All Posts Tagged With: "Canadian Mennonite University"
Faith tests don’t belong anywhere
Christian universities need to rethink their hiring practices
The debate surrounding academic freedom at Christian universities has heated up once again with the placement of Canadian Mennonite University on the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ (CAUT) list of schools who use faith tests as part of their employment conditions.
While I don’t doubt that these universities are academic institutions of quality, imposing a faith test on faculty members is an extreme measure in the name of preserving a university’s religious mandate, one that warrants the criticism it has received.
The circumstances at CMU are bit more complex than those at Trinity Western or Crandall. CMU also has to take the faculty members at its Menno Simons College, which is a part of CMU but based out of the University of Winnipeg, into account when deciding on its policies and procedures. The CAUT report explained that many faculty members at MSC feel that they are equally a part of the U of W and CMU, and that they should have the same academic rights as faculty at the U of W.
It’s also important to note that while CMU’s mandate is to provide a religious university education based in the Anabaptist religion, MSC’s focus is to teach programs surrounding conflict resolution and international development, and was not founded as a theological institution. It is understandable, then, why any strict faith-based hiring and employment policies at CMU that apply to MSC faculty members as well would be concerning to those instructing at MSC.
The report explains that some of the MSC professors CAUT spoke with said that while they were comfortable supporting a mandate to be committed to peace, justice, and non-violence, “they were very uncomfortable with a more specific and demanding commitment to a Christian, let alone to an Anabaptist or Mennonite interpretation of the mission.”
Even though the hiring policy adopted at CMU in 2007 did give special concessions to faculty members at MSC, some professors felt that these concessions still did not protect their academic freedom. The special policies applied to Menno Simons did not completely omit the possibility of using a faith test in the hiring processes at MSC, and policies governing continued employment at MSC were still very similar to those of CMU, meaning that a faith test could still apply to employees as a condition of employment.
It hasn’t been explicitly stated by the CAUT whether or not they chose to launch their investigation into CMU because of the concerns that arose from instructors at the MSC. However, it’s troubling that faculty members at MSC could still be subject to faith based requirements as a condition of employment, despite their objections to what they felt was a demand to be more committed to CMU’s Christian mission. It’s also concerning that CMU’s definition of institutional academic freedom, which is “shaped by its identity as an institution rooted in Anabaptist-Mennonite beliefs,” doesn’t give much support to those who may diverge from that mission.
Some have argued that the CAUT’s investigations into the employment conditions of these Christian universities have violated their right to run themselves in a way that is in keeping with their religious values.
“CAUT’s campaign impugns the legal rights of faith-based institutions to require employees to conduct themselves in ways consistent with their affiliation to the organization’s religious mission,” wrote Peter Stockland, director of Cardus Centre for Cultural Renewal, in the Vancouver Sun. “Settled human rights law and religious freedom rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada entitle such organizations — non-academic and academic alike — to do just that.”
In an interview with Macleans, Trinity Western president Jonathan Raymond also argued that all universities have to make judgments when hiring personnel surrounding whether or not hiring them will be in keeping with the mission of their institution.
Given that the CAUT’s policy defines academic freedom as “the right, without restriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion” and “freedom in carrying out research,” Raymond also said he felt that the CAUT’s definition of academic freedom, “ignores the idea of autonomy.”
Yet the purpose of giving universities autonomy is to allow them to freely pursue their education and research priorities, not to allow them to do whatever they wish in terms of hiring and employment practices. Further, judging how a potential employee measures up to faith-based requirements is vastly different from the judgments most universities have to make when hiring faculty members. A person’s commitment to their faith is much harder to quantify than someone’s education or level of experience in a particular field.
While these institutions may argue that these faith tests ensure that their staff have their school’s religious mandate in mind, I would speculate that the explicit Christian mission of CMU and of other religious universities would already attract staff with the same priorities. Faith tests are only a measure to ensure that the ideologies of their staff are homogenous. This is not only unfair to their faculty members, but to their students as well. A good university education should be filled with lively discussion, and the realization that not everyone agrees with you. I find it hard to believe that students can experience that aspect of university in a setting where their professors are essentially required to hold the same beliefs as their school and each other.
The battle over Christian universities wages on
CAUT places Canadian Mennonite University on faith test list
The Canadian Association of University Teachers has officially placed Canadian Mennonite University on a list of institutions that use faith based testing as a condition of employment. The university is the third to be placed on the CAUT’s faith test list, after Trinity Western University and Crandall University.
