Around the same time that the advertisement discussed last week appeared, the UWI took an admirable decision to terminate the short-term contract of Professor Brendan Bain in his capacity as director of the UWI-Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) project unit.
One assumes that the two incidents were not related and the coincidence was simply fortunate for the organisation behind the advertisement. These individuals or groups could therefore now claim that the dismissal was evidence of anti-Christian actions on the part of UWI since the professor was simply speaking the “truth” and should therefore not have been penalised.
The importance of one’s acceptance of the logic presented last week is critical to the plot since the Bible needs to be accepted as the ultimate repository of truth and therefore no mortal man or institution should dear suggest that any perspective based thereupon is objectionable. Worse yet, no man should be penalised for standing up for “truth”. This approach to the promotion of Christianity is frequently used by some who present testimonies of oppression in an effort to generate converts. In days past, it was possible to convince the sceptical of the existence of organised evil forces who influenced violence on Christian missionaries for the mere possession of a Bible.
In these times, the likes of Professor Bain have become surrogates for the more traditional missionary who would have been trying to save the souls of “savages” in Africa and the Caribbean.
Returning to contemporary reality, I am fortunate to have once been a proud member of UWI’s teaching staff and as such am familiar with its mission and its commitment to intellectual freedom as one of its core values. Simply put this commitment means that no UWI academic can be told what to research, write or otherwise express, so long as this is consistent with that individual’s intellectual conviction. As such, no UWI academic has ever been dismissed from his or her substantive post for any position taken in pursuit of this intellectual “right” even where s/he might appear to be arguing a line that is conventionally known as “foolishness”.
It is therefore important that the public understands that Professor Bain is and continues to be a UWI Professor, who continues to carry that title. Such an academic title and the commensurate rank is to the best of my knowledge the most significant expression of regard for the academic calibre of any UWI staff member. UWI has made no attempt to strip Dr Bain of his emeritus title or of any of the privileges that it carries. This point goes to the root of arguments regarding Bain’s academic rights and freedoms.
These are attached to him and every other UWI academic in their personal capacity and these rights he has clearly always enjoyed and continues to enjoy. He can therefore now continue to exploit his prestigious perch as a UWI emeritus professor to present research and lobby in support of the retention of sodomy laws if he is convinced that this is the “right” thing to do and no attempt will be made to thwart his efforts.
The role from which Bain was sacked is very different since UWI CHART provided leadership with regard to the public health and human rights aspects of the HIV and AIDS fight. In this context, his role was not only that of a public health guru, but also an advocate for the elimination of stigma which is clearly at odds with his testimony on behalf of the church in Belize. This specialised programme has clear objectives and well-articulated principles and those organisations funding it (such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund for AIDS) are of one mind that the battle against HIV is as much about public health as it is about the elimination of stigma. Bain’s association with UWI CHART was a mission to which he attached himself voluntarily because he (presumably) felt that he could help advance the agency’s mission. In the situation therefore where he found his personal convictions at odds with his agencies’ he had a moral responsibility to resign and in light of his unwillingness to do so, UWI had little alternative.
All adults understand that with rights come responsibilities and one cannot be claimed without an appreciation of the other. I am a professed non-believer and I therefore understand that I cannot lead the YMCA, Boy Scouts moment or any church group and would therefore not attempt to do so. Similarly I have previously argued that Buju Banton and more recently Queen Ifrica should not even have attempted to perform in more progressive countries where they have been banned.
Professor Bain’s situation is no different and as much as I remained convinced that he has the right to his views, he and the Christian coalition that supports him must also understand that there are many who will be uncomfortable in his company and this would have negative repercussions for the programme to which he claims to be committed.
Thankfully, the world has moved in a direction where discrimination in all its incarnations is considered “backward” and while those who are seized with the moral conviction of their “rightness” should continue to express their views in support of discrimination, they should not expect the more progressive among us to join with them. Certainly, your right to express opinions freely does not equate to your right to define “truth”.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
