Shiffrin on "Universities, Religion, and the Secular Left"

Over at the blog "Left2Right", Cornell professor and law-and-religion expert Steve Shiffrin has a provocative and valuable post, "Universities, Religion, and the Secular Left."  Shiffrin writes:

My assumption in this post is that the secular left does not understand the religious right or the religious left. For example, I doubt that many on the secular left could speak intelligently about the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals, describe the heterogeneity of evangelicals, appreciate the extent to which the left is populated by those who proceed from a religious perspective, and, especially important, I doubt that most of the secular left understands the character of the religious arguments within and between religious traditions that have political ramifications. Without understanding the arguments, secular leftists cannot participate in effective ways. . . .

Leaving aside the quality of religious education in religious colleges and universities, to what extent are secular universities responsible for the lack of knowledge of the secular left? . . .

My contention is that this is a prescription for inadequate education on issues of moral and political thought. University dialogue and debate on ethical and political issues in and out of classrooms should include faculty members who proceed from theistic and non-theistic perspectives. For example, theologians have thought deeply about issues of war and peace. Some are pacifists; other believe in the just war doctrine (with varying views about the conditions for a just war). In the Christian tradition, such theologians would point to scripture, but scripture is only the beginning of the inquiry for most of them. Moreover, to the extent, the debate is confined to scripture, it would be helpful for the secular left (or any informed citizen) to understand the nature of the debate. Obviously, the war and peace example could be multiplied across a broad range of issues. It is hard to imagine why university dialogue would not be enhanced by discussion from theistic and non-theistic perspectives.

Read the whole thing.  I should say that I have enjoyed, from time to time, corresponding with Professor Shiffrin about our shared interest in religious-freedom-and-education questions, and he has -- despite our non-trivial differences of opinion -- been unfailingly gracious, respectful, and helpful.  With respect to Shiffrin's post, it strikes me that his diagnosis of the problem with many "secular" universities -- i.e., ignorance about and indifference toward religion -- might suggest the importance not simply of revising the curriculum and pedagogical premises at such schools, but also the importance of supporting and strengthening top-tier educational institutions that are *distinctively* religious in identity, worldview, and mission, in order to improve the situation in the academy as a whole (which, as a whole, suffers from the same ignorance and indifference -- if not hostility -- that Shiffin rightly identifies in individual "secular" universities).

Rick