Seems to me it’s a hill worth dying on for her, because it’s her job at stake. Personally, I think this lies in the realm of employment law, and that she’d have a damn good case.
Who do you think is about to “die” on that “hill”?
Your links are instructive (if not, perhaps, in the way you appear think they are). Certainly, there are exemptions from anti-discrimination … but they are sensible and limited. From your second link:
Emphasis added.
What’s at stake here is that the employer is claiming a “religious” reason for firing an employee. However, as has been amply demonstrated, their claim is bullshit. They are, in effect, attempting to claim a religious exemption for behavior that would not be covered by that exemption: in this case, for seemingly making nice with Muslims.
Your POV would allow them to get away with that. Why would you, or indeed anyone, think that was a good idea?
Can you talk me through the basis upon which termination of this professor’s employment would be actionable, and how any relevant exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) would or would not apply? I haven’t worked my way through the matter but I’m not immediately seeing her case on the face of this thread.
Meanwhile, Wheaton College alumni are apparently very pissed off.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment actions taken based on race and religion. I think we can stipulate that the professor’s statement on which god Muslims worship can be taken as a statement of belief, yes? Title VII includes a “ministerial exception” allowing religious to discriminate based on religion when choosing non-lay personnel (priests, rabbis, and so on). The ministerial exception has been extended to cover some educational employees, including a teacher in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). However, the plaintiff in that case was not a lay teacher; she had theological training and was hired as a “called” teacher - essentially, a minister for the classroom. SCOTUS’ opinion made much of this, even though she was actually reassigned to a “lay” position at the time she was discriminated against.
At least one court has applied the ministerial exception to a teacher who had no religious duties, but that was apparently based on the fact that he taught on religious subjects (including the New Testament) and participated in chapel services even though he was Jewish.
As far as I can tell, Hawkins taught no religious subjects at all. The college’s only claim that she is a “minister” would be its “holistic Christian” teaching method, but to win on that argument it will have to show (at least) that its curricula for subjects like political science include religious elements.
She’s a professor with tenure. The meaning of tenure:
Therefore, Wheaton has to have “just cause” to terminate her employment. They cannot do it arbitrarily. The purpose of tenure is to allow professors freedom of speech:
In sum, they are terminating her for the exact reason tenure is supposed to prevent: for exercising her speech on a ‘controversial’ topic in a manner that they, the university staff, find offensive.
This is what gives her the right of action - they have breached the terms of her contract.
Now, their defense would presumably be that she breached the terms of her “contract” first (namely, the “Statement of Faith”) and that this provides the “just cause” they require to terminate her.
That’s where the analysis of the religion comes in: the fact that her quoted words would not reasonably be seen as actually breaching the ‘statement of faith’; and more importantly, the fact that the college hasn’t been consistent: they have allowed other faculty (one of whom did not have tenure) to make the same comment, without terminating them. It is a commonplace in employment law when looking at the reasonableness of employee discipline to look at past institutional practice as a guide. The institution cannot be arbitrary. It must be consistent. In this case, the lack of consistency would be a difficult legal barrier for them to overcome in proving ‘just cause’.
That’s all that is really necessary for the analysis: assuming all of these facts are provable, she has a good solid case for breach of contract.
The notion has been raised that the college could be allowed to discriminate based on religion. Strictly speaking, that has nothing to do with the legal analysis. However, even if it did, it would not apply; the right of religious institutions to discriminate based on religion is limited: it is intended for avoiding suits for religious discrimination (for example, because a Catholic school hires Catholic ministers for their chapel, that sort of thing). Assuming the above analysis is correct, this notion would not even come into play: she is not actually of a different religion. An institution cannot just make shit up and then claim a religious exemption for it, and to allow them to do so would be a silly precedent.
So which is it? I personally am probably prejudiced against evangelicals due to my past experiences with them. Still, I don’t want them subjected to injustice. I can tangentially relate to what Hawkins is going through, and if I don’t think it is right when it happens to me, that goes for everyone else as well. Those are just right and proper values as I see it.
I don’t know how much dog I have in this fight, but it is worth at least a few comments on the internet.
I have pointed out the A != A bible reference in this thread. Why can’t the evangelical belief system include multiple views, the full set being provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory?
I think a lot of evangelicals have a problem with Muslims, and also may be ignorant of their own tradition to the point that they wrongly disagree with Hawkins. So we have an orthodoxy, and then more lay views. Can you accept at least that much?
As for OT v. NT, the big differences I see are that in OT times we are basically looking at stone-age people in a kind of warring-states political milieu. Maybe the Hebrews were going to come out on top, who knows? Well, their god told them to kill kill kill, and be the best at it lest I smite thee. But do it with class and dignity, here are some stone age ethics and cultural mores to that end.
In the NT, times have changed, the Hebrews didn’t win history at all, the Romans did. The Hebrews are hopelessly and inescapably oppressed. When somebody inspiring like Jesus comes along, the Romans just kill him off, and there is nothing to be done about it. Interesting thing, though, that after a few centuries this religion really caught on, to the point that it became the state religion of Rome, and the statue of Victory which had stood in the Roman senate for something like 1100 years was removed.
Well, next thing you know the citizens are tearing down all the classic architecture because they think it is all possessed by demons. The population turned against itself and went crazy over the reversal of values. Rome had enough problems already, and with this it got sacked by the barbarians, and it was Game Over for the Western Empire forever. Pretty good trick, really.
Obviously I know more about how these people think than you. Hey, whatever, if this were D&D I would totally choose another achievement given my druthers. But anyway, that doesn’t put me in a position of authority over the orthodoxy. I don’t see how you could be in a position of authority over the orthodoxy. Why should I listen to you?
I just don’t think you, Princhester, have to be convinced before it can be assumed that this system of religious thought has a discrete structure. You don’t understand all the ins and outs? Well obviously not, but evangelicals do.