Related: Faith tests don’t belong anywhere
The CAUT report explains that in 2004 several faculty members from Menno Simmons College (MSC) filed complaints regarding CMU’s employment conditions. The college is part of CMU but is located at the University of Winnipeg, and professors often view themselves as part of the faculty of both the U of W and CMU.
“Correspondingly, they thought of themselves as having the same academic rights and responsibilities as faculty at the University of Winnipeg and as having academic freedom in the same sense and to the same degree as University of Winnipeg faculty members,” the report stated. The report also noted that while CMU was founded primarily to provide religious education in the Anabaptist tradition, MSC was founded not as a theological institution but to teach programs in “peace and conflict resolution” and “development” studies to students who, for the most part, are registered at the U of W.
(Editor’s note, this paragraph has been updated. An earlier version had mistakenly reported that CMU had already implemented a universal hiring policy that would include MSC. Our apologies for the error.) The professors’ concerns stemmed from the adoption of a universal hiring policy on academic freedom by the CMU Board of Governors in 2003 that would apply to all of CMU, despite MSC already having its own hiring policy. The faculty members were concerned that the adoption of this policy may also lead to a common policy on hiring and employment conditions that “might be based on the Christian mission of CMU which, it was felt by some faculty at Menno Simons College, would constitute an infringement of their academic freedom,” the report explained.
Faculty members were also concerned that the Christian objective of CMU was being imposed unwillingly on MSC and its staff.
In a letter to U of W president Lloyd Axworthy, MSC professors Wilder Robles, Judith Harris, and Mark Burch expressed their concerns over efforts at CMU to move towards a more Christian orientation at MSC: “If these efforts are successful, and there are indications that this is already the case, the implications for curriculum changes at Menno Simons College are enormous.We ourselves are deeply disturbed by this trend,” the professors wrote. “We are feeling ourselves increasingly marginalized from the decision-making process and valued merely as cheap intellectual labor.”
In 2007, a common hiring policy was adopted at CMU, with special provisions to faculty members at MSC. However, the report explained that some faculty members at MSC felt that these provisions still infringed upon their academic freedom.
CAUT outlines several faith-based requirements in the employment conditions at CMU, which are understood as not only hiring conditions but also conditions of continued employment, which were found in CMU’s Personal Policy Handbook. These requirements include self-identification as a Christian, active participation in the life of a Christian congregation, and understanding of the Anabaptist faith tradition, or a commitment to developing an understanding of the Anabaptist faith tradition.
The report concluded that, based on the presence of these requirements, a faith test does exist as a condition of employment at CMU. CAUT executive director Jim Turk argued that by imposing such requirements, the university was infringing on the academic freedom of its faculty. “If you say you can’t teach here unless you have certain beliefs,” then academic freedom is lacking, he told the Winnipeg Free Press.
He pointed out that most religious universities do not impose a faith test as part of their employment conditions, citing St. Francis Xavier University, St. Thomas University, and St. John’s and St. Paul’s colleges at the University of Manitoba, as examples.
However, CMU vice-president Earl Davey fired back against accusations his institution has violated academic freedom, stating that CMU “is deeply committed to academic freedom — this is foundational to our understanding of the nature of universities.” Davey further told the Free Press that CMU faculty earned PhDs from established institutions in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, who conduct and publish research of the same quality as faculty elsewhere. “These aren’t people that somehow come from a different academic tradition,” he said.
Photo: Courtesy of Canadian Mennonite University
Christian universities fight back
Updated: secular definition of academic freedom should not rule in Canada
Under attack for allegedly violating academic freedom, Christian universities in Canada are fighting back in a decidedly academic way. They are planning to hold a conference. Last week, delegates from faith-based schools across the country were in Toronto for the annual meeting of Christian Higher Education Canada (CHEC), an advocacy group.
At the top of the agenda was the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) into whether Christian institutions respect accepted rules of academic freedom.
For background click here.
The national professors union has already completed a report on Trinity Western University that concluded that due to the existence of a Statement of Faith affirming Christian beliefs, that all professors must sign, the school places “unwarranted and unacceptable constraints on academic freedom.” Canadian Mennonite University and Crandall University have also been visited by CAUT investigators.
Faced with the possibility of further rebukes against Christian schools, CHEC’s board of directors has decided to invite other groups from the post-secondary sector to participate in a “national conference to dialogue on the meaning of ‘university’ and ‘academic freedom.’” However, planning for the conference is still in the preliminary stages, and a date and venue have yet to be set. CAUT told Maclean’s it is reserving comment until a formal request to participate in the conference is made. (Update: CAUT executive director James Turk told Inside Higher Education that they would probably accept an invitation to participate in the conference.)
