Perhaps it’s my age. I find myself getting very angry at things these days. Years ago I would have rebuked myself for that and told myself that anger was wrong. Now I just see it as a healthy emotion in response to injustice and threat.
Although I first read about this story several days ago in Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist blog, it wouldn’t lie down and has been steadily building up steam in my ‘heart’ ever since. I need to write about it.
The story is quite simple. Kent Gramm has worked as an English professor at Wheaton College (a prominent American Evangelical Christian College) for the past twenty years. After thirty years of marriage, he and his wife recently got divorced. Because he doesn’t want to discuss his divorce with his employers he can’t work at Wheaton anymore and has been put in a position where he felt he had to resign.
Though the college has sometimes hired or retained staff employees whose marriages have ended, officials say those employees must talk with a staff member to determine whether the divorce meets Biblical standards. Gramm told administrators about his divorce but declined to discuss the details.
“I think it’s wrong to have to discuss your personal life with your employer,” he said, “and I also don’t want to be in a position of accusing my spouse, so I declined to appeal or discuss the matter in any way with my employer.”
Because he won’t discuss the case, his employers at Wheaton don’t know whether his divorce is “Biblically sound.”
Many theological conservatives say the New Testament permits divorce only in cases of adultery or desertion. Wheaton requires faculty and staff to sign a faith statement and adhere to standards of conduct in areas including marriage, said Provost Stan Jones.
Gramm said he understands the policy and recognizes that the college is within its rights to set its standards. Yet he said students are facing the same marital statistics as other Americans, and many will themselves someday divorce.
“And I feel that it’s important for them to know that they’re not somehow rejected by God for having more or less normal lives and for having lives that didn’t work out the way they intended them to turn out,” Gramm said.
Tim George, student body president, said it is a shame that Gramm has to leave, because he is an outstanding teaching professor and a scholar. Although there has been controversy, the majority of students support the college’s decision, he said. “We just hate to see him go. . . . But we just don’t want to compromise the values that we hold,” George said.
Back in November last year I wrote a post called What Has Sex Got To Do With It? arguing that Anna Ciriani, who was acknowledged to be an excellent teacher, should not have lost her job because of her private work as a pornstar. I was angry at what I saw as the hypocrisy of society over sexuality and its inability to let consenting adults make decisions about what they do in private, without trying to tell them what to do.
Although there are clear differences in this case, there are also parallels. If Kent Gramm was a bad teacher he clearly needs to lose his job. But he patently wasn’t a bad teacher. What he does or doesn’t do in his private life (provided that it doesn’t impact on his classroom and performance) should have nothing to do with whether or not he can keep his professional role. Only professional incompetence should be a reason for ending professional employment.
Of course, the difference between Gramm and Ciriani is that the latter was employed in public institutions, whereas the former was working in a private college. The college, of course, has the right to determine its own rules. In doing so, it thinks it preserving Christian values - though obviously Gramm’s employment failed to save his marriage.
Although Wheaton College has the right to determine its own rules, just pause for a moment to reflect on the message that those rules are communicating:
- A belief that employers can be moral custodians, with a right to have a say on every aspect of a person’s life, including trying to regulate his or her sexual behaviour when not at work (and that of his or her spouse too).
- A belief that employers can still try to have an influence over the private tragedies of their employees, even when this flies in the face of societal norm, (given that over 50% of Christian marriages end in divorce - a higher rate than for non-Christians).
- A belief that Higher Education students are like passive sponges and are going to be ‘corrupted’ by contact with a professor whose divorce may not have been ‘biblical’. (Note the parallel with Anna Ciriani - children would be corrupted by mere contact with this woman.) Kent Gramm is being treated like a leper!
- An implicit belief that divorce is sinful and something to be ashamed of, rather than something which is at worst a personal tragedy or at best, a wonderful affirmation of a human being dealing with pain and abuse in the best way possible - or probably a mixture of both.
I was saddened that society couldn’t cope with a part-time pornstar being a good teacher as well, although I accept that Anna Ciriani’s case could be regarded as unique and a bit extreme. I am deeply saddened and angry that a Christian College could not accept that a divorcee can be a good professor too.
When I make my next visit to a cardiology ward to have stents inserted into my arteries via my groin I want to know that the doctors are good at their job, and quite frankly, I couldn’t care less about whether or not he or she runs a part-time porn business out of work hours or about whether or not she or he is divorced. I am sure that when I am on the table under a local anaesthetic, both of those issues will seem irrelevant to me.
There were two quotations in the National Secular Society newsletter this week which just seem to sum up everything so wonderfully for me.
“Actually, my problem is not with God, but with God’s little helpers, the ones who take it upon themselves to police the rest of us on his behalf. These people give religion a bad name, which, given its history, takes some doing.”
(Pat Condell, Pat Condell.net)
“You don’t have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don’t have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense to do massively crazy things. And — this is the worst of it — religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.”
