Educating About Religious Diversity and Interfaith Engagement

A Handbook for Student Affairs

Kathleen M. Goodman, Mary Ellen Giess, Eboo Patel, Kathleen M. Goodman, Mary Ellen Giess, Eboo Patel

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781620366110
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

This book arises out of a recognition that student affairs professionals have little preparation or guidance in dealing with matters of spirituality, religion, secularity, and interfaith work at a time of greater diversity in students' beliefs and, from a broad recognition that there is a need to engage with this aspect of student life. For those who don't know how to begin and may be nervous about tackling a topic that has the potential to lead to heated disagreements, this book provides the resources and practical guidance to undertake this work.With the aim of providing student affairs practitioners and faculty with the tools they need to increase their comfort level and enable their ability to engage in discussions about belief both in and out of the classroom, the contributors provide foundational knowledge, concrete teaching ideas, sample activities, and case studies that can be used in a variety of settings. This book serves multiple audiences in student affairs by providing teaching ideas for practitioners who want to include a session or two about interfaith in their programs as well as ideas for student affairs faculty who may be teaching one session on this topic or a whole course. The book is divided into four sections. The first offers context, provides the findings of research, and asks readers to reflect on the framework they use to embark on this work, whether a social justice framework that aims to highlight issues of power and privilege or an interfaith cooperation framework that aims to create religious pluralism. Part Two provides concrete ideas for creating courses, activities, events, and programs focused on spirituality, religion, secularity, and interfaith engagement, as well as ideas for incorporating these topics into courses typically offered in student affairs preparation programs. Part Three presents case studies to engage students, practitioners, and faculty in thinking about campus situations related to religious diversity. Part Four provides some basic information about a variety of religions and worldviews held by college students.

PART ONE

CONTEXT

1

PREPARING FOR INTERFAITH ENGAGEMENT

Christy Moran Craft and Kathleen M. Goodman

In the most recently published version of Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators (ACPA–College Student Educators International & NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2016), four of the competency areas described in the document (personal and ethical foundations, social justice and inclusion, student learning and development, and advising and supporting students) either directly or indirectly illustrate the need for student affairs professionals to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to effectively plan and facilitate dialogues, programs, and other forms of interfaith engagement. Unfortunately, if student affairs professionals were asked whether they feel confident in their ability to plan and to lead interfaith activities and programs, most would probably say that they do not. Such a response might be because of the deeply personal and controversial nature of issues related to religion and spirituality. Others might respond with concerns about their ability to effectively engage all voices. Although the concerns about facilitating interfaith initiatives are usually valid, student affairs administrators can nevertheless take proactive steps to prepare themselves for those experiences. In this chapter, we attempt to help prepare educators for work focused on interfaith engagement by addressing the following topics: understanding legal and ethical issues, embracing mind-sets for constructive interfaith engagement, using a developmental approach to interfaith engagement, and avoiding the pitfalls of privilege.

Understanding Legal and Ethical Issues

Many student affairs professionals have admitted uncertainty, and even fear, concerning the expression of religion and spirituality in higher education (Moran & Curtis, 2004). One continuous concern relates to legal provisions encompassing religious expression, particularly in secular higher education. In this chapter, we review legal freedoms along with ethical guidelines because of the interconnected nature of the two.

Legal Freedoms

Legal questions drive many concerns about the appropriateness of interfaith engagement in higher education. The phrase separation of church and state has been so frequently misunderstood that many educators mistakenly believe that any type of religious expression on a public university campus will, in effect, violate constitutional guidelines. That is just not true, so it is imperative for those involved in interfaith programming to have an accurate understanding of the legal freedoms that exist for such endeavors. Although the constitutional guidelines that follow are for public colleges and universities, those who work in private higher education institutions can also benefit from considering the value of similar guidelines in their interfaith initiatives.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains two provisions related to religious expression by governmental agencies (including public colleges and universities). The free exercise clause provides the freedom for individuals to express their religion, whereas the establishment clause prohibits public institutions, as governmental entities, from endorsing religion, either of a particular type or in general (U.S. Const., amend I). Ultimately, everyone on a public university campus should be guaranteed freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Admittedly, that is often a hard balance to strike, which is the source of much of the confusion related to religious expression in public higher education.

Interfaith engagement initiatives present perfect opportunities for rich discussions about religious, spiritual, and secular worldviews. Through such experiences, students are free to openly and honestly share their religious, spiritual, or secular perspectives as well as to challenge the perspectives of others in view of the freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution demands neutrality, neither privileging nor denigrating any specific identity or perspective. Assuming that a diversity of religious, spiritual, and secular perspectives are invited to participate in interfaith initiatives generally, student affairs professionals need not worry about promoting one religion over another, promoting religion over nonreligion, or vice versa.

