Kansas professor quits department chair

[J-Mann]

Again, I can't say I didn't see this coming.  What was an anti-Christian zealot doing heading a religious studies department to begin with? 

This guy could have had an excellent class that went in-depth to one of Kansas' most persistent social issues, but instead, he blatantly insults Christian fundamentalism -- never a smart idea; is revealed to be anti-Catholic and anti-Christian, gets his ass whupped on a country road and has to step down from being the chair of an entire department.  All in all, not a good week for him.

Anti-creationism prof quits department chair
Associated Press
12-8-05

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- A University of Kansas professor who drew criticism for e-mails he wrote deriding Christian fundamentalists over creationism has resigned as chairman of the Department of Religious Studies.

Paul Mirecki stepped aside on the recommendation of his colleagues, according to Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

"This allows the department to focus on what's most important -- teaching, research and service -- and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks," Romzek said in a statement Wednesday after receiving Mirecki's resignation.

Contacted by The Associated Press, Mirecki declined to comment about his decision, only saying he was still a member of the university faculty and planned to continue teaching.

Mirecki had planned to teach a course in the spring that examined creationism and intelligent design after the State Board of Education adopted science standards treating evolution as a flawed theory.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

Later, other e-mails written by Mirecki that surfaced were deemed "repugnant and vile" by Chancellor Robert Hemenway for their views toward Catholics and other Christians.

On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.

Mirecki, who joined the university in 1989, is an expert in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions.

[J-Mann]

It is tragic news for the students that this professor has resigned.  Presumabely they will now be tought solely by cultists.  J-Mann, your tacit support of this brutalization is offensive.  Why shouldn't the man deride fundamentalists?  It was just speech, you fascist.

It's not tacit support -- I wish he would have gotten to teach the class instead of backing down.  My derision of him is because of his total disregard for any tact or delicacy in this.  Liberals are more than welcome to speak out as far as I'm concerned, but they've got to realize that when a large part of the population disagrees with them and doesn't respect their free speech, they need to exercise a little bit of discretion in the way they go about things.

I explained this to you in greater detail with specific reference to your own experiences in this thread, but I don't know if you saw it because I got no response.  Wouldn't you agree that discretion in the advocacy of change in the face of great opposition is a wise course of action?  See that thread, and don't call me fascist again.

Again, I can't say I didn't see this coming.  What was an anti-Christian zealot doing heading a religious studies department to begin with?

Why do you say that he is an anti-Christian zealot? Just because he doesn't like fundies doesn't make him anti-Christian (a lot of Christians don't like fundies either).

Some other of his e-mails came to light shortly after the first, and there was quite a few anti-Christian and anti-Catholic remarks in them, enough so that the Chancellor of the university condemned him and his e-mails as "vile and repugnant."

[J-Mann]

It's not tacit support -- I wish he would have gotten to teach the class instead of backing down.  My derision of him is because of his total disregard for any tact or delicacy in this.  Liberals are more than welcome to speak out as far as I'm concerned, but they've got to realize that when a large part of the population disagrees with them and doesn't respect their free speech, they need to exercise a little bit of discretion in the way they go about things.

I explained this to you in greater detail with specific reference to your own experiences in this thread, but I don't know if you saw it because I got no response.  Wouldn't you agree that discretion in the advocacy of change in the face of great opposition is a wise course of action?  See that thread,

Oh yes, I did witness a horrible injustice, and I did nothing.  But the forces of social control doing the injustice were (as is normally the case) the Police!  Obviously I wouldn't do anything against them - not only would it be foolish, it would have no effect whatsoever.  That situation was not at all analogous to this professor's situation.  A more apt analogy might be the angry emails I sent to friends back home, or the embittered conversations I had with girls effected or expat friends here about it.  If I had been beaten up by the State's goons for such criticism, that would have been analogous to this professor's plight.

I think it's very analogous.  The actors are different but the play is the same.  You didn't take on the police in any way because of a fear of retribution.  But what would have happened if you had yelled at the police or challenged them verbally?  Likely a beating...just for speaking. Instead, you fought (and are fighting) them by going "underground," so to speak, through private recountings of the incident.

The professor should honestly have known better than to so forcefully attack fundamentalist Christianity, which is a powerful force throughout the country and especially in Kansas.  His actions -- in this case, his speech -- were akin to if you would have gone after the police throwing punches.  He knew that his private e-mails had gotten out to others in the past; why in the world would he bring more trouble on himself by sending another one that targeted fundamentalism, not in an objective way (as his class was supposedly going to do), but in an outright hostile way?

It's too bad he got beat up for his speech and his beliefs, and equally regrettable that a class that could have presented a serious look at a growing social divide in my state was cancelled, but it's not surprising in the very least.

And that, my friend, is my whole point.  Nothing about his approach and the reaction he got surprises me.

[J-Mann]

It's pointless to continue the debate; we just disagree.  But I will ask you this:

If you were in Kansas, would you be the "freedom fighter" that you want him to be?  Would you so vigorously confront the religious right, tell them that their views are idiotic and that you despise them (to their faces, not via an anonymous forum)?  Would you risk that retaliation, in person?  Would you put yourself in harm's way?  I wouldn't -- I have "fought" fundamentalism through op-eds written for newspapers and finding support through like-minded people in the state, not by walking into a Baptist convention and telling them they're delusional.  I know better than that, and if I did confront them head-on, I know I'd be risking retaliation.

