D
MERGED Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
- Status
manygift1spirit
New member
Dr. Howell has been reinstated (story).
We shall see the details, but even a small victory is a victory.
tiphat: American Papist)
We shall see the details, but even a small victory is a victory.
tiphat: American Papist)
D
Dale_M
Guest
Thank you for the breaking news.
It appears that the after Dr. Howell decides to leave on his own, the university will have much greater control over who is selected to teach the Catholic courses. The university is ending its teaching relationship with the Newman Center:
breaking news article:
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Dr. Howell will now be teaching Catholicism in The School of Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, not the religion department as before. I wonder what that’s about.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Grace, I am unfamiliar with how the University is set up, but according to the Sun-Times, it seems the Religious Studies department is part of the School of Literature, Cultures and Linguistics. If this is accurate, then I guess Dr. Howell’s department affiliation hasn’t changed.
His salary is a bit troublesome. Obviously, its not enough to support himself. I wonder if the Newman Center paid him a similar amount? Perhaps he is involved in other projects which bring him income?
I wonder if the classes being full is a good thing. It could indicate support, or just curiosity about the Catholic Church or perhaps an interest in bringing Dr. Howell down by baiting him.
suntimes.com/news/metro/2549864,CST-NWS-prof30.article
His salary is a bit troublesome. Obviously, its not enough to support himself. I wonder if the Newman Center paid him a similar amount? Perhaps he is involved in other projects which bring him income?
I wonder if the classes being full is a good thing. It could indicate support, or just curiosity about the Catholic Church or perhaps an interest in bringing Dr. Howell down by baiting him.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Good. I was afraid it could mean that he would be required to teach the course differently, like how the Bible is sometimes taught only as “literature.”
Yes, that looks problematic; I read that he has been required to cut all ties with the Newman Center, so no supplemental income from there.
Ken Howell & the U of I’s Response: A Poison Pill
G
GraceSofia
Guest
And what is the difference between an “adjunct” professor and a “visiting” professor?
D
Dale_M
Guest
I don’t know, either.
But wasn’t Dr. Howell an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois before this whole controversy? I just checked that the first post in this thread, and that is what it claims. If so, I don’t think his official status is changing.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
I guess it is the same.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I am very happy to hear of the reinstatement, but it does seem to be a bit of a mixed bag. They’re acquiescing in one sense by reinstating him and allowing him to teach, but they seem to be trying their hardest to make it a difficult offer for him to accept, thereby putting the onus on Dr. Howell to be the one to leave.
His classes are full because he’s a great teacher and the Newman Center is very vibrant.
It seems odd to ask him to cut all ties with the Newman Center. I don’t see how they can do that. They wouldn’t ask a LGBT/Queer Studies [their term, not mine] professor not to associate with any campus LGBT groups. That would be ridiculous. It seems to be designed as a means to make this an offer that is difficult to accept.
His classes are full because he’s a great teacher and the Newman Center is very vibrant.
It seems odd to ask him to cut all ties with the Newman Center. I don’t see how they can do that. They wouldn’t ask a LGBT/Queer Studies [their term, not mine] professor not to associate with any campus LGBT groups. That would be ridiculous. It seems to be designed as a means to make this an offer that is difficult to accept.
M
Muzhik
Guest
This is not a good compromise. Dr. Howell was employed by the Newman Center as the director of the Institute of Catholic Thought. As the director, he then taught classes in Catholicism at the University. This gave the Newman Center (who was signing his paychecks) final say on who would be teaching about Catholicism at the University. With this proposal, he would no longer be able to be employed by the Newman Center (one wonders if he would be able to even attend Mass there), and when he leaves for whatever reason the UNIVERSITY would decide who would be teaching about Catholicism, with no regard for the instructor’s orthodoxy or even if the instructor is in good standing with the Church. (Or, as the punchline to an old joke goes, “Tried it once, didn’t like it.”)
L
losh14
Guest
Short answer: Adjunct = part-time PhD teaching a few classes but without research responsibilities. Visiting = full-time PhD teaching a full load temporarily with research responsibilities, but “on loan” from another university.
Long answer:
At a research university like U of I, professors do not always have to teach - their primary duty is research and publications, and this is what they’re primarily paid to do and one which decisions regarding tenure, promotion and salary increases are based. Yes, they’re generally expected to teach, though while I was at U of I - Springfield I met some physics professors from Urbana who only did research and were at Urbana for that sole purpose.
Those who are not yet tenured are often called Assistant Professors. Once they acheive tenure, they become Associate Professors, and then after time full Professors.
