Notre Dame fires administrator who opposed honor for Obama [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CWN_News

Guest
Citing “restructuring,” the University of Notre Dame has fired Bill Kirk from his position as associate vice president for residence life. David Solomon, a university philosophy professor …

More…
 
I had read of faculty members objecting but I was surprised to read that Mr. Kirk was the only member of the ND administration to publicly object to President Obama’s invitation and honorary degree. Does anyone know if other members of the administration at the VP level publicly objected or was it solely Mr. Kirk as the article states?
 
Is there anything more substantive to state that Notre Dame fired him because of the Obama fiasco?
 
This article by Solomon is based on zero verifiable information. He does not know why Kirk was fired, nor should he – both Notre Dame and Kirk have declined to make public comments on the issue, which is as it should be. It’s frankly none of our business why Notre Dame decided to terminate the position of an at-will employee. Nevertheless, Solomon claims that Notre Dame fired Kirk in retaliation for his family’s participation in the NDResponse activities, and his unfounded accusations have been plastered all over the blogosphere. One of the most ludicrous of its claims was that Kirk was fired because former football coach Charlie Weiss didn’t like him.
 
It seems to me that ND needs an Apostolic Visitation/Investigation just like the nuns are getting.
 
Yeah, right…it was just a termination out-of-the-blue after 22 years. As if the top brass would give you ‘verifiable’ information as they were so forthcoming when Jenkins was playing the abortion advocate.

Pathetic.
 
ndmom said:
This article by Solomon is based on zero verifiable information. He does not know why Kirk was fired, nor should he – both Notre Dame and Kirk have declined to make public comments on the issue, which is as it should be. It’s frankly none of our business why Notre Dame decided to terminate the position of an at-will employee. Nevertheless, Solomon claims that Notre Dame fired Kirk in retaliation for his family’s participation in the NDResponse activities, and his unfounded accusations have been plastered all over the blogosphere. One of the most ludicrous of its claims was that Kirk was fired because former football coach Charlie Weiss didn’t like him.
Click to expand...
We CAN speculate, can’t we, NDMom???

Seems fishy to SOME Kirk was fired shortly after he expressed opposition to Obama speaking at Notre Dame.

NOT saying that was the reason he was let go—but again, we CAN at at least speculate, can’t we???🤷
 
Notre Dame and its administration are disgraceful.

The message of Kirk’s termination will be clear to other faculty members.

From the LifeSiteNews link on the same story.
The prestigious Catholic university has been widely criticized for its handling of other aspects of the Obama controversy as well. Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins continues to refuse to request leniency for 88 pro-life witnesses arrested for peacefully protesting Obama’s presence on campus, while pro-Obama and pro-Notre Dame protesters were allowed to roam free. Several pro-life leaders have unsuccessfully urged Jenkins to intervene for the pro-lifers, who continue to face up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine under prosecution by St. Joseph County.
Click to expand...
 
“Speculation” in this context is nothing more than gossip. Actually, it’s worse than gossip, because it has spread beyond the Notre Dame community to the blogosphere, where uninformed people are fanning the flames of innuendo and nastiness. Some of us expect more from orthodox Catholic websites, and we’ve been sorely disappointed.
 
ndmom said:
“Speculation” in this context is nothing more than gossip. Actually, it’s worse than gossip, because it has spread beyond the Notre Dame community to the blogosphere, where uninformed people are fanning the flames of innuendo and nastiness. Some of us expect more from orthodox Catholic websites, and we’ve been sorely disappointed.
Click to expand...
You mean like my blog, fer instance? Below is a picture I posted on my blog. The photograph was taken by me this past January in Washington, DC at the March for Life. It highlights the very real clash between how some pro-life protesters are treated as opposed to other pro-life protesters at Notre Dame.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

No innuendo, no nastiness, just the truth from someone who was there in person at the March for Life rally, and who cites LifeSiteNews as a backup source for information on the Notre Dame 88.

Below please find a link to my blog post. Thanks for inspiring me to post the link, btw.

countrydreaming-countrycorner.blogspot.com/2010/02/march-for-life-january-2010-showdown.html

Yours “for life”,

~~ the phoenix
aka CountryDreaming
 
ndmom said:
It’s frankly none of our business why Notre Dame decided to terminate the position of an at-will employee.
Click to expand...
ndmom,

I think it is relevant that Bill Kirk wasn’t just an at-will employee. He was a highly visible, integral part of Notre Dame who dedicated years of (often heroic) service to his alma mater. It seems reasonable to hope for some sort of explanation for his abrupt termination. It reminds me of when Fr. Fessio was fired from Ave Maria University – it was a shock, and people wondered what the reason was.
ndmom said:
Nevertheless, Solomon claims that Notre Dame fired Kirk in retaliation for his family’s participation in the NDResponse activities, and his unfounded accusations have been plastered all over the blogosphere. One of the most ludicrous of its claims was that Kirk was fired because former football coach Charlie Weiss didn’t like him.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that is an accurate characterization? When I read Dr. Solomon’s piece I don’t see him claiming either of those things. Solomon points out that other staff members thought it a brave thing to do, and that the subsequent firing has created a chilling effect. I think we can take his word for that. I think the point is that whatever the actual reason for the firing (and Solomon doesn’t seem to assert one) the execution of it was callous and other administrators have perceived a message in it.

I also didn’t take Solomon’s mention of Weiss’ (well known) disdain for the Office of Student Life as a suggestion that Weiss had anything to do with the firing. After all, wasn’t Weiss fired himself well before? It’s possible I misread it.

