Paul Griffiths, a professor of Catholic theology at Duke University, has resigned in a controversy that has again raised the question of free speech on our campuses. Griffiths responded to an invitation for all divinity school faculty to participate in two full days of racial equality training. Faculty have privately complained about the courses with some viewing it as a colossal waste of time and others viewing it as akin to indoctrination. Griffiths, 61, however elected to share his opposing views with his colleagues in emails. He was promptly put under investigation and has now resigned.
The email exchange began with an Associate Professor of Old Testament, Anathea Portier-Young, who invited faculty to participate in the training which she described as “transformative, powerful, and life-changing.” The email stated in part:
“Racism is a fierce, ever-present, challenging force, one which has structured the thinking, behavior, and actions of individuals and institutions since the beginning of U.S. history. To understand racism and effectively begin dismantling it requires an equally fierce, consistent, and committed effort” (REI). Phase I provides foundational training in understanding historical and institutional racism. It helps individuals and organizations begin to “proactively understand and address racism, both in their organization and in the community where the organization is working.” It is the first step in a longer process.
Griffiths clearly disagrees with the premise of the program and sent a rather heated response:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:26 PM
To: Anathea Portier-Young
Cc: Divinity Regular Rank Faculty; Divinity Visiting Other Faculty
Subject: Re: Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training–March 4-5Dear Faculty Colleagues,
I’m responding to Thea’s exhortation that we should attend the Racial Equity Institute Phase 1 Training scheduled for 4-5 March. In her message she made her ideological commitments clear. I’ll do the same, in the interests of free exchange.
I exhort you not to attend this training. Don’t lay waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show. Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual. (Re)trainings of intellectuals by bureaucrats and apparatchiks have a long and ignoble history; I hope you’ll keep that history in mind as you think about this instance.
We here at Duke Divinity have a mission. Such things as this training are at best a distraction from it and at worst inimical to it. Our mission is to thnk, read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession. This is a hard thing. Each of us should be tense with the effort of it, thrumming like a tautly triple-woven steel thread with the work of it, consumed by the fire of it, ever eager for more of it. We have neither time nor resources to waste. This training is a waste. Please, ignore it. Keep your eyes on the prize.
Paul
——————–
Paul J. Griffiths
Warren Chair of Catholic Theology
Duke Divinity School
The sentiments expressed are obviously intemperate in contrast with Portier-Young’s civil invitation. However, the response appears to have been overwhelming. Dean Elaine Heath emailed the entire faculty to warn that “It is inappropriate and unprofessional to use mass emails to make disparaging statements –including arguments ad hominem – in order to humiliate or undermine individual colleagues or groups of colleagues with whom we disagree. The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution.”
I agree that the Griffiths email lacked civility and contained insulting references. However, ” The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable, especially in a Christian institution”?
In response, Professor Thomas Pfau responded and wrote in part:
So it is with deep care and enduring concern for an institution that over the years has become something of an intellectual asylum for me that I am now writing to offer a few thoughts on the email exchange below. My principal hope is to help us avoid slipping into merely polarizing views, with the steadily diminishing analytic yield that such a development typically entails.
When I read Paul Griffiths’ email, I found myself fundamentally in agreement with his observations, and my agreement was not one of mere opinion or conjecture but very much steeped in first-hand experience as Director of Undergraduate Studies and Director of Graduate Studies in two departments and, currently, as department chair. For all these responsibilities have repeatedly brought me into direct contact with initiatives like the one about which Paul expresses such strong reservations. While other colleagues may have a less jaundiced appraisal of these efforts, it is demonstrably true that initiatives of the kind that prompted the present discussion have of late been proliferating at Duke to a degree s that one may well regard with concern and misgivings for multiple reasons. As I read Paul Griffiths’ note, I took him to demur not at the goal that the proposed training is meant to advance, viz., to ensure practices free of bias and mindful of equity. Rather, he challenges the assumption that, merely for the asking, faculty ought be to give up significant chunks of time for the purposes of undergoing “training” in these areas.
Now, given the recent change in leadership in the DDS, it might be appropriate to offer some broader institutional perspective here.
