Some Summer Reading: Closed Classrooms, AI, and Frankenstein

 * An email I sent to a Christian Professors Group I am part of--talking about some of recent reading I've done.

It's almost time for the new semester to start!  Who's ready?!

I hope your summer is going well.  I've been able to read a number of good books and articles.  Here are some interesting items of note:

1.  An interview from The Chronicle of Higher Education--"These Scholarly Topics Are Hotly Debated. So Why Don't Syllabi Reflect That?" (July 22, 2025).  The interview is with the authors of the working paper, "Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues."  The authors examined the syllabi of courses on controversial topics such as (1) racial bias in the American criminal justice system, (2) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (3) the ethics of abortion.  The authors are interested "in whether students are exposed to a broad spectrum of the most reputable and informed thinkers, which includes professors and, in some cases, well-regarded intellectuals and writers outside of academia."  They examined key thinkers in the above areas--often from a more left-leaning perspective--and noticed that when these thinkers were used in various classes they were very often not paired with responsible counter-voices to balance the teaching perspective.  They write:

To varying degrees, we found strong asymmetery: While some of the most important voices like Alexander's, Said's and Thomson's are routinely taught, their critics are not generally assigned along with them.  And when we flip the analysis to see how often the critics are assigned along with the canonical texts, we find that they generally are taught together.  In other words, in the compartively rare cases when these critics are assigned, they are apparently taught to widen the conversation, not cement a different orthodoxy.  That suggests a minority of professors do teach these intellectual controversies.

 

On the whole, though, it seems that professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies.  That is the academic norm.  This is a problem we must collectively remedy."

I took a special interest in this article since I do teach on the ethics of abortion and I do teach both sides.  I have my students read the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson essay in defense of abortion and I pair it with pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith's article critiquing Thomson's argument.  Although in the minority, it felt good to be among the forces in higher education promoting critical thinking!

2.  A recent article over at Mind Matters (a good website I encourage you to check out!), Jeffrey Funk has a link-filled article entitled, "AI in Education: Is the System Being Gamed--or the Student?" (July 30, 2025).  Here is just one set of comments relevant to what is happening to our students: 

Using generative AI as a friend or therapist is also becoming popular across all ages. A survey of 1,060 teens aged 13 to 17 across the US ‘found that around three in four kids have used AI companions,” “with over half of surveyed teens qualifying as regular users of AI companions, meaning they log on to talk to the bots at least a few times per month.” (Futurism)

 

The results are not good. “A troubling number of ChatGPT users, both young and old, are falling into states of delusion and paranoia following extensive use of the OpenAI bot.” Perhaps they are driven by the tech’s sycophantic behavior or its penchant for being flattering, agreeable, and obsequious to users. These chats can “culminate in breaks with reality and significant real-world consequences, which include the dissolution of marriages and families, job loss, homelessness, voluntary and involuntary stays in mental health facilities,” and death. (Futurism)

 

More serious uses of large-language model (LLMs) also have their dark side. Writing articles for the Internet with them has produced what some people call the “enshittification” of the Internet or “slopaganda.” The Financial Times says: from enshittification to slop and slopaganda, many people are claiming that the internet is on the decline, and generative AI is contributing to that decline. “The last bits of fellowship and ingenuity on the web are being swept away by a tide of  so-called artificial intelligence.” Some are also worried that bad actors can use ChatGPT to produce mass postings on almost any topic and any political persuasion to foment dissent in America. (Wall Street Journal)

 

3. Lastly, I'm currently reading (re-reading, really, since I read it over 30 years ago!) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  I'm only about a third into it but it is fascinating to see the pride and hubris of Dr. Victor Frankenstein--a trait not unknown to some of our contemporary scientists who work in Artificial Intelligence!

So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein, more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.

Here the quest takes him to consider the resurrection of dead bodies and immortality through science: (transhumanism, anybody?)

Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.  A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.  No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.  Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.

 

 These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour.

What have you been reading?  Let us all know--remember to "reply all."

Teaching and the Quest for Classroom Neutrality

* A recent email I sent out to a Christian Professors Group I am part of:

Recently I was at a Starbucks doing some reading.  I read three interesting pieces that are all, in one way or another, relevant to our roles as Christians in higher education.

1. "Conservative(s) Teaching and Classroom Neutrality" by Christopher Tollefson

2.  "Can 'Fear Equity' Revive Campus Free Speech?" by Lee Jussim and Robert Maranto

3.  "The Radicalization of the American Academy" by Lee Jussim, et. al. 

