Rules of Engagement

by Shane Clifton

Before we go public, i thought it might be worthwhile to further think through our rules of engagement.  In this process, i am suggesting we draw on the logic of "the man" mark hutchinson, in his discussion of academic freedom set out in the APS Journal (http://aps.webjournals.org/articles/1/03/2006/6661.htm?id={CEAD2A84-9C30-458F-BC0D-33A192544C90})

To quote him directly

Pentecostals will need to be able to demonstrate proper protections for academic freedom, while at the same time realizing the institutional and cultural costs of entrenching an individualist interpretation in tenure. We cannot afford to have ‘academic freedom’ as a ‘transcendent value’ if it functionally displaces our real, core, transcendent values and encourages selfishness and subservience. Some form of mutual obligation, entrenched in real relationships, would be a preferable way of running a Christian institution. Whether it is workable in terms of institutional risk reduction is the key question.

For the purposes of this blog, the point is that we need to be free to pursue truth, and to discuss issues.  At the same time this freedom is not absolute.  We remain faculty members of Southern Cross College, and our discussion needs to be framed, not by a set of legalistic rules, but by the shared core values of our institution.

So, i propose, rather than a set of rules about what we can and cannot say, we establish a "spirit" framed set of rules of engagement.  We are fee in the Spirit to pursue truth, and to express ourselves in line with our shared set of "spiritual" values? 

What do you reckon?  Is this enough?

On a more concrete note (and if what i have said is incomprehensible), what do you think about the name of this blog?

Comments

[bclark]

There are a number of interesting comments to make here Dr Clifton.

1) If you want people to find the blog somewhere along the way you might want to change it to read Southern Cross College rather than SCC.

2) I applaud the idea of pursuit of truth while realising, as it is clear that you do :P, that there is a cost, or as you note, a "fee" (I'm sure you meant free but hey). Everything costs; as this engagement will in terms of time, money and lost productivity for 'honest' engagement. I look forward to it :)

3) Although Mark articulated the core values of the College at the Professional Develeopment Day last week I'm not sure how much these, at this stage, are shared at this stage. You might want to post a discussion thread on them and see what we actually do think rather than simply agreeing in a meeting because they sound nice. If you want to search for truth then how about we start to own the institution by actually being involved.

4) Does freedom allow us to disagree? I think it does but the main issue, as in most blogs/forums, is mutal respect. This is a great starting point.

Yeyyyyyy!!!! First comment - shows I was up really early checking e-mails.

Ben

[Shane Clifton]

Great comments ben - and call me SHANE!!! Perhaps our first discussion could be about these values. Lets see what others reckon

[Deborah Taggart]

Great thoughts on academic freedom :)

I like Ben's point on writing "Southern Cross College' in full, plus I have another thought on the name....does 'SCC faculty' make it sound too private and exclusive? If a non-faculty member came across this blog, would they feel out of place and uninvited to comment?

Maybe if we have a more generic title (Southern Cross Bloggege or something?), and then in a description or subtitle we can mention that discussions on this blog are started/guided by some thoughts of various faculty members?

[Shane Clifton]

i think you are right. maybe we could go with justt the simple "pentecostal discussions"