Given the events of the last few days and this highly controversial post at the Panda's Thumb, it is time that I finally addressed the Paul Mirecki situation. For those who may not know, Mirecki was, until recently, the chairman of the religious studies department at Kansas University. He was planning to teach a class there next year about ID as mythology, which caused quite a bit of controversy, especially when someone released several emails that he had written on the listserv of a campus skeptic's group that were rather crude and unprofessional. The ensuing brouhaha hit its crescendo when Mirecki ended up in the hospital after getting beaten up, and claimed it was done by two men who told him it was because of his views on intelligent design.
Within a fairly short period of time, questions arose about the veracity of particular aspects of the situation. Many people on both sides, including some who knew Mirecki and were in Kansas with a closer view of the situation, expressed their doubts about it. His story is that he was driving on a lonely road at 6:30 in the morning when he was tailgated by two men in a pickup truck. He pulled over to let them pass, they got out of their truck, he got out of his car and they beat him up and left, telling him it was due to the ID controversy. A lot of people, including a lot of people on our side, thought this sounded pretty fishy. Certainly not enough that one would make an accusation that he made it up, but at least enough, in my view, to be suspicious and to adopt a cautious attitude about some of the details.
After a couple days, some folks on the other side started questioning the story as well. Michelle Malkin jumped on it and wrote of her doubts about the story and they were frankly similar to the ones I had (though some of her speculations were off base, I think). Once that began to happen, then the lower rungs of the blogosphere began to prattle on about how he had beat himself up (which is absurd, in my view) and, in some cases, how he deserved what he got. Some of the things that were said were truly out of line, taking what were legitimate doubts and turning them into vicious accusations of fraud.
All of this launched quite a debate among the Panda's Thumb contributors on how to handle the situation. There were essentially two groups in the debate, those who wanted to open both barrells and blast our opponents on the other side with everything we had and those, like me, who wanted to take a more moderate and judicious approach. The moderate approach had two basic arguments in its favor:
A. There are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of some of the details of Mirecki's story; therefore,
B. If it turns out that those suspicions are validated in the investigation and we've launched a rhetorical assault on the other side based on a false or exaggerated story we're going to look very bad. In fact, we're going to look just as bad as those doing the same thing on the other side are going to look if the story turns out to be all true.
I won't go into the arguments from the advocates of a more extreme response because I don't want to be accused of representing their position inaccurately. I'll just say that the result was a good deal of bitterness and invective aimed at some (and only some, curiously) of us in the moderate camp. However, the PT policy is that each contributor is responsible for his own posts and we do not censor one another. If someone has something to say that others in the group disagree with, they are allowed to post it and those who disagree with him may then offer their own argument against that position either in comments or in a post of their own. That is how things have been done, and I think it's a good policy. We have nearly 30 contributors to PT; we aren't always going to agree on things. Thus, Gary Hurd went ahead and posted what he had written on the subject and announced, at the same time, that he was resigning as a contributor. Like I said, there was some bitterness left over from this debate.
Unfortunately, the posting of his essay has prompted some hand-wringing even from those who would otherwise support us, much as I feared it would. Steve Verdon responded by calling it a "hissy fit" and saying that Gary is being "hysterical". Others, like the folks at Telic Thoughts, a pro-ID blog, point out - accurately, in my view, that Gary's post only showed half the picture. He picked up on a lot of vile statements made in the comments on various blogs, but on the whole I think the tone of the major blogs was pretty moderate on this one. At least initially, most of the vitriol was coming from our side, not the other side, and it is precisely that tone that those of us in the moderate camp sought to avoid.
I think that Gary was painting with far too broad a brush. I think it's irresponsible to group together those on both sides who have reasonable doubts about some details of the story with the wingnuts who left comments on obscure blogs saying things about giving Mirecki a lobotomy or saying the assailants should have broken his legs too. Those statements are vile, no doubt, but sadly they are matched by some of the folks on our side taking things entirely too far in the other direction. One need only look at any one of the voluminous comment threads following a typical post at the Panda's Thumb to see that we have more than our fair share of simple-minded bomb throwers on our side as well. I also think his speculation about the assault having been done by the police was highly provocative and irresponsible.
The problem with the real extremists on both sides, in my view, is that they become blinded by their own zeal and trapped inside this simple dichotomy where everyone be placed in one of two categories - us or them. And if you dare to disagree with them on some specific thing, you are immediately pegged as them. As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like an anvil. But we don't do ourselves any favors by thinking in such simplistic terms and we certainly don't help our own credibility when we behave like those we're criticizing.
