For those who doubt that there is a systemic liberal bias in the halls of Academia, witness the latest "leftist plot" at Baylor University. It seems that they are denying tenure to accomplished scholar Francis Beckwith. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that he is a prominent critic of abortion, or because he supports the teaching of intelligent design (see his book Law, Darwinism, and Public Education)? Mmmmm, could be!
However, this may just be a problem at Baylor, where the entrenched liberal faculty are resisting a move back towards its more Christian roots. We’ll have to watch (who’s got popcorn?)
The web is abuzz with this, check out the list of articles, mostly heaping scorn on Baylor, for this.
I know little about Baylor, but wasn't it one of the campus's whose administration was horrified by a pro-gay quote on a Starbucks cup? How on Earth are these people representative of liberals?
From my limited readings, the decision seems to be more along the lines of internal politics than a grand conspiracy.
You might want to strike the reference to Law, Darwinism and Public Education since it argues, contrary to all the legal evidence, that teaching creationism is legal in public school science classes. Since its conclusion is exactly wrong on the law, it's not an example of good scholarship such as you wish to use to support your claim.
Hmm…right wing academic denied tenure and the entire right blogosphere erupts, ranting about discrimination. Although there does not appear to be any facts supporting their case, that, of course, does not appear to stop them.
What will they think of next? Perhaps an affirmative action program for "discriminated" minorities such as conservative white male academic and/or legal hacks?
Mr. Darrell is dead wrong on Beckwith's book, which is based on a dissertation he wrote for the degree of Master of Juridical Studies at the School of Law at Washington University (St. Louis), the number 11th ranked university by U. S. News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings… Darrell either has not read the book or he is incapable of understanding the subtle distinctions that Beckwith makes in his book. He carefully distinguishes between creationism and ID, which are clearly different. Also, Beckwith does not address the question of whether ID arguments work. He is stating that assuming they work, would it be unconstitutional to teach it given the reasoning of prior cases, e.g., Edwards, Epperson, etc. His conclusion is: it would be constitutional. It is a conclusion held by Darwininist and legal scholar Larry Arnhart and is not far from that held by church-state separationist Kent Greenawalt.
Mr. Darrell is a separationist fundamentalist who keeps using old conceptual categories that may have worked in 1950s–the hey dey of white Texas Baptist anti-Catholic separationist hegemony–but do not serve him well with present realities.