Four decades ago, there was a scandal at my university. One of the pastors from the founding church sent an “open letter” to as many church leaders as he could. Given that this was well before the advent of the worldwide web, such a scandal would likely be far greater today. In short, the man believed a Christian University had no business offering a course called, “Human Sexuality,” so he outlined the ways the course and professor, and by extension, the university, were immoral for advocating homosexuality and promoting practices the Bible says are abominations.
The open letter contained out-of-context textbook passages which when taken in context presented academic perspectives on sexuality. Human Sexuality was an elective course taught by a very conservative sociology professor. He was known for his reserved demeanor and moral integrity. His aim was neither to advocate nor promote anything the church might find deviant, but to inform students. He did what any good academic would do: present the material and allow his students to think about it and reach their own conclusions.
In the end, our president was able to defuse the situation. He pointed out that a college is not a church and while churches must advocate a moral position, colleges must foster free inquiry as well as prepare students to deal with the world. There is a difference between discussing something and advocating it. There is a difference between informing people about something and promoting it. If a play portrays a drunken character, that does not mean the playwright promotes drinking to excess. It may mean the playwright advocates the opposite. If an actress portrays a harlot, that doesn’t mean she is one in real life. Just as art can portray something without promoting, an academic course can describe something without endorsing it.
Sharing information does have risks, however. Many presenters have said, “Don’t try this at home.” And no matter how carefully the information is delivered, a few might still experiment. That’s why teachers must be cognizant of the maturity of their audience. College students should be able to comprehend more than grade school children. It should be obvious that children must not be exposed to knowledge beyond their years.
All of this said, the author of the open letter made stuff up. In terms of argumentation, he used the straw man fallacy and misrepresented the content and purpose of the course. The letter made claims about the course and the professor which simply weren’t true. No one was trying to sell anyone on “the gay lifestyle” or convince them to become promiscuous. But if the words one chooses stir up enough outrage, many people will conclude that what was said must be true just because it sounds so bad. Add in some confirmation bias and the made-up stuff can become a call-to-arms, a reason to dehumanize and attack anyone “evil” enough to have done such a horrible thing. Straw men are terrible creatures because they are made up to seem that way.
The goal of making stuff up is generally to win at any cost, including the cost of basic integrity and common decency. An argument should be won based on facts and evidence, not mere beliefs, conjecture, or innuendo. Furthermore, while many people might believe the stuff that others make up, this does not make that stuff true.
It’s almost impossible to refute a belief based on a made-up accusation. The loaded question, “have you stopped beating your wife?” comes to mind. When we make stuff up, we presume guilt. If a man never beat his wife, how could he answer this question? If a woman was never a witch, how could she repent for being one? The reasoning goes, “Of course, a guilty person would deny wrongdoing. Your denial is proof of your crime.”
Anyone who has ever been accused of doing something they did not do will understand the power of making stuff up. Pre-conceptions and rumors have been enough to convict many people in the court of public opinion. After a story has been made up and repeated, it’s difficult to convince some people that the truth lies elsewhere. Yet, we need to search for the truth and not accept the “alternative facts” offered by people who make stuff up to support their side or defeat their opposition. We need to follow the evidence instead.
MurrayWorks 