Al Hiebert, CHEC’s executive director, said the dispute stems from two competing definitions of academic freedom. On one side is CAUT’s position that Hiebert said represents an “unqualified academic freedom” for “every individual professor at a university.” On the other side is a view that holds institutional autonomy from outside influence above faculty independence. The latter definition is clearly favoured by faith based universities.
For example, Trinity’s statement on academic freedom protects scholarly inquiry only when it stems “from a stated perspective, i.e., within parameters consistent with the confessional basis of the constituency to which the University is responsible.”
While CAUT argues such qualifications do “not ensure genuine academic freedom,” Hiebert said respecting an institution’s autonomy to develop its own approach to scholarship, including the right to limit inquiry on faith-based grounds, is consistent with the idea of a university. “Our posture is that this CAUT position does not rule in Canada [and] should not be allowed to rule in Canada,” he said. Despite CHEC’s apparent hostility towards a principle that privileges faculty autonomy, Hiebert said he hopes that the conference can help foster “mutual understanding.”
“If some consensus position were drafted, that would be wonderful,” he said.
Public dollars don’t mix well with religious schools
Lesbian music teacher got short end of the stick when dismissed from Catholic school
Lisa Reimer was teaching music at a Catholic school in Vancouver until a group of parents found out she was gay. When complaints started rolling in, Reimer was told not to come back to Little Flower Academy, she alleges. Reimer was instructed to work from home and administer assignments online for the duration of her contract, which will expire in June.
In order to teach at the school, Reimer signed a contract agreeing to adhere to “Catholic values.” Since homosexuality generally doesn’t fall under the umbrella of Catholic values, Reimer deceitfully signed the clause, or so say those of the “She Got What She Deserved” position. Then there are the “The School is Full of Homophobes” loyalists, who argue the administration should not have caved to parental pressure, and should have granted Reimer parental rights when her partner had a baby in January.
Both positions, however, are undermined by the question of whether religious schools like Little Flower should be able to wield such authority in the first place. Private religious institutions, by distinction, can exclude whomever they like—the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees it. But how is a publicly funded institution (according to CTV, the school received close to $2 million in public funding last year) sanctioned to pick only those citizens who adhere to its ideology when hiring?
My fellow blogger Todd Pettigrew took up this question when the Canadian Association of University Teachers began probing hiring practices at Canadian Mennonite University (CMU) and Trinity Western University (TWU). Like Little Flower Academy, TWU requires faculty to sign a statement of faith. Pettigrew writes, “Publicly funded institutions should be for the use of the public…Even if we concede that non-Christian students can enroll in places like CMU—where they are required to take ‘Introduction to Christianity’ in their first year—non-Christian faculty are not.”
The defense to this point always seems to be, “Catholics pay taxes, so Catholics should be entitled to a piece of the pie.” Fair. But when religious schools—elementary, secondary, or university—take a slice of the public pie and only let some people eat, well, that becomes a little less fair. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists—they all pay taxes too, but provinces generally don’t fund their religious schools.
Maybe we should start? Sure! Tell that to the political train wreck that was the John Tory platform during the 2007 Ontario general election. Tory, former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, proposed to allocate $400 million to fund private religious schools in the province if elected. The plan was wickedly unpopular among voters. Did it cost Tory the election? Maybe. But more importantly, it showed that many Canadians (Ontarians, at least) didn’t think public dollars should be spent on religious schools.
In this case, Lisa Reimer got the short end of the stick. But more than a victim of discrimination, she was a casualty of a confusing system that pits religious freedom against individual rights of citizens. If anything, it shows that public dollars and a private attitudes simply don’t mix.
What is a public university?
Can we agree that it should be a university for the public?
The recent debates over Trinity Western University and Canadian Mennonite University have taken an interesting turn. To wit, CAUT is now asking whether religious universities should receive public funding.
The answer that has been showing up frequently on this site is, in essence, Why not? If Christians are part of the Canadian public, why shouldn’t Christian institutions get a share of public money?
One response is to say that public money should be spent on the public good. Many people are smokers, but that doesn’t justify spending government money to support smoking — just the reverse, in fact. Of course, this argument implies, and relies upon, the notion that promoting religion is not in the public good, which seems obvious to me, but not to many others. And since I am unlikely to de-convert anyone here, let me suggest another argument.