Ethical Guidelines

Ethical statements and principles in our profession are intended to serve as guidelines for our own behavior as professionals working with students in higher education, particularly when faced with ethical dilemmas in our work. To be sure, interfaith dialogues might present situations in which the planner or facilitator feels ethically conflicted and does not know how to move past those concerns. For instance, if a participant in the dialogue makes a comment that appears to be harmful to another student or group of students, should the facilitator intervene? A review of some ethical guidelines can provide some assistance to the facilitator when ethical dilemmas arise.

Because most of the interfaith programming that student affairs professionals plan and implement on campus involves students, it is important to review some ethical principles related to student development and learning. ACPA–College Student Educators International (2006), for instance, reminds us of the importance of treating students “with respect as persons who possess dignity, worth, and the ability to be self-directed” (p. 3) and to “demonstrate concern for the welfare of all students” (p. 5). Furthermore, the way we approach conflict among students can be guided in part by ethical principles in our profession. For example, ACPA encourages us to resolve conflict “without diminishing respect for, or appropriate obligations to, any party involved” (p. 4). Moreover, the statement suggests that we should talk to students when they express “issues, attitudes, and behaviors” (p. 3) that might have ethical implications.

Ultimately, those of us who are interested in creating opportunities for interfaith engagement on our campuses are advised to remember and to practice Kitchener’s (1985) five ethical principles, which ultimately serve as the foundation for the ethical statements in our profession: benefit others, promote justice, respect autonomy, be faithful, and do no harm. While so doing, we should be mindful of the nature of our work with students, as Jane Fried (2003) summarized so well in the following:

We are responsible for maintaining a safe, civil, and educationally supportive environment on our campuses, but we are not necessarily responsible for controlling student life so completely that students do not have the opportunity to learn from their own mistakes, either personal errors or errors made by student organizations. (p. 107)

We ultimately strive to do what we do in the profession of student affairs for the purpose of learning and development, which requires productive educational spaces. The next section of this chapter focuses on some mind-sets needed to create such productive interfaith engagement.

Embracing Mind-Sets for Constructive Interfaith Engagement

Although a number of resources exist related to setting guidelines for interfaith dialogues (e.g., Interfaith Youth Core, 2003), very little has been published about the mind-sets necessary for constructive interfaith engagement.

A mind-set is defined as “an attitude, disposition, or mood” (Mindset, 2002) or “the ideas and attitudes with which a person approaches a situation, especially those that are viewed as difficult to alter.” Mind-sets that are useful for engaging in interfaith activities include a propensity to withhold accusations, an eagerness to confront assumptions, the aspiration to overlook offenses, the desire to reflect humility in interactions with others, and the willingness to embrace tolerable discomfort. Educators involved in planning and implementing interfaith activities and the students involved in such activities are encouraged to embrace these mind-sets.

Propensity to Withhold Accusations

Humans are prone to pass judgment on others, whether they realize it or not. This phenomenon is especially apparent when facing ideas or behaviors that differ from salient personal beliefs or when encountering a situation that stirs up pain from the past. In such challenging situations, personal individual judgments may emerge in the form of accusations of intolerance or persecution. In the context of interfaith engagement in higher education, because accusations will do more harm than good, student affairs educators should encourage participants to develop a propensity to withhold judgement and accusation.

Several types of accusations often arise in conversations on religious, spiritual, and secular identity.

Accusations of Intolerance

Often individuals who claim that their religious, spiritual, or secular perspective is the only true or correct perspective (implying that the others are not true) are accused of being intolerant, whereas those holding ecumenical perspectives are deemed open minded and tolerant. In discussing religious tolerance, Alan Levinovitz (2015) wrote, “You can think a religious belief is wrong without being intolerant. Tolerance is not synonymous with ‘believing someone else is right’” (para. 4). In other words, when people profess their beliefs, it doesn’t mean they are being intolerant of differing beliefs. Don’t we all believe that the perspectives we hold about religion, spirituality, and secularism are the right ones? Of course we do; otherwise, we would not hold them.

Tolerance does not require agreement with others or even the recognition that others’ beliefs are equally valid. Simply stated, people have the right to believe that others are wrong. How they act on that belief is what makes them tolerant or not. Tolerance implies the ability to coexist with others and to treat them respectfully, regardless of beliefs. We would be well served to consider what Tim Keller (2014), a Christian, suggested about various perspectives: “Every religion or non-religion, even those that appear more inclusive, make exclusive claims.” Thus, accusations of intolerance that are based solely on someone else’s exclusive claims are often unfounded and usually result in destructive rather than constructive dialogue.

