Do Kids Deserve Academic Freedom?

Dr. Nancy Bryson Interview (Nbryson@muw.edu)

1---It's my understanding that you head the science department at Mississippi University for Women, a state school.  Tell us about your academic credentials and experience as a teaching professional.

• B.S. Biology from M.U.W., 1973
• M.A.T. from Mississippi State University, 1976
• Ph.D. Chemistry from University of South Carolina, 1982

My entire working life has involved science teaching.  One year at the high school level, and eighteen years at small, undergraduate universities at various locations in the U.S. 

2---Earlier this year, the story surfaced nationally that the university administration demoted you to a less responsible position for teaching the controversy relating to the theory of evolutionism.  Can you summarize the background circumstances that triggered the problem?

In October 2002, the Director of the MUW Honors Program invited faculty to volunteer to make presentations to the Honors Forum during the Spring Semester.  I had just returned from Atlanta, where I had read of the controversy in Cobb County surrounding its school board's voting to allow in the county schools the teaching of "disputed views" on the origin of life.   In the 1990s I had read books by Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe that had persuaded me that evolution is far from being a "fact".  A major article in the December 2001 Chronicle of Higher Education had covered the Intelligent Design movement in universities.  I had shared this article Spring 2002 with my supervisor, Vice President of Academic Affairs Dr. Vagn Hansen.  I had suggested that a course outlining flaws in the neo-Darwinian synthesis and describing ID as an alternative view might work well as a distance learning offering (the VPAA was wanting MUW to establish a position in the d.l. market).  Dr. Hansen was unreceptive.  Dismissive, in fact.

Anxious for an avenue to discuss an interest of mine, I volunteered in Oct 02 to make an Honors Forum presentation.  The talk occurred Thurs Feb 20.   I told the audience of around 50 that one of my objectives was to introduce them to some “contrarian” thinking about evolution by highly-credentialed academicians.   I discussed the nonexistence of evidence for chemical (prebiotic) evolution, the "Haeckel's embryos fraud" from developmental biology, evolution-disconfirming evidence from paleontology (the Cambrian explosion), and the subjectivity of paleoanthropology in its interpretation of the place of human-like fossil skulls in "human evolution".  I went on to point out that the General Biology text we use here at MUW greatly misleads students by presenting false "evidence" for evolution and by ignoring the overwhelming disconfirming evidence.

I closed in introducing ID by reading a most discourteous, not to mention ignorant, quote about this developing area from a recent issue of Scientific American.   I continued on with a description of the ID movement from perhaps its most prominent proponent, William Dembski.   I pointed out that intelligent design had great scientific currency throughout history up until the rise of uniformitarianism (Lyell and Darwin) in the mid-nineteenth century.   I finished with quotes from contemporary philosophers of science who question whether restricting science to methodological naturalism does anything but limit its truth-finding mission. 

At the conclusion of the talk, senior professor of biology Dr. William Parker asked to speak.  I said "sure".  He rose and read a 4-to-5 minute prepared diatribe against me and my talk.  He said I was unqualified to speak on the subject of evolution and said the presentation was "religion masquerading as science".    When I asked him to identify even one incorrect statement I had made, he could not.  An assistant professor of biology (Parker's protégé) made a similar protest.  Again, she was unable to find any error in my talk.  The students were uniformly supportive and enthusiastic about the talk, at least a dozen coming up afterwards to thank me.  In the written evaluation of my talk given me by the Honors Forum director, all responding students (low 20's) said they enjoyed my talk, and expressed disapproval of Parker’s behavior.

The next morning, a Friday, a congratulatory email from a freshman biology major had been sent to me and copied to others on the science / math student listserve.   It was followed by an email also sent out on the listserve, and copied to the VPAA, by Dr. Parker.  His email contained untruths and is, I believe, actionable.   Parker, by the way, teaches the evolution course here.  None of the life sciences faculty, him included, have credentials as evolutionary biologists.

That afternoon VPAA Hansen came to my office around 5:15 P.M. and asked that I resign effective at the end of the f.y.  I asked the reason.  He refused to give any reason and I in turn refused his request.  This cycle of his asking and my refusing continued for about 5 minutes.  (It should be emphasized that he was most anxious for my voluntary resignation, insisting that such would be better for me. It is wonderful to have such an altruistic boss.) He finally gave up and said he would prepare a non-renewal notice on Monday morning.  I did indeed receive written notice on Monday.

3---Are you a member of a church that subscribes to the Genesis account of creation?  Did you teach creation to students in a public financed university?

I have been in Columbus, Miss for about 22 months and have not yet found a church.  I am visiting around.  I would not consider regular fellowship with a church that subscribes to Darwinian evolution or, for that matter, "theistic evolution".

I don't feel at all that I taught creationism in my talk, though I think that that would be acceptable content for a forum.   (Forum---A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas.)  Most assuredly, my personal belief is that God spoke the universe into existence. 

Yes, MUW is a publicly financed university.

4---What specific issues did you raise that upset the administration?  Did you question the perception by some that "evolution is a fact?" Did you raise the issue of Intelligent Design?

