BY JOHN K. WILSON
T.J. Martinson, a widely acclaimed novelist and author of The Reign of the Kingfisher, was hired in April as an Assistant Professor of English at Olivet Nazarene University, a Christian college in Illinois. And on June 28, Vice President Carol Summers informed Martinson that he will not be allowed to teach.
This case is another reminder that despite all the outcry about political correctness, the most repressive colleges in America are conservative religious institutions. But few people will hear about the case (conservative media are mysteriously reluctant to cover a case that would be overwhelmingly publicized if it happened at a liberal college), and many will apply a double standard when it comes to censorship in the name of God.
The rescinded appointment, Martinson was told, was due to complaints about offensive material in his new novel. Martinson reported the reasons he was given for his dismissal by the administration:
1) “My novel has cursing” which he noted was “because I had difficulty envisioning a homicide detective looking at a crime scene and saying ‘goshdarnit.’”
2) “Evidently, writing a book in which a sex-worker appears and is given depth and range, and is portrayed as a strong heroine, is not concurrent with Christian morals. Someone please inform the various writers of the Bible…”
3) “by including a lesbian character, I am apparently not ascribing to a Christian morality.”
4) A complaint about an atheist character: “One of the more puzzling critiques, relayed to me by Dr. Summers, concerned a character, who, when presented with the option, decides to hope instead of pray.”
Martinson noted, “when I applied for the job at Olivet, I made clear to them that I consider myself an ally of the LGBTQ+ community and this is an unwavering commitment that runs contrary to Nazarene doctrine.” So even if someone thinks a religious college is morally right to impose religious dogma on faculty, Oliver Nazarene had an opportunity to do so and refused until influential people began to complain. Martinson did not deceive the university about his beliefs; the university deceived him.
The Chicago Tribune noted in its report about this case:
The American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure allows for limits on academic freedom “because of religious or other aims of the institution,” and calls on universities to state such limitations in writing at the time of a faculty member’s appointment. However Henry Reichman, chair of the AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, said this doesn’t allow universities to infringe on faculty members’ extramural expression.
Unfortunately, many people misinterpret the 1940 Statement, and I wish the reporter had explained the reasons why Reichman said something that seems contrary to the words of the 1940 Statement.
The 1970 Interpretive Comments effectively amended the 1940 Statement of Principle with this comment: “Most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 ‘Statement,’ and we do not now endorse such a departure.” This repudiates the 1940 idea that there should be any kind of different standard of academic freedom at religious institutions. Under this official doctrine, colleges are all obligated to meet the same standards of academic freedom, regardless of their self-described godliness.
Olivet Nazarene is still going to pay Martinson his salary this year. But the violation of academic freedom is about more than one year’s salary. Martinson has lost the opportunity to teach there in the future. And the violation of academic freedom is about more than Martinson. This firing deprives Olivet Nazarene students of the right to learn from Martinson. And the firing sends a repressive message to all faculty and students that limits their academic freedom.
Perhaps the best analysis of this case came in a comment on Facebook from Martinson’s father, Jay Martinson, who teaches Communications at Olivet Nazarene: “Please keep telling stories that reflect the real, beautiful, truthful, and redemption-worthy human experience. Ignoring (or in this case firing) truth doesn’t make it go away.”
There is no data that confirms the assertion, “the most repressive colleges in America are conservative religious institutions.” Facts indicate just the opposite: the most “repressive” and oppressive, including threatening, hostile, litigious, and even ideologically monolithic, are progressive, liberal colleges and universities, including ones (and the irony and hypocrisy in this case not lost I hope) fiercely, if not hysterically protective of Judeo-Christian and related nationalistic solidarity, especially for the Israeli state, and US interests in it. One wrong move, statement, book, article, tweet, email, or comment and those less reinforced can be blacklisted, permanently branded and sent to the depths of the Canary Mission, or even subject to cause of action in state semitism special interest legislation (not that it ultimately matters). For that matter, good luck insulting Muslim icons, interests, beliefs or practice: you may find yourself under equal attack.
One must also define “repressive.” It is not always overt, and moreover can be highly embedded and masked in both passive political partisanship and appeals to it (for example, the radical Obama administration’s interventions in higher education and its readiness, even eagerness, to adjudicate university policy).
I would also not assert that “this firing deprives Olivet Nazarene students of the right to learn from Martinson.” That is not logical: He does not need to be on staff for his (or anyone’s) ideas, teachings, books, lectures or influences to be either pursued or received. To assert so is merely an institutional, special interest synthetic tautology that serves the AAUP.
Moreover, the more fundamental issue seems to be why this particular institution even hired him in the first place. It seems a poor fit, and there are certainly, in US academia, at least a hundred alternative, highly qualified candidates for every one considered or hired.
As for the institution’s judgment, I applaud it. And they have every right to make it. I would never had hired him in the first place for the role purported at this particular institution (so this is more poor managerial judgement by administration), and he should otherwise, given the purported facts, at this point simply be replaced. It appears a hiring mistake in a free, arms-length labor market (or is it free, and arms-length?).
If allegiance to identitarianism is otherwise deemed an inherent pedagogic and academy pre-qualification, then I’m afraid repression has found its deepest anchor, and labor markets, their coercive monopoly case.
In my books I’ve written about the evidence of repression at religious colleges, and the policies are one clear indication. As for defining “repressive,” I think it surely includes firing a professor because someone was offended by a novel they wrote (and it includes applauding that act). Anyone who looks at speech codes can tell you that religious colleges generally have more restrictive speech codes for students than secular colleges. The restrictions on faculty are also far greater. There are numerous Christian colleges with rules that ban me as an atheist from being hired; I know of no progressive liberal colleges with rules banning conservatives or Christians. And this case is more evidence of this fact. How many cases are there at liberal colleges where a professor is “unhired” by the administration without even a hearing for writing fictional characters that are deemed offensive?
It is not “an institutional, special interest synthetic tautology” to suggest that students learn from teachers and that being denied teachers impacts their learning. Yes, it is possible for students to learn something from a video of Martinson talking, but that is not the same as the learning that comes from teaching. If it were, we could fire all the professors and just have students watch YouTube all day for their college education. Firing professors for their novels is repression, it is a threat to student learning, and it is a clear attack on academic freedom.