MERGED Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dale_M said:
According to Dr. Howell’s Facebook statement there was pre-existing tension.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the cites - I hope everyone reads the emails in question and the stories.

I emailed the Newman Center to 1) express my support, 2) let them know there’s a ready stock of energetic and agitated Catholics wanting to do something, and 3) asking for some direction because Id’ hate for us to take action that makes matters worse.

At the same time, I’m ready to rally the troops. Maybe now is the time to discuss logistics for demonstrations or at least coordinated opinion efforts - ie, letter-writing campaigns, letters to the editor, etc.
 
Muzhik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, his position was funded by the Catholic Student Center’s Institute for Catholic Thought:
news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-13/ui-administrators-ask-committee-examine-academic-freedom-over-issue-fired-p

Thus no tax money went to this course, save the facilities cost and administrative costs, which ultimately land in the University’s funds.
 
losh14 said:
Thanks for the cites - I hope everyone reads the emails in question and the stories.

I emailed the Newman Center to 1) express my support, 2) let them know there’s a ready stock of energetic and agitated Catholics wanting to do something, and 3) asking for some direction because Id’ hate for us to take action that makes matters worse.

At the same time, I’m ready to rally the troops. Maybe now is the time to discuss logistics for demonstrations or at least coordinated opinion efforts - ie, letter-writing campaigns, letters to the editor, etc.
Click to expand...
If you are looking to do something concrete, take a look at the “Save Dr. Ken” Facebook group for how to proceed. They give contact info for the appropriate people at the University to write letters to.

Note, the University has already stated they are in the process of reviewing the decision to fire Dr. Howell. It also appears that the reps from the Diocese of Peoria is meeting with U of I representatives today (so please pray for that meeting!). So the wheels are in motion.

At this point, I think (charitable!!!) letters to the University in support of Dr. Howell are the way to go. If the time comes for other organized efforts, it will probably be posted on “Save Dr. Ken” Facebook group.

It is critically important that any letters written be respectful and charitable. Anything less would probably do more harm than good. The U of I student newspaper is siding with Dr. Howell. The president of the Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinkers student group has sided with Dr. Howell. It’s not difficult to write a letter defending Dr. Howell on the grounds of academic freedom alone.
 
losh14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Eliminating religious studies wouldn’t satisfy the complainer. The university would have to eliminate the philosophy department as well. :coffeeread:

Dr. Howell was a guest on Kresta in the Afternoon yesterday.
avemariaradio.net/showArchive.php?id=kpm
 
I understand that this instructors cause has been taken up by one academic freedom group or another. I don’t know the name of it.

If he explained the Catholic Church’s position as a matter-of-fact theology and the student was offended, that’ the student’s problem, in my view. If, on the other hand, he said something on the order of 'from one human being to another, I’m telling you that you’re going to hell," then he over-stepped his bounds and should be let out.

I took a comparative religion course in graduate school and that professor was constantly butting in with his own opinions about the Church’s and other religions’ teachings. I wish someone had busted him.
 
Sonny1954 said:
I understand that this instructors cause has been taken up by one academic freedom group or another. I don’t know the name of it.
Click to expand...
Its not specifically limited to academic freedom, but the Alliance Defense Fund has taken up Dr. Howell’s cause.
alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=5339

Here is the letter they sent to the university:
telladf.org/UserDocs/HowellLetter.pdf

The letter gives the university until today to decided whether it will reinstate Dr. Howell, suggesting that otherwise the issue will go to federal court. As mentioned previously, the university is reviewing Howell’s termination. I am not sure how this will affect the ADF’s possible actions.
 
We cannot know what really happened between the teacher and the student.

Prof McKim had access to all of the parties, including the rest of the class, and he concluded that the instructer went too far. If as it has been suggested, they had previously differed on how to teach the course, its likely that there were previous complaints and the instructor had been warned to be more careful.

There is a difference between teaching about Catholicism in a class for students at a state school, and preaching Catholicism. In a diverse university with tolerance of gays both as students and staff, this line of distinction needs to be carefully walked. Since I have very limited information, I wont suppose I know what the instructor said to draw the complaint. But I have had a class with Bob McKim and he struck me as very religious, concientious, and fair. I have no doubt that he believes there is a way to teach church views on homosexuality without creating the problems which apparently arose in this case,
just as he no doubt believes that one can discuss the priest abuse scandals with a bishop without being offensive.
 
Phil_Stone said:
We cannot know what really happened between the teacher and the student.
Click to expand...
Yes, we can. Nothing! The student who complained was not in the class and had no interaction with Dr. Howell, except for reading the e-mail sent to students actually in the class.
 
For those who were wondering what the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center has to think about the whole ordeal, as well as the Diocese of Peoria, they have issued a press release:

http://www.sjcnc.org/news.aspx#20107161120587720763248238

The facts of the case are out there. The email Dr. Howell sent to his class and the email the anonymous student sent to Dr. McKim (the head of the Rel. Studies dept.) which led to Dr. Howell’s dismissal are both online.

Dr. Howell is not a pushy man. He was simply explaining the basis for the Church’s moral teaching. You cannot present Catholic moral teaching without explaining the Catholic view of the natural law.

