The internets are swirling with the rumor: Kenneth Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) is going from Pepperdine Law to be Baylor’s next president.
Thoughts?
I find this an “interesting” choice from the perspective of a NT academic who recognizes that Baylor’s PhD program is on the rise. Sometimes guilt by association can be a tough thing to overcome. Starr is also involved with defending California’s enactment of Prop-8, the ban on gay marriage.
The sort of folks who would value the direction that the PhD program is moving (with bringing on Bruce Longenecker, etc.) and what it has to offer are also, likely, not to be all that thrilled about an institution with Clinton’s prosecutor, and a participant in the Prop-8 goings on, at the helm.
The value of the degree will depend, to some degree, on the religion department being able to separate its good work from the perception (whether true or not) of the university’s being headed by a conservative ideologue. None of this is to say that I think Starr should or should not have done x, y, or z, just that Baylor’s desire to be a certain kind of academic institution with a certain kind of reputation will be, in some ways, hindered by the perception of who Starr is and what he is committed to.
Agreed. One of my church elders is on the board at Pepperdine and another taught alongside him in the Law School. They speak well of him and I’m sure he’s a good enough guy, but I think you’re dead on concerning perception. My former undergraduate roommate in completing his PhD in philosophy there and feels that the school in on the rise. Interestingly, this presidency was previously offered to Dallas Willard. Seems that the Baylor board may have been looking for a “name.”
Yes, the push for a “name” can be strong. Presidents need to help bring in money. “Chief fund raising officer” becomes much of their defacto role in many institutions of higher learning.
Interesting. Wouldn’t you agree, though, Daniel, that much of this kind of angst is driven by hypocrisy? If someone were known primarily for opposing, say, Bush and for blatantly pushing a gay marriage or pro-choice agenda, I doubt such angst would be present. Yet what is the difference, except differences in ideology? If people don’t like an ideologue heading up a program, I’m symphathetic–but not when it is a selective, biased approach to such things.
Yes, I do think it’s the particular kind of political program / position that Starr represents that is the problem. Academics tend to respect more left-leaning politics. So, no doubt, the same reasons that the “academy” will fret over his appointment is the same reason that many seminaries, CCCU academics, and some churches and alumni will rejoice over it–the way that our peculiar mix of politics and religion generates such responses in America!
Yeah, I agree with that! It’d be nice to see a “third way” open up both for those in the academy and the church to have to escape the severely limiting kinds of polarization both sides apparently feel obligated to choose between.
As a law student, I think lawyers should be judged separately from their clients, but I’m biased.
Pity the guy! He’s moving from Malibu to WACO! Waco is the gas station between Austin and Dallas.
As someone currently applying to Baylor for sociology of religion, I’m rather embarrassed and frustrated by this choice. I don’t really want to go to a school whose reputation I’ll have to defend after graduation. Where/if he can help Baylor meet its 2012 goals for the endowment and whatnot, I’ll be happy because that will be good for research, building projects, etc… but otherwise, I’m really skeptical.
I also don’t know how involved he really is his denom, either, but I find some of their beliefs at odds with a moderate Baptist institution.
My only comfort is that faculty were instrumental in outsting another president. If Starr doesn’t happily surprise us, we can always oust another, I suppose.
In the meantime, I will try to give him a chance, since I think it’d be sad for him to get to Baylor and feel like a reject. (He obviously cares a lot about my emotional support. ;o)
Nice, Ashleigh. I see your “My only comfort,” and my brain immediately begins to rewrite the Heidelberg Catechism: “My only comfort in life and in death is not that the Trustees have chosen correctly but that faculty might choose, and that with one accord, to oust …”
Awesome.
I’ve been reading a lot of people from Pepperdine defending Starr on the internet by pointing out that he is quite friendly and nice which seems to completely miss the point. A gregarious polarizing figure is still a polarizing figure, and it seems like the board is thinking of its endowment without adequately thinking about what the mission and goal of Baylor has been. Personally, I am quite bummed because Baylor has represented to me the potential for a new more moderate Baptist scholarship which captures many of the values of our tradition while maintaining continuity with the broader academic world. I don’t know that Starr will change any of that necessarily, but I can’t help but feel it is a move in a decidedly wrong direction.
Can anyone give recent examples of Baylor Ph.D.’s being hired at secular colleges or even mainline seminaries?
I only ask because I don’t think this is going to change their esteem in the eyes of the scholarly community.
From my perspective, Chris, I’m not so concerned about continuity with the past as a possible hope for a better future. Baylor has made some very good moves to improve its religion department (including bringing in Bruce Longenecker in New Testament). It gave the impression of positioning itself to be a top-tier NT program at some point in the near future.
I see this less as changing what’s always happened and more as possibly dashing hopes for a brighter future.
I would agree. I think the reli dept has/had the potential to be an really good up-and-coming program. Same with sociology of religion with their new Institute for the Study of Religion, large number of faculty with the interest, etc. Baylor is clearly trying to shift from just a teaching school to a significant research institution, and I think that’s an exciting dream–we’ll just have to see what happens.
Yes, I see what you mean. But aspirations are hard to turn into reality when it comes to making a name in the field. The leading research schools are, for the most part, not exactly slowing down. Not that I’ve thought about this personally or anything.
I’m afraid about the implicit threat to academic freedom. Yes, maybe Starr himself is not trying to shut down all the brains on campus, but if he was wanted for his money, and his money comes from people more concerned with promoting their own viewpoint than genuine scholarship, then there could easily be a problem.