As several contributors have noted, once we seek to 'purify' the academy of
certain views we are on dangerous ground. This said, we should be aware of
the slippery slope into the world of relativism, where any one 'point of
view', if well expressed (I hesitate to say 'logically argued'), is as good
as any other.
A few years back, during the United Nations Year of Tolerance, one newspaper
correspondent said he hoped this would mean tolerance for his view that
homosexuality was a disgusting perversion. Presumably critical geographers
would want to refute this kind of claim. The question is *how*.
Obviously one could argue that views which promote exclusion, intolerance,
hate and the denial of rights are unacceptable - but then society generally
does accept that individuals with particular characteristics, or who engage
in particular behaviors, should be excluded, denied rights and otherwise not
tolerated. Presumably this is one of the reasons we have prisons. Again,
*how* do we discriminate between the acceptable and the unacceptable?
Any point of view is as valid as any other unless we can agree on an
evaluative framework or set of axioms. Mathemeticians have developed a set
of axioms that they are comfortable with, and which define what is
reasonable in mathematics, e.g., 1+1=2. Within (physical) science, the
axioms of reproductibility, reductionism and disproof provide the foundation
for evaluating scientific endeavour.
Are there comparable axioms within human geography or social science more
generally?
With respect to the rather different issue of students citing the Bible I
appreciate the point that this may be entirely appropriate within certain
geographic-academic contexts (e.g., within papers on pilgrimage or the
foundations of knowledge).
To have the Bible cited as an 'authority' in papers which touch less
obviously on questions of religion is another issue, however, not least of
all because Biblical interpretation is a notoriously complex and specialized
field. A student could potentially cite the Bible to advance almost any
view, and then defend his or her position (however 'offensive') by claiming
'religious liberty' and denouncing criticism from a marker or Professor as
intolerance on the part of 'atheistic academia'.
Damian Collins
PhD Student, Social/Legal Geography
(with thanks to Alexei Drummond)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|