s probably a big aspect of the Rodin exhibit controversy as well) We should be mature enough to be ourselves and not care what others thing to such a large extent. I’m hoping that the whole Mitt Romney thing will perhaps help in that. (Since it became quite apparent that despite decades of trying to be accepted that we aren’t)

I think that you’ve hit on the major reason why I cannot see myself teaching at BYU: too many distractions. When I go to work I aim to do good science—which means being honest, open, thorough, sharing reagents and ideas, etc. I think those are traits of a good person as well. As a professor, I don’t want to have people trying to convince me that there is a separation between how I behave as a good scientist and how I behave as a good person, as though being one doesn’t necessarily include the other.

Thanks, by the way, for the interesting thoughts.

4 Gerald Smith on June 24th, 2008 5:27 am

All this sounds like BYU. Having stated this, though, just how many non-religious schools out there also have agendas that may not always promote a free thinking and learning experience?
How many professors and deans have been fired for statements in classes or speeches they’ve given that did not meet with the conservative or liberal views of the alumni and faculty of any particular university?
Seems to me that there may be just as much restriction on speech at regular universities. Why did Univ of Nevada at Reno and other universities require Free Speech Zones? http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7118.html

If political (or religious) correctness (PC) has a place at BYU, which it obviously does, is it really any different than the tensions at other colleges? How many universities create an atmosphere that is safe for certain speech, and not for other? There have been conservative and liberal speakers shouted down or denied access to certain universities, simply because their message disagrees with the majority of the student body’s political views. Why should religion be viewed any differently than politics (the two things we were taught never to discuss in public….)?

I think the problem of distractions is a big issue at BYU. I think limited time for research is a huge issue. Then at least in my perceptions you have a bigger teaching load since there aren’t as many grad students teaching classes. All of that ends up being better for the students I think. (At many colleges the actual quality of teaching can be quite poor) But it sure is hard on the profs.

I think not having “compartmentalization” is important as well. I’m not sure if your latter comments were a critique of BYU since I don’t think that’s true at BYU. Indeed that gets into the messiness of having BYU as a religious school. Academics in a way demands that questions of good behavior be quite separated from questions of good scholarship/teaching outside of a narrow range of ethical prohibitions.

Gerald, I think many schools have de facto limits of free speech. (Look at the Harvard President situation - what he said was wrong but what happened to being able to be wrong?) However I also think that conservatives often exaggerate the degree to which this is occurring. (Just as liberals often like to pretend it never happens except at religious schools) Politics is, unfortunately, a fact of life at colleges and manifests itself in many ways. I’ve heard many an academic bemoaning the political games one has to play as a professor - especially if you don’t yet have tenure. (Which was the case with most of the BYU incidents)

Overall though I think all schools could do better with making an atmosphere safe for speech. Unfortunately that can be tricky since it is often speech itself which makes an environment unsafe for other speech.

Not that distractions don’t exist everywhere, but it’s the kind of distractions at BYU that I don’t want. I would work at a school that required a dress code; I think what I wear is a silly distraction, but it’s not all that important to me. What I believe—meaning, my faith in God—is very important and personal, and so I don’t want to be in a place where that is made to feel like a distraction.

Here is what I meant about “compartmentalization,” as you put it. My graduate advisor was The Exemplary Mentor and scientist: approachable, honest in every way, charitable, patient—I could go on. But I have the feeling that if she worked at BYU, people would hear all that and still ask, “Okay, but does she set a good moral example?”

Leave a Reply