Tags
Biblical Studies, Department of Biblical Studies, endorsements, marketing, protests, Research Institute, Save Biblical Studies, university of sheffield
In 2009, the University of Sheffield proposed to close the Department of Biblical Studies, perhaps the world’s foremost and most innovative biblical studies department.
The response included a barrage of letters protesting the plan from academics worldwide. Many of the letters are preserved on the Save Biblical Studies website. Responding to these protests, the University promised to retain the Department of Biblical Studies and to strengthen it.
But as early as 2014, the University of Sheffield again decided to disband the Department. The Department no longer exists, and current academic staff are now employed to a “Research Institute for Biblical Studies“, which has been interpreted as a short-term stop-gap measure before biblical studies at Sheffield ceases completely.
But what about all those academic protests? Did they count for nothing? Not at all. The letters of protest have been mined by the University of Sheffield, and used as marketing endorsements for biblical studies at Sheffield:
“Sheffield is the only place where Biblical Studies are not undertaken in a context where theology is the dominant discipline; this unique approach, with a strong input from religious studies, cultural studies, gender studies and critical theory, cannot be missed!”
Jan Willem van Henten, Director of Graduate School and Professor of New Testament, University of Amsterdam“Sheffield has long had a reputation for producing some of the most innovative research in Biblical Studies in the world. This is not simply due to the outstanding research published by the academic staff, but to the entire ethos of the department.”
James Harding, Lecturer in Hebrew Bible, University of Otago, New Zealand“High quality pedagogical methods… the open exchange of ideas… an impressive tradition of inspiring innovative critical research by other academics around the world.”
Dr James R. Linville, Chair, Dept of Religious Studies, Lethbridge, Canada“…the exceptional combination of creativity and independence of mind shown by members of staff in their publications and at academic conferences.”
MAURICE CASEY, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
All of these endorsements were culled from the letters of protest written in 2009 against the closure of the Department. They are now [on 1 September 2014, UK time] being used as “endorsements” of the University of Sheffield after the closure of the Department. Although permission was originally sought to use these protests as endorsements, they continue to be used now that the Department has been closed, which is precisely what the protests were protesting against.
What did the University of Sheffield fail to quote? The University missed those parts of the letters which were protesting against the very policy the University of Sheffield is now implementing, e.g.:
“I really hope you will reconsider the proposal to close the Department of Biblical Studies and that you find other solutions for coping with the consequences of the financial crisis for your university.”
Jan Willem van Henten, Director of Graduate School and Professor of New Testament, University of Amsterdam“Dismantling the department would not simply have serious consequences within the University of Sheffield, but would have much wider consequences for the Biblical Studies guild as a whole. I know that I am not alone in holding these concerns. Over the last few days the internet has been alive with expressions of disquiet from scholars the world over whose academic work has been inspired by the work done in the department at Sheffield. Please do not allow this to come to an end by dismantling the department.”
James Harding, Lecturer in Hebrew Bible, University of Otago, New Zealand“Let me add my voice to those who have already expressed themselves regarding the plans to close the world-class Department of Biblical Studies. I appreciate the financial difficulties your institution is in, but abandoning a department of the calibre and reputation of this one can only bring short term gains at a very long term cost to the university.”
Dr James R. Linville, Chair, Dept of Religious Studies, Lethbridge, Canada“I am very sad to learn of your plans to close the undergraduate part of your Department of Biblical Studies and dissipate its research arm. I hope you are aware that this would lead to the wreckage of a quite outstanding feature of British education.”
MAURICE CASEY, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
If the academics who are quoted here know about the continued use of their “endorsements”, we wonder what their reactions might be. Yet one of the protesting academics who were quoted will not be able to provide his reaction. Maurice Casey has since passed away since he wrote his original protest – a protest which is currently being represented as the deceased professor’s approval of precisely what he had protested against.
UPDATE (on the afternoon of 1 September 2014, UK time): The University of Sheffield has now removed its page of “endorsements” for biblical studies at Sheffield.
The Dunedin School 
Unbelievable and obscene,,,,
absolutely disgusting.
A recently departed scholar. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
I am absolutely SICKENED by the latest actions of the ‘University of Sheffield’…in inverted commas because it is doubtful – as it always is when it comes to the saga of the UoS and Biblical Studies – that a single individual (or group of individuals) will actually be held accountable for this latest betrayal, even though someone IS responsible for carefully and meticulously selecting those quotations which fulfil the the criteria of praising Sheffield Biblical Studies without using the word “department”. They’ve also forgotten to mention that the praise these scholars extolled was for the unrivalled work of staff carried out in the department before 2009. The department since has suffered set back after set back, beginning with the attempts to close the department c.2009 and continuing with the baffling appointment of a HoD who lacked skill in leadership, diplomacy or understanding of discrimination.