Having worked at Duke for a long time for twenty-six years now, I have witnessed first hand a dramatic increase demands made on faculty time by administration-driven initiatives fundamentally unrelated to the intellectual work for which faculty were recruited by Duke. A seemingly endless string of surveys, memos, and “training sessions” is by now a familiar reality for most faculty, and it is an altogether inescapable entailment (as I well know) of chairing a department or program, serving on a hiring committee, or chairing a review.So if faculty members choose to say in public (as Paul Griffiths has just done) what so many are saying in private, one might at the very least want to listen to and engage their concerns, especially if one holds sharply opposed views. Any academic unit, DDS included, can only flourish if differences of opinion on any variety of subjects are respected and engaged on their intrinsic merits. Having reviewed Paul Griffiths’ note several times, I find nothing in it that could even remotely be said to “express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.” To suggest anything of the sort strikes me as either gravely imperceptive or as intellectually dishonest. Instead, if a faculty member raises serious doubts about the efficacy and methods of an initiative aimed at combating racial and other kinds of bias – and about the ways in which such training manifestly encroaches on the time faculty need to pursue their primary mission of teaching and research – then this view ought as a matter of course be respected as a legitimate exercise of judgment and expression. And while Paul Griffiths casts his criticisms in harsh terms, it would be nothing less than politically coercive and intellectually irresponsible to imply that his statement amounts to an “expression of racism.”
In email entitled “intellectual freedom and institutional discipline,” Griffiths revealed that he was subjected to two separate investigations after voicing his disapproval of the program. He stated in part:
Intellectual freedom – freedom to speak and write without fear of discipline and punishment – is under pressure at Duke Divinity these days. My own case illustrates this. Over the past year or so I’ve spoken and written in various public forums here, with as much clarity and energy as I can muster, about matters relevant to our life together. The matters I’ve addressed include: the vocation and purpose of our school; the importance of the intellectual virtues to our common life; the place that seeking diversity among our faculty should have in that common life; the nature of racial, ethnic, and gender identities, and whether there’s speech about certain topics forbidden to some among those identities; and the nature and purpose of theological education. I’ve reviewed these contributions, to the extent that I can (some of them are available only in memory), and I’m happy with them and stand behind them. They’re substantive; they’re trenchant; and they address matters of importance for our common life. So it seems to me. What I’ve argued in these contributions may of course be wrong; that’s a feature of the human condition.
My speech and writing about these topics has now led to two distinct (but probably causally related) disciplinary procedures against me, one instigated by Elaine Heath, our Dean, and the other instigated by Thea Portier-Young, our colleague. I give at the end of this message a bare-bones factual account of these disciplinary proceedings to date.
As conservative site has assembled the correspondence here. The basis for the investigation are discussed in the correspondence. Notably, Griffiths asked for a written account of the charges against him, a chance to confront his accuser, and the evidence against him before a meeting. He was denied those accommodations, which is consistent with the denial of due process in our university proceedings. I have written about that loss of due process in prior columns: here and here. Duke of course has a troubling history of the denial of due process and the rush to judgment in cases involving students and faculty. Many of us were appalled by the actions of Duke against the lacrosse players accused of gang raping a stripper. Eager to appease the outraged public, the university suspended the players and all but declared their guilt. It was not just an abdication of their responsibility to their own students, but a betrayal of a long-standing academic tradition to protect the community from prejudice and threats. For a column on the symbol of this academic tradition, click here. Schools now routinely deny the accused access to witnesses, the right of confrontation, and other basic protections.
While Pfau said that he believe Griffiths resigned without pressure from the school, his resignation has led to a great deal of concern over the response to his original email and the language of the Dean in her email. He is an accomplished academic who studied at Oxford University and the University of Wisconsin. He is the author or co-author or editor of 17 books.
“As conservative site has assembled the correspondence here” too bad you couldn’t mention Rod Dreher’s name instead of just referring to him as “a conservative site” a term which is likely to cause many to ignore what he has gathered together. many left of center folks rarely if ever will read what is posted to a conservative blog out of fear that they may learn something. Rod has done a great service following this service the least you could have done would have been to call him out by name
I disagree with the conclusion that Griffiths reply was either “heated” or “intemperate.”
Portiers’ email assumes racism is everywhere “since the beginning of U.S. history” and training is “required.”
Griffiths’ email assumes the training is a waste of time better spent actually pursuing the mission of the school.
Hey, at least Griffiths didn’t call everyone a racist in need of training and assume that racism began with the founding of the United States. That seems a bit “heated” and “intemperate” to me. Also, stupid.
You can only see Griffiths’ response as “heated” and “intemperate” if you accept the premises of Portiers’ email.
Divisive Diversity. Another tactic to keep us from uniting.
Ironic that the socialist are blaming Russia for the Capitalist’s win.
Emotions are more powerful than reason.
These are the kind of quiddities that inflame a PTA meeting.
