J
JimG
Guest
I think that may be precisely right.
MERGED Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
- Status
C
CaptFun
Guest
Welcome to CAF!
Please excuse my obtuseness, but I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Dr. Howell was “set up.” Could you explain that a bit more?
Hi Dale. I did say “IF …” and I’m somewhat going on results here. A Catholic Professor is MORE than complained about, his boss is contacted. The person contacting the boss is not even the offended party but someone acting on their behalf. Co-copies are sent to other members of the University (this sender is savvy, in-the-know, not a babe in the woods when it comes to complaining to officials and who the officials are). The results are, Dr. Howell is fired.
If it is because he is a practicing Catholic teaching what he believes to be Catholicism - and a plaintiff is out to do him damage (as ended up being done), yes, a Catholic could be the victim of a “hate crime”. < I actually don’t like the term “hate crime,” it sounds Orwellian, LOL. It seems to me a utilitarian term to get the police to enforce or investigate certain cases over others, like ‘extra points’ to get the ‘right’ cases to the top of the in box. Sometimes a “hate crime” case DOES deserve to be on top of the in box - but on its merits, not its political utility.
Although the student email called the professor’s email a hate crime, I don’t think anyone else has.
THAT’S the term that got these actions going IMO though. It thus becomes a ‘hate crime’ complaint (even if this is informally so).
A University that fields a hate crime complaint will have to do something about it. Ignore it. Acknowledge it. Investigate it. Begin a process to investigate it. Politely report the matter is being looked into. Recommending a formal complaint be filed by X deadline on form 3675429Z second attachment with the University Legal Office for the process to begin. They will have to do SOMETHING. And what they did is beyond hearings, investigations, reprimands, warnings, revue processes, legal determinations, request for a public explanation (or apology), fine, one-class suspension without pay – NO. He is fired.
One student’s complaint was enough. An anonymous student. Who wasn’t even in the class but read an email. Since he/she is anonymous, how do we know he/she is a student? You don’t need to be a student to complain, but I’ve noticed that a lot of
instigators demanding action are referred to as ‘students,’ as if this is an extra claim on
truth, morality or sincerity.
(“Stand by while I have a strange interlude …” Groucho Marx)
***“Students” ***- It’s chapped my hide since I WAS a JC student journalist and went to Cal State Fullerton to cover a ‘demonstration’. There were throngs of people milling about, craning their necks, and most of these “students” didn’t know what was going on. They were trying to go to class but (we later learned) radicals had chained the doors to some of the bigger buildings shut at peak class time.
Thousands of us stood outside wondering what the “students” were supposed to do. A news helicopter took aerial photos of the throng and later that night reported “… thousands of students protest the (Vietnam) war at Cal State Fullerton!” My head was one of those little dots. I’d been co-opted so to speak.
But as a student I learned, the media doesn’t always tell the truth. It sometimes REPORTS what its been told accurately. Which is still quite a distinction. When campus police arrived and opened the doors, there was a vocal 60-something man (who did NOT look like a student to 19 year old me) yelling “Seig Heil…” at them for some reason. The rest of the crowd seemed to quietly get on the elevators and go to class.
The generic “students” as used by the media often seemed to be a synonym for “anyone opposite the police or government” in those “free” countries where Communism was trying ever so hard to “free the people.” “Students” seemed to be anyone throwing stones, breaking windows, blindsiding cops or soldiers. Not exactly Ghandi or MLK. Books were rarely in view, but the “protests” WERE at Universities.
Thanks Dale for your fine scholarship in forwarding the info on this by the way, I’m responding to the rest of your inquiry in my own wordy way and so have to respond to your post in hunks until I am blessed with brevity. Fun
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Hey Dale, you asked whether the email was in response to a question since it was sent to all the students. The article claimed it was during exam prep and for the study guide. But it very well could be an answer to a particular question about the course and study guide. I have many professors that during the exam prep will send a question and answer back to all the students, so that everyone has the same information for the exam.
On an unrelated note I think what the university did was despicable.
On an unrelated note I think what the university did was despicable.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Welcome to CAF!
According to the local newspaper, the university seems to have let him go for violating “violat(ing) university standards of inclusivity.” The decision doesn’t seem to have been made by one person, but involved several people in the administration and in the Religious Studies department.
