APA Petitions – Homosexual Behavior and Christian Codes of Conduct
Great debate has formed over whether Christian universities are in violation of the APA’s anti-discrimination policy. This discussion has occurred on the Leiter Report first here and now here. There are two petitions in circulation. I originally signed the counter-petition stating that Christian universities should not be censured by the APA because there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts, and the conduct policies of these universities only deals with acts not orientation. I have thought further about the matter and realized that both petitions are not providing Christian universities with a way forward. I submitted my thoughts to the Leiter Report during the counter-petition discussion, and I am including the text of my submission below.
It is my contention that neither the petition nor the counter-petition is productive. Though I originally signed the counter-petition I have since recanted because I think both the original petition and the counter-petition do not provide a way forward. Brian states his claim as an either/or proposition: either the APA should enforce its non-discrimination policy or abandon it. The problem with the enforcement proposal is that it is counter-discriminatory—Christian universities should be banned from APA job listings because they ask people to practice what they preach. That is, because the code of conduct requires those in a position of influence to practice Christian virtues and avoid Christian vices Christian universities should be censured by the APA.
In his original post Brian hones in on only one Christian vice—homosexual behavior. However, looking at Wheaton’s “Community Covenant” (where Brian extracted this dispute) it is clear that that the reference is to sexual immorality in general, which includes things like pornography and sex outside of female-male marriage. Wheaton has not elevated one particular vice—homosexual behavior—above all other vices. In the covenant it merely lists examples of sexual immorality, one of which includes homosexual behavior. It also requires professors to not cheat on their spouses or engage in pre-marital sex.
My question concerning the original proposal is, “What are the conditions on the ban?” Are these universities banned until they drop their code of ethics or banned until they revise their code of ethics? If the former, this amounts to asking Christian universities to secularize, which is a thinly-veiled attempt to enforce secular beliefs on overtly Christian universities. If the latter, this amounts to asking Christian universities to drop sexual immorality from their code of ethics. This is asking a Christian code of ethics to be inconsistent because scripture condemns sexual immorality (Matt. 5:27-28, Rom. 1:21-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31). It is my understanding that “Community Covenants” (which Brian equivocates with “Statements of Faith” in his original post) are not tools of discrimination, but tools that requires one to be an authentic member of the community. This requires professors at Christian universities to not only transmit information to students but to be good role models as well. As role models, Christian professors must not be hypocrites—a claim anti-Christian scholars frequently level against their Christian counter-parts—by claiming to believe one thing but behaving differently.
So, this leaves me wondering whether there is a positive proposal on the table or what a positive proposal might look like? How could an original-petition-supporter offer a way forward for a Christian university? Surely those institutions do not want to be discriminatory, but they also cannot be asked to revise their ”Community Covenants” in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs or to stop upholding a Christian code of conduct altogether, which is really asking them to stop being an overtly Christian university. What is a way forward that strikes the right balance between competing parties?
Until I see more language about the conditions of the ban I cannot endorse either the petition or the petition meant to counter it. I hold that both proposals are counter-productive to the dual goal of helping Christian universities to not violate anti-discrimination policies yet allowing them to remain consistent between their beliefs and what is required of their professors. Without a constructive clause in the original petition both petitions may only be attempts to enforce secular beliefs or to enforce Christian beliefs on the philosophical community writ large.
Added Later: I found another post here in very much in the same spirit of my post. Also, here is a link to the original peition and here is a link to the counter-petition.
Vert good post (and I haven’t been impressed by most of what’s been put forward on this subject).
I was tempted to sign the original petition, but didn’t for reasons related to your reconsideration; the petition is on the one hand a reasonable request for APA to follow through on its own policy, but without knowing where it is heading in practice, it’s difficult to regard it as really satisfactory. I think you’re quite right that the major issue here is how to handle colleges that were formed not only to have an academic identity but also to have a moral one, i.e., to be a living expression of a particular moral point of view with which not everyone would necessarily agree. It would have been nice if some discussion of this had developed, but if there’s been any, it has been rare and scattered.
Agreed Brandon: this is a good post and it deserves discussion…but it is missing something.
The author (couldn’t find the name) is correct in noting that essentially the job of a Christian educator… “requires professors at Christian universities to not only transmit information to students but to be good role models as well. As role models, Christian professors must not be hypocrites…” But it overlooks that discrimination on the basis of, say gender or handicap, is not at all the same thing as discrimination on the basis of a persons willingness or ability to get their jobs done. When a bikini company only hires women, that is not discrimination against men on the basis of gender but rather discrimination on the basis of the fact that men stink at the job. When a cab company refuses to hire a blind driver, that is not discrimination on the basis of handicap but rather discrimination on the basis of the blind person’s inability to do their job. Similarly, if I am unwilling to perform roles in gay porn films this is not because those producers discriminate against my orientation. It is because I won’t get the job done.
The petition is sophistical. It assumes that discriminating against persons who cannot or will not do their jobs violates an anti-discrimination policies just so long as one can explain the inability or unwillingness of a job applicant in terms one of the features (gender, race, handicap, etc.) mentioned in the policy.
And that, I submit, is shamefully silly. Such policies were never intended to make foolish, self-defeating hiring practices morally obligatory for anyone…not for cab companies, not for apparel industries, not for porn producers and (dare I add?) not for institutions whose purpose is to promote a religious tradition.