The following article was written for the AUCA "New Star" and "Challenge" newspapers by several students, including me; however, due to changed circumstances we decided not to publish it.
This article is a student initiative aiming to discover truth and refute lame accusations of students about Christian missionary attitudes and subjective religious views of AUCA teachers. Another goal of the article is to express support and appreciation to W.R. and D.H. two of a few great professors, teachers by nature.
Personal dislikes of undisclosed students who have subjectively complained about religious professors has lead to elimination of basic requirements of a liberal arts university educational system for some classes. Consequences of such complaints have forced Professor W.R, a teacher of “World Religions” class to eliminate discussions, opinion sharing and research paper for students of the class, to avoid further misunderstandings and unprecedented incidents of unfair accusations. Some students have complained about his subjectivity based on Christian affiliation, unfairness towards other religions, quoting the Bible, and spreading the work of the gospel for conversion purposes during his classes. Despite the fact that D.H. does not teach a class on religions, he has faced the same problems because of his personal beliefs because it seems that some students are not comfortable with their professors being Christians. We are deeply indignant with such claims because we know the professors and to refute scandalous claims we conducted our own research.
We interviewed several students to find truth. O.Y, a senior student of American Studies Department met with W.R. to seek his help and expertise in the field of religion for her thesis. This is what she shared with us: “As a student writing an honors thesis on the negative influence of classism in Christian churches on poor and working class Americans, I feared to be failed by Professor R. (who was on my pre-defense committee) due to his religiosity. Before the pre-defense I asked Professor R. to read my work, comment on it, and correct me if I was wrong in my arguments and facts. I faced understanding and support from Professor R. The main corrections that he made were grammatical and factual, but there was not a single attempt to change my view, attitude and flow of the paper. The questions is, if students accused him of being so subjective, then why was he supporting my paper and did not fail me? If I were as religious as him, I would not stand such criticism of my religion. Isn’t it a clear sign of Professor Rudolph’s objective attitude toward religious matters? Concerning Mr. H, I would not even know he is a Christian if not my friend.”
Last semester T.G, a junior student of American Studies Department, took “Islam and Christianity in America” class taught by W.R. To request to comment on the class and claims of students on Professor R’s religious propaganda, T. said: “I testify that there was not a single sign of his attempt to convert anyone as some students claim. I never heard him quoting the Bible, either in class or outside. Almost the entire class was dedicated to learning the truth about Islam, its motives, and the ways a good religion is used wrongly by terrorists. We discussed only articles assigned for the class, everyone was open to freely express opinions, which were respected and never ridiculed. No one was forced to accept Christian views (which were never expressed in class by Professor R.). I don’t understand why people studying or working in AUCA have to be silent about their religious affiliations. And as far as I know, there are no sectarians who brainwash people. I wonder, would I face opposition if I wanted to learn more about Christianity or any other religion in AUCA? I do not belong to any religion, even after taking his class. I still have my own beliefs, although, I guess I am supposed to be a Christian by now.”
A.K. a junior of IT Department is currently taking Professor R's. religions class. He said that it is clear that some students have personal dislikes and there is not a single sign of attempts to convert students. He thinks that both instructors and students have a right to express their religious believes and affiliations, and that all the rumors are being spread by the radical Muslims of AUCA.
University is not supposed to be affiliated with any religion, no religious activities can be carried out on campus, even faith-based clubs cannot be officially registered, and in addition teachers must remain silent on their religious affiliations. However, there are several controversies in this regard. First of all, AUCA officially celebrates such religious events as Christmas, Nooruz; hosts celebrations of Halloween and St. Valentine’s Day. Whereas, we are not supposed to spread any religion on campus we reinforce religious holidays. How come we celebrate Christmas when we cannot even state out loud to be Christians? Moreover, is not wearing Muslim skull-caps and head-scarves on campus considered an expression of religious affiliation too?
Faith-based clubs cannot be officially registered in AUCA, though we can officially have a Muslim prayer room. Professors are not supposed to spread a word of Christianity, but two shelves in the AUCA library are filled with the Bible books.
Discussion of Christianity in religion studies classes arises discontent among some students, and teachers are being punished for making people think critically and ask questions about any religion, which nevertheless does not mean at all that a person should give up any of his or her beliefs. Therefore, the discussions cannot be carried out and students who are truly interested in finding answers to their questions cannot do this in the class designed for this purpose.
We assumed that students who take elective courses on religious studies are interested in learning the essences of religions not just mere historical facts. But it turns out that we are wrong. We would like to find out the real motivation of the claims that got these teachers in trouble.
We are adults and can make own choices and decision. No one forces students to take a religion class which are electives and even if one is taking the course, no one forces you to accept any other point of view rather than your own, and no one forbids students to disagree. Students are not forced by these professors to go to church and convert to Christianity or any other religion. And there is not a single student who was converted by these professors so far. Then why so many complaints, problems and fears arise?
We kindly ask students to give more reasonable grounds for their complaints than just the religious affiliations of teachers.
