As the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said “it seems like dejà vu all over again.” Once again some members of the Kansas Legislature are upset with a course at Kansas University. This time it isn’t about sex; it’s about religion. One legislator was quoted as saying something to the effect of “Who do they think they are attacking Christianity at the university.” Who “they” are is quite simple: they are professors and their job is to teach students to think independently and critically.

To the best of my knowledge I’ve never met Paul Mirecki. The course he has proposed to teach on intelligent design is, without question, designed to be provocative. But the degree to which his course provokes anger or outrage is really not relevant to either his job or to the university’s.

Fair questions

There are questions that can be fairly asked about the course. First, we can ask whether the professor is qualified to teach it. Second, we can ask whether proper procedures were followed in reviewing and approving it. Third, we can ask whether the course content is appropriate for a university level course. Fourth, once it is taught, we may ask whether it was taught well. But that, in my opinion, is all we should ask. We should not ask why the professor has chosen to teach the course. And we should not review the content of the class for political or social correctness.

Judging by his credentials Mirecki is well-qualified to teach a course on mythology. Whether proper procedures were followed in approving the course I cannot say, because I have no knowledge of the facts, but the chancellor has said this is being reviewed. As to the propriety of the course itself, it seems to me that what we must ask is whether the content is serious and worthy of study.

The judgment on these points must be made by the faculty. They must take into account the proposed readings, subjects for class discussion and the level at which the course will be offered. Again, based only on the knowledge I have gleaned from the media, it seems to me that the course is an appropriate addition to the curriculum.

Intelligent design theory is a highly controversial subject much in the news. Serious people debate whether it should be taught as part of a science curriculum or a religion curriculum. Students as well as faculty are interested in these questions. To present such a course to advanced students, students who may well be drawn into the debates professionally some day, seems to me not only appropriate but necessary.

Another debate

This debate reminds me somewhat of another contentious debate in the field of religious studies. The discovery of ancient non-canonical religious texts such as those in the Dead Sea Scrolls has stirred such arguments for decades. Certainly, there is as much at stake in these debates, which focus on which reports of Jesus’ life and sayings are authentic, as in the debates over whether to teach intelligent design as science or as religion.

It seems obvious to me that we should teach about these non-canonical texts, even though some major established religious groups reject their veracity. The whole purpose of universities is to foster debate, not suppress it. Through discussion and argument, we learn to think critically. That is precisely why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guards our free speech rights. It is precisely why universities fight for academic freedom, not simply so that faculty may teach what they feel is necessary but so that students may learn what they think is necessary.

I have little doubt that Mirecki’s course will attract students on all sides of the intelligent design issue. I hope that class sessions will be lively, even contentious, because that is what we call “active learning.” So long as Mirecki allows all sides to express their opinions and is respectful of those giving them, the class will do what it is supposed to do.

It is unfortunate that Mirecki made some hurtful comments in what was supposed to be a private e-mail. But he was angry and angry people make mistakes. It seems to me that members of the Kansas Board of Education on both sides of the issue made some rather inflammatory remarks – in public – during the hearings on intelligent design. Indeed, I can recall a number of times when even Kansas legislators have been carried just a bit too far in their rhetoric.

Mirecki has issued a public apology for what was intended to be a wholly private statement. That’s more than some legislators have done after making hurtful remarks. But whatever Mirecki said in private really is irrelevant to whether he teaches the course. What is relevant is what he says in the classroom. I have no reason to believe that he won’t be totally appropriate in his remarks in class. And I don’t think that anyone else can fairly say otherwise at this point.

Democratic principles

If we are now to hold inquests into the private thoughts of faculty at KU or any university, then we are no longer a democracy; we are a Stalinist state. Should we then also question the thoughts and motives of each legislator on every bill? Of course not.

In the end, the tempest now swirling around Mirecki and his course will die down. The posturing will subside. Good sense will prevail, as it usually does – and must – because far more is at stake here than a single course at KU. What is at stake is one of our very basic freedoms: freedom of speech.

There are, no doubt, any number of courses taught at every university in this state with which one or another legislator will disagree. But the mission of KU is education, and education can only take place when students and faculty are entirely free – at least within legal limits – to express their thoughts and ideas without fear of punishment. That, in a nutshell, is what a university must be about.