Accusations of Persecution

Unfortunately, it is all too common that someone being directly or indirectly questioned on their beliefs may interpret that experience as persecution. In a journal entry on November 8, 1838, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted” (Porte, 1984, p. 206). Similar to the sentiments about intolerance, the existence of a contradictory belief and even questioning others’ beliefs does not imply or necessarily lead to behavior that is characterized as persecution. Language that implies persecution when there is no behavioral evidence to support that accusation can be destructive in interfaith engagement initiatives.

Accusations of Extremes

We often hear individuals described as too religious or overly religious, with no moral compass, or phobic. What makes someone too much of his or her particular identity? Why should certain individuals be thought to hold no moral values? Although some harmful forms of phobia, typically defined as hate and fear, related to particular forms of religious, spiritual, or secular beliefs do exist (e.g., Islamophobia), simply disagreeing with a belief system does not constitute a phobia (hate or fear) of that perspective.

Language is power and has the ability to be life-giving or harmful. Student affairs educators must help students embrace a mind-set of withholding accusations rather than being accusatory. Understanding common accusatory language is a first step in understanding common assumptions about religious identity. Rather than making accusations, individuals must strive to confront their own assumptions and the assumptions of others.

Eagerness to Confront Assumptions

An equally important mind-set necessary for constructive interfaith dialogue is eagerness to confront one’s own and others’ assumptions. Many of the challenges related to religion and spirituality on higher education campuses result from assumptions that individuals make about others’ beliefs and practices. Sometimes these assumptions seem to have a valid basis; for example, when individuals draw from their own experience of an identity or tradition. Other times, however, these assumptions are less well founded. Regardless of the source of the assumption, true wisdom is found in following Saint Augustine’s advice to never judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Rather than making assumptions about the values, beliefs, and behaviors of people based on their religious, spiritual, or secular perspectives, individuals need to directly ask others how they live their identity. To be sure, not everyone who identifies with a particular religion, form of spirituality, or secular worldview holds all the same beliefs. Some of the core beliefs might be the same, but some of the other beliefs might be vastly different. One of the best mind-sets to embrace is the desire to confront assumptions, including perceptions about the likely beliefs and the potential actions of individuals based on their identity. Engaging in assumptions is essentially stereotyping and will only prove detrimental in interfaith engagement. As Nash (2001) aptly stated, “Stereotyping (no matter how trivial) frequently breeds counter-stereotyping” (p. 33). To engage in constructive interfaith initiatives, one should ask about others’ beliefs and practices rather than make assumptions.

Aspiration to Overlook Offenses

Perhaps one of the most challenging mind-sets to embrace for constructive interfaith engagement is choosing not to take offense when hearing statements that contradict one’s own beliefs, values, and behaviors. Often, complaints about comments being offensive arise not when someone speaking is explicitly derogatory but rather when the listener is subjectively offended (French, 2002). Ultimately, although comments spoken by others during interfaith dialogues are out of the control of listeners, the reactions to those comments can be controlled. One can choose to take offense or choose to leave it. Constructive interfaith dialogues tend to result when all participants make conscious decisions not to take offense and, instead, overlook comments that initially spur some sense of cognitive or emotional dissonance.

How might we teach students and ourselves to disagree with a religious, spiritual, or secular belief or comment without taking personal offense to it? First, student affairs educators should encourage everyone involved to believe the best about the others who are participating in interfaith programs. Educators can cultivate a mentality that the other participants mean well and have good intentions.

Second, we can encourage all involved to be confident in their own religious, spiritual, or secular identity and the beliefs that align with it. This idea was aptly communicated in a quote often attributed to the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins (n.d.):

If you are offended by reading views that disagree with yours, then yes, you will be offended. However, it is not gratuitously offensive. It simply puts forward an argument, and if your views are strong enough, as I believe they are, you will be able to defend your views. You will not say, “Oh, it’s offensive. It’s offensive.” Moreover, sometimes you gain more confidence in your own religious, spiritual, or secular perspective as a result of interfaith engagement.

Ultimately, if participants in interfaith dialogues embrace a mind-set to overlook subjectively offensive comments, more people would be willing to be honest and vulnerable in the discussions. Easily offended people silence other people by making them feel as if they ha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One: Context
• Part Two: Teaching Ideas for Student Affairs Faculty
• Part Three: Strategies and Activities for Student Affairs Practitioners
• Part Four: Using Case Studies to Engage with Religious Diversity and Build Interfaith Leadership
• Part Five: Foundational Knowledge: What Matters and Why?
• Editors and Contributors
• Index
• Also available from Stylus
• Backcover