However, according to Dr. Howell, the chairman of the Religious Studies Department as the major person in terminating his employment.
“Violating University standards of inclusivity” sounds so high minded, but it has worked to the end of “censureship,” “violating academic freedom,” “religious persecution,” or any number of creatively put situations if one is inclined to take the verbal high ground and fire back an emotion-charged ideological barrage. Dr. Howell is fired. I suppose that having gone THAT far in placating the critic, the University might now have the cover to moderate its decision and re-instate him. I can always hope that’s the case.
I am disappointed that the university chose to take the action that it did. I think it was an overreaction.
Yes, I am surprised that the Newman Center, and the Diocese of Peoria didn’t stand behind him. According to Patricia Gibson, an attorney and chancellor of the diocese, they let him go because he was no longer a teacher at the university.
Here is Dr. Howell’s explanation, from the Facebook page I linked to earlier:
The relationship between the university and the Newman Center is a fairly unique one. I think the Newman Center wants to make sure that they preserve having an instructor inside the university. If they pay Dr. Howell to teach outside the university, the university might not offer the classes since it was the Newman Center which paid the instructor’s salary.
Yeah. The situation gets very complicated. Which works to the end of a ‘what can ya do?’ attitude on the part of many of us. I thought the professor’s solution was a good one for the students at Illinois. (Prof. Howell wanted to continue to teach at the Newman Center, but get a Catholic U to back the class so that U. of Illinois students could then still take the class and transfer the units).
The Monsignor in charge seems to be trying to keep things together with the University – which IMO is the sort of dilemma that Satan likes to “set up” (i.e. every choice is a choice between two evils - and even when the LESSER is chosen, evil is chosen and Satan gains ground).
***The RESULTS of this incident look almost too extreme to have been accidental.
If (say) any person or entity was trying to stop a course in Catholicism from being taught by a practicing Catholic with orthodox views – THIS result would be a grand-slam homer that clinched a World Series! The prof is FIRED! From his Newman Center job TOO! The Catholic Monsignor sides with the squirrelly University and the overreaching complainant in almost the most complete imaginable WAY!
Why, around the country the template is set. Monitor similar programs closely, complain officially using whatever “standards of inclusivity” channels one might find, and cite the U. of Illinois precedent. Then a new “inclusive” Catholicism, taught by “better people” or the abolishment of “Catholicism” as an available course of study is accomplished.
Some might like to see Catholic heresies taught on an equal plane to Church doctrine even in a Catholicism class. Or (better yet!) instead of!
Dr. Howell’s citing of Natural Law as an underpinning for Church teaching (or as ‘in concert with …’ it might be a better term), is by no means a ‘hate crime’. His email was quite a scholarly bit of educational guidance and a spur to self-motivated inquiry to his students. His opinion is given regarding Natural Law and the subject at hand - as far as I can see. His critic/accuser has sought the option of “poisoning the well,”<( a logical fallacy which proves nothing but gets quick results sometimes).
In the case of Dr. Howell, rather than propose a debate, open a forum or offer a rebuttal; a “poisoned well” quarantine has been put on Professor Howell. Students are no longer free to drink. This is like the old drama “The Children’s Hour” (where a pair of female teachers lost THEIR jobs because one child whispered her suspicions about their relationship) turned inside out!
Fun out
M
Muzhik
Guest
I wonder… The letter Dr. Howard wrote explaining his side of the situation mentioned that the attorney for the diocese said something to the effect that the University had covered itself very well. I wonder if there is something in the agreement that the University has with the Diocese that links them together in the case of any “hate crime” charge or in any sort of legal action.
C
Contarini
Guest
They don’t have to believe it in order to get a good grade.
That would be only just even if he were teaching at a Catholic institution. And of course at a secular institution he had no right to expect or require that students would accept Catholic teaching–nor is there any reason to believe that he did so expect or require.
Teaching on religious subjects at a secular institution is difficult. I used to be an adjunct at a state university in New Jersey, and I got some negative comments on my evaluations for “talking about my religion all the time.” (I was teaching Western Civ, mostly first semester, and I’m a church historian by training–so yes, I was talking about Christianity quite a lot!) It was difficult to present the material fairly, since obviously as a Christian I see everything through that lens, and yet I had no right to expect or require that the students would as well. It was a fun challenge, though.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Can you give specific instances where this has happened, and where the Christian student’s complaint has been ignored by the administration?