Here I want to focus on the first short article by Tollefson.  He addresses the issue of the divide between those who attempt to use the classroom for progressive advocacy and, on the other hand, those who promote complete neutrality on the professor's behalf.  Tollefson asks us to consider "a third way to approach as least some difficult issues in the classroom, one that departs from the strategy of neutrality."  Tollefson gives his experience as a template.  In his medical ethics classes he will assign his own work defending the humanity of the human embryo along with argumentation against the destruction of embryos.  His students know where he stands on this controversial issue.  He also assigns readings from diverse perspectives but his students know that their professor is not "neutral" on this issue.  He speaks to the value of this pedagogy:

First, what is modeled in the classroom is not simply the presentation of arguments and critical thought, but the presentation of arguments and critical thought in defense of what is believed to be true.  And this matters.  Classroom neutrality can be important and appropriate in various ways, but it risks what neutrality-based approaches to politics risk: that it suggests to students that there is no truth, only arguments, and that their presentation and criticisim on all sides is as much an intellectual game as anything else.

 

 But that is not where we want our students to end up: we want them to argue for the sake of getting at, and defending, the truth.  And while this can be encouraged by who takes no side in the argument, it is shown by one who defends a position because, as he says, he believes it to be true.

 

 Second, what is likewise modeled and shown is that the project of defending what is believed to be true can be done in a good spirit, with goodwill, and with respect for all participants.  When this approach is successful (I am not saying that I am successful in it!) then intellectual opponents will have become as good intellectual friends as intellectual allies will be.

I have actually taken this approach in my Philosophy 101 classes.  About week 6 or 7 my students read an article I wrote (based on a public presentation I gave at GCC) on "Why Science Needs God." After reading this, the students know I believe in God and am arguing for a certain relationship between science and religion.  I have the students evaluate the paper and tell them that some of the best papers I have received on this assignment are from those who have disagreed with me.  I also tell them that there is a problem with the paper that has been pointed out by students--and that I agree with the criticism!  

I would encourage you to read Tollefson's piece and see how it might affect your classroom presentations.  Do you agree or disagree with his thoughts?  How do you (or, how could you) take Tollefson's approach in your classroom with your content?

One last thing... last semester I wrote a piece for the GCC CTLE's blog.  It looks at some of the issues from the above essays.  I tried to create the space for increased conversations by those who are ideologically and philosophically divided.  Take a look and see what you think--"Crossing Cultural Divides with 'Adversarial Collaboration'"

Intellectual Fair-Mindedness as a Virtue

 From Paul Gould's book The Outrageous Idea of the Missional Professor:

Here are Paul Gould's words on the virtue of "Intellectual Fair-Mindedness":

While the modern university exhibits increasing racial diversity, there is a surprising dearth of intellectual diversity.  The presence of liberal and secular thought is so pervasive that monolithic groupthink and close-mindedness are common, and there is a noticeable pressure to conform to the status quo or to remain quiet.  In this context, it is easy for us Christian scholars to feel defensive and to resort to caricatures of the liberal, secular, atheistic, even demonic left.  In doing so, however, we risk being closed-minded ourselves.

The virture of intellectual fair-mindedness requires that we willingly listen in an even-handed way to those with whom we disagree.  It is to strive to understand another's position and to resist erecting simplistic straw man arguments against our opponents which in turn are quickly (and often smugly) refuted.  Perhaps the worry is that being open to another's viewpoint in a fair-minded way leads to relativism.  Alternatively, perhaps the worry is that such fair-mindedness is not possible given our psychological biases.  Neither worry is legitimate.  Being fair-minded is consistent with the belief that there is an objective truth to be found.  Further, one can be psychologically biased and maintain rational objectivity.  Our biases don't stand as an insurmountable wall between our minds and the objective world.  Being fair-minded in one application of the golden rule: we should want others to treat us and the views we hold with fairness and charity, and we should do likewise in return. (pp. 62-63--bold-face added) 

Missional Professors: The Need for Theological and Philosophical Maturity

 * From Paul Gould's The Outrageous Idea of the Missional Professor...

