I Love You but You Didn’t Do the Reading

Leaves are falling and campus speakers are speaking. What else is going on out there? Here’s our ILYBYGTH collection of stories of interest:

Almost two-thirds of colleges/universities missed their enrollment targets this year.

The Wall Street Journal agrees with Ed Stetzer. There is no call for anxiety about religious judges or other officials, they note.

Ben bucks Berkeley boos: What happened when Ben Shapiro brought his in-your-face conservatism to California?

What does it mean for a public school to be “public?” Sarah M. Stitzlein of the University of Cincinnati wonders in the pages of EdWeek.Bart reading bible

“Is this heaven?” Some Iowa schools lock bad kids away in “little dungeons,” from The Progressive.

Should we defend Professor Wax’s right to be wrong? That’s Jonathan Zimmerman’s argument at IHE.

Across the (other) pond: South Korean ministry nominee and professor of engineering testifies about his belief in a young earth.

Free-Marketeer Arthur Brooks in the NYT: Universities need to “form communities that do not just tolerate conservatives but actively embrace ideological diversity.”

Is fundamentalism roaring back? John Fea looks askance at recent developments at Southern Baptist Seminary.

Who blocks campus speakers? A reminder from IHE that progressive speakers are being shouted down, too.

Advertisements
Next Post
Leave a comment

3 Comments

  1. See what happens when you liberals are too broad minded to take your own side in an argument? You get mugged by an antiliberal reality that’s going to exclude you in the near future.

    Reply
    • Dan,
      Which story are you talking about?

      Reply
      • Most of them, but especially your proposal of more sensitivity training for liberal academics who say disdainful things about anti gun control hillbillies or who suggest fundamentalists have something wrong with them, morally or psychologically.

        Even Fea’s presumption that “biblical counselling” had died out and his late realization of its connection to radical homophobia is a form of liberal triumphalism that has prevailed among “moderate” conservatives and evangelicals. They should have known better, but it was in their career interests not to.

        Greater tolerance toward radically intolerant people now is the compromising path of fear and maybe opportunism for some, but it’s wrong if you actually believe in equality as a value. Treating people equally and striving to include them when their agenda and record is entirely the opposite is suicidal, and it does cost lives.

        Would you mind inclusivity and sensitivity workshops being run by fundamentalists themselves? Why not include open racists as well, to get the full range of conservative and religious views? Where do you draw the line?

        If you want less casual incivility but don’t have a problem with serious critique and research into the pathological nature of antiliberal movements from a standpoint committed to liberal values that is rather different than seeking to treat complementarian fundamentalists as equal members of your implied audience. The latter is hardly a big problem and strange to pick as a priority. Some academics and students in their audiences might be former fundamentalists themselves or victims of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse common to fundamentalist communities.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s