Adjunct professors are those who are hired strictly to teach a class or two and are not expected to perform research. Usually they teach basic classes for general ed requirements and allow tenured faculty to teach more advanced courses. The adjunct position is renewed semester by semester (though there are some adjunct faculty at the local community college who have been teaching for 20 years - these usually have full-time jobs and teach two classes a week because they enjoy it and a little more income). $10K/semester for three classes may not sound like much but that’s pretty standard. If I took an adjunct spot at a local college, I’d be paid $2K to $2.5K per 3-credit-hour class (which is about the tuition cost for one student).
Visiting professors are tenured at another institution but who take residence at the University for 1 to 2 years in order to fill in a need that is otherwise unmet. At Truman State (my first undergrad - yes, I have two BAs) our Division had at least one visiting professor (called Scholar in Residence) each year who tried to bring some diversity to the curriculum without having to hire another faculty full-time.
Instructors are distinct from both - an instructor is full-time and while not tenured is considered a long-term employee, however they do not have a PhD and so cannot become a Professor, since that usually requires a PhD. Some Universities make allowances - for example I had a Broadcast Journalism professor who only held a BA but had been an outstanding journalist for 20+ years, and the University offered him a tenure-track position on that basis.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The university has effectively admitted fault. The lawsuit should proceed.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
losh14,
Thanks for the explanation!
Thanks for the explanation!
L
losh14
Guest
I think this is really interesting because this ends a long-standing relationship. From the article:
"The Newman Center and its predecessors have been offering courses on Catholicism at UI since the Faculty Senate and the university’s board of trustees approved them in 1919. In the 1920s, five foundations offered courses at UI: Newman, Hillel (Jewish), Wesley (Methodist), McKinley (Presbyterian) and the Illinois Disciples.
Over the years, all the foundations except Newman stopped offering their courses."
I wonder why these course offerings ceased. At the same time, it was a bit of an odd arrangement - I’m not aware of any other University doing it quite this way.
Now that Dr. Ken is no longer a part of the Newman Center, I think that does raise questions about control of the content of the class, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they dismiss him after this semester or the next. I hate to sound that way, but that’s U of I (as well as many public and non-religious colleges). I was an undergrad at the Springfield campus and I often visited the Urbana campus for research. Both campuses distribute condoms freely and have very active LGBT communities - and while we can argue the pros and cons of that, the point of this is that the campus culture across U of I is one that is very antagonistic to Catholic moral teaching in specific, though it’s also antagonistic to religion in general.
While I was at U of I - Springfield, he Christian group on campus (and there was only one at Springfield - much as I tried to get a Catholic group formed and even had a local priest willing to chaplain, the administration explained that we already had a Christian group on campus) wanted to put up a display of three crosses on Holy Week in a part of the campus quad that was considered open for free expression. We petitioned for and got approval for the display. Two hours after the crosses were put up, we were called and told the crosses would be taken down because a student walking by them was offended.
Nevermind that the Muslim student group could put up flyers all over campus talking about how proud Muslim women were of wearing their hijab. The director of student life told me this was okay because they weren’t promoting their religion but rather cultural inclusiveness. Nevermind also that the atheists organization freely put up posters saying “God is Dead”. Well, that’s just an attention-getting tactic, and surely you aren’t offended by that, are you?
So we held our own little protest. If we can’t put the crosses up, we’d still make sure they’d get shown. During an alumni dinner we carried the crosses across campus, in full view of both the library and the Public Affairs Center where the dinner was taking place. We stopped in front of the windows of the dinner and prayed, making sure they knew we wouldn’t be silenced.
If someone was offended, I never heard a peep of it.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That’s awesome. Good for you!
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
They are both similar terms, although the term visiting usually goes along with full time position and adjunct with part time positions. But this is not always the case. The terms mean something a little bit different at each university. In almost all cases they are both untenured positions. Also, visiting positions tend to be for a shorter period of time. At my school we can only hire visiting professors for 2 or 3 years, then we must give them a tenure track position if we want them to be full time. We can keep hiring adjuncts indefinitely.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Is there any evidence that this is true? I know the university is ending its relationship with the Newman center, but the letter sent to the ADF lawyer did not mention whether or not he could be employed by the Newman Center. It does seem strange that a university is trying to dictate what an adjunct does when he is not teaching his one course.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
The source is from here: cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2010/07/29/ken-howell-the-u-of-is-response-a-poison-pill/
As far as I know, neither Dr. Howell nor ADF have addressed this issue.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I saw the claim on that website as well but that is the only place I saw it. I can understand the university ending the relationship with the Newman Center (I can understand the motivation from their point of view, whether or not it is prudent is another issue), but for a university to tell an adjunct where he or she can work seems to be pushing it.
- Status