"Finally, while experts within their own particular fields of study, Christian professors often possess a Sunday school level of education when it comes to matters theological and philosophical.  A missional professor, however, must be competent, even well-versed, in such matters.  Sadly, this is rarely the case, and the result is a patchwork attempt to integrate one's faith with one's scholarly work and an inability to fit the pieces of one's life into God's larger story.  Christian professors who are seeking to be faithful witnesses for Christ within the secular academy face immense challenges." (p. 7)

Christian Academics and the Temptation of Compartmentalization

Paul Gould on Christian academics and the temptation of compartmentalization.

 “The impulse of modern society is to compartmentalize our lives.  Public/private, sacred/secular, work/play, and so on.  Modern man and modern society has lost its spiritual center, becoming fragmented and hurried—but only God know what for!  In this cultural milieu, the Christian scholar who bravely resists this impulse toward fragmentation finds the situation exacerbated due to two countervailing pressures that often pull in opposite directions.  On the one hand, the secular ethos of the university presses Christian scholars to conduct their research and teaching in purely secular terms and motifs.  If Christian scholars want a place at the table, they must play by the rules of the academic game.  A strict wall of separation between church and states exists, and any effort to tear down the wall is looked on with either suspicion or outright incredulity.  On the other hand, the Christian scholar is committed to a particular view of the world that is often quite antithetical to the established secular ethos.  The Christian universe is a God-centered universe.  If Jesus is Lord, he is Lord of all areas of thought and life.  In fact, the Bible claims that in Jesus ‘are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col. 2:3).  Thus, the Christian scholar himself often becomes disintegrated, compartmentalizing his ‘scholarly life’ from his ‘spiritual life’ as he attempts to navigate between the Scylla of religious fundamentalism and the Charybdis of accommodationism.  Any attempts to invoke a Christian perspective to science (for example) in the university are quickly labeled as fundamentalist attempts to promote religion masquerading as science.  Any attempts to utilize non-biblical conceptual schemes erected by thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, or Kant in order to shape and guide research and teaching are (sometimes) viewed by the church as selling out to accommodationism.  The net result of these opposing pressures is that the Christian scholar is left in a sort of ‘no-mans land’—viewed with suspicion by both the church and the university.  And within the secular academy, religion is relegated to the sidelines.  Religion is reserved for the scholar’s personal life: meaningful to either the individual or one’s own religious community only.

 

“It is possible to live an integrated life within secular academia today?  Can a Christian scholar integrate his faith with his chosen discipline in such a way as to avoid the charge of either fundamentalism or accommodationism?”  --Paul Gould

 

·      Paul Gould, “The Two Tasks Introduced: The Fully Integrated Life of the Christian Scholar,” in The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar: Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007), 17-18.

Boldness in Standing for Christ on the Campus: Challenging Stereotypes by Standing Out

 * Part of an email I sent to fellow Christian professors.

For your consideration....

I was looking again at an article by Baylor sociologist, George Yancey, "How Academics View Conservative Protestants" Sociology of Religion (June 2015).  Yancey's specialization (one among many) is the anti-conservative Christian bias found in the educational arena.  Here are a few quotations from the essay:

• "A sizable body of research has demonstrated an anti-conservative Christian perspective among academics." (First sentence of essay)

• "Professors in universities and colleges rate political conservatives negatively, and religious conservatives--particularly conservative Protestants like evangelicals and fundamentalists--even more negatively.  For example, Tobin and Weinberg's (2007) survey of 1,200 college professors found that 53% admitted negative feelings about evangelicals.  Yancey (2011) found that about 40% of professors surveyed said that they would be less likely to hire a prospective employee for their department if that candidate was an evangelical, and about 50% would be less likely to hire a prospective employee if the candidate is a fundamentalist.  This negative bias has ramifications.  One study indicates that conservative Protestant students claim everyday experiences of discrimination in academia similar to the levels of discrimination reported by traditionally targeted groups, like women and blacks (Hyers 2008).  Other research shows that this antipathy affects hiring decisions (Yancey 2011) and graduate school admission (Gunn and Zenner Jr. 1996)." (p. 2--note my page numbers are from a pre-print version)

• "We argue that there are two possible reasons for the rejection of conservative Protestants by academics: symbolic boundaries and lack of contact." (p. 2)

• "This propensity to envision themselves [the progressive critics of conservative Christians] in a culture war helps explain some of our respondents' critique of evangelicals proselytizing.  This proselytizing may be a threat to these scholars since religious conversion may generate more opponents to their political and social goals.  Thus it is not surprising that several respondents make negative comments about the evangelical desire to convert others... (p. 13)