VC
 
how dare you people besmirch the good name of Notre Dame University. i can’t think of a more catholic institution. you people need to open your minds! what’s next, we shouldn’t let the muslims build their mosque near ground zero? this isn’t the dark ages anymore.

i stand with ndmom.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
i can’t think of a more catholic institution.
Click to expand...
I can.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

and …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

My opinion, of course. 🙂

The above photos were taken by me at the March for Life rally in Washington, DC this past January.

Yours “for life,”

~~ the phoenix
 
Mr. Kirk wasn’t fired “out of the blue.” He reported to the Vice President for Student Affairs, Fr. Poorman. When Fr. Poorman was replaced by Fr. Doyle this spring, Kirk was asked to leave. There is nothing mysterious or sinister about such personnel changes, and there is no reason that the University should make public the reasons for Kirk’s dismissal. Yes, it IS possible that he was removed because, more than a year previously, he publicly objected to the Obama invitation. It is also possible that he was removed because the university concluded that his job performance was unacceptable, or that Fr. Doyle preferred a different approach in Notre Dame security and residence life issues, both of which were Kirk’s responsibility. To his credit, Mr. Kirk isn’t making any public accusations about his situation.
In matters such as this, it would be best if everyone could stick to the facts, rather than making irresponsible and unsupported accusations.
 
“Restructuring” is the reason given for the firing? Apparently, it is the first “restructuring” in history in which only one man loses his job, coincidentally the only senior faculty member to openly protest the Obama commencement.

From Jack Fowler:
Kirk and his wife Elizabeth are prominent campus abortion foes (she was assistant director of one of the few institutes on campus that is avowedly pro-life and orthodox). Now their voices have been silenced, and by the same people who gnash their teeth and pluck their beards about living wages, unionization, fair treatment of employees, and the rest of the Catholic Left’s lobbying agenda. One can hear the college brass channeling Henry II: Will no one rid us of this troublesome pro-life Associate Vice-President for Residence Life?
Click to expand...
And, again, from Solomon:
The parents of two young adopted children, Bill and Elizabeth Kirk were in the process, as Bill Kirk’s bosses well knew, of adopting a third child at the time he was fired. Can one imagine Father Doyle firing an at-will employee of Notre Dame with 22 years of service, two toddlers at home and a wife in the early stages of labor with a third child? As adoptive parents, this was the Kirk’s situation. The disruption in their life, and the life of their young family, suddenly and with no prior notice, has been wrenching for them as well as for their many friends. The excuse given for Bill Kirk’s firing, “restructuring”, seems strange indeed. It is impossible to believe, for example, that the firing was part of a larger organizational shift in the Office of Residence Life, since Bill Kirk seems to be the only person in the office whose job was eliminated.
Click to expand...
 
The insidious harm of the Solomon piece is quite evident here. Kirk was NOT the only “senior faculty member” to oppose the Obama visit. (Kirk wasn’t even a senior FACULTY member, but an administrator. Please get your facts straight). Many members of the university community – students, untenured faculty, senior faculty, and administration – objected to Obama’s invitation, and participated in the NDResponse events. Apart from Kirk, all of them are still members of the university community. His wife, Elizabeth Kirk, is a prominent and visible member of the Center for Ethics and Culture (and works for Solomon) who was actively involved in NDResponse. She has not lost her position.
Kirk did not hold a senior policy position at the University. He was responsible for the ND security police and for implementing the university’s residential life rules. Completely apart from and prior to the Obama debacle, there were repeated complaints about the manner in which Kirk handled infractions related to residential life and (especially) football game-day issues. Whether or not you agree with these complaints, there were certainly objective grounds for the University to conclude that a different approach might be warranted, and that it would be best for another individual to assume Kirk’s responsibilities.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
how dare you people besmirch the good name of Notre Dame University. i can’t think of a more catholic institution. you people need to open your minds! what’s next, we shouldn’t let the muslims build their mosque near ground zero? this isn’t the dark ages anymore.

i stand with ndmom.
Click to expand...
Actually, many, many DO oppose building the mosque near Ground Zero.

There’s that small isuue of being “sensitive” to the feelings of families of 3,000 muder victims and the fact that the head of the project happens to be SORT of Pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism…

Not having to do with this thread…but still, YOU brought it up…
 
As a former student at Notre Dame during the 60s, when it was still an all-male college, I can attest to the time when beliefs were certain, and Catholic meant something at the University. Since that wonderful time I spent there, something’s changed, and I think it’s called secularism. I don’t know how or why it came to ND, but it’s there. And it’s sad, very sad. Prayers are in order to overcome this evolving culture of anti-Catholicism.

For anyone to be castigated for standing up for the true beliefs of the Catholic Church while demonstrating same at ND is preposterous, unless you subscribe to the secular PC world of most universities these days. Bad enough that it happens at those campuses. ND has championed Catholic beliefs and theology in its long and good history. If it means to remain a center of Catholic culture and teachings (apparently a big if) as well as excellent education, it needs to return to the days of listening to what the Holy See has promulgated and stands for, not some temporary liberalism of political expediency.
 
"ndmom,

Do you know who?

Thanks,
VC"

Yes. And if you were part of the ND community, you would know them too. Some of them participated in NDResponse. Others chose different channels to make their objections known. You may remember that ten members of the CSC wrote a public letter to Fr. Jenkins objecting to the Obama invitation; not all of the CSC who opposed the invitation chose to sign the letter but, again, they made their objections known. ND is a family, and not everyone believes that public statements, articles, etc are the best way to make fraternal corrections.
Solomon has done some wonderful things at ND, but he does not speak for all those committed to ND’s Catholic identity (indeed, he is not himself a Catholic, for what it’s worth). It’s a shame that so many Catholic bloggers just took his article and ran with it without knowing any of the facts behind the situation, but there you have it. Apparently, it’s easier not to do the homework first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top