Are commenters at the blog equally concerned about Gates-funded Frontier Set? The program which focuses on private and public individual colleges/universities and state systems of higher education has the following goal identified at its site about the state of Georgia, “will implement business models for collaborative course development and delivery.” Does Duke as a legacy admission university conclude it is immune from the tech industry, bi-partisan commercialization of higher education? Read the Rubio legislation on student outcome measures replacing faculty in college accreditation or, a summary of the plan in Forbes, written by the Center for American Progress.
Free speech campus brouhaha is a distraction while the multinational corporate/oligarchy takes over higher ed.
BTW, the financially weaker HBCU’s, for whom, “weaponized philanthropy” is harder to resist, have 5% of its schools in Frontier. North Carolina, with its democracy under siege from Art Pope and the Koch’s has 5 of the 31 colleges in the Frontier Set program.
Off-topic -Does free speech demand that a HBCU entertain and confer a degree on unqualified Betsy DeVos who described Black colleges as an outgrowth of “choice”, instead of discrimination?
It’s an honorary degree, you twit. They’re handed out like candy to outside speakers at every campus in the country.
No one is forced to attend an HCBU. Blacks attend them because they prefer that particular menu of programs.
-an honorary degree for an unqualified Trump appointee who was too daft to learn history.
If you go to the Deutsch 29 blog, you can find a stock photo that DeVos provided so the public could see her at work. The carpet samples, she’s perusing are on the desk, which explains why the taxpayer is spending money on 9 confidential assistants (carpet shoppers) for her. If Trump had appointed a knowledgeable person as Secretary of Education, it wouldn’t require $1 mil. in taxpayer money per month to protect her. As a service to the nation DeVos could use her brother’s Blackwater firm to protect her and pay for it herself with her Amway millions. Americans shouldn’t pay for an agenda of unaccountable Jesus, Wiccan, Mormon, etc. schools.
There is something distinctly Orwellian about the way diversity has become a mantra. In effect it designates its opposite- conformity- just as the Ministry of Truth in the novel 1984 refers to the ministry of propaganda. Griffiths hits the nail on the head in calling out these people and has paid the inevitable orice for daring to articulate dissent. Both Orwell and Griffiths are British and both are rightly suspicious of systems that enforce orthodoxy through the manipulation of language.
Diversity divides. What happened to assimilate and unite in a melting pot? Diversity is decisive and has had the opposite affects it was intended to have. Recognizing differences is racism. Diversity is the PC term for racism.
I find nothing at all objectionable about the mass mailing email. If he hadn’t resigned he could have requested AAUP assistance as the administration’s actions clearly violate AAUP guidelines.
— a long time AAUP member.
Yeah, and the AAUP phonies would have blown him off.
You don’t know what you are writing about.
Makes you appear the fool…
I doubt that faculty at the DDS are biased out of ignorance & need training. If they are biased, it stems from something deeper & incorrigible.
I saw diversity training at my workplace. It was a pure waste of time. No bigot was ever persuaded by the codswallop these “seminars” offered up.
From a prudential standpoint, Griffths did the right thing by resigning, as Drew noted. In the process, Duke lost a good man willing to speak candidly about a topic that has become a third-rail in our society.
The nightmare that never ends. Loved the comment about “no-go universities.” We have a college fund for each of our grandchildren because we value education. Obviously Duke U will not be a recipient of these funds.
How horrible for these ‘work for 8 months get paid for 12’ near-slaves that the administration request a bit of their precious time. And for something as useless as racial sensitivity. The writer “predicts” with no information that it will be intellectually flaccid. OMG Call the intellect police – he may actually become bored for some minutes or even hours. I hope he can find the time to “think, read, write, and teach about the triune Lord of Christian confession [what is that?]. This is a hard thing… [more drivel]” Is he kidding here?
They have the option to spread their annual pay over 12 months. You seem to be intellectually flaccid, btw.
Not to worry, the diversity Zampolits will be well taken care of no matter who must be sacrificed to maintain political correctness. Perhaps those who disagree should be tied to chairs and carried around campus wearing dunce caps like the earlier PC police did in China during the “Cultural Revolution.”
Who the Hello is Patty Duke? Any relation to this religiousity thing?
Duke has something to do with electricity. Why did they name a cat o lick school after Duke. Is this like Duke of Earl?
Duke, Duke, Duke..
Duke of Earl, Duke Duke
Duke of Earl!
Oh, why? Must my brain be dead..
When Earl has lost his head?
o.k., he probably shouldn’t have sent the missive to everyone. On the other hand it’s understandable as to why he did so. He does sound legitimately frustrated/pissed off and did go overboard a bit. Still, this is no cause for discipline or resignation. He should be free and feel free to speak up about the course.