Again, there is likely some orthodox/lay activity going on, but beyond that- these religious debates rarely change anyone’s mind. I doubt this is that rare discussion. I’ve seen you come across as pretty sharp in threads where you aren’t blinded by contempt for the subject matter. We will probably meet again in one of those threads, and hopefully the encounter will be more fruitful.
I’ll follow the thread, but I don’t have the time for throwing spitballs. If you want the full details of the biblical explanation for everything, you’ll have to ask an evangelical, though I doubt the Wheatonite who appeared in this thread is getting a lot of warm fuzzies and wants to dish. Or just make up your own beliefs; it isn’t my problem.
I’m hearing commercials on the radio for a university that mentions that “all courses are taught from a Christian perspective.” My cynical little brain is wondering if this is at least as much to inoculate themselves against any legal finding that ANY of their faculty are non-ministerial as to appeal to evangelicals.
I wonder if Wheaton is motivated by similar considerations.
I think you’ve totally lost your way in this debate. You are in furious agreement with my point of view, you just haven’t realised it yet. An evangelical belief system not only can include multiple views that are provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory, it does. That’s why there is or would be no problem with such a belief system suddenly deciding their god is not the god of the muslims. This is exactly what I’ve been saying for about 3 pages now!
And your rambling historical recital is an example of exactly how a religion can, due to times changing, come to adopt something quite different to what it believed before. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying could occur if animosity between Xtians and Muslims creates a movement towards a new belief that “their god isn’t ours”
The rest of your post (a) doesn’t actually deal with the nitty gritty of what I said in my last post (presumably because you can’t) and (b) is a sad attempt at a sort of argument from (absent) authority. In decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could present a plausible explanation that somehow smooths over all the obvious contradictions in the bible.
But you are asking me to believe that such an explanation exists, it’s just that I’m ignorant of it. Suuuure. Riiiight. Are you going to try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge now?
And while I don’t want to make you feel overly silly, can I point out that in a single posting you have said that firstly evangelicals can have a belief system that is inconsistent and self-contradictory, and secondly that if only I knew the full beliefs of evangelicals I would be able to understand how their system of thought was coherent. You’re tying yourself in knots trying not to agree with me.
I said provisionally contradictory and inconsistent, in the context of orthodox and lay evangelicals, the lay ones being “ignorant of their own tradition” such that they would make a claim like, “Yahweh is not Allah.”
Take as an example a fictional, especially ignorant evangelical. How is he categorized an evangelical? Why, his parents are, he has always gone to the meetings, he is a part of that community. Now, assume that he was poorly home-schooled such that he is almost illiterate, and, being so young and inexperienced, never could make heads or tails of all the sermons he’s been exposed to. He is an evangelical, yes, but he sucks at bible literalism.
He hears a lot of right-wing talk radio and watches Fox News. These influences lead him to become prejudiced against Muslims. Since his religious upbringing leads him to believe he is good and right, and his prejudices lead him to believe Muslims are bad and wrong, he comes to believe that Jehovah and Allah must be separate deities.
You could come into this thread and quote this guy and say, “See? Evangelicals don’t agree with you! And,* he just made it up himself!*”
Ok, but the guy is also wrong. There is official fundamentalist evangelical doctrine, and it is defined enough that we can say, on some questions and according to that system of thought, there are right and wrong answers. But there are way more people who identify as evangelicals than are fully versed in this doctrine.
That’s why you get all of these provisionally contradictory opinions- people don’t get it. I want you to read The Bible and The Koran and see for yourself that Jehovah is Allah, and that this (particular!) point is not the least bit ambiguous according to the source material. Don’t bother me again until you have examined the source material, and/or devise some fresh objection that directly refers to the source material.
For one, that is not the debate and it is not my problem. For two, I don’t think I can be accurately described as “a religious person.” This conversation is like pounding my head against a wall because you are re-playing old debates with people who aren’t me. You should calm the fuck down, you aren’t gotcha-ing anybody here. More logos, less pathos, please?
Look, we are at cross purposes. I have never, not once, said this is about whether Wheaton are evangelists.
You’ll have some hope of understanding me when you realise that my point is not whether or not someone who decided their Xtian god was not the same as the muslim god was a True [del]Scotsman[/del] Evangelical. I’m not talking about that at all. I am not talking about or in the slightest bit interested in whether Wheaton are or are not True Evangelicals: my whole point is that such a debate would be pointless and hollow. There are no objective bedrock premises to religion; it is stuff people make up.
If Wheaton start saying something about their god there is no way to say they are wrong (and no way to say they right, of course). That their view of their god would make them other than evangelical is no part of anything to do with what I’m saying, and I’d appreciate it if you’d take this on board and stop going on and on about the boundaries of evangelism as if it has something to do with my point.
Frankly, if your next post doesn’t acknowledge this isn’t my point, I’ll have to conclude you just aren’t meeting the minimum standards to be worth debating and I’ll bow out.
It no doubt suits you to pretend I’m angry so that you can dismiss what I’m saying. How about you address my points instead of attempting to wave them away on the basis of my alleged (and completely incorrect, by the way) guesses about my mental state?
It *is *the debate and it is your problem. Because my point is that bible literalists have never actually been able to show they follow the bible literally, hence they can do something non-literal and decide their god is not the muslim god. If you can’t refute that, then my point stands.
I never said you were a religious person. What I said was that in decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could explain the various contradictions. You are asking me to believe such an explanation exists, if only the right person were here to explain it all to me. I don’t believe you, for the reason just given.
It may all be made up, but evangelicals don’t get to make things up, they have a defined source material. That isn’t how they work, regardless of the view you have of them through your lens of contempt. It is unambiguous that Allah = Jehovah.
