Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 10:58:07 -0800 (PST)
From: John Hafernik <hafernik@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Dean Kenyon
In-reply-to: <01H6BMWJLS0Y8Y5YGO@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
To: "James J. Lippard" <LIPPARD@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
Message-id: <Pine.3.07.9312161004.A22568-c100000@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu>
Thanks for your comments on the material I sent you. Given my position as
department chair I am constrained in the comments I can make on the other
questions you raise. I will restrict my comments to information that is
part of the public record.
1. As reported in the document prepared by the
Academic Freedom Committee, "there is a prior history of similar
complaints (from students) about teaching of evolution, but also about
'women's issues'i.e. abortion and reproductive rights."
2. Based on my disscussions with Dr. Kenyon and with the students who
complained, I believe his presentation of evolutionary theory and the
intelligent design paradigm is essentially the same as in his book.
An exception is that in his lectures, unlike his book, Dr. Kenyon
discusses examples of short age chronometers for the earth (moon dust,
changes in the earth's magnetic field, secular changes in the speed of
light) He is also more explicit in his lectures (based on his lecture
notes) in linking intelligent design to creationism.
3. The Academic Freedom Committee does not include anyone from the School
of Science. It is chaired by a lecturer in english. Its other members
are a librarian, a professor of nursing, a professor of broadcast
communication arts, and the chair of social work education.
Sorry I can't say more at this time. I hope that this will be of some
help to you.
John Hafernik
>>>>> On 06 Feb 96 11:59:34 EST, Jim Bell <70672.1241@compuserve.com>
>>>>> said:
>> Jim Foley asserted that Kenyon was suspended "because he had been teaching
>> bogus young-earth arguments, and also arguing against abortion."
>> When asked for clarification from Steven Jones, Jim Foley gave two sources.
>> 1. John Hafernik, the chairman of the biology department. Hafernik
>> "believes" Kenyon was "teaching" creationism.
Based on discussions with Kenyon, students, and lecture notes, i.e. an
well-informed belief.
>> He was instructed by letter to "teach the dominant scientific view."
>> Kenyon replied he DID teach the dominant scientific view (no one
>> disputes this),
I don't dispute it, although if Kenyon's treatment of evolution was the
same as the one in his book (Pandas and People (see Hafernik's 2nd point
above)) I'd have to wonder about the fairness of his treatment.
>> This time he received no reply, and was yanked from the classroom.
There was a *lot* more to it than that. Apparently there had been
complaints for years about his teaching creationism and discussing
abortion.
>> According to the reports, what Kenyon was doing does not seem to be
>> the same as "teaching" bogus young-earth arguments. Rather, he sought
>> an open debate about the dominant view. Phil Johnson puts it this way
>> in RITB:
Then clearly the report in WSJ (was this the one written by creationist
Stephen Meyer?) wasn't giving you all the scoop. Hafernik's letter,
based on discussions with Kenyon, his students, and Kenyon's lecture
notes, makes it very clear that Kenyon *was* teaching young earth
arguments. Unless, of course, you're accusing Hafernik of making it up,
but he did say in the letter that everything in it was part of the
public record.
>> Also, if Kenyon had been using his class to "teach" "bogus" theories,
>> I doubt that the faculty senate's Academic Freedom Committee, and
>> then the full faculty senate, would have voted overwhelmingly to
>> return Kenyon to the classroom.
As noted above, the AFC contained no scientists.
>> 2. Jim Lippard, who accuses Kenyon of using his classroom as a
>> "pulpit" for arguing against the morality of abortion. This is
>> apparently based on second or third hand sources (unspecified by
>> Lippard). Such "hearsay upon hearsay" is unreliable, especially when
>> the charge leads one to believe that Kenyon spent his lecture time
>> "preaching" against abortion.
Note point 1 in the above letter. The AFC report mentioned a prior
history of complaints about abortion. That's not hearsay.
>> Indeed, such an accusation was never entertained by the faculty
>> senate, which voted to put Kenyon back in his class. Surely, if
>> Kenyon was "preaching" against abortion in class, this would have
>> made it to the committee. So why wasn't it?
I don't know that they didn't entertain the accusation, and I doubt you
do either. Maybe the senate didn't care (unlikely). Maybe it was
bought up, and Kenyon agreed not to discuss abortion. Maybe it wasn't
bought up because he had already agreed not to discuss it. Maybe they
supported his right to talk about whatever he wanted.
>> No, we need more information than this before we can take seriously
>> these strong accusations.
What more do you need? Hafernik's letter, and the quote in it from the
AFC, is as first-hand as you can get without talking to Kenyon or his
students.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765