The problem, of course, is that students of any persuasion may be capable of claiming (even believing) that they are victims of persecution just because they got a bad grade.
Edwin
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yep. What springs to mind is what a high school biology teacher said in response to students objecting to evolution on religious grounds.
She said: “You don’t have to believe in evolution, but you do need to know it for test purposes.”
C
Contarini
Guest
I tend to agree with Dale_M that as a matter of academic freedom he should not have been fired, but that the email he sent to the students was unwise on a number of points. My main problem with it is that he really doesn’t deal fairly or comprehensively with the issue of utilitarianism–he just uses utilitarianism as a cover to attack homosexuality. People who defend homosexuality are not necessarily utilitarians. It would be quite possible to have a natural-law ethics that rejected the claim that homosexual behavior is against natural law. He didn’t deal with the issue adequately as a professor, and he clearly wanted any excuse to make sure the students heard a conservative position on homosexuality.
Now all of that being said–anyone who knows anything about modern academia knows that if he had been just as pushy and just as unfair (or much more so) on the other side of the homosexuality issue, or on behalf of feminism or environmentalism or any other favored liberal cause, he would not only have been supported by the department against any students who criticized him but probably would have been hailed as an “edgy” and “provocative” professor.
The question raised by this incident is whether a secular university ought to have its own kind of orthodoxy, tolerating dissenting views (if at all) only if they are expressed with perfect modesty and propriety and many protestations of their tentative and subjective nature. Or ought a secular university to be a place where all varieties of ideological and religious opinion can be freely and vigorously expressed, and where any strictures on the way one side expresses itself apply equally to all.
The latter is a noble goal, but I wonder if it’s really feasible. Perhaps any institution needs some kind of orthodoxy–but academic institutions benefit from as generous and flexible an orthodoxy as possible. And of course there is no reason why an institution should be committed to liberal secular orthodoxy just because it is sponsored by the state!
I myself can’t see that natural law and Church teaching are quite as separate as he implied. The way I see it, Church teaching predisposes one to look at the world in a particular way, which tends to lead to specific conclusions (apart from the authority of the Church itself). It’s no accident that most pro-life folks are Christians, but the fact is that there are atheists who are prolife. There are probably many fewer atheists who think that homosexual behavior is immoral, but there have been in the past. The point is that in the absence of religious tradition, people will most often see the world the way the cultural trends of their society influence them to do (or rather, a cultural trend just is a lot of influential people coming to see the world in a particular way, and influencing many others to do so).
I agree with you–he shouldn’t have been fired. At most, he should have been admonished to stick closer to his subject and not present himself as a philosopher when he’s just explaining what the Catholic Church teaches.
Edwin
Now all of that being said–anyone who knows anything about modern academia knows that if he had been just as pushy and just as unfair (or much more so) on the other side of the homosexuality issue, or on behalf of feminism or environmentalism or any other favored liberal cause, he would not only have been supported by the department against any students who criticized him but probably would have been hailed as an “edgy” and “provocative” professor.
The question raised by this incident is whether a secular university ought to have its own kind of orthodoxy, tolerating dissenting views (if at all) only if they are expressed with perfect modesty and propriety and many protestations of their tentative and subjective nature. Or ought a secular university to be a place where all varieties of ideological and religious opinion can be freely and vigorously expressed, and where any strictures on the way one side expresses itself apply equally to all.
The latter is a noble goal, but I wonder if it’s really feasible. Perhaps any institution needs some kind of orthodoxy–but academic institutions benefit from as generous and flexible an orthodoxy as possible. And of course there is no reason why an institution should be committed to liberal secular orthodoxy just because it is sponsored by the state!
This is a difficult question, as I’m sure you know. But certainly his presentation of it left much to be desired, and your point about individual Catholics not being free to come to different conclusions is a good one (though that raises the very difficult issue of the primacy of conscience, a point on which liberal Catholics interpret Catholic teaching quite differently from most on this forum). The bigger problem is that the way he presented it, no one starting from natural law premises could possibly reach any other conclusion!
