Godless in Gower Street: religion and universities

I have steered clear of this subject for some time. The reasons for doing so are: first, that I am not a controversialist - or at any rate not intentionally a controversialist; second, it requires me to expose my personal stance, and I am not wholly comfortable doing so; third, my institution has peculiarities relating to its foundation and values, and the way these are understood, that affect my view of matters and probably how my views will be received.

Why should the relationship of religion to universities be an issue at all? Well, in UK universities at least, we are admitting students from communities with strong religious identities and practice that impinge on their engagement with the universities of which they are members. We are also admitting global students from societies and cultures in which the public role of religion is different from that in the UK. Finally, we are encountering two significant forces amongst students, a growth in religious fundamentalism (that claims historical validation but is in fact largely new, such pseudo- revivals are common in the history of religion) and a more assertive atheism.

None of my comments are aimed at, or restricted to, Islam in universities, though it cannot be denied that, in the UK at least, it plays a central part in the emerging debate.

So, to the personal. I am Jewish and my Judaism plays a significant role in my life. Jonathan Miller famously said 'I'm not really a Jew; just Jew-ish, not the whole hog'. I think the bit about the hog makes the quote, but I know, actually, I am a Jew, no -ish. It defines me culturally and places me historically. It is, in a deep sense, central to my identity. It forms part of the texture of family life and is embedded in the relationships I have with my parents and with my children. I engage in religious practice, I go to synagogue, we light the Sabbath candles, I say Kaddish. This practice means something to me, it feels good, and that is all. Also, I like bagels.

The values associated with Judaism provide something of  a reference framework. Truthfully, I am much more influenced by my liberal upbringing and education and by broader communal mores, but I acknowledge the role of religion and the experience of being Jewish in forming my ethical framework.

The problem is God. I cannot be doing with him (or her), really. I am an atheist. I would find it difficult, given my commitment to science to be otherwise. I am profoundly uncomfortable with 'spirituality', not simply with hippy-drippy new-age, but with all that it implies. I understand, at some level, why this is important to people, but I cannot be a participant.

All discussion of religion needs to start from the personal because of the centrality of individual choices and experiences. So where do my choices and experiences leave me in relation to religion in universities? They mean I believe that universities should accommodate religious practice wherever it is reasonable to do so. This is not a weak or half- hearted position. It suggests that we have to make reasoned judgments about particular religious observances (dress, diet, worship) that reflect personal sympathy, tolerance and collective good manners. This is difficult, sometimes, but mostly not. In any case, if you are incapable of applying balanced judgment to complex problems then you probably do not belong in a university.

The flip side of the responsibility of universities to accommodate religious practice are the obligations of the religious communities to the universities. These communities need to facilitate their adherents in being able to engage in the life of the university. This is about practical action: providing facilities for prayer, pastoral support and leadership, and to the largest extent possible not leaving these to the university. My observation is that these obligations are frequently not properly discharged.

Where do the limits of toleration lie? Well obviously, at intolerance. In other words personal sympathy, tolerance and collective good manners are mutual expectations. A position in which a religion seeks accommodations that it denies to others is unacceptable not simply philosophically but practically. This is not so much about what people believe, but about what they do. I do not like or respect people who espouse intolerance, for instance in relation to homosexuality, but I draw  the line when they seek to act upon it.

Universities are places for critical thinking, for enquiry and the challenge of ideas. It is what they are there for. It underpins both research and education. To the extent that religion places boundaries on open enquiry it has no place in a university. No idea or principle is beyond proper debate. Religious adherents are not required to leave their practice, their identity or even their prejudices at the door, but they must be prepared to be engaged in, and with, ideas that challenge these.

I think that, on the whole, we can sort out problems related to religious practice, but here we encounter an uncomfortable edge. To the extent that faith, divine revelation or commandment place matters beyond reasoned argument then they have no place in a university and nor do those who cannot step outside them. An important test of this is evolution. My sense is that 'creationists' are not engaged in reasoned argument. Their positions have the 'form' of critical debate but not the content. This is a refusal to engage disguised as engagement and counter to the ideals of a university.

My university is determinedly Godless ("That Godless Institution in Gower Street" according to Thomas Arnold), call it secular if you want. That means the university is Godless, rather than the individuals who make it up. In some sense this very particular position, valued highly by members of the university community, places a particular responsibility on the institution to be the place where we examine and test issues that place religion and secular society in tension. For this reason I am both uncomfortable when these tensions place the institution in the public eye, as most recently in the debate over religious gender segregation, but also proud to be at the sharp end of the debate.