We need to be fair minded enough to recognize that there is no more unanimity of opinion among the pro-ID crowd than there is on our side. Just as there are disagreements on our side over how to handle this situation, there are disagreements on the other side as well. It's inaccurate and unfair to paint those who have taken a more moderate tone together with those who have said more extreme things. By the same token, I hope our opponents will do the same here and recognize that Gary Hurd does not speak for all of us. In fact, a good portion of us disagree with much of what he said in that post and would prefer to take a cautious approach to the whole thing. Sometimes it's best to put away the rhetorical big guns for a while and wait for more information before forming a conclusion; intellectual honesty and rationality demand nothing less.
- Log in to post comments
Gary should remember the story of the California professor who was convicted of trashing her own car and blaming it on racists. The Mirecki thing sounds so similar, that I would everyone to show some restraint until all the facts are in.
You know, I think this whole thing has been a shit-storm in a bucket. Firstly, it's something that is horrible to have happened but there really isn't anything other than conjecture behind the attack. We pride ourselves on 'our side' for not jumping the gun and analysing evidence critically. This is opposed to spinning things and distorting words like creationists/IDists and other cranks do. The amount of discussion this has provoked is beside any legitimate point that should be made about 'the controversy'. Even if a couple of idiots attacked Mirecki for his comments, it's the fact ID arguments are devoid of logic, scientific evidence, credible scientists supporting it and experimental verification that destroy ID.
An attack by two random yahoos where we don't even know everything doesn't prove an iota of anything. Too much angst has been expended over this.
Manual trackback:
"A peek behind closed doors" at Telic Thoughts
There is perhaps a good reason to get all the facts about the assault on Mirecki before jumping the gun on the assault. But thus far I have seen no evidence that his version of events is false.
What alarms me is that people keep spreading the view that his comments were "vile" or so far off base that they lie outside acceptable discourse. Really? On what grounds?
I have now read (thanks to PT) the full text of his comments. Firstly, they were said with an obvious self ironic humor. Secondly, they were on a closed e-mail list. Thirdly, when did it become off base to indicate that one takes delight in irritating the fundamentalists? When did it become off base to state a simple truth: taken at face value the Catholic belief in transubstantiation is disgusting. Mirecki simply honestly portrayed his own personal experience. And the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people regardless of their beliefs do not bother to question or examine the foundations of their beliefs. And Catholicism, by definition is a dogmatic enterprise.
Regardless of the facts behind the attack, it is now shown to be true that:
1) Mirecki was engaging in free and protected speech on a campus closed e-mail list;
2) Mirecki was deliberately targeted by a right wing extremist who says things that are far, far more provocative than anything Mirecki says;
3) The University caved to pressure from right wing extremists in the Kansas Senate and;
4) violated Mirecki's academic freedom by forcing him to resign as chair and cancel his class.
I suppose next people will be telling me I have to cancel my classes because of what I wrote here.
What shocks and disturbs me is the willingness of people to attack Mirecki's speech, rather than defending Mirecki's academic freedom. I have dealt with this sort of thing before. The other side, in public debates and public discussion is perfectly willing to call people atheists, social Darwinists, fascists, racists-any name you can think of. They openly spread homophobic bigotry. And they claim free speech in doing so. In point of fact they do have free speech to do so. And we have free speech to call them on it and we have free speech to state our minds on a closed e-mail list.
Had he made these comments in class, my opinion might perhaps be slightly different. But then again, I think far, far worse gets said in class.
rhinocerus:
I agree with you that Mirecki has also been treated unfairly in this situation by the university. My doubts as to the veracity of his story (which may well be wrong, I fully admit) do not mean that he has no legitimate complaints about other things. Certainly, there is fair criticism to be aimed at many people in this situation, including both him and his most vocal critics.
This incident (regarding PandasThumb) illustrates one of the problems with group blogs, with so many contributors. It strikes me that PT has (or at least has had) a particular theme, but it strikes me that the attack on Mirecki was rather far afield of that theme.
Ed,
So nice to see you commenting on the situation and, as always, calming explaining what happened and the rational behind it.
What can you say... Stuff like this happens. People are people, and Gary's post at PT speaks for itself. His diatribe really belies his comments.
It's a fine line between arguing how you see something, and letting how you see something create your agruments for you. I think many at Panda's Thumb, yourself included, get that balance right.
Keep up the good work.
Ed,
I think your approach of skeptical caution is the correct one. I think that Mirecki's story is likely true. One commenter on another blog put the odds at 10:3 in favor of Mirecki. That sounds about right to me.
