Well, I'm not sure who's going to feel what about my comments, so I have to explain a little.
In my old age I had a brainstorm and wanted to study Chinese history. I knew nothing about academic procedures. but applied to two universities, Sydney and Macquarie. Never heard from Sydney, but Macquarie offered me a place. That was good in one way, as the then head of the Chinese department (Prof. Daniel Kane) had lived and worked in China and was a source of first hand explanations.
But the choice of Chinese subjects at MU was very limited and without doing language I could not get a degree. (Didn't want to do Chns L as I figured I'd likely die before speaking Chns fluently). Danny Kane suggested that the Ancient History dept. also taught a lot of Chinese/Asian topics, so I could maybe achieve what I wanted by broadening my vision a little. So I did that.and changed my focus to China in its Asian setting.
Of course, in AH I also found a lot of West Asian topics (NB. The main world religions are Asian with Asian thought patterns) which was fortuitous as I was able to include some covering Judaism/ Xtianity etc. I wont list them all but included the Dead Sea Scrolls . Church and State in late Antiquity. The NT in its Times. Early Christian literature in its times.
I also did another 6 study units at Sydney U. (Sydney U is much better for China Studies ) So I finished up with a major in Ancient History (All with and Asian focus and a minor in Japanese Studies. But I sure know a lot more about Asia than I did 10 years ago.
And after all that, this is the point I want to make.
A lecturer for some of those study units was a Dr Chris Forbes. I asked him one day, have you ever come across the NWT? He said he had read some of it, so I asked what he thought of it? He replied that he thought it was a "lively" translation. So I asked what about John 1:1? He responded that too often in NT translation, the original text can have more than one meaning, a problem that makes translation difficult. (a problem, I think that makes YHWH look a bit of a numbskull).
Dr Forbes is the member of a conventional church (not sure which one) and whether or not he believes in the trinity i don't know. Although, of course, I assumed he is Jesus oriented and not YHWH oriented, but that's just how I saw him.
In spite off that anecdote, I do not think that MU's staff generally would not be anti-trinitarian.
So make what you want from my story.
Footnotes:
1. MU's Ancient History department was strongly influenced by one E.A. Judge, certainly a conventional Christian.
2. The AH department held up my degree, because I did not do one subject (focusing on Rome) that they held to be essential. However, in the end they agreed to my degree.