I myself can’t see that natural law and Church teaching are quite as separate as he implied. The way I see it, Church teaching predisposes one to look at the world in a particular way, which tends to lead to specific conclusions (apart from the authority of the Church itself). It’s no accident that most pro-life folks are Christians, but the fact is that there are atheists who are prolife. There are probably many fewer atheists who think that homosexual behavior is immoral, but there have been in the past. The point is that in the absence of religious tradition, people will most often see the world the way the cultural trends of their society influence them to do (or rather, a cultural trend just is a lot of influential people coming to see the world in a particular way, and influencing many others to do so).
Yes, this is where he really shot himself in the foot. The incident was described to me as a professor being fired for saying what the Church taught, and saying that he agreed with it. But by insisting that this isn’t based on religion, he deprived himself of his best defense. He presented the whole email as a clarification of utilitarianism, but that’s not really his field and he doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of it–at least his presentation of it left much to be desired (I’m no expert on the subject either, and probably would have caricatured it as well, since I hate utilitarianism with a passion!).
I agree with you–he shouldn’t have been fired. At most, he should have been admonished to stick closer to his subject and not present himself as a philosopher when he’s just explaining what the Catholic Church teaches.
Edwin
1
1holycatholic
Guest
No, it would not be possible.
He explained the natural law.
There is no such thing as a “liberal Catholic.” There are Catholics who believe everything the Church proposes for our belief, and there are dissenting Catholics.
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work
- Catechism of the Catholic Church
An informed conscience knows the natural law and cannot come to any other conclusion. A malformed conscience can come to a different conclusion, but primacy of conscience doesn’t give a pass for malformed consciences.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. - Catechism of the Catholic Church
You can’t teach theology without a grasp of philosophy. Natural law stands on it’s own and it’s an integral part of what the Church teaches.
C
Contarini
Guest
You might argue that such an ethics isn’t really based on natural law, but my point is that it could be based on claims about the natural law. You don’t need utilitarianism.
But not very well–bringing in the old “homosexual men do horrible things with their bodies and I’ll spare your tender ears” was unwise. I agree that our physiology *does *give us clues to what is natural in terms of sexuality, but as he put it the argument is going to sound extremely simplistic to any 21st-century college student who isn’t both very naive and thoroughly conservative in upbringing.
But Catholics disagree among themselves quite widely on just what it is that “the Church proposes for our belief.” You can deny this till you are blue in the face, but it just makes you look like a fundamentalist. I know what I have seen and heard. Reality is just not as simple as you claim.
I understand, and indeed I essentially agree, but neither I nor many of your fellow Catholics think it’s quite that simple, and you must admit that there is a certain paradox in saying “this position is based on natural law, not the teaching of the Church, but if your conscience tells you that natural law says something other than the Church says it says then your conscience has been malformed.”
This approach certainly doesn’t help in dealing with secular undergraduates or anyone else whose conscience has been malformed.
It may stand on its own in some ontological sense. But in the order of knowing, as St. Thomas would say, it clearly doesn’t stand on its own, since if I say “natural law seems to me to say something different than what the Church teaches,” I will be told that my conscience is malformed.
It’s as bad as the 19th-century Presbyterian approach to doctrine ridiculed by Orestes Brownson: you should read the Scripture for yourself, but if you fail to come up with exactly the same complex set of doctrines that we believe, we will excommunicate you as a heretic!
Edwin
1
1holycatholic
Guest
IIRC the point about utilitarianism was to compare and contrast it to natural law.
What the Church teaches. There isn’t wide disagreement about what the Church teaches there is dissent and disregard. Two thirds of Catholics don’t attend mass every Sunday. The majority of marriages are preceded by cohabitation. That’s dissent, disregard and rationalization, not a question of what the Church teaches. Even as a non-Catholic I knew the Catholic Church taught that sex outside of marriage was wrong and that Catholics were expected to attend mass. Labeling me a fundamentalist is an ad-hominem, and an irrelevant one at that. :tsktsk:
Contarini;6836081I[...:
I’ll let St. Thomas speak for himself.
I answer that, As stated above (4,5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (Question 77, Article 2). But as to the other, i.e. the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Romans 1), were not esteemed sinful.
- ST2 Q94 A6
D
donsnow
Guest
Thank you, sir.
