THE TANDEM PROJECT
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
SPECIALIZATION WHERE THERE OUGHT
TO BE COLLABORATION
Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.
Issue: Specialization not Collaboration recommended by Chair
of a University Religion Department.
For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs,
Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society
Review: End of the University as we know
It, Mark C.
Taylor,
Excerpts:
“Just a few weeks ago, I
attended a meeting of political scientists who had gathered to discuss why
international relations theory had never considered the role of religion in
society. Given the state of the world today, this is a significant oversight.
There can be no adequate understanding of the most important issues we face
when disciplines are cloistered from one another and operate on their own
premises. It would be far more effective to bring together people working on
questions of religion, politics, history, economics, anthropology, sociology,
literature, art, religion and philosophy to engage in comparative analysis of
common problems. As the curriculum is restructured, fields of inquiry and
methods of investigation will be transformed.”
“Unfortunately this
mass-production university model has led to separation where there ought to be
collaboration and to ever-increasing specialization. In my own religion
department, for example, we have 10 faculty members, working in eight
subfields, with little overlap. Each academic becomes the trustee not of a
branch of the sciences, but of limited knowledge that all too often is
irrelevant for genuinely important problems. A colleague recently boasted to me
that his best student was doing his dissertation on how the medieval theologian
Duns Scotus used citations.”
Here is another critique of specialization by Ernest
Becker; “Persons have to keep from going mad by biting off small pieces of
reality which they can get some command over and some satisfaction from. This
means that their noblest passions are played out in the narrowest and most
unreflective ways, and this is what undoes them…But this shrinkage of vision
that permits them to survive also at the same time prevents them from having
the overall understanding they need to plan for and control the effects of
their shrinkage of experience. A paradox this bitter sends a chill through all
reflective people.”
Op-Contributor
By MARK
C. TAYLOR
GRADUATE education is the
Widespread hiring freezes
and layoffs have brought these problems into sharp relief now. But our graduate
system has been in crisis for decades, and the seeds of this crisis go as far
back as the formation of modern universities. Kant, in his 1798 work “The
Conflict of the Faculties,” wrote that universities should “handle the entire
content of learning by mass production, so to speak, by a division of labor, so
that for every branch of the sciences there would be a public teacher or
professor appointed as its trustee.”
Unfortunately this
mass-production university model has led to separation where there ought to be
collaboration and to ever-increasing specialization. In my own religion
department, for example, we have 10 faculty members, working in eight
subfields, with little overlap. And as departments fragment, research and
publication become more and more about less and less. Each academic becomes the
trustee not of a branch of the sciences, but of limited knowledge that all too
often is irrelevant for genuinely important problems. A colleague recently
boasted to me that his best student was doing his dissertation on how the
medieval theologian Duns Scotus used citations.
The emphasis on narrow
scholarship also encourages an educational system that has become a process of
cloning. Faculty members cultivate those students whose futures they envision
as identical to their own pasts, even though their tenures will stand in the
way of these students having futures as full professors.
The dirty secret of higher
education is that without underpaid graduate students to help in laboratories
and with teaching, universities couldn’t conduct research or even instruct
their growing undergraduate populations. That’s one of the main reasons we
still encourage people to enroll in doctoral programs. It is simply cheaper to
provide graduate students with modest stipends and adjuncts with as little as
$5,000 a course — with no benefits — than it is to hire full-time professors.
In other words, young
people enroll in graduate programs, work hard for subsistence pay and assume
huge debt burdens, all because of the illusory promise of faculty appointments.
But their economical presence, coupled with the intransigence of tenure,
ensures that there will always be too many candidates for too few openings.
The other obstacle to
change is that colleges and universities are self-regulating or, in academic
parlance, governed by peer review. While trustees and administrations
theoretically have some oversight responsibility, in practice, departments
operate independently. To complicate matters further, once a faculty member has
been granted tenure he is functionally autonomous. Many academics who cry out
for the regulation of financial markets vehemently oppose it in their own
departments.
If American higher
education is to thrive in the 21st century, colleges and universities, like
Wall Street and
1. Restructure the
curriculum, beginning with graduate programs and proceeding as quickly as
possible to undergraduate programs. The division-of-labor model of separate
departments is obsolete and must be replaced with a curriculum structured like
a web or complex adaptive network. Responsible teaching and scholarship must
become cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural.
Just a few weeks ago, I
attended a meeting of political scientists who had gathered to discuss why
international relations theory had never considered the role of religion in
society. Given the state of the world today, this is a significant oversight.
There can be no adequate understanding of the most important issues we face
when disciplines are cloistered from one another and operate on their own
premises.
It would be far more
effective to bring together people working on questions of religion, politics,
history, economics, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, religion and
philosophy to engage in comparative analysis of common problems. As the
curriculum is restructured, fields of inquiry and methods of investigation will
be transformed.