I see first hand how silencing people is destructive of everyday human interactions (let alone worrying about Jesus or the FSM!). In my “Village of the Dems” I can hardly go anywhere without being accosted by people who want to convert me to dimsville. If I speak up, even a little bit, with just the smallest amount of information, perhaps saying: I don’t like Trump’s drone program anymore than I liked Obama’s, first there are blank looks. Obama had a drone program? Then rage: LIAR!!!! Then attacks: so you like Trump do you, racist! Fascist! etc. Try wearing an “I support wikileaks” button at the “free speech” parade here! You’ll see the beginning and end of “free” speech really quickly!!!
People need to be able to hear different points of view. We need other’s ideas. Having to remain silent is damaging to the person remaining silent and the person who will never hear an idea that doesn’t fit into their hardened brain arteries. It feels completely stifling to live in this kind of place. It’s not possible to have an ordinary conversation because so many ideas and facts are off limits here.
When whole areas of thought and life are off limits, everyone loses. I hope this professor rejoins the faculty and starts his own seminar to have a discussion about these types of programs. They should all talk about how this feels like indoctrination. They should talk about feeling silenced. They could come up with ways to open communication and keep it open.
What we don’t need is mean-spirited people whose only mission in life is to hurt others or prove to their own shaky ego that they are highly intelligent. We need sincere people to reach out to each other. In so doing, mistakes will be made but much good will come of it.
Shutting down our minds and hearts makes them both smaller.
Our universities are more and more resembling Maoist China and the Cultural Revolution. Diversity training IS indoctrination…re-education à la Mao.
What piffle! Insisting that everyone be treated with respect and actually have something like equal opportunities for advancement is not indoctrination. It’s just fair play and in case you’ve missed it, our society doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to equality of opportunity.
RTB,
How is “equality of opportunity” measured? Does our societies track record reflect more or less equality of opportunity today? What evidence is there that demonstrates mandatory training/education seminars improve equality of opportunity?
Degree required.
He did not disrespect anyone, he disrespected (and rightly so in my opinion) the topic and quality or more aptly, the lack of quality, in this kind of training. This is right up there with child pornography and drug abuse. There is no question about its vileness, but please don’t patronize and treat people as if they are embracing racism if they are not interested in hearing someone’s rant on an easy topic. These are ministers and college professors. Are we arguing that they cannot understand the baseness of racism without attending this training? This training session would not be about learning for this kind of audience, it would be about cheerleading and preaching, and obviously some preachers don’t feel the need to be preached to.
Universities are more and more resembling Gates’ Frontier Set “business models for collaborative course development and delivery”. Two state higher ed. systems and 31 colleges have signed on to the program while scholars blog about coulters on campus. Proportionate impact?
WTF did he resign for??? What a p*ssy! He should have stayed and fought the Liberal Tyrants. He should have made them do their Inquisition in public, where everybody could see it for what it is.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I agree that he should not have resigned. He should have presented his case. I think the school was well within its rights to discipline him for the tone of his e-mail, if not its content since it plainly disrespected the colleague who sent the invitation to attend the diversity training event. But he should have had an opportunity to confront his accusers and try to explain his own e-mail.
Bah — resigning was the right thing to do.
Are his students best-served by a classroom with protesters lined up? With some students just waiting for a misplaced word, a twitch, or a frown that will become a breathless HuffPo condemnation article? By inevitable reports of threats and violence, and possible actual violence, surrounding them? No, and it was a selfless and humble choice to allow them to avoid the controversy, as befits a professor of divinity.
From his own perspective, is he required to die on the hill you want to take? Is his life work to be reduced to the politics of the moment? Should his legacy be angry op-eds at the top of Google? Perhaps he believes his work is more important, which would explain why he isn’t a political pundit.
No, he’s no pussy; he made a principled decision that must have been very difficult.
Are his students best-served by a classroom with protesters lined up?
Thanks for your wisdom. Good to know every professor threatened by rabble should just fold like a cheap tent.
Tyrants- read this week’s Center for Media and Democracy expose of the Bradley Foundation, “Weaponized Philanthropy”. CMD published the Bradley master list , which identifies 4 tiers of states based on receptiveness to influence. Tyrants- go to UnKochMyCampus.org. Tyrants-read ALEC Exposed. Tyrants-look at the Aspen Institute agenda for education which started with Bill Clinton. Gates funds Aspen’s education programs like the Senior Congressional Education Staff Network.