Fighting causes you oppose via the Internet from thousands of miles away is one thing, Opebo.  I don't know if you've got the grapes to personally carry out what you claim to want.  If you do, I invite you back to the States to show us all how it's done.

[J-Mann]

So I guess this means Kansas will have to teach real scientific theory alongside fairytales after all.  Unless somebody else with more tact and subtlety comes along and tries it again.

Unlikely.  The standards voted in by the state school board do not take effect until 2007; those conservatives that forced the standards in are likely to be booted out of their seats in next year's elections.[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

KSU is a university and is not effected by the standards set by the school board; neither is KU or any other public (or private) university in the state. No professor at a university is going to teach something they don't want to (though this example shows that they can be scared away from teaching something). The debate over what was to be taught at KU had nothing to do with science; it was a religion class that upset conservative. The standards set by the school board only apply to secondary education.

[J-Mann]

Well gents, this thread sort of got off track, eh?  Opebo, Joe Republic, MODU -- last real responses were on page one

[J-Mann]

ing violent bigots get their way.

With the approval of these cowardly bigots on here!

Alluding to me being a bigot makes no sense, Opebo, especially a cowardly one.  I've done much more than you have to fight fundamentalism in Kansas, and I've taken the heat for it, too.  Op-Eds that criticize fundamentalism in small-town newspapers don't exactly win you friends, but I at least made people think.  Op-Eds in college newspapers start all-out debates. 

I've written both types, but unlike this professor, I went about it logically, not abrasively.  I was both thanked and criticized to my face, but never threatened because my op-eds weren't aimed at being offensive like this professor's class was.

So again, I ask you, besides posting anonymously on an internet message board from thousands of miles away, how can you say that you're the freedom fighter on this issue and I'm the fascist?  Until you can claim you've done as much work as I have to combat fundamentalism in Kansas (and the US), you have no business calling me a "cowardly bigot."  I invite you again to come back to the States (if you think your delicate constitution can stomach it) and show us how it's done.

[J-Mann]

Your actions are commendable, but being abrasive should not be an excuse for physical violence.

You are right about that, especially concerning an issue that should be debateable on an academic level.  However, what has happened to him (especially in regards to getting assaulted) is not surprising at all; the assualt was a natural (however base) reaction to his abrasiveness. 

When I was in Kansas, I lived in a small town of 500 people.  One night, in walks a California city-dweller into one of our bars, yelling about how small town people and small town life sucks.  A few people tried to reason with him, calm him down, tell him that such abrasiveness was not a good idea since he was facing around 100 vehemently pro-small town people.  He wouldn't listen.  He kept up the assault.  His little First Amendment exercise eventually got him an entire 6-pack of beer bottles across the face.  He lost an eye, his pride and his desire to be such an asshole.

Was it regrettable that violence had to happen simply because someone was speaking?  Absolutely.  However, the result was unsurprising.  If he hated small towns so much, why be there in the first place?  I admire the professor for his attempt to spark debate about intelligent design in Kansas (and contrary to popular belief, there is probably a 50/50 divide of support within the state), but attacking fundamentalism as opposed to debating its merits just wasn't smart.  Free speech can always be exercised (as I have proven with my opposition to fundamentalism), but it must always be done cautiously when facing great odds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We do face great opposition, but small, measured approaches are having an effect.  Next year's elections are likely to toss out the conservatives on the school board and throw control to the moderates.  Staunch, persistent yet reasonable opposition to the conservative fundamentalists has largely swung favor away from them in Kansas.

Oh, and thanks for recognizing that I'm not "pro-thug" -- I don't like it that they guy got beat up.

[J-Mann]

When I was in Kansas, I lived in a small town of 500 people.  One night, in walks a California city-dweller into one of our bars, yelling about how small town people and small town life sucks.  A few people tried to reason with him, calm him down, tell him that such abrasiveness was not a good idea since he was facing around 100 vehemently pro-small town people.  He wouldn't listen.  He kept up the assault.  His little First Amendment exercise eventually got him an entire 6-pack of beer bottles across the face.  He lost an eye, his pride and his desire to be such an asshole.

That's pathetic. If someone from Kansas came here and yelled about how much cities suck, I doubt they'd be in any physical danger.

That depends.  Whether you agree or understand it or not, that was roughly the equivalent of someone walking into Harlem and loudly announcing that black people suck.  If someone did that, they'd be inviting any and all consequences on themselves.

It's not just a city/small town thing -- it's an intelligence thing.  If you're stupid enough to verbally provoke a large group of people who think the exact opposite of you, expect consequences.  That's something that is apolitical -- it's just plain reality.

Well, on one hand I agree with you that it isn't very smart to provoke a large group of people who can show tendency towards violence...

...but, on the other hand, I don't agree that that justifies in any way beating someone up for speech.  Violence didn't "have to happen"; it happened because a bunch of people decided to make it happen.  If someone walks up to me and starts yelling about how liberals suck, I'm not going to beat the guy up.  I'm not going to particularly like him, but I'm not going to get violent.  I don't think anything can possibly justify violence in retaliation for simple words.  The mere fact that it was likely to happen doesn't make it okay that it did happen.  I personally think that the people who got violent are more to blame for the violence than the speaker, given that no violence would have happened without their conscious decision (although the speaker is obviously not blameless).

I'm certainly not saying the mob mentality isn't to blame (although it was one person who eventually shut him up, not the group) along with the speaker.  But his actions were like stirring up a hornets' nest; you can't expect to not get stung.  Again...that's reality, and common sense.