Dr. Howell won awards for his teaching. If you go to U of I’s Religious Studies dept website, the very first news item is congratulating Dr. Howell (among others) for the recognition of excellent teaching they received for the Fall 2009 semester.
 
donsnow said:
Any news on that review and the other meeting?
Click to expand...
Not yet. In fact, it will probably be a week before we hear anything about the meeting and what was discussed. The university will have to consult their lawyers to see what they can do legally to protect themselves. (Note that I didn’t say, “consult their lawyers to see what is right.”)
 
The review is still going on.
This is part of the latest form letter sent out by President Hogan to people who write to him:
Consequently, I felt it important to obtain a thorough and fair review of all sides of this matter and asked the appropriate governance body, the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, to undertake such a review. It is underway now. I think it important to reserve judgment until all facts are in and the review is complete and I hope you agree. I also believe it is important to correct misinformation being reported by many media outlets and Internet web sites. Prof. Howell has not been dismissed from the University, as misreported on the Internet and by several media outlets. He continues to hold his appointment as an adjunct professor. No decision has been made regarding the appointment of an instructor for the course Prof. Howell previously taught in the Fall semester; and no decision will be made until the review is complete.
Click to expand...
The Face Book group almost reached 5,000 which is the max allowed for a group, so there is now a new “Save Dr. Ken” page. It has the most up-to-date news as Dr. Howell himself occasionally contributes. It’s here:

facebook.com/pages/Save-Dr-Ken/138639376164611
 
PadraigPearce said:
So they hired him to teach a course on Catholicism. He taught them what the Church teaches (very thoroughly too apparently. I never got study notes emailed to me in university). And then they fired him because a homosexual student was offended? It’s not a big secet that the Catholic Church doesn’t approve of homosexual behaviour. What were these people expecting?
Soon the United States will be just like Canada, where you can actually go to jail for criticizing homosexuality. Criticizing homosexuality is a crime here, and you can actually go to jail, thanks to several wonderful “Catholic” Prime Ministers.
Click to expand...
Sometimes Satan comes as an angel of light, and sometimes he comes as an angel of the Enlightenment, just as during the French Revolution. Supposedly, the “enlightened” in this day and age want us to conform to their immorality. It’s the same old saw–Satan wants to destroy the Catholic Church. Just a new twist to his very old game.
 
donsnow said:
Any news on that review and the other meeting?
Click to expand...
The Diocese is meeting with them early next week. Hopefully we’ll hear more then. I’m sure it will be posted on the Save Dr. Ken facebook page. Everyone pray!
 
Muzhik and Joe 5859,

Thank you for that information.

Already, American clergy have gone to jail for preaching the Gospel at a Gay block party in Philadelphia. The clergy became known as 'The Philadelphia Five." The Gays termed their preaching ‘hate speech.’.

God have mercy on both sides.
 
donsnow said:
Already, American clergy have gone to jail for preaching the Gospel at a Gay block party in Philadelphia. The clergy became known as 'The Philadelphia Five." The Gays termed their preaching ‘hate speech.’.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to take this thread off topic, but the US Court of Appeals upheld the arrests.
In a closely watched First Amendment case stemming from a clash between a group of Christian protesters and the attendees of a gay pride event, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Philadelphia police acted properly in removing the protesters because they were disrupting the event with bullhorns and disobeying police orders to move.
Click to expand...
“The right of free speech does not encompass the right to cause disruption, and that is particularly true when those claiming protection of the First Amendment cause actual disruption of an event covered by a permit,” U.S. Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter wrote in Susan Startzell, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.
Click to expand...
Sloviter found that a video of the event showed that the anti-gay protesters, led by Michael Marcavage of Repent America, “used bullhorns and microphones in an attempt to drown out the platform speakers” at the 2004 OutFest celebration.
Click to expand...
“The city has an interest in ensuring that a permit-holder can use the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained. This interest necessarily includes the right of police officers to prevent counter-protesters from disrupting or interfering with the message of the permit-holder,” Sloviter wrote in an opinion joined by U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith.
Click to expand...
law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423034992
 
Dale_M, thanks for that info. It’s so easy in cases like this to simply assume that OUR side is right and THEIR side is wrong
 
Dale_M said:
I don’t want to take this thread off topic, but the US Court of Appeals upheld the arrests.
“In a closely watched First Amendment case stemming from a clash between a group of Christian protesters and the attendees of a gay pride event, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Philadelphia police acted properly in removing the protesters because they were disrupting the event with bullhorns and disobeying police orders to move.”
Click to expand...
This is quite a different case. They were done for disrupting the even with bullhorns, basically trying to “drown out the platform speakers,” not for hate speech in the end.
I have seen nothing that even hints of allowing such a comparison with Dr. Howell’s behaviour towards his students.

Perhaps it is instructive to look at cases where Christians in academe have been discriminated against by anti-Christian professors:
nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/41048/answering-questions-about-lopez-v-candaele
alliancedefensefund.org/n…aspx?cid=4823
aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=2947
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top