Professors sue college over Adam and Eve stance

Do you believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny as well?

 

Nope. And the fact you equate those tells me all I need to know about you. It's ok, though. I don't have to answer for your belief system any more than you have to answer for mine. Your confidence in your superior intellect is amusing, to say the least.

 

Adam and Eve is a great fictional tale.

 

Okay, i rose to the Whitman click bait and read the story.

Academic discord is hardly new and happens all across the country. The whining, back biting and infighting among college professors would make most junior high girls embarrassed.

Throw in a religious angle, at a minor but somewhat historic school not in the northeast, give it a shake and out spits a 1A story for the Times.

The crux of the issue is that every professor had to sign an agreement that God created the world as part of their employment. Then last summer, the president decided to add in the line about Adam and Eve. That brought forth an objection from some faculty and some students.

That eventually became a lawsuit.

How does that become the school should lose its accreditation, assuming it has a conventional one and not one based on theology?

And, I googled, the school's accreditation is by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. A mix of public and private schools in the deep South so it appears to be conventional.

 

Speed, are you saying you actually believe it as a matter of science and history -- like, there's a Garden of Eden and that's how the world started 6,000 years ago?

I mean ... dinosaurs? Australopithecus? Java Man? None of it existed? Or is it the 6,000 years ago that is incorrect and it all works if you shove the Garden of Eden history back 100 million years or so?

 

That may be true, it doesn't change the issue here

 

Because it is, by admission, enforcing dogma rather than critical thinking.

I would feel the same way if professors had to sign a statement that said evolution was true or climate change was true. Or gravity.

 

The professors are suing over a procedural issue. Their contention is that the powers-that-be don't have the authority to make the change that was made. Their unstated contention, I would suspect, is that prior to the change there was enough wiggle room for them to conform and that this represents a unilateral change to the creedal facets of their employment. I have no idea as to the strength of their case. I suspect that even if they prevail on their procedural claim, such would be a hollow victory, as the change could be pursued in a correct fashion.

Might wanna check the plank in your eye here, Dick. Accreditation has almost nothing to do with what you're alluding to. Accreditation is almost exclusively about procedure, governance and (formal) faculty qualifications. There's so much room in the "Accredited" tent it's almost comical.

 

Cite?

 

There was a college in the U.S. practically handing out degrees a few years ago to Chinese and Russian students echo couldn't speak enough English to find a restroom. Still accredited.

 

Truer words (on this site) I have never encountered.

 

As the saying goes, the fights are so vicious because the stakes are so low.