GroshLink

Last night, Michael Murray (F&M Philosophy Department Chair and the speaker for our December 4 ministry dessert) participated in an interdisciplinary panel discussion God, Evolution, and Racism: A Perfect Storm, which included the Provost who had the plaque removed.

The historian argued for historical value of the building plaque, which includes the date of construction, architect and builder of the first science laboratory. In addition he noted Agassiz’s fame as a natural scientist and one with an enthusiasm for his discipline. Later he quoted Abraham Lincoln’s words to Frederick Douglas, our races are so different that we can never live in peace together, Uncle Tom’s Cabin ending with the slaves returning to Africa via Canada, and segration being not just a Southern phenomena. I don’t believe we’ll ever progress unless we confront our past.

The Provost invoked her archival training, using the lens of Constantine’s creation of a New Rome upon the foundation of Byzantium through the use of images of poets, philosophers, educators, etc. As such, when one reinstalls the past into the present, it must be done in context as it is an expression of identity of what is and what one wants to be. She noted the lack of due diligence in reinstalling the piece of history as Agassiz’s relationship as his scientific based racism of the hierarchy of species does not stand in F&M’s future direction and F&M is no longer associated with its German Reformed Church heritage.

A secular college committed to free inquiry should not revalidate a powerful monument from the past in all of its dimensions. In addition, Agassiz’s relationship to F&M is tenuous and he rejected evolution. The proper place for the plaque is an exhibition in the campus museum with text to explain the college’s relationship to it. Later she was pressed on a statement in which she questioned larger moral values guiding our work. Several in the audience defended their science as only worthy of their own self as a judge, i.e., there is no outside judge for one's personal reserach.

Michael underlined Agassiz’s maturation in his understanding of polygenism (various human species as separate creations) and support of abolition. Agassiz rejected the application of his research to support slavery; he believed all are equal before God, because all of have been created in His image. Michael acknowledged Agassiz’s position on miscegenation (interbreeding leads to making the various species weaker) and rejection of evolution (noting that Agassiz died 14 years after the publication of The Origin of Species and many others still disagreed with Darwin’s proposal).

Michael then pushed strongly how the taking down of the plaque represents an institutional stance on the relationship of science-religion and one in which no discussion between the faculty and the administration occurred. He stated that the belief in the supernatural is not antithetical to institutional values, what we want to be and are. Returning to the plaque, he noted the importance of an overarching ethical perspective to our work. At a later time illustrations of unworthy laboratory work were given, such as death camps.  In addition, the importance of an institutional review board and an animal testing committee on campus were underlined.

The psychologist took the audience through the revelation of the monogenesis of the human race in south-east Africa and the emergence of bio-racism in 15th Century Spain as a reaction to Jewish advances in society/Church. He differentiated ethnocentrism from racism, by noting that ethnocentricism allows from the capability for those from other races/ethnicities to be incorporated into the larger society. He sees scientific development leading to a coming of age where we viligently put aside the childish notions of purity of blood/whiteness. He expressed concern for Europe in this maturation process as he was present for conversations in Europe during the recent Swiss elections.

The biologist thought the Provost had the authority to remove the plaque, which he hadn’t noticed, and valued the time for processing together. He pointed out how science enables us to put away wrong ideas, i.e., ones that don’t conform with reality such as racism. He noted the differences between work in one’s discipline and one’s religious practices. Later he noted supernatural casual agents are not testable and not part of science. He also stated how he felt marginalized by a plaque which places one’s work under a Great Author excludes him, even if the majority view supports its presence.

The historian of science noted Agassiz’ proposal of the theory of the Ice Age, which was rejected by Darwin for a number of years, and Agassiz’s opposition to Darwinism. Also he pointed out the propensity of scientific racism in the time which Agassiz lived. He saw the campus controversy as a teaching moment, providing an opportunity to see late 19th century in its context, and he volunteered his class to draft an interpretive display for the plaque’s new location in the Phillip’s [Campus] Museum.

Referring to the Dover decision, he recommended the proper venue for this conversation was not in the science classroom. In relationship to concerns expressed by some regarding James Watson’s views, he noted that as our contemporary he can be judged by the values of our time. Later he noted that the role of the supernatural was commonly invoked in 19th century science.

In the conversation afterward several Christian students shared their feelings of being marginalized on campus because of their faith.  Michael affirmed that he has seen this in the lives of a number of students and in his own as a follower of Christ during his 18 years at F&M. A number of students present emphasized their desire for more science-religion conversation.  One student expressed concern regarding the erasure of [campus] memory -- although a classmate disagreed.  And one student even challenged the Provost as to whether concerns as to the allusion to faith and not Agassiz's racism was at the core of the removal.

As to concerns which those in the future might bring to our current scientific work, the following were suggested: scientism’s rejection of broader conversation regarding the origin of life, money directing scientific research, arrogance of science/technology (we need a dose of humility), atheism’s role in guiding science (it was confessed that we all bring a bias, but scientists propose a hypothesis with the ability to falsify as one follows the evidence where it leads . . . unlike religion).

Toward the end, one panelist pointed out what struck him about the plaque was "the laboratory as a sanctuary," a place of refuge from the rest of the world, a safe haven for intellectual inquiry. I wonder if the plaque would be ok if that's all it stated? The discussion concluded with the question being raised as to whether the words on the plague were actually from Agassiz.  Apparently the quote was written on the wall of his lab, not in a publication or notes from a lecture by a student.   Maybe one of his students authored the quote ;-)

Would love to have your suggestions on how you would address the various issues brought to the table. I think it is of interest as it spans disciplines and campus populations (administration, faculty, students). My next step after sharing with you and inviting you to pray for the campus is to gather a group for prayer on campus.