I graduated high school in East Tennessee in 1984. My senior thesis was about George Orwell’s haunting apocalyptic novel 1984.
In the 1940s, Orwell projected a future where an oppressive empire exercised authoritarian control presided over by an entity known as Big Brother that controlled thought with “doublethink” language. I watched a documentary by Walter Cronkite that ended with him tearing in half a poster of Big Brother.
Ronald Reagan in 1987
A few months later, I voted in my first presidential election for Ronald Reagan, certain he would strongly stand up to the Soviet Union, which certainly was the source of Big Brother coming to power.
Never did I imagine it would be the party of Reagan that would try to outflank the left in seeking to rigidly control discourse — and do so with such effective deception. (If you’re a Republican, keep reading; I’ll call out the Democrats too.)
Authoritarianism of the left
As a teen and young adult, I had seen authoritarianism of the left. I grew up on a college campus and was close to many faculty members. One of my professors once told me he knew a faculty member had almost not gotten tenure because he, at church, had spoken against starting a day care, contending such programs facilitated the breakup of the family by encouraging mothers to work outside the home. Later, the faculty member who had opposed day care told me he had gotten tenure but was passed over for promotion.
Someone on the advancement committee told him who had spoken against him. The professor went to the opponent and asked why. The opponent said that during a panel discussion in a class, they had been offended by the professor’s complementarian perspective on parenting roles. The professor denied promotion asked, “Why didn’t you follow the faculty manual and come speak to me?” The other faculty member said, “I didn’t think you’d listen.” Meanwhile, a student in the class in question told me she had been offended by the complementarian position of the professor denied promotion.
So, I’ve seen folks on the left extol academic freedom in one breath and suppress it with the next. This is the kind of repression a recently passed bill by the GOP-supermajority-controlled Tennessee Legislature pretends to address.
When it’s not a left/right issue
To be fair, it’s not a left/right issue, though. It’s usually just naked non-partisan politics.
I once heard about a radio broadcast on which a moderate-to-liberal-minded president at a Christian university was challenged by the host that state universities were superior because they could address all issues, while Christian universities could not. He replied that, on the contrary, state universities could not talk about religion the way Christian universities can — whereas no topic was out of bounds to address at a Christian university.
“The provost reportedly said, ‘Well, you know, we don’t have to address every question.’”
Less than two weeks later, a moderate-to-liberal-minded religion professor at that president’s school called me. This professor had written a question in the margin of a student’s paper. The student showed it to their pastor, and the pastor had called the president to complain. The professor was summoned to the provost’s office and asked why the question had been asked. The professor said it was the kind of question students need to be prepared to address. The provost reportedly said, “Well, you know, we don’t have to address every question.”
Again, this was two weeks after the president had said no topic was out of bounds at a Christian university. Yet, the Golden Retriever president had (out of habit?) told the Pit Bull provost, “Sic ’em.”
It’s the same song, 2,000th verse.
Wycliffe, Galileo and me
John Wycliffe
In the 1300s, John Wycliffe was forced out of Oxford and his writings banned because he dared be so divisive as to teach, among many things, that the church was exploiting people for money. In the 1600s, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun. This was very upsetting to church authorities since it meant the Bible was wrong about Joshua literally stopping the sun’s movement across the sky. This was a divisive topic. Galileo was told to recant or face torture. He took a second look at his data and said he agreed his initial conclusion surely had been wrong. Still, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
Like the professor who offended a female student with his endorsement of complementarianism, I myself once got a semester of hostile glares from a female student in a university human sexuality class. The semester started by diving right into the issue of abortion — an extremely divisive issue. I told the class the purpose was to help them be aware of the arguments on both sides of the issues and consider the manner in which to hold a civil dialog about the topic.
The next semester the student popped in my office with a bright smile and talked for several minutes. I eventually told her I was confused by the contrast in her interactions with me. She grinned apologetically and said, “My daddy’s a Baptist preacher, so of course I’m against abortion. I didn’t think we should even be talking about abortion, much less pro-choice arguments. But about halfway through Christmas break, I realized you were just trying to get us to think, and that’s your job as a college professor, and I’m cool with that!”