I think the vile comments about what Mirecki was doing out and about are reprehensible. It has been my experience that people can become very angry over minor traffic incidents such as being cut-off, a near fender-bender etc. So it is entirely possible, although I think a unlikely, that the assualt could have been for reasons other than ID.
Hurd lost me when he went bonkers with regards to the conspiracy theorizing near the end of his post. Going off on those who are making nasty suggestions about Mirecki is one thing, but posting goofy conspiracy theories where the local law enforcement is damned if they do and damned if they don't is just...well unhinged.
I think Mr. Hurd could have made an excellent post cautioning restraint and at the same time blasted those who suggested dubious reasons for Mirecki's early morning drive (e.g. buying drugs). Urging people to wait until the investigation is concluded before running off at the mouth is the wisest thing, and posting libelous comments on the internet is just wrong.
Anyhow, very good post IMO. Definitely a time for cooler heads, and not popping off. I hope Mirecki can get his life back on track and that all this works out for the best for him. But waiting to see what falls out is probably the best strategy.
I have been disappointed at the eagerness of the KU administration, Mirecki's colleagues and a fair number of people who support evolution to vilify his comments. They were intemperate, and probably he wouldn't have made them if he knew they weren't private. But to join in the creationist piling on is distasteful and more than a bit dishonest.
Good post, Ed. As you are well aware, you and I disagree on just about every topic you write about; but one reason I continue to read you is that you strive to approach a topic honestly, without veering off into the fringe areas of fanaticism.
Rusty Lopez
Nobody has yet to explain to me why his comments were even in any sense "intemperate", "inappropriate" or anything else. They were made with a self deprecating and rhetorical flair in the appropriate environment. They have been exaggerated and distorted by a right wing yahoo who makes a career out of being far, far more uncivil than anything Mirecki said.
I wish people would quit apologizing for Mirecki. There is nothing to apologize for. Instead, people should be defending Mirecki's right to speak his mind. Had he made these remarks in class my response would be slightly different. But even then, much worse and much more provocative things get said all the time.
The right is trying to enforce its own version of PC and people are buying into it.
I agree with what rhinoceros said above. To me, the most salient issue in this whole affair is that Mirecki made some disparaging comments about "fundies" in private correspondance that for no good reason precipitated an all-out lynching from the Christian Right in Kansas. His comments, while crude and unprofessional as per Ed's description, were simply not that big of a deal, and Mirecki was well within his rights to express them. To have his job threatened is criminal.
This whole affair, along with the fake war on Christmas, is emblematic of the hyper-sensitivity and extreme selfishness of today's Religious Right. They've become a crude parody of the PC Left that they so fervently despise, getting all worked-up over nothing, crying bigotry anytime someone dares criticize them. Mirecki's comments were no worse than what ID advocates about "materialists" on a regular basis, and certainly no worse than what the Christian Right frequently says about its very long list of hated enemies. Had Mirecki insulted Muslims, they would have defended him to the last. But a minor insult against "fundies"? That's bigotry!
This whole thing was a travesty even without the beating.
If I may offer a humble word of caution: the extremist may feel more threatened by a moderate voice than by the strawmen he attacks at the other end of the polemic. A compromise in the resolution of a controversy will be viewed by the extremist as a defeat. I learned that lesson on a discussion site I used to help administer, and concluded that the wiser course in my situation would have been to sit back until the fury died-down.
Doctor_Gonzo wrote:
This remark is so accurate that it almost makes me think you've been reading my email lately. Frighteningly on point.
As someone on the other side of this issue, I just want to say that this is the single best summary of the situation I've read.
I'd like to confirm one particular part of your assesment. Initially I completely beleived Mirecki's account and said so. As time passed, I became more and more suspicious of his story. I wrote about this before Michelle Malkin and, in fact, she linked to my site on one of her first posts on the issue. My own doubts, like yours, were arrived at independently, not as part of a herd.
Whether or not Mirecki lied or told the whole truth about what happened on the roadside seems unknowable at this moment. I hope the police -- who I do not think are responsible for his bruises -- can resolve this. Until then I freely confess to hoping this story is not true as Mirecki tells it. Based on his stated desire to "piss off the religious right" I'm not willing to take his word for what happened.
Shorter Steve Reuland: But mommy he did it fiiiiirrrsst.
C'mon Steve R., you really think this is a legitimate and rational argument for what Mirecki did? You seem to think that what the DI/ID folks do is rather unappealling, but yet you are ready and willing to give it a pass when it is one of your own.
