The Attitudes of the Presidents of Lutheran Colleges and Universities Regarding the Nature and Limits of Free Expression for Students on Their Campuses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1994 The Attitudes of the Presidents of Lutheran Colleges and Universities Regarding the Nature and Limits of Free Expression for Students on Their Campuses H. Robert Hayes Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Hayes, H. Robert, "The Attitudes of the Presidents of Lutheran Colleges and Universities Regarding the Nature and Limits of Free Expression for Students on Their Campuses" (1994). Dissertations. 3447. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3447 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1994 H. Robert Hayes LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE ATflTUDES OF THE PRESIDENTS OF LUTHERAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES REGARDING THE NATURE AND LIMITS OF FREE EXPRESSION FOR STUDENTS ON THEIR CAMPUSES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOC'TOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY STUDIES BY H. ROBERT HAYES CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JANUARY 1994 © Copyright by H. Robert Hayes, 1994. All rights reserved. ii PREFACE There is a tension that exists in higher education today and it involves the way people communicate with each other. Of all places, college and university campuses - frequently the locus of significant discovery and the development of profound insight as a result of dialogue -- should be settings which are open and free for expression and inquiry wherever it may lead. One might also expect, however, that a collegial environment would produce and display the most rational discourse and highest levels of civility, due to what arguably could be the common objective universally shared by all so engaged; namely, to arrive at the "truth," or at least somewhere closer to it than before the dialogue began. Such is often not the case these days. Indeed, there are many issues the discussions about which are conspicuously avoided in many academic communities. "Political correctness," while well-intended in its early days, has created a chilling effect on many campuses. Sensitivity to the feelings of all individuals and groups who have endured years of insensitivity should most certainly be increased, but it should not be at the expense of genuine and legitimate intellectual pursuits. The matter may even be a bit more complex at church-related institutions. Though still committed to the pursuit of truth, some working in these environments begin with the presumption that certain truths have already been apprehended and there is nothing more to say in those areas. Consequently, tolerance for expression about certain topics may be considerably lower when that is the case. That is their right, of iii course, and it may be perfectly consistent with the mission and the values upon which the institution was established and its curriculum is based. It is also imµollant to recognize, however, that freedom and propriety may be able to he balanced in such a way so as not to do irreparable damage to either in the process of gaining a better understanding of the world and the human condition nor in transmitting what is discovered to succeeding generations of students. The key, it might be suggested, is in remembering that, when one engages in the exercise of his or her freedom with the spirit that it is done on behalf of or in the service of others, tensions can be eased and the cooperation that is such an essential part of collegial collaboration can be maximized. While a synthesis of freedom and service may appear to be contradictory, those who view each in relation to the other might find that, when practiced in the context of a Christian college, both can be enhanced. This study was motivated by an interest in the degree to which the colleges and universities of the Lutheran tradition have embraced this principle, one which served as a central tenet in the theology of Martin Luther himself. It is hoped that in providing a portrait of how these institutions approach both their relation to the Church and the freedom of expression on their campuses, the importance of these two crucial components of Lutheran higher education can be recognized and deliberate measures taken to make them consistent with the missions and objectives of each of these Christian academic communities. lV ACKNOWI.ED<3MENTS Many relatives, friends, and co-workers helped, supported, encouraged, and covered for me during the preparation of this dissertation, often to their own grc;it inconvenience. For all of them and their contributions I am very grateful. Unable to name each one, there are, nevertheless, some groups and individuals who deserve public recognition and thanks. Those include my administrative colleagues at Concordia University, particularly President Eugene Krentz, and Vice Presidents Norm Young and Fred Spurgat; the staffs of Concordia's library and computer center; Barbara Capozzoli, who very ably transcribed the interviews; Kathy Chekel, who provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of the graphs; the presidents of the colleges and universities who served as the subjects of the study; my dissertation committee, Terry Williams, who gave me the idea several years ago to look at the role of free expression in higher education; Michael Perko, S. J ., whose expertise on church-related higher education guided me in an understanding of that dimension of the study which literally shaped its ultimate focus; and Barbara Townsend, who, as director, was accurate in her criticisms and consistent in her encouragement, and who graciously consented to remain involved with the project after moving to another university. Finally, I am grateful to my wife Kathy, and my children, Rebecca, Justin, and Eric, who have been remarkable in their ability to balance, juggle, and patiently take in stride all that my graduate studies have demanded over the years. V TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFA( 'E ....................................................... Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . v LIST 01; TABLES ................................................. XI UST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................... xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XIV Chapter l. INTRODUCTION . l Context and Justification for the Study Purpose of the Study Statement of the Problem Theoretical Rationale Definition of Terms General Hypothesis Sample and Data Gathering Procedures Assumptions Limitations Significance of the Study Organization of the Study 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................. 21 Introduction Review and Rationale for the Study Summary of Relevant Literature VI Free Expression and Higher Education Institutions Introduction The current state of the law: The St. Paul case A response to the St. Paul decision The link to higher education A case from higher education and reactions to it from different perspectives Speech codes and higher education Speech rights and tenured administrators Legal and Moral Perspectives of Restrictions on Racist Speech and Group Defamation A legal remedy in tort: Delgado Criminal prosecution for a moral wrong: Matsuda Hate speech is free speech: Gard Hate speech is not speech: Lassan Seeking legal rights and moral authority for people before principles: Laramee Preliminary research: Penney Freedom of Expression in Church-Related Higher Education Institutions Introduction Criteria for defining church-related higher education in America Attempts to classify church-related institutions The relationship between truth and freedom at church-related institutions Freedom and truth from the Lutheran perspective Summary vii 3. METHODOLOGY . 89 Population and Selection of the Sample Procedures Data Gathering Ethical Safeguards and Considerations Instrumentation Description First Survey Second Survey Interview Questions Validity and Reliability Design Specific Hypotheses Statistical Analysis Summary 4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 109 Introduction Results and Analysis of Phase One Characteristics of the Respondents Institutional Characteristics Determination of Church-Relatedness Results and Analysis of Phase Two Responses to the Survey Determination of Support for Freedom or Restraint viii Convergence of Phases One and Two Results and Analysis of Phase Three in the Context of Phases One and Two Church-Relatedness Incidents Examples of Support for Freedom and Restraint Hypotheses Summary of Data Analysis 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 203 Summary of the Study Context Methodology Procedures Data analysis Major Findings Discussion and Interpretation of the Findings Conclusions Significance of the Study Limitations of the Study Implications for Practice Implications for Further Research Conclusion ix Appendix 1. PRESIDENTS OF LUTHERAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY ............................. 230 2. COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING FIRST SURVEY ............. 234 3. FIRST SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................... 2.fo 4. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THOSE NOT RESPONDING TO FIRST SURVEY .................................................. 240 5. SECOND SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................. 241 6. LETTER SENT WITH SECOND SURVEY TO THOSE