The Legislature overreacting
Thus, when it comes to oppression in academia, we have a long history of oppression from without and within. This has given the Tennessee Legislature the cover to appear to address it. But, as they have been wont to do since banning the teaching of evolution in the 1920s, and more recently in expelling two members for a minor offense, the Legislature has overreacted, tainted the image of the state and worse, since the Tennessee GOP is so closely identified with Christianity, they have harmed the cause of Christ.
“Since the Tennessee GOP is so closely identified with Christianity, they have harmed the cause of Christ.”
House Bill 1376 as amended by Senate Bill 817 is called the Tennessee Higher Education Freedom of Expression and Transparency Act. Ironically, 1376 was the first year Oxford professor Wycliffe was summoned to the Royal Council. But the council had to disband when a riot broke out, possibly on behalf of the popular priest and professor who was a champion of the poor.
Six hundred years later, in Orwell’s 1984, a process called doublethink was used to mollify the people. For instance, the ministry in charge of war was called the “Ministry of Peace.” Torture was carried out by the “Ministry of Love.” And so on.
On its face, the act appears to be promoting freedom of expression, while the intent beneath the surface and the outcome of application will have the opposite effect. Calling it the “Freedom of Expression and Transparency Act” makes it sound wonderful. What American could be opposed to that? It would be like someone from Orwell’s Oceania opposing the “Ministry of Love.”
It’s a tried and true but diabolical political ploy: Write a bill with lots of provisions to help little old ladies across the street. Then slip in a provision or two that will be expensive and oppress a target group but call it the “Help Little Old Ladies Act.” Then, if anyone dare oppose the bill, you run an ad that says your opponent opposes a bill to help little old ladies cross the street.
The good, the bad and the ugly of this bill
How does HB-1376 do this? Here, in reverse order, are the good, the bad and the ugly of the bill that, as of this writing, has passed and awaits the signature of Gov. Bill Lee.
The ugly. State universities told the bill’s fiscal impact reviewers they would have to hire personnel to implement the bill. This and other factors led to a projected state cost of $280,000 to $1.5 million per university per year.
Remember when your elementary teacher left the classroom and appointed a monitor to write on the board the names of anyone who talked? Imagine paying millions of dollars per year for monitors of … speech.
However, the Senate version of the bill eliminated all the provisions that would incur these costs. This raises the question of why the House sponsors and those who voted to pass the House version thought the bill was worth millions of dollars per year. While that cost was dodged, a college friend of mine, upon reading the bill, texted me and said he has longed to come visit Tennessee but refuses to spend a dime here because of bills like this.
“The law will, most tragically and inexcusably, carry the spiritual cost of those turned off to faith.”
How much is Tennessee tourism impacted by such bills? Besides this hidden potential financial cost, the law will, most tragically and inexcusably, carry the spiritual cost of those turned off to faith because, once again, a political machine associated with Christianity will be seen as an oppressive mob.
How so? That brings us to …
The bad. At the surface, the bill proposes several good things about which most every red-blooded American (no offense to blue bloods from Brentwood) can agree. Yes, schools should “promote and defend freedom of expression and inquiry.” Yes, they should “foster intellectual diversity” in their employees and students.
However, things get extremely confusing and cumbersome when one looks at the list of divisive topics that are not allowed. Furthermore, the vagueness and difficulty of the legalese of the bill opens a Pandora’s box of potential abuses.
Yes, it would be bad to teach that “one race or sex is inherently superior or inferior to another.” However, the bill specifies it is out of bounds to teach that “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently privileged.”
“No matter how good the milk tastes, it just takes a little arsenic to be deadly.”
Let’s stop there. At the very least, this is a fair question. If it’s not true, it should be easily debunked. Otherwise, the Tennessee Legislature comes off like church leaders telling Galileo to recant. Take the preceding two points about agreeable statements with a mix of diabolical oppression and stretch them over the depth and breadth of the bill. No matter how good the milk tastes, it just takes a little arsenic to be deadly.
Other bad impacts lie in the pragmatics. To keep an eye out for “divisive” lessons, professors will be required to produce syllabi with “a brief description of each assignment, examination, lecture, discussion or other class activity.” Bizarrely, the syllabi must list “the final grades for the three most recent semesters that the course was offered.”
