Timothy Shortell, Ph.D., thinks you're a moral retard if you're religious

"...in the name of their faith, these moral retards are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm to others..." Timothy Shortell, Ph.D.

Another fine example of our healthy and well-contributing higher education system. Brooklyn college associate professor Timothy Shortell, Ph.D., asserts the most reasonable absurdity in this online essay:

So, in the name of their faith, these moral retards are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm to others.

He refers to religious people, of course. He appears to have a special place in his heart for Christians:

In the heart of every Christian, though, is a tiny voice preaching self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred. Christians claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you. For your own good, of course.

Apparently, being a Ph.D gives one the gift to read men's hearts. I'm so glad he sees the inner Manson in me. I feel so much better now being so understood.

Thankfully, the reasonable administration and faculty no how to deal with such a wonderous paragon of reasonableness: they promote him!

Comrad Shortell is now chairman of the Sociology Department. Inside Higher Ed reports on the reaction from a motley assortment of fools and ambivalent reasonable folk such as the Daily News:


And to some in New York City, that’s reason enough why Timothy Shortell should not be allowed to assume the post to which his colleagues just elected him: chairman of the sociology department. Editorials and articles this week in The New York Sun and The New York Daily News have blasted Shortell as intolerant, quoted religious students as saying that they were offended by his writings, and demanded that the college do something.

Brooklyn responded quickly. Christoph Kimmich, the president, sent letters to the newspapers in which he announced that he had appointed three college officials “to investigate the situation” and report back. Kimmich deplored the “offensive, anti-religion opinions” of Shortell. “While his right to express these views is protected, what is not protected is the injection of views like these into the classroom or into any administrative duties he might assume as chair of the sociology department,” Kimmich wrote, adding that no one had complained that Shortell had in fact done so.

Can you guess how the good comrade doctor responded? If you guessed hissy-fit about "academic freedom" and irrelevence of private web essay to his "professional" responsibilities, you're right:

Shortell, in an e-mail interview, said, “Whatever else people try make of this, it is fundamentally an academic freedom issue. It is not simply my right to speak that is being threatened. If I can be denied the opportunity to lead a department based on presumptions about my political beliefs, so too can anyone else. Whose unpopular viewpoint will be questioned next?”

And

“It is a mistake to believe that simply because I have expressed my political views as a private citizen that I am unable to treat people fairly in my professional role. Any public university is going to attract a great deal of diversity. Indeed that is one of the things I enjoy most about Brooklyn College. I work all the time with people who are different from me in almost every way. There has never been any trouble. I treat people with respect and they reciprocate. That is how we all get along despite our differences.”

Sure, guy. Whatever you say. The fact remains that this so-called professional has demonstrated no capacity to address religious people seriously. I might attempt to fisk his wonderjargon of rhetoric, but the slicing and dicing would consume too much bandwith. His trolloped strawman of an argument doesn't stand up to the light of day. Perhaps if he were talking about South Pacific canabals of the 19th century or ancient pagans of the pre-minoan civilizations, he might have a point. But religion in general?

If his mouth-foaming is with the perceived incompatibility of reason and faith, he can thank Martin Luther--and later, the enlightenment philosophers--for that. Aquianis articulated beautifully the complex relationship between reason and Faith. Judaism lay the foundation for the Rule of Law. Christianity evolved nearly every sensibility that allowed for human rights and democratic institutions to this day. The very means of his employment is a fruit of medieval Catholicism. If these are the results of an excessive devotion to pre-scientific magid and the behavior of immature, irrational people then maybe we don't need scientific rationalists.

Besides his immense ignorance, the good comrade doctor shows not the slightest hint of sound judgement. Any number of religious students in his class would find themselves hard-pressed to not feel like their in a hostile environment. Just stumbling on his essay could be enough to make them feel coersed. He can try that separation of personal from professional line all he likes. Tell that to students paying tuition.

He's entitled to his view, ignorant though he may be. Is he entitled to be honored for his ignorance? If that is academic freedom, then sign me up! I'd love to move from the front lines of education to the ivory towers of higher education tenure. All I'll need to do is bash some religious folks and take bows to my wildly applauding fellow proffesoriats. To quote a collegue and good doctor in his own right: "Man, I love this country!"