One of the problems when stooping to the same tactics of your opponent is that you often tend to lose the moral high ground. Is this important? I think it is given that the other side rests a large part of their argument on morals (see the Wedge Document). By pointing out their moral failings while not giving into the temptation to engage in their behavior strikes me as the better strategy.
Doctor_Gonzo,
Actually I think you and the extremists are correct. Compormise means that each side will have to give up something, which is seen as capitulating to the "enemy".
rhinoceros,
Sure Mirecki can speak his mind. On the other hand, if you speak and say something assinine, expect to be treated accordingly. Freedom of speech does not mean one can say anything and be free from how people react.
I didn't make the argument that what Mireki did was legitimate. I made the argument that the Right's response was completely out of proportion to Mirecki's comments, which rated maybe a 3 out of a 10 on the offense-o-meter. But that's apparently enough to get him fired from his chairmanship and have the state government threaten to hold hearings.
You're welcome to disagree with that argument if you wish, but please don't say I'm willing to give Mirecki's behavior "a pass" when in fact I went out of my way to agree that it was crude and unprofessional.
This will probably be the last thing I say here about the Mirecki affair. I have only a few more points to make. One favor I do ask of other posters however is to take notice of the ~ in front of rhinoceros (used as a logical operator to mean "not"). It's important. If you are interested in the significance do some digging. But please do ~ refer to me as "rhinoceros".
Firstly, there is a right to be harshly critical of religion and of religious groups. Thus KU students have every right to form a secularists club and Mirecki has every right to participate in it and to post comments that are favorable to the secularists club. This club has every right to engage in anti-religious proselytizing. Now, it happens to be my own personal opinion that hard core secularists tend to mirror the hard core religious and thus sometimes miss important points-but that doesn't take away their right to counter the myriad religious groups that routinely proselytize on college campuses.
Secondly, if you go to the following link:
http://soma.secularstudents.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4&start=0
You get a better sense of what John Altevogt is about and what his agenda is. Altevogt compares secularists to Nazis. He compares criticism of religious groups, ideologies and associations to Nazism. Altevogt's real agenda and real target is to turn KU's religious studies deparment into a vehicle for deepening religious faith.
Thirdly, the real objection seems to be that by offering the course as religious mythology, Mirecki was already engaging in a bigoted act. So, by implication, any portrayal of ID as junk science or religiou is automatically "bigoted".
Mirecki's style in blogging was clearly rhetorical and clearly designed to be provocative. But so what? Of course people had the right to criticize and respond. But just saying something unpopular does not mean that one therefore loses the right to teach a course or be a department chair.
Finally, I have had my own experiences (though far less dramatic than Mirecki's) with the pro-ID/religious right crowd. They arrogate to themselves (as does Altevogt) the right to accuse people of being atheists, racists, Nazis-any name or characterization they can throw at people. They reserve the right to push junk science and yet a good many of them make no effort whatseover to learn any underlying science. They then object when one points out their relativist epistemologies. OR, these same people reserve the right to call gays and lesbians sick, immoral...and object when you say such things are offensive. Religious groups routinely proseltyze and tell people they are going to hell for having the wrong beliefs. They routinely villify secularists or non-believers.
Again, the issue for me does not revolve around the assault on Mirecki but on the campaign by the radical right to target Mirecki and in addition, to smear any criticism of religion and to try to shut down any critical discussion of religion on KU's campus at all. All that said, I see no reason whatsoever to express skepticism or disbelief at Mirecki's story. If someone provides me with evidence I'll be skeptical. Until then, all the evidence thus far supports his story.
I fully agree that Mirecki was mistreated in this situation as well. I fully agree that Altevogt is a reprehensible figure in the whole thing. I fully agree that the university has been less supportive than they should have been (though claims of academic freedom are misplaced here; he was removed from an administrative position, not a teaching position and thus academic freedom is inapplicable). But I don't think one resolves the doubts about the specifics of the assault story by pointing to the other side and saying what bad guys they are; tu quoque is rarely a logical argument, and less so when we are dealing with two different types of behavior. And bear in mind that I'm not claiming that Mirecki faked it or is lying, I'm only claiming that rational people have a reasonable basis to doubt some aspects of the story. The solution, then, is to wait for the outcome of the investigation. And that goes for people on both sides.
Well the Mirecki situation goes beyond the assault - it also is about how the University of Kansas deals with it - and the agenda of John Altevogt really needs to be exposed. After all, he wants the Chancellor fired, and the Society of Open Minded Atheists and Agnostic thrown off campus.