Schools must also provide training on how to do all this. Overworked and underpaid faculty are being given a bureaucratic hurdle that interferes with actual preparation and teaching. Additionally, if a school has a diversity, equity and inclusion officer, “the institution must ensure that the employee’s duties include efforts devoted to supporting student academic achievement and workforce readiness, such as mentoring, career readiness and support, workforce development or other related learning support activities necessary for the academic and professional success of all students.”
There are already employees who address these tasks at universities. They are called professors, tutors and student support personnel. Having looked at job descriptions for DEI officers, it appears this provision — dressed up to promote readin’, writin’ and ’rithmetic — opens a door for abuse since there is no way to quantify compliance; thus, enforcers could be discriminatory in enforcement.
Using the standard template, the act ends with, “This act takes effect July, 1, 2023, the public welfare requiring it.” However, what constitutes this requirement has not been established.
The good. On Jan. 22 in Cookeville, Tenn., a local bar hosted a Sunday morning age 18 and up drag event called “Drag Me to Brunch.” Some local churches packed a civic meeting trying to head off the event. (You know, the way Jesus went to local authorities to stop those whose sexual ethics didn’t fit with his.)
On the day of the event, a group of white supremacists, including one with a Nazi flag, picketed across the street. A press release from county law enforcement blamed the drag event for bringing “unwanted guests” to the community. On the one hand, it was great to hear white supremacists deemed unwanted. However, doing so involved blaming the victims.
A group of local citizens, practicing their right to express themselves at a private business, were met with intimidation, and they were blamed for what happened to them. With that as context, it is good that HB-1376 states that in terms of hosting events, “an institution shall not show bias or favoritism” even if “the institution receives threatened simple breaches of the peace or non-destructive disruptions from groups or individuals who oppose the student groups’ or guest speakers’ presence on campus.”
Kudos to the Legislature for codifying not blaming law-abiding citizens for protesters’ behavior — at least on university campuses. That seems a much more valuable way to spend time and money rather than the party of “small government” (remember doublethink?) creating a bureaucratic bees’ nest of regulations.
“Liberal proponents of martial egalitarianism will be glad the act bans the teaching of complementarianism.”
Furthermore, liberal proponents of martial egalitarianism will be glad the act bans the teaching of complementarianism. Complementarianism — a hallmark of far-right conservativism — is based on husbands and wives serving in stereotypical roles.
The act lists as one of the divisive topics any that include “race or sex stereotypes.” So, a straightforward reading of the act promoted by the Republican supermajority suppresses the teaching of one of the key platforms of the far right. That they will deny this indicates the problem with the vagueness of the bill leading to arbitrary enforcement that will, of course, be determined by those in power.
Equal opportunity fear
Lest this seem like a jab fest at Republicans, I will point out that when I became a minister, I decided I would always register as an independent in order to equally serve — and challenge — parishioners of all political persuasions. That seemed like a good policy to keep as professor and therapist. I’m also reminded of hearing Tony Campolo say in a sermon he was an equal-opportunity offender of Republicans and Democrats.
Thus, let’s look at a motivation for Republicans to consistently overreach their power in Tennessee. In recent days I have spoken at length with both Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats’ anger seems mixed more with sadness and a sense of injustice. I’ve seen far-right Republicans watching the events that led to the expulsion of two state representatives express anger that rises to rage rooted in extreme fear. I have puzzled over what scares them so much about the issues — whether it’s a person peacefully kneeling during the National Anthem or someone talking loudly in response to mass murder.
While hearing a client describe reaction to an old pain, it hit me: Conservatives are afraid if liberals gain power, conservatives will be treated the way they themselves treat others.
Why would they fear that? Because they have seen it.
Several years ago, I saw a social media post urging people who had experienced sexual harassment to comment “#MeToo.” I had not heard of the “MeToo” phenomenon, and I commented “#MeToo.” The liberal female friend who made the original post told me it only applied to women — that I as a man wasn’t impacted by sexual harassment like women.
My own harassment fell far from rape. However, I’ve worked with female and male rape victims and am hard pressed to identify a difference, except that men report a greater sense of shame that they were overpowered, while women more often speak of wondering if they did something to bring on the attack. I will point out, though, that under the new law, asserting this point in class will put me at risk of being reported for a violation of stereotyping.
