Why teach at school with conservative mission?

The Feb. 9 edition posted a letter from Fran Bates praising former Wheaton College professor Hawkins for mounting a, "courageous challenge to closed-minded academic authorities." Bates criticized the college by saying that Hawkins' experience, "is another example of fundamentalist places of learning being about indoctrination not education."

Bates did get one thing right, Hawkins did challenge the college authority and mission. The question is what right did she have to do so? If one is of a liberal bent, why teach at a school with a conservative mission? With liberal schools proliferating the landscape why believe one has a moral obligation to "reform" the few conservative schools that remain?

Liberalism is "indoctrination," so make no mistake about that. If the administration is guilty of protecting the policies that "indoctrinate" students with the "doctrines" of Christianity, they were doing their jobs. Bates asserts that indoctrination isn't education, yet the term, "Christian education" is self-evident. The school exists to teach students how to view the subjects of higher learning through the lens of a Christian world view, rather than a liberal, secular one which is what other schools do.

Bates clearly thinks the school should be tolerant of exceedingly liberal theology. Her criticism is grounded in the liberal canon of universal tolerance, and she exposes herself as one who can't tolerate those who don't conform to that standard. I can usually find common ground with someone who stands for a principled belief that may contain some exclusions even if I disagree with those particular exclusions, which is what the college tried to do with Hawkins. But this is impossible with someone who simply rejects others lock, stock, and barrel.

Linda Van Dine

Glendale Heights