(Daniel Dennett, Globe & Mail, South Africa)
Thank you for your cogent summary. I find Gramm’s response to be courageous. He does not want to cast stones and besmirch his former wife. His actions seem to be more in keeping with Joseph who not wanting to embarrass Mary sought “to put her away quietly”. The administration of Wheaton while seeking to uphold “a biblical standard” seems to have discounted a biblical passage that would commend Gramm.
You are correct in depicting a large portion of religious college students as being passive sponges on these type of matters. To question the actions and positions of their college would undermine their understanding of faith.
the deacon
Thanks for your comment which opens up an important new dimension on the story.
Just for the record - technically I don’t think the college students are sponges. I just felt that one reason behind the necessary removal of Gramm seemed to be that the institution thought they might be.
This is the sort of event that confirms for me that I was right to walk away from Christianity. I attended a Christian college similar to Wheaton, so I can vividly imagine the institution’s ethos. The institution is behaving in an unseemly, Pharisaical manner. Kent Gramm’s grace towards both his former wife and the institution reveal that he is the true Christian in this story.
I continue to be amazed at what goes on in the religious enclaves of the world. This blog will certainly ensure I am never tempted to crawl out of bed early on a Sunday and head off to Church.
The position this college take on their staff’s private lives is outrageous and intrusive. But I suppose in fairness, staff know the position when they take up employment and it is their choice whether they work there or not. This guy chose quite rightly, not to discuss his private life to keep his job, but perhaps the mistake he made was taking up the job in the first place.
My heart goes out to this man and his wife and I have looked at the links mentioned with great interest.
I agree with everyword you say here in your defence of this professor and the attitude of the college.
This story once again causes a sting for me concerning the way the church still can conduct itself over the issue of divorce. The last two quotes from the NSS says it all for me too.
I could write my own book about the way I feel concerning this subject and this man’s plight. Suffice to say I am suprised at the high rate of Christian divorce, but am I really? Perhaps that figure just argues the point perfectly for me about some christian marriages and marriage preparation.
I will leave this discussion with one point to ponder on. What does divorce really mean anyway? How many other employees at Wheaton are really divorced from their spouses even when they still wear the trappings of marriage, ring and living together. If their own relationships were analysed how many of them might already be dead, dying or broken. I am testimony of just that in my “former life” when the so called Christian marriage is but dust, hell and never living in the first place. your comment about divorce being
“An implicit belief that divorce is sinful and something to be ashamed of, rather than something which is at worst a personal tragedy or at best, a wonderful affirmation of a human being dealing with pain and abuse in the best way possible - or probably a mixture of both.”
I love the wonderful affirmation line, and certainly for me that is a beautiful way of stating my own saving off one’s self in a particulary grotesque situation I was in.
I do hope the professor finds a new post and happiness in his personal life.
[...] of training when dealing with fragile emotions, complex family life and the big one for me, marriage failure and divorce. I think the later subject is for a [...]
Here is a thoughtful article by another teacher at Wheaton.
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/05/02/the-bonds-of-community/
I have read the article mentioned above. To my surprise it is indeed sympathetic to this case. I do wonder though this. Why is divorce seen as such a failure and something that requires such serious magnitude of importance. What about relationships that fail where there has not been a marriage. There appears a no big-deal attitude over this. I think those of us who have had to deal with christian divorce cruxcify ourselves so harshly because of what other see as such a big deal. My own christain divorce was absolutely horendous, not because I was leaving the most dsyfunctional, horrid life ever give to man, (I liken it to commiting emotional suicide, which in effect was what I did because I had no self-worth as a person), but because having been locked into this institution by the church of which there was no escape but death I was given the enth degree for ending it.
I think this debate is all so sorryful. A man having to leave his career because let’s face it, he knew that if he had told all, he would not have been likely to be given the go ahead. It would not have matched the criteria imposed by the bible.
Multiple relationship failure is more devastating even with a secular view. People need some love and compassion and given a chance to feel just a little bit worthy, to be called part of the human race, rather then just rejects in the world’s eyes.
Perhaps I am not “thoughtful” nor “thinking” … but is it not legitimate for a PRIVATE institution founded on Christian principles to enforce its UNHIDDEN rules build on a religious foundation? Dr. Gramm was certainly aware of the position of the institution. He has every right to walk away. The PRIVATE and RELIGIOUS institution (though not a church) also has every right to enforce it’s UNHIDDEN rules and regulations. Doesn’t religious freedom (and this institution’s particular relgious precepts) apply to this PRIVATE institution? This is not an issue of church and state. This is an issue of church and para-church.
The bigger question is how has his church dealt with the situation? In other words, has his church dealt with this couple with grace and with truth and with the biblical truth that it is mandated to uphold. The a-priori question is this: does Dr. Gramm (and his wife) belong as members to a local church? These questions are frankly none of my business. It’s the business of God, Wheaton, Dr. Gramm, Mrs. Gramm and their local churches.