Someone ought to remind the responsible person/people of the practices of good scholarship. HINT: The misquotation of a deceased esteemed academic who cannot respond, and quotations taken COMPLETELY out of context are not among them.
#ShameOnSheffield
Thanks for exposing this. It does indeed seem pretty inept. One qualifier: it looks like the page in question was actually a survivor from the earlier department website, i.e. it was crafted while the department was still afloat and while Maurice was still alive. The page dates back to at least Mary 2013 — https://web.archive.org/web/20130521145642/http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/biblicalstudies/research/about
Good point, Mark. Still, the “endorsements” have survived the website redesign since then. And at some point somebody made the decision to make out-of-context quotations from letters of protest.
I agree. I think there are at least two points here that really make one wonder. The first is the decision to use those quotations on the department website in early 2013 (they date to January 2013 at least) if not late 2012. The second and potentially more egregious is the carry-over of the page to the new site. However, I am inclined to think that this is like most university websites — not designed or populated by academics. Someone simply went through and updated the piece in the new framework (with minimal redaction) without realizing how inappropriate this was. But whatever happened, you are quite right to draw attention to it all and it’s a good thing that they have taken the right action and taken the page down. They should, of course, also add an apology — but that may be hoping for far too much!
I have in my possession written consent from all of these scholars, including the late Maurice Casey (see below), for the use of their words in the fresh context of marketing the department. These permissions date back to December 2009 when I had personal responsibility for an overhaul of the site. While I understand people’s distaste, it did not seem distasteful to use these for the department in 2009 and one should not be too quick to throw stones at marketing people who were trying to serve the Department’s future.
I quote first from my email to Maurice:
———-16/12/2009————
Following the success of the campaign to preserve the Biblical Studies
department here in Sheffield, we are now looking at the information provided to
potential students on the department’s web site.
We’d like to use the following quotation extracted from your letter to the
Vice-Chancellor (and published on savebiblicalstudies.weebly.com):
“…the exceptional combination of creativity and independence of mind shown by
members of staff in their publications and at academic conferences.”
“I’d be grateful if you can confirm that we are okay to go ahead and use this.
The quotation would be attributed to you, and you should feel free to amend it
first if desired.”
———————————
And from his response to me (also 16/12/2009):
———————————
“Thank-you for your e-mail. You are very welcome to quote this comment, and please attribute it to me, I do not wish to amend a single word.
“I hope you are successful in attracting new students, and that management will provide new staff on the scale that you need, in accordance with the quality traditional in the Department and found in the few staff left.”
——————————–
This was not “The University” acting but someone affiliated with the department keen to preserve it and doing so with what was, however distastefully one may now view it, some extremely good marketing material. I would never have dreamt of using any of it without permission, and one ought not to be too hasty to judge whoever it was within the university that made the decision to go on using it. It is in any case quite possible that I wrote the page you are referring to and these quotes will have been on the site since January 2010. Staff in the department would have been aware of this use of material at the time, even if there’s been enough water under the bridge to lose track.
Thank you for your explanation. Your own role in originally setting up the page is justified.
However, these scholars wrote these comments about the Biblical Studies Department as it had been run pre-2009, and they were being told that the University was committed to continuing the Department as it had been run before 2009, and that it would even be strengthened. So I can understand why these scholars might be pleased for their comments to be employed as “extremely good marketing material”. Yet these circumstances very soon changed, didn’t they? In just a couple of years, it was evident that the University’s commitment to the Department had eroded. By 2014 the Department had been dissolved. And yet the comments remained, appearing to support the very policies which the letters of protest had originally opposed. This then is the problem – how the comments are “now being used”. Administrative oversight perhaps, but still well worth pointing out, and a cruel irony, given the failure of the University to honour its earlier pledge to continue the Department.
(For the record, I was a postgraduate student with experience of web management who undertook the task of editing the site and was paid for this. Content was discussed at staff meetings, but the site as set live in January 2010 was substantially my work.)
Ah – what has happened here is quite different than what I at first thought. If the quotations were used right after the 2009 incidents (with their permission) when there was optimism for the department then this is quite different from someone picking over the Save Biblical Studies website for quotes knowing the department was closing this month.
It looks like a cock up with the university just using old material, not realising that there would be any issue in using quotations that were on a previous version of the department’s website. Stupid, but not necessarily malicious.
No, that is incorrect.
As the post above clearly states, the endorsements were made as part of letters protesting the closure of the Department of Biblical Studies at Sheffield. Permission was apparently sought to print extracts from the letters of protest as endorsements, but at the time that the Department had promised that it was going to continue. As the post above states, the University continued to use the quotes as endorsements even when it had decided to close down the Department, contrary to its promise to those who wrote the letters of protest. This ongoing use of the quotations from the letters of protest, after the decision to close down the Department, was what the original post of 2 September correctly exposed.
If you took another meaning from another blog, we suggest that you complain there.