The Administration has steadfastly denied that the talk and the non-renewal decision were in any way related.   This denial just compounds the error.  No one doubts that the talk precipitated the decision.

5---Did the students object to your presentation?  Or did other members of the science faculty?  Had you crossed intellectual swords with any objector prior to the trigger event?

See (2) above.  I am sure that some students believe in evolution.  Why wouldn't they?  They are taught it as "fact" by teachers that they trust from an early age.  I am reasonably certain that the majority of MUW students are evolution-disbelievers.  So far as I can determine, all students of both stripes supported my right to present contradictory evidence. 

6---Did the administration alert you in advance to the possibility of demotion?  Did the action of the administration have the formal support of the faculty?  The Board of Trustees?

a) No.

b) I have no idea.  I have been told (can't confirm) that one self-described atheistic mathematician who was in attendance at the talk and has bragged that she can "get rid of anyone" visited the VPAA the morning after the talk, urging my dismissal.  I would be very greatly surprised if one if not several life sciences faculty also visited the VPAA on my account on the Friday morning following the Thurs evening talk.

c) It is widely held that the BOT directed the MUW Administration to reinstate me.  I have heard from trustworthy sources that two or three in the upper echelons of the MUW administration were officially reprimanded for their foolish and outrageous action against me.  I do not report that vindictively or gleefully; I report it in hopes that others like me will enjoy the freedom to criticize a dubious scientific "theory", which is really nothing more than a set of questionable hypotheses. 

The incident was a public relations fiasco for the University.  I believe that close to 1000 emails flooded the BOT and the MUW administration on my behalf.   I thank God for the Christians and other truth-seekers who bombarded the University and the Board with protests.

7---What rationale was given you for the demotion? 

The non-renewal letter and copies of all other written correspondence between the University and myself is in the hands of an attorney.  I think it best not to comment further just yet.

8---What was to be your reassignment?  Did the new position involve a cut in pay or any other benefits or privileges?

No comment as of now. 

9---Did you respond with steps leading to legal action?

Not so far.

10---Did the threat of legal action cause the administration to reverse its position and restore you to department head status or did it see the light as to academic freedom?

The Administration, I believe, never saw the light.  The thinking of the BOT is unknown to me.  I very much hope that its directive that the non-renewal decision be reversed arose out of principle rather than to forestall litigation.  

11---What's been the reaction of your students?  Other members of the faculty?  The public generally?

Students and public, uniformly supportive.  I have responded to an estimated 200 supportive emails and phone calls.   Some faculty university-wide have been supportive, others critical of me, most noncommittal.

12---You are obviously aware of first amendment case law that encourages "teaching the controversy" in public education by presenting students with alternate views as long as not religion is not taught.   Do you intend to follow this legal guideline in future presentations to your students, and if so, are you comfortable that the MUW administration will accept the process?

Nothing about the MUW Administration makes me comfortable.  Its refusal to acknowledge that my academic freedom was violated and its eagerness to comply with  the demands of a couple of vicious, anti-intellectual faculty members indicates not only a lack of judgment but also a chilling lack of commitment to ethics.    

And a very important point must be made, namely this.  Whatever the law may be, crafty people can often get around it.  In my case, all that would have been necessary to get rid of me would have been to wait a couple months after the talk and then trump up some spurious charge.   As you say, my case got national coverage.  It would have gotten zero coverage if I had just succumbed to the vpaa's request for my resignation, and zero coverage if my supervisor had been more sensitive to the timing.  Jerry Bergman has, I believe, documented many cases such as mine  

Final comment not for reporting:  The artlessness of the MUW administrators in handling this episode was, in my opinion, providential.   More shrewd people would have successfully accomplished the same thing with different timing.  There continues to be some viciousness here, and nothing would surprise me as to my future on this campus.  However, my career means nothing to me in comparison to my standing with God.  

Editor's Note:  Shortly after responding to this Creation Digest interview, Dr. Bryson shared a copy of a letter sent to friends updating her status.  Her own words are reproduced here without editing or comment.

Friends,

I am writing this letter to a few people who have been particularly supportive following my February talk entitled "Critical Thinking About Evolution".

On the morning of May 1 VPAA Vagn Hansen called my office and asked that I report.  When I arrived at his office, the HR Director was there.  Dr. Hansen then gave me an envelope containing a written copy of his evaluation of my performance plus evaluations of me by the faculty in my division.   He said that I could read it right then, but I didn’t want to read through so much material there in his office.  He then said that because of my poor job performance, I would not be renewed as division head at the end of my contract, but could stay as faculty member.  He said I should consider resigning (so as not to have a dismissal on my record).  There was some additional tense but calm exchange between us, and I left.

