< Back | Home
Open debate in jeopardy
By: Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, Contributing Writers
Posted: 4/4/07
Academic freedom determines the quality of education liberal arts
universities, but a move toward reactionary censorship threatens this.
The disturbing trend has now come to SMU, as attempts to squelch
dissent from majority viewpoints have come from those most responsible
for protecting our academic freedom, our professors. An upcoming
conference about intelligent design has raised the ire of some of the
science faculty on campus. Their demands to cancel the conference are a
different reaction than in the past.
Two years ago, The Daily Campus ran an opinion piece by biology
professor John Wise. Wise was writing in response to Michael Behe,
Lehigh University professor and proponent of the theory of intelligent
design. At the time, Wise chose to engage in what appeared to be a
healthy dialogue on Behe's arguments about irreducibly complex
molecular machines.
While Wise disagreed with Behe's arguments, he acknowledged the
pedagogical benefit of addressing the points raised by this alternative
explanation. He wrote, "What makes science so useful and progress so
quickly is the tradition of critically analyzing these alternatives
from individuals." Wise was confident enough in his arguments to allow
room for discussion of the alternative theory of intelligent design.
Now, Michael Behe is scheduled to present his arguments for intelligent
design at a conference held on campus, along with fellow intelligent
design proponents Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards. Three of the major
science departments called for the university to cancel the upcoming
Darwin vs. Design conference and renege on its contract with Discovery
Institute. What led to this change in strategy, this shift away from
taking opportunities to engage in civil discourse to keeping ideas that
challenge your own off campus? If you have confidence in your
arguments, why silence your opponents? Are some faculty threatened by
ID?
If faculty at SMU feel this certain of the superiority of their
position, they should take the opportunity to teach the strengths and
weaknesses of the other side rather than stifling intellectual
discourse and discouraging students from engaging with scientific
evidence. Students have the right to weigh the evidence themselves.
Those who attend the Darwin vs. Design conference can judge if ID has
science on its side.
Academic freedom is vital in higher education. It allows reigning
viewpoints to be challenged and discussed, which encourages students to
think independently about both sides. When those who are responsible
for education suppress the discussion of ideas, they betray their
commitment to education and science itself.
Sarah Beth Levy is a law student at SMU. She can be reached at slevy@smu.edu.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu.
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus