Following up on the earlier blog entry concerning Missouri State taking down a Christmas tree that allegedly a Jewish faculty or staff member complained about to the President’s Diversity Committee, University President Dr. Michael T. Nietzel said in a press release today (quoted in the News-Leader) “A Christmas tree that had been removed from the atrium of Strong Hall at Missouri State University is returning, along with other religious holiday symbols in that building.”
While I commend Dr. Nietzel for swiftly taking the appropriate actions in this case, I really believe that this matter should not be dropped quickly. The reason? The statement made by the President’s Diversity Committee co-chair Chris Craig that “This is not about a legal issues. It’s about being more inclusive.” That statement by someone in a position to exert authority or influence in a public arena is not one that should go by unchallenged by media, students, citizens or even Dr. Nietzel himself. Dr. Craig should answer to why he feels that it’s OK to ignore the law for the sake of “inclusiveness.”
Don’t discount that Dr. Craig was applying Christian religious attachment to the tree in his statements. On the surface, that is why he was in favor of this situation because it was a religious issue. His statement, coupled with the implication that this was based on religious grounds, leads to a reasonable conclusion that Dr. Craig was endorsing an action that deliberately discriminates against the religious expression of Christians on the Missouri State campus. It seems to me that it would be a very dangerous situation to have someone who endorses discrimination against one religion being in a position of leadership on a committee that is seeing “diversity.”
By the way, if you were looking for his quote in the News-Leader article I linked at the top of the blog entry, you won’t find it there. It’s in this story from earlier this morning. I find it every interesting that the News-Leader removed only the quotes from Dr. Craig that appeared to show this anti-Christian bias. (I’m aware it could just be coincidence.)
Dr. Craig, if you read this blog, I would welcome your response to that statement from this morning’s News-Leader article. Feel free to post it in the comments section. I’m more than willing to let you explain your side of it because the quote you made is pretty hard to say that it wasn’t referring to the religious connotations if you say it’s not about the law.
And I would hope that some of the local media who have been kind enough to visit on a regular basis (Joe, Christine, Ron, Tony…) would follow up with Dr. Craig to see if you can get an explanation or clarification of the statement. Also find out what the claim made to Lorene Stone from a “co-chair of the president’s diversity commission” that a faculty member said “the tree showed a lack of sensitivity to other religions.” The one faculty member on the record said he didn’t complain about the tree. Was Lorene Stone lied to by the co-chair of the commission?
More than likely this will be shoved under the rug but in light of the Emily Brooker situation and now this you have to at least ask for Missouri State to show good faith in rooting out anyone in a position of power who endorses discrimination against Christians and their free expression.
This kind of thing happens all the time. Don’t get your hopes up that you’ll hear anything about this.