I will be glad to provide any of you with copies of the entire evaluation packet.    For now, however, I want to share a few things.  No doubt I have not been a perfect division head.  I do think that it is amazing that I have survived in this fractious division.  Dr. Hansen has told me on several occasions that I have the most difficult division head position on campus.  Despite that, he had rather nastily refused to give me a full-time secretary (mine is 6 /10 time) though I have one of the larger academic divisions and all the other units have full-time office staff.   In his written evaluation of me, he mentioned dropping enrollments in my unit with the insinuation that I am at fault.  Actually, he had told me of declining enrollments in Sci / Math shortly after I came here, and attributed it to high standards in the unit.  He also wrote that I have "no publications" in the evaluation period.  I do not believe any chemistry faculty member working in our facilities could ever get a publication.  None of the chemists I work with have published from work done here—it is impossible.   Dr. Hansen could not care less about my publication record; had this been a concern, he’d never have hired me.  He wrote that I have written four grant proposals but that only one was funded.  For anyone at the W to get ONE external grant is commendable.  He also failed to mention that he had never supported me with any grant-matching money, though he gave matching money to others in my unit.  And of course, he forgot to mention that in my first year here I wrote exhaustive (and generous) evaluations of all my faculty, though he himself prepared no evaluations of subordinates, which got the school in trouble during our March SACS reaffirmation visit.   Additionally, he states in my evaluation that I have been involved in "limited teaching" while here.  Actually, I took the most menial assignments on purpose, because I didn't want to take the best courses from the other faculty, and because I thought I could make a big contribution in our rather weak lab program.  I feel that I made a huge contribution by working very hard to improve the lab schedule.

As you know, the Monday after the February 20 talk, he gave me a non-renewal letter.  In that letter (copies available) he stated that I had failed to form relationships of "mutual respect".  That he would say this having in-hand a probably libelous email about me sent around on the student listserve by biologist Bill Parker (copies available) is reprehensible.    I wonder if Parker got disciplined for his vicious written and verbal attacks on me.

As for the faculty evaluations of me, a few criticisms were accurate.  I believe much if not most of the comments were untruths or half-truths, or in many cases ignorant remarks by folks who know nothing about the extreme rigors of this job.  Perhaps four faculty in this division are truly vicious.   Around half are atheists.  A few claim to be Christians, but will not necessarily take a stand that would cost them anything.   In 1999 a woman came here to head the division and, I have heard from all, was disliked and "run off" after one year.  The next division head was in the job for two years and has told me that his difficulties in the job were largely due to problems that led him into a forced resignation from MUW in December 2002.

I am planning to leave MUW.   I am greatly relieved, given my treatment here.  Whatever administrative shortcomings I may have (though I truly feel that I’ve done fine here, excellent marks from students commenting on my service as division head), I am certain that being an evolution-disbelieving Christian has at least hurt me if not actually cost me my position.   My first Fall here, I gave a Spectator (campus newpaper) interview in which I listed Christian apologetics as an interest.  I was featured on a bulletin board in Martin Hall with my favorite quote (from the book of Job):  "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him."   And then there was the evolution talk and the angry backlash from that.  I can’t see into anyone’s heart, but I think I was a little too "out" as a Christian to suit folks.   And I think that the talk absolutely enraged the biologists.

I would no longer advise a student to study biology at the W.   Two of the life scientists are just plain mean, and none of them know or will admit to knowledge about the rapidly mounting evidence that disconfirms evolution and points to a Designer.  Although students here were at first strongly and vocally supportive of me, I have seen that fade.  I believe that they saw that I had become a virtual outcast, realized what open friendliness to me might cost them, and backed away.   Or perhaps they believed Bill Parker's email.

Another thing that has happened is that my General Chemistry 2 students, who were very weak coming into the class, struggled with the work I required.  I think they exploited the fact that I was under attack from the faculty and my boss, and used that as a springboard to complain about my teaching.  (Previously here I have received great student evaluations.)

I am upset and overwhelmed by what has happened to me.  But the only thing I would change is that I would now give a much stronger talk revealing flaws in Darwinian theory.  That is, if I have pleased God here, I don't care that it has cost me so much.   I am praying that God will provide a setting where I can serve Him.  I want to be able to get out the word about evolution without fear of retaliation, though that might not be possible even in most "Christian" colleges.   At the risk of sounding vindictive, I would like for the world know how badly MUW has acted.  Mostly I want the world to know how much it can cost an academic person to challenge evolution.

Finally, the reason I think MUW backtracked on its decision to retain me is due to poor follow-through on the part of my lawyer.  After public opinion seemed to turn the tide in my favor, he just completely dropped the ball.  The W administration saw that, I think, and so really went after me.

Thanks for closely watching this situation and standing behind me.  Please do not fall for the story that my problems here were my own fault.  In part I was the victim of the usual sort of politics that goes on in academia.  But I strongly feel that my Christian stance hurt me, the final straw being the evolution talk.  The embarrassing publicity it generated for the University no doubt made them mad. 

They say that whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.  And I feel plenty strong after this ordeal.   

Best regards and God bless you for your moral support through this ordeal.

Nancy Bryson

Copyright  2003, General Title Incorporated. All rights reserved.
The names, logos, taglines and icons on this website are proprietary marks of General Title Incorporated.