D
donsnow
Guest
What happened to Prof. Howard and the issues discussed by Dale, Contarini and Holy Catholic are why I withdrew from a public college. I found the academic atmosphere hostile to plain Christianity and good moral values. I don’t have to put up with an English professor bashing God everyday in class. And I don’t have to put up with an Accounting professor slyly sliding comments about current social mores upon the students, instead of sticking to the subject.
I went to public college on my own nickel, and I didn’t like my time and money being wasted by abusive professors. Someday, I may return to college. Again, it will be on my own dime (inflation, you know,
) In the meanwhile, I have several much better activities to spend my time and money on, which don’t insult my Catholic sensibilities.
Oh, I’m a simple man with a complex mind. I like it very much that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, much like the Gospel, keeps things simple.
I went to public college on my own nickel, and I didn’t like my time and money being wasted by abusive professors. Someday, I may return to college. Again, it will be on my own dime (inflation, you know,
) In the meanwhile, I have several much better activities to spend my time and money on, which don’t insult my Catholic sensibilities.Oh, I’m a simple man with a complex mind. I like it very much that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, much like the Gospel, keeps things simple.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
Oh, YES! There have been a lot of events. Here are just three. There have also been incidents at high schools, and I suspect that high school Christian kids are bullied a lot more than we know.
alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4823
Sara Sloan, a journalism student, was denied an occupational journalism certificate from a school because of the religious viewpoint of some of her articles.
alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4823
In 2008, LA Community College student Jonathan Lopez was presenting his speech class assignment – a speech on any subject and/or issue of his choosing, with no boundaries – on why CA Proposition was right. The instructor, John Matteson, interrupted him and called him a “facist bastard.” He refused to grade the assignment, telling the student to “ask God” what his grade was.
aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=2947
A professor called a Christian student “closed-minded,” “uncritical,” “hurtful,” and “blinded by belief.”
“The grades she received on class assignments dropped significantly once God and religion became prominent topics of class discussion and her refusal to compromise her Christian faith became apparent,” the ACLJ said. “This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to.”
“While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate – and unconstitutional – for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student’s willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs,” the ACLJ said.
L
losh14
Guest
I think that’s what got him fired - in the complaint letter, the student (who was friend of a gay student in Howell’s class) seemed to take ‘Natural Law’ to mean ‘this is nature, this is the way it is’ without grokking the Catholic understanding of Natural Law as the Law that is written on our hearts.
It probably also didn’t help that the student got the LGBT Center, the founder of the Queer Studies program, and two former news editors involved. IN other words, the student made a federal case of it. But I still wonder if there was other underlying tension present.
L
losh14
Guest
I really hate to think they were just wanting to start a fight. At the same time, it wouldn’t surprise me.
I wonder if there was more antagonism partly due to the sex abuse scandals, maybe students felt they could hold him to task?
L
losh14
Guest
All I hope is that they first revoke tax-exempt status. The day that happens, any cowardice among the leadership - lay or clergy - will dissipate and we’ll say whatwe really mean. Catholics will take to the streets en masse, shoulder-to-shoulder with our non-Catholic Christian brethren, and it will begin.
D
Dale_M
Guest
According to Dr. Howell’s Facebook statement there was pre-existing tension. He mentioned that this previous class was rancorous in ways he’d never encountered during his nine years of teaching the course. And a comment he made to the local newspaper suggests that he and the head of the Religious Studies department have long had “very, very deep disagreement about the nature of what should be taught and what should not be taught.”
L
losh14
Guest
And in the complaint letter the student (rather ironically) thought it was terrible to teach religion at a publicly funded university. Okay, you’ve an issue with religious studies. It’s almost as if the complainant wants these studies out of the university.
Oddly, I taught a week of Western Civ and German at a high school while the teacher was chaperoning students down the Rhone. During one lecture, we talked about the importance of the Church in the Middle Ages, and a girl raised her hand, said she was an atheist, and asked if I could explain the material without pushing all my religious talk on her. “Explain the Middle Ages without referencing the Church? I might as well skip all discussions of warfare, politics and trade.” Yeah, I got a letter from the school after her parents complained.
Only marginally more amusing was the students’ incredulity that we gasp carpet-bombed German cities during World War II!! “Why didn’t they use smart-bombs?” They asked. “Did they know they were killing civilians?”
So my friend, we have twin enemies of ignorance and militant secularism. Lovely ducks indeed.
- Status