That is the headline of this Boston Globe article from last week few days ago about the appointment and the rescinding of appointment of Bishop James Tengatenga of the Anglican Diocese of Southern Malawi as dean of the Tucker Foundation at Dartmouth College. I find it surprising that one often-astute observer of Dartmouth College affairs praises the college's new president, Philip Hanlon, for not flinching in pulling the appointment. It sure seems to me like he flinched. At least that's what I take away from the comments of the chair of the search committee, Professor Irene Kancades. According to The D's story today:
Calling the decision “bizarre,” Kacandes said reversing a provost and president-approved decision after a seven-month search might deter faculty from volunteering to sit on future search committees.
“The way that the accusations unfolded is something that we should be very alarmed about,” Kacandes said. “This man was tried in a court of partial public opinion, and it was not clear that people who wanted to weigh in could do so.”
Kacandes said she felt the strong reaction was perpetrated by a small group of students, blog posts and in emails between some faculty members.
Maybe there's more to the story, which I am viewing from a distance (though not as much a distance as students in Hanover, NH might view the statements of a Bishop in Malawi). But the way this unfolded is troubling. As an alumnus of Dartmouth and AQ, I appreciate now in a way that I did not appreciate as a student the benefits of the institutional independence of Aquinas House, the Catholic student center at Dartmouth, from the governance of the Tucker Foundation.
For more background: The college's statement on Bishop Tengatenga's initial appointment is here, a statement by Bishop Tengatenga on his views on gay rights is here, and a statement by Dartmouth's new President on rescinding the appointment is here. (See also this story from Episcopal News Service and this story from the Valley News.) Earlier news coverage about the controversy is available from the Valley News and Dartblog.
A perspective piece from Patheos, titled "Scapegoating Bishop James Tengatenga," concludes with a quotation from the Globe's coverage and the observations of an unnamed faculty member:
The fears voiced in the Globe article by Zambian exile the Rev. Kapya John Kaoma:
“This is a big blow, because it leaves African activists on the ground wondering if they can work with Westerners,” Kaoma said. “All human rights defenders in Africa are working under very, very hard conditions, and the violence against them is always there. What they have done is exposed Bishop Tengatenga and then dumped him back into Malawi.”
Were echoed by a member of the Dartmouth faculty, who told me:
The idea of the left taking care of their own calls to mind the Republican friendly fire of the Spanish Civil War. In this case, the left refused even to recognize him as one of their own. He unwittingly and in circumstances scarcely imaginable here violated their language code; their own moral pride compelled them to relegate him to the status of outcast, unfit to exercise moral leadership in our community. I don’t think my perception is entirely distorted when I notice a Leninist streak in the American liberal arts left.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
I am preparing this evening for an argument simulation that we are doing tomorrow for the incoming 1Ls as part of orientation. I have been assigned the task of arguing for the petitioner (the town government) in Town of Greece v. Galloway. The process has caused me to appreciate the difference in perspective that comes from my stance as an academic lawyer rather than a government lawyer. But I find myself in need of orientation because switching between these two perspectives is disorienting.
Michael Moreland posted a little while back about the amici curiae brief headlined by Gerard Bradley that he had joined (along with several other constitutional scholars). Soon after that posting, I read that brief, along with the Obama Administration's brief, and others. I found the Bradley brief refreshing in its insistence that what the brief referred to as the Lemon/endorsement test "is inapposite to legislative prayer." The brief argued that: (1) legislative prayer necessarily has a religious purpose; (2) the concept of neutrality underlying the Lemon/endorsement test makes no sense of legislative prayer; (3) legislative prayer does not comport with the Lemon/endorsement test because that cannot apply to a continuing and perhaps long-time government practice with the same force as it may apply to a single act or display; and (4) applying the Lemon/endorsement test to legislative prayer could itself lead to an unconstitutional result. But considering the arguments from the perspective of the town's lawyer (my role for the simulation), I am not sure that I would or should present the arguments in precisely the same way. I do not want to admit that the town loses if the Lemon/endorsement test applies.
I cannot deny, of course, that the purpose of seeking Divine guidance is a religious purpose. But I will be less willing to treat that purpose as incompatible with the purpose of solemnizing the proceedings. I do not want to have to agree that "[t]o apply [the Lemon/endorsement] test to legislative prayer is simply to overrule Marsh v. Chambers, and thereby to eradicate a practice cherished by Americans since the founding." But maybe I need to, because I need to explain why the town shifted in 1999 from beginning with a moment of silence (which seems sufficient for solemnizing) to beginning with an invocation from an invited volunteer. And in making that explanation, perhaps I will find myself back in agreement with the Bradley brief anyhow. Maybe I should embrace its approach to begin with.
Let us now put aside the simulation and ask the question directly. Suppose the town's lawyer is asked at oral arguments in the actual case: "Does the town lose if the Lemon/endorsement test applies?" How should the town's lawyer answer? The town's brief says that the town wins under any test. But is that right?