These professors do not deserve to be treated like this and rumors and personal dislikes of students in no circumstance should damage their reputation.
This article is a student initiative aiming to discover truth and refute lame accusations of students about Christian missionary attitudes and subjective religious views of AUCA teachers. Another goal of the article is to express support and appreciation to W.R. and D.H. two of a few great professors, teachers by nature.
Personal dislikes of undisclosed students who have subjectively complained about religious professors has lead to elimination of basic requirements of a liberal arts university educational system for some classes. Consequences of such complaints have forced Professor W.R, a teacher of “World Religions” class to eliminate discussions, opinion sharing and research paper for students of the class, to avoid further misunderstandings and unprecedented incidents of unfair accusations. Some students have complained about his subjectivity based on Christian affiliation, unfairness towards other religions, quoting the Bible, and spreading the work of the gospel for conversion purposes during his classes. Despite the fact that D.H. does not teach a class on religions, he has faced the same problems because of his personal beliefs because it seems that some students are not comfortable with their professors being Christians. We are deeply indignant with such claims because we know the professors and to refute scandalous claims we conducted our own research.
We interviewed several students to find truth. O.Y, a senior student of American Studies Department met with W.R. to seek his help and expertise in the field of religion for her thesis. This is what she shared with us: “As a student writing an honors thesis on the negative influence of classism in Christian churches on poor and working class Americans, I feared to be failed by Professor R. (who was on my pre-defense committee) due to his religiosity. Before the pre-defense I asked Professor R. to read my work, comment on it, and correct me if I was wrong in my arguments and facts. I faced understanding and support from Professor R. The main corrections that he made were grammatical and factual, but there was not a single attempt to change my view, attitude and flow of the paper. The questions is, if students accused him of being so subjective, then why was he supporting my paper and did not fail me? If I were as religious as him, I would not stand such criticism of my religion. Isn’t it a clear sign of Professor Rudolph’s objective attitude toward religious matters? Concerning Mr. H, I would not even know he is a Christian if not my friend.”
Last semester T.G, a junior student of American Studies Department, took “Islam and Christianity in America” class taught by W.R. To request to comment on the class and claims of students on Professor R’s religious propaganda, T. said: “I testify that there was not a single sign of his attempt to convert anyone as some students claim. I never heard him quoting the Bible, either in class or outside. Almost the entire class was dedicated to learning the truth about Islam, its motives, and the ways a good religion is used wrongly by terrorists. We discussed only articles assigned for the class, everyone was open to freely express opinions, which were respected and never ridiculed. No one was forced to accept Christian views (which were never expressed in class by Professor R.). I don’t understand why people studying or working in AUCA have to be silent about their religious affiliations. And as far as I know, there are no sectarians who brainwash people. I wonder, would I face opposition if I wanted to learn more about Christianity or any other religion in AUCA? I do not belong to any religion, even after taking his class. I still have my own beliefs, although, I guess I am supposed to be a Christian by now.”
A.K. a junior of IT Department is currently taking Professor R's. religions class. He said that it is clear that some students have personal dislikes and there is not a single sign of attempts to convert students. He thinks that both instructors and students have a right to express their religious believes and affiliations, and that all the rumors are being spread by the radical Muslims of AUCA.
University is not supposed to be affiliated with any religion, no religious activities can be carried out on campus, even faith-based clubs cannot be officially registered, and in addition teachers must remain silent on their religious affiliations. However, there are several controversies in this regard. First of all, AUCA officially celebrates such religious events as Christmas, Nooruz; hosts celebrations of Halloween and St. Valentine’s Day. Whereas, we are not supposed to spread any religion on campus we reinforce religious holidays. How come we celebrate Christmas when we cannot even state out loud to be Christians? Moreover, is not wearing Muslim skull-caps and head-scarves on campus considered an expression of religious affiliation too?
Faith-based clubs cannot be officially registered in AUCA, though we can officially have a Muslim prayer room. Professors are not supposed to spread a word of Christianity, but two shelves in the AUCA library are filled with the Bible books.
Discussion of Christianity in religion studies classes arises discontent among some students, and teachers are being punished for making people think critically and ask questions about any religion, which nevertheless does not mean at all that a person should give up any of his or her beliefs. Therefore, the discussions cannot be carried out and students who are truly interested in finding answers to their questions cannot do this in the class designed for this purpose.
We assumed that students who take elective courses on religious studies are interested in learning the essences of religions not just mere historical facts. But it turns out that we are wrong. We would like to find out the real motivation of the claims that got these teachers in trouble.
We are adults and can make own choices and decision. No one forces students to take a religion class which are electives and even if one is taking the course, no one forces you to accept any other point of view rather than your own, and no one forbids students to disagree. Students are not forced by these professors to go to church and convert to Christianity or any other religion. And there is not a single student who was converted by these professors so far. Then why so many complaints, problems and fears arise?
We kindly ask students to give more reasonable grounds for their complaints than just the religious affiliations of teachers.
These professors do not deserve to be treated like this and rumors and personal dislikes of students in no circumstance should damage their reputation.
