Although I am a tenured full professor of philosophy at ASU, I am still required to complete an annual review of my work each year (as the name suggests). At most universities, faculty evaluations are supposed to be straightforward. At Arizona State University, where I teach, we use an objective rubric. Faculty are evaluated annually in three categories: research, teaching, and service. Each activity earns points, and those points correspond to a score from 1 to 5. A 3 means you met expectations. A 1 or 2 means you’ll need to draw up a plan for change with the school’s director and then prove you succeeded in the next annual review. A 4 means you exceeded expectations and a 5 means you achieved excellence.
It is very nice to have this objective rubric because you know what you are expected to do and when you do it you know the outcome.
Simple enough.
Or so I thought.
When the Numbers Don’t Matter
Based on the rubric, my annual review materials yielded scores corresponding to a 5 in all three categories. But when I received the final letter from my school director, my teaching score had been lowered from a 5 to a 4.
I’m not necessarily complaining about the number. A 4 is still a strong evaluation. The issue is not the number itself. The issue is the principle behind the change. If I deserve a 5, I’m not going to settle for a 4 just because.
Why did the score differ from the rubric?
The answer was not a calculation error. Instead, the director cited two student comments claiming that my course was “too Christian.” These comments were treated as sufficient grounds to override the rubric. The students did not provide any evidence and the director gave none of her own.
At that moment, a new and unstated metric entered the evaluation process.
What Is the Standard?
I raised two basic questions and appealed to the next level: The college dean.
First: What is the actual evaluation standard?
If the rubric can be overridden, then what replaces it? Is there a formal secondary criterion? Is it written anywhere? Is it applied equally? I know there are professors in my school teaching the Decolonizing, Anti-Racism, and LGBTQ+ philosophies as the truth of matter. Are they also penalized or just the Christian guy?
Second: Why assume the student comments are accurate without verification?
Student perceptions vary widely. That is precisely why institutions use rubrics, in order to avoid substituting subjective impressions for objective evaluation.
The “Evidence”
I appealed the decision to the Dean. The Dean upheld the lower score and offered supporting evidence: quiz questions from my course, “The Philosophy of Death and Dying.”
Here are the kinds of questions cited:
What is the relationship between God and morality?
Something must be eternal because there can be no…
Death should make us think about the meaning of life (True/False)
These are not clearly Christian questions. They don’t mention the Bible or Christ. They are standard philosophical questions, the kinds of questions you would find in discussions of Plato, Aristotle, or even Viktor Frankl.
None of them mention the Bible. None of them require Christian commitment.
And yet they were presented as evidence that the course was “weighted toward Christianianity.”
There is an irony here worth noting: the course catalog itself states that the class includes engagement with the Bible: a description I did not write. So when biblical material is included, it would still fall within the approved course framework.
A Larger Question: Is This Standard Applied Consistently?
In my response, I asked a question that cuts to the heart of the matter: “Is this standard applied equally across faculty?”
If a professor emphasizes “decolonizing philosophy” or teaches contemporary DEI frameworks as normative, are those courses similarly scrutinized and penalized? Or is the concern selective? Is it just the conservative Christian guy who is the faculty advisor for the student TPUSA club?
I offered to provide evidence that faculty in my school have been encouraged to teach particular ideological frameworks as “the truth of the matter.” If weighting a course toward a perspective is a problem, then consistency demands that the rule apply across the board.
That request was made weeks ago.
There has been no response.
What Is Really at Stake?
Yes, there is a financial component. Annual evaluations affect merit pay. But the real issue is not money. Believe me, its not much (well below inflation/cost of living adjustment).
It is a precedent.
My official evaluation now includes the claim that I improperly weighted my course toward Christianity. This claim was not established through objective evidence. It was inferred from student perception and upheld through administrative interpretation. It is stated as fact in the review.
That creates a record. Going forward, and administrator can simply look at my file and say, “I see here you weight your classes toward Christianity, that’s a problem.”
And that record can be used again (next year, or later) to justify further penalties.
In other words, we are no longer dealing with a transparent system governed by stated criteria. We are dealing with a system where unstated judgments can override objective measures, and those judgments can accumulate over time. The subjective feelings of a director or dean are sufficient and they answer to no one and have no obligation to explain themselves nor will they be held accountable to the rubric we faculty all agreed to us.
The Deeper Problem
At stake here are several fundamental questions:
Are objective rubrics available or are faculty judged subjectively?
Are all viewpoints subject to the same scrutiny or only some (the Christian)?
What protects minority and dissenting perspectives within the faculty?
Can administrators impose ideological expectations under the guise of evaluation?
The director of my school has invoked her belief in the “goddess” during one of our faculty meetings. Could she have implicit bias against me? I know that she and other faculty in my school are very worried about others having implicit bias, have they done self-examination?
Universities often present themselves as neutral spaces committed to open inquiry. But neutrality requires procedural fairness. If evaluation standards are unclear, inconsistently applied, or selectively enforced, then neutrality collapses into preference.
And once that happens, academic freedom is no longer secured by principle, it is managed by discretion. We avoid all of that by having the rubric, until we don’t because a gut feeling says I deserve a 4.
A Final Observation
Interestingly, the problem we now face is one straight from my class quiz. It is a philosophical problem about morality and the good.
What is the standard by which we judge what is good?
Recommended Resources:
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.
The post When “Too Christian” Becomes a Metric: A Case Study in Academic Double Standards appeared first on CrossExamined.
CrossExamined