Let's not forget the two salient problems I had with your post: this position is not "Director of Theology" (sounds like the equivalent of chairperson or something), nor is Mr. Vanderhooft still the director, as you can see at the contact page for the department.
I assume when you say the powers are "vast and vague" you're referring to the comment by the Lutheran professor who opposed his appointment which claimed that the Director of Undergraduate Studies is a "very important position with broad, vague, undefined powers." But note that this is from a professor leading the charge as it were against Mr. Vanderhooft's appointment, quoted in an article (if we're reading the same one) that is obviously also against his appointment, and is directly contradicted by a spokesperson from the university. When I first read it, the claim jumped out at me as simple fear-mongering—nobody makes any attempt to indicate just how this guy has vast underfined powers or what he means to do with them. If you read through the pages of the Theology department website, it seems that the role of the DUS is basically limited to helping students choose their elective courses after two years of required core courses (during which I certainly hope they'd learn about St. Simeon). Surely a position with a two-year term limit wouldn't be the one that involves setting the direction of the department! You might object to this and perhaps rightly so, but it's certainly a lot less sensational than saying an atheist (and it's apparently controversial whether he is an atheist, or even a UU—I find it odd that if he was an out-and-out member, he'd be listed as a "friend of the church") was "recently" appointed "Director of Theology." The same goes for the claim that he trashed the doctrine of the Trinity at his tenure review: even the obviously hostile article qualifies this with an "allegedly."
My point is that it's hard enough to figure out the actual facts of this case (given that all the sources I can find online are angrily opposed to his appointment) without adding in sensationalistic details. His opponents claim that his position is some vast Wizard of Oz job where behind the scenes he controls all department policy in order to instill heretical doctrines into the heads of impressionable college students (apparently utterly ignorant of theology, even after two years of required introductory classes in theology) causing chaos, widespread contraception, the overturning of the world in fire and water, etc. etc. I think it's obvious we're getting only one side on this issue, and I think you can agree with that while still questioning whether a non-Catholic ought to be appointed to this position.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 04:23 am (UTC)I assume when you say the powers are "vast and vague" you're referring to the comment by the Lutheran professor who opposed his appointment which claimed that the Director of Undergraduate Studies is a "very important position with broad, vague, undefined powers." But note that this is from a professor leading the charge as it were against Mr. Vanderhooft's appointment, quoted in an article (if we're reading the same one) that is obviously also against his appointment, and is directly contradicted by a spokesperson from the university. When I first read it, the claim jumped out at me as simple fear-mongering—nobody makes any attempt to indicate just how this guy has vast underfined powers or what he means to do with them. If you read through the pages of the Theology department website, it seems that the role of the DUS is basically limited to helping students choose their elective courses after two years of required core courses (during which I certainly hope they'd learn about St. Simeon). Surely a position with a two-year term limit wouldn't be the one that involves setting the direction of the department! You might object to this and perhaps rightly so, but it's certainly a lot less sensational than saying an atheist (and it's apparently controversial whether he is an atheist, or even a UU—I find it odd that if he was an out-and-out member, he'd be listed as a "friend of the church") was "recently" appointed "Director of Theology." The same goes for the claim that he trashed the doctrine of the Trinity at his tenure review: even the obviously hostile article qualifies this with an "allegedly."
My point is that it's hard enough to figure out the actual facts of this case (given that all the sources I can find online are angrily opposed to his appointment) without adding in sensationalistic details. His opponents claim that his position is some vast Wizard of Oz job where behind the scenes he controls all department policy in order to instill heretical doctrines into the heads of impressionable college students (apparently utterly ignorant of theology, even after two years of required introductory classes in theology) causing chaos, widespread contraception, the overturning of the world in fire and water, etc. etc. I think it's obvious we're getting only one side on this issue, and I think you can agree with that while still questioning whether a non-Catholic ought to be appointed to this position.