Today’s Muncie Star-Press has reprinted the letter from President Gora of Ball State University (see just below), and adds this statement:
BSU spokeswoman Joan Todd told The Star Press this afternoon that the university is limited in what it can say because the review of the course is “a personnel matter.”
Todd issued this statement: “Terry King and professor Hedin have both reviewed the panel’s findings and are working together to ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline. The university is particularly appreciative for Dr. Hedin’s active participation and cooperation during this process. His academic credentials are an asset to the university. He remains an important and valued member of our physics and astronomy department.”
This means two things. First, the committee report on Hedin’s course was undoubtedly negative—in the sense of finding it insupportable as a science course and, probably, as a religion-and-philosophy course. That can be divined from both this statement and Gora’s statement that any teaching of religion has to present a variety of viewpoints. That means that Hedin simply can’t reconfigure “The boundaries of science” class as a religion/philosophy course. It’s simply too Christian, and lacks any alternative nonreligious views.
Second, Hedin will have to reconfigure his class, if he continues to teach it, as a pure science class. Or, if he moves it to another department (something I see as unlikely), he can no longer favor any particular religious view, or even the privileging of religion over nonbelief.
Hedin is given plaudits for his contributions to BSU, and I have no beef with that. I never wanted him to be fired or reprimanded. What I wanted was for this course to be stopped as a science course, and for the religious proselytizing to cease. That will apparently happen, so I wish Dr. Hedin the best. And the message is clear to the new ID-friendly hire, Guillermo Gonzalez. No teaching of ID (he’s already agreed to that) and, if he wants tenure, he’d better do research on real science and not ID. That’s clear from Gora’s statement that ID is not science.
This outcome is precisely what most of us wanted, of course, except for those miscreants who include the Discovery Institute and two unnamed bloggers, all of whom think that Hedin should have been able to teach what he wanted sans outside interference.