• "Certain respondents view conservative Protestants as a threat to societal well-being... They fear that evangelicals will win support for an agenda these academics perceive as dangerous." (p. 13)

• "Academics are unlikely to personally identify with conservative Protestants or have many conservative Protestant friends.  This may lead to an ignorance of conservative Protestants that feeds into negative stereotypes toward that out-group.  Those with closer ties to conservative Protestants gave the most academic definitions and also have the most positive attitudes toward conservative Protestants." (p. 17)

•  "Conservative Protestants are disliked to the degree that they are perceived as oppressors both now and in the past which helps explain why evangelicals are rated lower by academics than other proselytizing groups, like Muslims (Tobin and Weinberg 2007; Yancey 2011)." (p. 17)

• Yancey speaks of a "silencing effect which keeps conservative Protestants 'in the closet.'" (p. 18)

• The final paragraph of the article (and this, if I may interject, may be where the "money is" for us in terms of practical application):
• "This silence reduces the potential of conservative Protestant academics to use intergroup contact to challenge common religious stereotypes in academia.  The detached, guarded manner in which they discuss their religious beliefs may create social comfort for other academics, but also helps those scholars maintain symbolic barriers toward conservative Protestants.  Thus, even when conservative Protestant academics act in ways that defy anti-religious stereotypes, their hesitation to openly embrace a conservative Protestant identity makes it harder for other academics to tie those actions to conservative Protestantism, which might create a cognitive dissonance about that stereotype.  Conservative Protestant academics' strategy for dealing with possible stigmatization may unintentionally reinforce a social atmosphere that perpetuates academic marginalization of conservative Protestantism." (p. 19)

I post these quotations, not to create a sense of fear, but, rather, to move us to greater boldness in expressing ourselves and our academic work as explicitly Christian.  This obviously requires wisdom and winsomeness but failure to do this ("openly embrace a conservative Protestant identity") may actually backfire and create a more negative effect in the long run (according to Yancey).  This is to start a conversation among us--not dictate a set of rules.  Toward that end, here are a few questions to ponder--and hopefully, we can ponder them together!  (Feel free to respond in this email thread)

• Have you seen an anti-conservative Christian bias in your department or career?

• In what ways (if any) do you see or sense your campus to have an environment which stigmatizes Christianity (or versions of Christianity)?

• Have you ever self-censored your Christian identity at your campus out of a sense of fear?

• In what ways could you manifest a greater boldness in self-consciously living out your Christian identity on your campus--before students, fellow faculty, and administration?

Christian Professors: Showing Yourself to Be a Christian to Your Students

 From the book A Grander Story: An Invitation to Christian Professors giving perspective on when Christian professors should let their students and fellow faculty know they are Christians.

Secular Thinkers on the Campus: Influencing Students

 A few quotations from secular thinkers showing the need for Christian professors to be salt and light on their campuses.

Christian Professors: Some Thoughts from "A Grander Story"

 A few thoughts on the importance of Christians in higher education.  From the book A Grander Story: An Invitation to Christian Professors.

"If you think about it, so much of what we love and cherish is downstream of the American university:

• Every child and grandchild, for generations to come, even if they don't attend college, will be shaped by our universities' contributions to culture.

• The belief systems and values of our nation flow largely from our universities.

• Almost all our civic, judicial, and business leaders are shaped in our universities.

• The greatest challenges and crises facing our nation and the world are addressed through research in our universities.

• Scholars in our universities serve as primary arbiters of what is good and true for the rest of our society.

• Professors establish the culture or 'climate' that encourages or prevents the gospel from taking root.

Other reasons could be offered as well.  It is difficult to conceive of an institution with greater potential to shape (and bless!) the world than the university.

"In Luke 6:40, Jesus remarked, 'Everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher' (emphasis mine).  Personally, we wouldn't have concluded this; we would have suggested, 'Everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teaching.'  But according to Jesus, teachers indelibly shape students.  There are two sides to this coin: If students become like their teachers, what are the ramifications of generation after generation of university students graduating without ever having met a single professor they knew to be a Christian?  Conversely, what would be the impact if every university student in America had the opportunity, at least once, to study under a Christ-following professor?  This reason alone, that our universities shape every future generation, is decisive evidence for the critical importance of the university as a mission field." (pp. 10-11)