2. Abolish permanent
departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused
programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and
every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued
or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics
around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law,
Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.
Consider, for example, a
Water program. In the coming decades, water will become a more pressing problem
than oil, and the quantity, quality and distribution of water will pose
significant scientific, technological and ecological difficulties as well as
serious political and economic challenges. These vexing practical problems
cannot be adequately addressed without also considering important
philosophical, religious and ethical issues. After all, beliefs shape practices
as much as practices shape beliefs.
A Water program would
bring together people in the humanities, arts, social and natural sciences with
representatives from professional schools like medicine, law, business,
engineering, social work, theology and architecture. Through the intersection
of multiple perspectives and approaches, new theoretical insights will develop
and unexpected practical solutions will emerge.
3. Increase collaboration
among institutions. All institutions do not need to do all things and
technology makes it possible for schools to form partnerships to share students
and faculty. Institutions will be able to expand while contracting. Let one
college have a strong department in French, for example, and the other a strong
department in German; through teleconferencing and the Internet both subjects
can be taught at both places with half the staff. With these tools, I have
already team-taught semester-long seminars in real time at the Universities of
4. Transform the
traditional dissertation. In the arts and humanities, where looming cutbacks
will be most devastating, there is no longer a market for books modeled on the
medieval dissertation, with more footnotes than text. As financial pressures on
university presses continue to mount, publication of dissertations, and with it
scholarly certification, is almost impossible. (The average university press
print run of a dissertation that has been converted into a book is less than
500, and sales are usually considerably lower.) For many years, I have taught
undergraduate courses in which students do not write traditional papers but
develop analytic treatments in formats from hypertext and Web sites to films
and video games. Graduate students should likewise be encouraged to produce
“theses” in alternative formats.
5. Expand the range of
professional options for graduate students. Most graduate students will never
hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore,
necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education.
The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of
real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit
organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the
new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.
6. Impose mandatory
retirement and abolish tenure. Initially intended to protect academic freedom,
tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors
impervious to change. After all, once tenure has been granted, there is no
leverage to encourage a professor to continue to develop professionally or to
require him or her to assume responsibilities like administration and student
advising. Tenure should be replaced with seven-year contracts, which, like the
programs in which faculty teach, can be terminated or renewed. This policy
would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and
teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room
for young people with new ideas and skills.
For many years, I have
told students, “Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and
do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me
about it.” My hope is that colleges and universities will be shaken out of
their complacency and will open academia to a future we cannot conceive.
Mark C. Taylor, the chairman of the religion department at
Columbia, is the author of the forthcoming “Field Notes From Elsewhere:
Reflections on Dying and Living.”
ISSUE STATEMENT: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “never in our
lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and committed
dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among and
between nations.” Another writer in a different setting said; “the warning
signs are clear, unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all
kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism,
the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”
Progress is being made in
constructive and committed dialogue at local, national and international
levels. Is gradual progress enough to prevent deadly conflicts in the
future?
Genuine dialogue on
freedom of religion or belief does not work if minds are closed. It calls for
respectful and thoughtful responses, discussion of taboos and clarity by
persons of diverse beliefs. Inclusive dialogue is between people of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief. These UN categories were first
defined in the 1960 seminal study on human rights and freedom of religion or
belief by Arcot Krishnaswami.
Is it time for the UN
Human Rights Council to establish a UN Working Group for a Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief? A Working Group could provide a global focus on how to
reconcile universality of human rights with worldviews of religions or beliefs,
without derogating or restricting rights-based law already enacted. The UN has
no consensus on such core issues as; apostasy, defamation, blasphemy,
conversion, right to change religion or belief, proselytism, registration or
freedom of opinion and expression. These issues concern all
religions or beliefs.
The challenge may be not how but if
international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief can be reconciled
in tandem with the truth claims of religious and non-religious beliefs. Leaders
of religious and non-religious beliefs, at local-national-international levels,
safeguard the truth claims of their own traditions. They are the key in finding
a way to meet this challenge.
Surely one of the best
hopes for humankind is to embrace a culture in which religions and other
beliefs accept one another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the
name of an exclusive right to truth, in which children are raised to solve
conflicts with mediation, compassion and understanding.
Documents Attached:
Modern Universities - Specialization Where There Ought to be Collaboration
STANDARDS: http://www.tandemproject.com/program/81_dec.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
HISTORY: United Nations History –
Freedom of Religion or Belief
HISTORY: Interfaith
Dialogue in Norway 1739-1998
The Council for Religious
and Life Stance Communities represents all religious and humanist beliefs in
Council Website: click on
this link and scroll to the bottom of the page for The History of Interfaith
Dialogue in
http://www.trooglivssyn.no/index.cfm?id=136722
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Tandem Project: a non-governmental organization founded
in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to
prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project, a non-profit NGO, has sponsored multiple conferences,
curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.
