2008 Woodie Awards
Notes on the etiquette of scholarly dialogue and debate
Susanne Johnson, susannej@smu.edu
Issue date: 4/4/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
This article is a response to the op-ed by Professor Roger Parks published in yesterday's Daily Campus. His article creates an awkward situation at best, misrepresents facts at worst both unintended, I suspect, by Professor Parks, but begging for clarification nevertheless.
When we scholars say or write something either for or against the planned George W. Bush Presidential Library, Museum and Institute, we serve the SMU and wider community best by backing up our claims with publicly verifiable, documented evidence and with input from recognized, authoritative experts in specific areas of inquiry. Or else we should give evidence that we base our claims on our own scholarly expertise and qualifications, and areas of extended research. We should engage issues on an academic, scholarly basis, not personally criticize each another on an ad hominem one.
Some detractors, such as Professor Parks, attempt to discredit my reservations about the proposed Bush Institute by reducing them to mere personal opinion, moral self-righteousness, impatience with conservatism or pointy-headed liberalism. None of this is accurate.
As a born-again, evangelical Christian, I consider it important to appraise ways the notion is used and abused in theological and political circles today. This is a major motivation in writing about the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), the subject of my e-mail to him.
The United Methodist Church (UMC) publishes a Book of Resolutions that contains centrist teachings of the UM Church. Even a cursory look at the Resolutions might impress on the reader the fact that there are some UMC stances against which certain policy initiatives of the Bush administration run counter. My reservations are informed, in part, by what is published as consensus theological thinking of the UM Church.
In 1995, the United Methodist Council of Bishops launched an Episcopal Initiative on Children and Poverty, and issued three official statements (1996, 2001 and 2003) which criticize the discrepancy between our society's responsibility to care for the least and last, and the measure of our actual public response. They grounded their statements in interdisciplinary research, combining insights from theology, economics, public policy analysis and so on.
When we scholars say or write something either for or against the planned George W. Bush Presidential Library, Museum and Institute, we serve the SMU and wider community best by backing up our claims with publicly verifiable, documented evidence and with input from recognized, authoritative experts in specific areas of inquiry. Or else we should give evidence that we base our claims on our own scholarly expertise and qualifications, and areas of extended research. We should engage issues on an academic, scholarly basis, not personally criticize each another on an ad hominem one.
Some detractors, such as Professor Parks, attempt to discredit my reservations about the proposed Bush Institute by reducing them to mere personal opinion, moral self-righteousness, impatience with conservatism or pointy-headed liberalism. None of this is accurate.
As a born-again, evangelical Christian, I consider it important to appraise ways the notion is used and abused in theological and political circles today. This is a major motivation in writing about the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), the subject of my e-mail to him.
The United Methodist Church (UMC) publishes a Book of Resolutions that contains centrist teachings of the UM Church. Even a cursory look at the Resolutions might impress on the reader the fact that there are some UMC stances against which certain policy initiatives of the Bush administration run counter. My reservations are informed, in part, by what is published as consensus theological thinking of the UM Church.
In 1995, the United Methodist Council of Bishops launched an Episcopal Initiative on Children and Poverty, and issued three official statements (1996, 2001 and 2003) which criticize the discrepancy between our society's responsibility to care for the least and last, and the measure of our actual public response. They grounded their statements in interdisciplinary research, combining insights from theology, economics, public policy analysis and so on.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Susanne Johnson, Ph.D.
posted 4/04/07 @ 7:31 AM CST
Space may have prohibited the inclusion of the endlist of websites (referenced in the body of the article). The first two sites are video clips of David Kuo commenting on President Bush's faith-based initiative; the third gives the title and website where information on the IRD documentary can be found; the last two give further insights into the IRD. (Continued…)
Jim Berkley
posted 4/05/07 @ 1:17 PM CST
Dr. Johnson is overstating her case. There is no general scholarly consensus about IRD having devious, underhanded tactics. What you have is a small handful of conspiracy theorists who have concocted a clueless theory that IRD is entirely evil and deceptively sinister, a far right-wing POLITICAL attempt to smash the witness of mainline churches. (Continued…)
Post a Comment