Burly
As I wrote in my blog: The college, of course, has the right to determine its own rules. Personally I just find myself astounded at the brutality and stupidity of at least one of those rules, and as far as teaching is concerned, have to again ask the question: What has divorce got to do with it? - The central question of my posting.
I apologize for missing the fact that you acknowledged the fact that the college could do so. In addition, you have every right to be “astounded at the brutality and stupidity of at least one of those rules.” In approaching it from the particular Christian worldview of Wheaton’s foundations, the content of the teaching of literature/english/creative writing cannot be separated from the person teaching it. I presume that as the professor was not expected to approach his teaching from a secular perpective and was likely, in fact, expected to teach in the framework of his Christian worldview, this rule is not, in my view as “brutal” and “stupid” as you propose. Perhaps you view the mixing of the message and the messenger as an inappropriate way to pursue higher ed. If so, I understand. But for Wheaton I believe that this distinction is critical to the education being their brand of “Christian.” I’m not an expert on this. I am simply a “Christian” who has been educated in both a secular institution of higher learning and a a Christian institution of higher learning. Now, divorce is not the only issue - and perhaps Wheaton could be accused of hypocricy, etc., as the Bible clearly does NOT lay out the qualifications of a Christian educator. I think Wheaton is carrying over some of the biblical qualifications of an overseer/elder in the church to the role of professor. This would include upholding the marriage vows among may other things. Anyway, I’m rambling a bit - but I hope you see that your judgment may be (and correct me if I’m wrong) against the very notion of a Christian education of this variety - a Christian education that holds a high standard of *visible* character for the teacher - even if the teacher is not an official, professional “minister of the Gospel.” Let me know if you think my judgment is incorrect - needs clarification, etc.
I think what you said was all very interesting; Im going to add my thoughts regarding some of what you said:
“A belief that employers can be moral custodians, with a right to have a say on every aspect of a person’s life, including trying to regulate his or her sexual behaviour when not at work (and that of his or her spouse too).”
I do not see how it follows from the fact that Wheaton has rules regarding marital relations that it proposes that employers can or should be moral custodians with the right to have a say on every aspect of a person’s life. I doubt Wheaton has dietary rules. Or cares about them. It is not an aspect of a person’s life that Christianity tends to moralize.
Most employers do regulate employees sexual behavior when not at work, at least employers that work under a state that has laws against, for example, incest, child molestation, or rape. Not only would an employee lose their job if they engaged in something any of those activities, the state would imprison them for years, and then after prison, would be required to report it on their application ( I think it applies to those crimes, at least in the U.S.).
Christianity, in particular, moralizes sexual behavior and marital behavior that secular states now do not (although they have at some point in their history)
“A belief that employers can still try to have an influence over the private tragedies of their employees, even when this flies in the face of societal norm, (given that over 50% of Christian marriages end in divorce - a higher rate than for non-Christians).”
Again, Christianity views most forms of divorce as a sin, not simply a private tragedy. Secular states typically view rape as a sin, not simply the private tragedy of the person raped.
A belief that Higher Education students are like passive sponges and are going to be ‘corrupted’ by contact with a professor whose divorce may not have been ‘biblical’. (Note the parallel with Anna Ciriani - children would be corrupted by mere contact with this woman.) Kent Gramm is being treated like a leper!
Im not sure if that is the reason Wheaton made the decision they did. I think it may have more to do with demonstrating that certain behavior, particularly divorcing without some sort of proper procedure, is immoral; and not allowing him to continue to work is a form of punishment for the immoral act he committed. This gives the message to the students how significant the moral transgression is thought to be, with the effect of discouraging the students from doing the same thing.
“An implicit belief that divorce is sinful and something to be ashamed of, rather than something which is at worst a personal tragedy or at best, a wonderful affirmation of a human being dealing with pain and abuse in the best way possible - or probably a mixture of both.”
Or guilty about. I generally agree with you about this. I think that their action does send the message that divorce is immoral (sinful), especially when done without appropriate reasons. So goes the Christian ethos.
“I am deeply saddened and angry that a Christian College could not accept that a divorcee can be a good professor too.”
Perhaps there will be a silver lining in this. He may find a new position at a secular college that does not judge him for his divorce; and through this position, he comes to embrace an ethos other than Christianity, and a secular college gets a new good professor.
“When I make my next visit to a cardiology ward to have stents inserted into my arteries via my groin I want to know that the doctors are good at their job, and quite frankly, I couldn’t care less about whether or not he or she runs a part-time porn business out of work hours or about whether or not she or he is divorced. “
True–I would not care about those factors either. But let us change the scenario. What if the doctor molests children? What if he likes to drug and rape women at the bar? Well dont worry about making that decision, because those actions in his “private life” will have him in jail–and probably, his license revoked.
I don’t know if it is so clear that “only professional incompetence should end professional employment.”