A few years after that #MeToo conversation, I joined a social media conversation about liberal women’s books on religion not selling well. One female asserted the low sales were because of sexism. I commented that books by Beth Moore and other conservative women were selling like hotcakes, and maybe the liberal women’s books weren’t selling not because the authors were women but because liberals tend to write with such erudition as to often be incomprehensible — with the notable exceptions of Anne Lamott and Nadia Bolz-Webber, extremely liberal women whose books sell quite well.
“The person at odds with me said I and the woman who said that were sexist because we would never refuse to invite a male who was a poor communicator.”
I reported leaving a church event where a woman had preached. With a carload of companions afterward, a college-educated wife of a pastor complained that the particular female preacher’s message had, as always, been over her head. I reported that a pastor friend of mine had said he would never again invite that particular preacher to his church. In the online chat, before I could finish that story, the person at odds with me said I and the woman who said that were sexist because we would never refuse to invite a male who was a poor communicator.
Before saying something in anger, I — who have invited multiple women to pulpits under my charge — withdrew from the conversation but not without a laugh. I knew during the conversation in that car, we all — two men and two women — had said we never would invite the female preacher in question to our church but we also listed a male professor we all knew and never would invite because his sermons were too esoteric and complicated. Yet, in that online chat, someone on the left accused us of sexism, even though we were basing our opinions not on gender but the general style of presentation.
Then there was the gay friend with whom I was discussing laws that force people to go against their sincerely held beliefs. My friend said, “I want laws that hurt (my opponents). I want them to hurt as much as gay people have hurt for thousands of years.” I told him I was so sorry for his pain, but revenge was not a proper motive for passing a law. He later apologized and thanked me for my feedback.
Is it any wonder conservatives and liberals fear the other being in power? However, none of this is an excuse for how each side treats the other.
“None of this is an excuse for how each side treats the other.”
My seminary theology professor, Frank Tupper, said, “A fundamentalist is a conservative who will stab you in the back.” I agree with him to the extent that family therapists describe the difference between content and process of conflict. Simply put: There is what we argue about and how we do it. Fundamentalists play a nasty game of political power. The point here is that there is a fundamentalism not just of the right, but also left and even middle.
Thus, I would expand Tupper’s definition to say, “Fundamentalists are conservatives, moderates or liberals who zealously promote their beliefs in abusive, condescending, suppressive and harmful ways.”
The contentious interaction between fundamentalist liberals and fundamentalist conservatives represents a proverbial vicious cycle. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
In a worldwide nuclear era, and in a United States with more guns than people and — based on our volume of mass shootings — apparently suffering from tremendous collective mental illness, we have to find a way to heed the words of Rodney King in reaction to the Los Angeles riots triggered by the beating he suffered by police: “Can’t we all just get along?”
When people of faith don’t lead the way in that, their conflict is a crucible for onlookers to see faith as a fraud. The old hymn says, “They will know we are Christians by our love.” But they will surely doubt Christianity due to our hatred.
The negative impact of the manner we believe things led Baptist pastor John Leland — an abolitionist in Virginia in the 1700s — to say, “It is more essential to learn how to believe than to learn what to believe. …Truth is in the least danger of being lost when free examination is allowed.”
Thus, we need to follow the teaching of Jesus and the example of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. and turn the other cheek and grant each other freedom to explore. We also can apply the message of a fictional though prophetic character in Star Wars.
To paraphrase Yoda’s words to his student Luke and apply them to our situation: Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Conservatives, moderates and liberals: I sense much fear in us.
Brad Bull
Brad Bull has served as a hospital chaplain, pastor and university professor. He is a licensed marriage and family therapist and currently operates a private practice where he works with Republicans, Democrats, moderates, gays, straights, transgender persons, university administrators and even other therapists — just like his own therapist does. His therapy and retreat services are run via DrBradBull.com.
Related articles:
Dear Tennessee legislators: You are driving people away from faith | Opinion by Brad Bull
Expelling dissent: America from Roger Williams to the ‘Tennessee Three’ | Opinion by Bill Leonard
Tennessee legislators turn back the clock to Jim Crow time | Opinion by Rodney Kennedy
Hypocrisy | Opinion by Mark Wingfield