The Tandem Project
initiative is the result of a co-founder representing the World Federation of
United Nations Associations at the United Nations Geneva Seminar, Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance
and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
called by the UN Secretariat in 1984 on ways to implement the 1981 UN
Declaration. In 1986, The Tandem Project organized the first NGO International
Conference on the 1981 UN Declaration.
The Tandem Project
Executive Director is: Michael M. Roan, mroan@tandemproject.com.
The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in
Special Consultative Status with the
Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations
Goal: To eliminate all forms of intolerance and
discrimination based on religion or belief.
United Nations Secretary
General Ban Ki Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “never
in our lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and
committed dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among
and between nations.” Another writer in different setting said; “the warning
signs are clear, unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all
kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism,
the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”
Challenge: to reconcile international human rights
standards on freedom of religion or belief in tandem with the truth claims of
religious and non-religious beliefs.
Genuine dialogue on
freedom of religion or belief does not work with closed minds. It demands
respectful and thoughtful responses, discussion of taboos and clarity by
persons of diverse beliefs. Inclusive dialogue is between people of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief. These UN categories were first
defined in the 1960 seminal study on freedom of religion or belief by Arcot
Krishnaswami.
Inclusive and genuine
dialogue is essential as a first step in recognition of the inherent dignity,
equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, and a
foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. Leaders of religious
and non-religious beliefs sanction the truth claims of their own traditions.
They are the key to raising awareness and acceptance of the value of holding
truth claims in tandem with human rights standards on freedom of religion or
belief.
To build understanding
and support for Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights –Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion - and the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Encourage the
United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media and
Civil Society to use International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion
or Belief as essential for long-term solutions
to conflicts in all matters relating to religion or belief.
Objectives:
1. Develop a model
local-national-international integrated approach to freedom of religion or
belief.
2. Use International Human
Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief as a platform for genuine
dialogue on the core principles and values within and among nations, all
religions and other beliefs.
3. Adapt these human
rights standards to early childhood education, teaching children, from the very
beginning, that their own religion is one out of many and that it is a personal
choice for everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or she
feels most inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.1
History: In 1968 the United Nations deferred work on an
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious
Intolerance, because of its apparent complexity and sensitivity. In the
twenty-first century, a dramatic increase of intolerance and discrimination on
grounds of religion or belief is motivating a worldwide search to find
solutions to these problems. This is a challenge calling for enhanced dialogue
by States and others; including consideration of an International Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief for protection of and accountability by all
religions or beliefs. The tensions in today’s world inspire a question such as:
Should the United Nations
adopt an International Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief?
Response: Is it the appropriate moment to
reinitiate the drafting of a legally binding international convention on
freedom of religion or belief? Law making of this nature requires a minimum
consensus and an environment that appeals to reason rather than emotions. At
the same time we are on a learning curve as the various dimensions of the
Declaration are being explored. Many academics have produced voluminous books
on these questions but more ground has to be prepared before setting up of a UN
working group on drafting a convention. In my opinion, we should not try to
rush the elaboration of a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
especially not in times of high tensions and unpreparedness. - UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
Option: After forty years this may be the time,
however complex and sensitive, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to
appoint an Open-ended Working Group to draft a United Nations Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate for an Open-ended Working Group
ought to assure nothing in a draft Convention will be construed as restricting
or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Separation of Religion or Belief
and State
Concept: Separation of Religion or Belief and State - SOROBAS. The First Preamble to the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads; “Whereas
recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family
is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. This concept
suggests States recalling their history, culture and constitution adopt fair
and equal human rights protection for all religions or beliefs as described in
General Comment 22 on Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, UN Human Rights Committee,
Article
18: protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief.
The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not
limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs
with international characteristics or practices analogous to those of
traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency
to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the
fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that
may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community.
Article
18: permits
restrictions to manifest a religion or belief only if such limitations are
prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or
morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Dialogue: International Human Rights Standards on
Freedom or Religion or Belief are international law and universal codes of
conduct for peaceful cooperation, respectful competition and resolution of
conflicts. The standards are a platform for genuine dialogue on core principles
and values within and among nations, all religions and other beliefs.
Education: Ambassador
1981 U.N. Declaration on Freedom
of Religion or Belief
5.2: Every child shall enjoy the right to have access
to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes
of his parents, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or
belief against the wishes of his parents, the best interests of the child being
the guiding principle.” With International Human Rights safeguards, early
childhood education is the best time to begin to build tolerance, understanding
and respect for freedom of religion or belief.
5.3: The child shall be protected from any form of
discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in
a spirit of understanding, tolerance, and friendship among peoples, peace and
universal brotherhood, respect for the freedom of religion or belief of others
and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the
service of his fellow men.