Publicly funded institutions should be for the use of the public. Effectively, Christian universities are not. While, technically, non-Christians may be able to enroll in them, there is no doubt that their missions are to promote a Christian view of the world and to give, as the CMU Statement of Faith has it, “full allegiance to Christ” so they are not meant for the general public in any meaningful way. And even if we concede that non-Christian students can enroll in places like CMU – where they are required to take “Introduction to Christianity” in their first year — non-Christian faculty are not . TWU requires faculty to sign their statement of faith and CMU officials publicly acknowledge that faculty are expected to be “clearly Christian.”
Simply because different groups have different priorities does not mean that the public in general should fund those priorities. Christians don’t need their own fire departments or police forces. They don’t need their own hospitals or roads. Or, if they do, they should pay for them themselves. Now, one might argue that schools are different, that the nature of education is such that a religious education requires its own institutions with different practices and standards. Maybe so, but that requirement is a private requirement, which makes such a school, effectively, a private school. And private schools — whether called that or not — should not be financed by the public.
Now before everyone gets all upset, and starts calling me names, let me be clear. I am not saying individual religious people are necessarily bad people, or good people, or any particular kind of people. I’m talking about the big picture, here. Moreover, I am not denying that institutions such as CMU have a right to exist. I only insist that as effectively private institutions they should not have a claim to public money.
Funding religious education from the public purse
Is CAUT’s crusade against religious universities really about its opposition to private universities?
As the Canadian Association of University Teacher (CAUT) casts its web wider in its investigation of hiring practices at religious universities, new issues are being raised about the role of these types of institutions in Canada’s post-secondary community. According to Nick Martin, education reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, the question now is: “Should a university that restricts the hiring of faculty according to religious beliefs be receiving the same level of scarce public operating money as public colleges and universities?”
Martin’s article published late last week discusses CAUT’s latest probe into hiring practices, which puts the focus on Canadian Mennonite University (CMU). In October 2009, CAUT released the results of its first investigation that looked at whether Trinity Western University (TWU) was acting appropriately by requiring its professors to sign a “statement of faith.” CAUT—a union of sorts, representing faculty associations across the county, that has fought sometimes controversial fights over academic freedom since 1951—placed TWU on its blacklist of universities that violate academic freedom, effectively calling into question the school’s dedication to the very heart of what it is to be a university.
While no evidence has yet been published suggesting that CMU has a similar “faith test,” CMU president Gerald Gerbrandt told the Free Press that the province of Manitoba gave the school a mandate “to be more restrictive” by only hiring “people who are clearly Christian, that is clearly the expectation,” he said.
This practice will surely attract the disapproval of CAUT, which considers universities to have violated academic freedom if they “seek to ensure an ideologically or religiously homogeneous academic staff,” which TWU and CMU are clearly doing. CAUT is currently investigating CMU.
This is where CAUT’s argument takes a confusing turn. Martin reports that CAUT is demanding that governments only fund public institutions. At the conclusion of its TWU investigation, CAUT censured the university by placing it on its blacklist of institutions that violate academic freedom—which amounts to a virtual slap on the hand, if you will—and said no further action was planned. So by calling into question whether these schools should be funded with public dollars, CAUT is upping the stakes in its battle against religious schools.
CMU enjoys existing in a gray area by claiming to be part private part public. Interestingly, when CMU became a member of the Association of University and Colleges of Canada—which acts as an unofficial accreditation body in Canada—it claimed to be both private (it is a federation of three private colleges) and public in that it sees itself “as serving the province of Manitoba.”
CAUT executive director James Turk told the Free Press that funding for private universities is funding denied to public schools. “Canada really has no need for private institutions. They should not be receiving public money,” Turk said.
What is confusing about Turk’s comments is that there is no logical connection between being a private institution and hiring professors according to their beliefs. By going after private religious universities (most of which are non-profit, by the way) in this way, CAUT appears to be waging a broader war against these schools specifically, rather than being solely concerned about the issue of how faculty hiring affects academic freedom.
Back in January when Maclean’s published an article about TWU, the university’s president Jonathan Raymond questioned why CAUT seemed to be specifically targeting Christian universities when there have been no specific complaints from from faculty of academic freedom violations. Raymond’s question implies what Turk’s above comments seem to confirm: that CAUT’s campaign against hiring practices at religious universities is secondary to the association’s opposition to this type of institution, that its “faith test” investigations are only one part of a broader battle. Whether CAUT’s battle is against the ideology of religious universities or against private universities remains to be seen.
