« Are You Scarebussed Yet? | Home | Comment on Undue Universalization »

Friday, September 23, 2005

Religion at Convocation: Breathless Editorials

This morning’s issue of The Dartmouth includes, in addition to a report on a Student Assembly co-chairman’s resignation (linked as an update to my original post), two editorials denouncing Noah Riner’s Christianity-infused Convocation address.

The first comes from Julia Bernstein, writing for the editorial board of The Dartmouth, which makes the claim that Riner’s speech was wrong because Convocation’s audience was a captive one. I’m not sure the captive audience claim has ever been applied with any success to private schools where, in any event, attendance is not compulsory by order of government. The rest of the editorial hinges on the idea that Riner “commandeered” the pulpit. The fact that he was invited to speak with no stipulations (save for decency) nullifies that claim. Invocation of religion for peaceful effect has never been considered indecent.

Below the fold, Elisabeth Sherman, on behalf of Dartmouth’s Jewish group, demands an inquiry (or inquisition) into Student Assembly as an organization and Noah Riner himself, purely because he mentioned Jesus Christ and in so doing implied, according to Sherman, “that all of us should look to Jesus as our Savior.” She continues:

There is a real danger in assuming that everyone on this campus is Christian, or even religious. Part of the value of the Dartmouth experience is learning about and embracing diversity and this disrespectful action is the complete antithesis of the values that Dartmouth espouses.

Besides the obvious logical disconnect (If there is unique value at Dartmouth to learning about diversity, why not allow a religious minority to speak?) Sherman is evidently entirely unaware that, using her standard, a healthy portion of Dartmouth’s faculty is ripe for “inquiry” since they often profess strong, unsolicited, divisive, and often extracurricular opinions in the classroom. This practice is dismissed as part of unfettered academic inquiry.

The only difference is that most of the unsolicited opinions of the professors at Dartmouth gel with most of what most students believe in: liberal secularism. (Note: A belief not inconsistent with religion.) It is a closed and self-reinforcing majority. The offense taken by Sherman, therefore, is, by ignorance of other violators, restricted to the expression of faith by a minority.

Both editorials fail to make the case that a tort was committed. They establish merely that some did not like Noah Riner’s speech and thus fail amid the same hypocrisy earlier noted: popular opinion is legitimate academic inquiry; unpopular opinion is discriminatory.

UPDATE: A member of the Dartmouth community submits this analogy:

I liken this whole event to a criminal.

According to a lot of people who are condemning Noah, he committed a felony and a misdemeanor. The felony is, he abused his power- that was not the time and place, he was actively proselytizing etc…

The misdemeanor was, he mentioned God and Jesus.

I am willing to bet that had he just mentioned God or Jesus, they would be all over him just for the mention. I.E.: Had he just said “…and one good role model is Jesus, another one is Dr. King, or Gandhi, or Moses…” they would have jumped on him anyway.

That’s just my two cents.

That seems like a justified prediction.

MORE: Over at National Review, Peter Robinson and Andrew Stuttaford comment. Andrew observes: “I have to say, however, that I suspect that if young Mr. Riner had cited Allah, say, or a Hindu deity, rather than Jesus, I doubt there would have been such a fuss.”

Posted on September 23, 2005 07:52 AM. Permalink