There is an interesting controversy at the University of Illinois where the university has fired adjunct professor Dr. Kenneth Howell for teaching why homosexual acts violate natural moral law under the tenets of the Catholic church. Howell taught courses on the Catholic faith at the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center. He was fired after a student labeled his statements “hate speech.”
In 2000, the University of Illinois’ Department of Religion incorporated Newman courses and Howell (who taught at Newman since 1998) became an adjunct professor. One of his classes, āIntroduction to Catholicism,ā includes what Howell described as “an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.” Homosexuality was one of the obvious subjects.
Here is how Howell described the statements that led to his firing. He reportedly summed up the position of the Church in the following way:
āA homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.ā
He says that he sent an e-mail to students to try “to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.ā
A complaint was filed by a student who was not enrolled in his class but insisted that he was writing on behalf of a student who wanted to remain anonymous.
The student objected that “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”
The school fired Howell who objected on first amendment and academic freedom grounds.
He was also later informed by Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, the Director of the St. Johnās Catholic Newman Center, that he was no longer needed at the Center.
It is a troubling case. Illinois should shoulder the burden in showing that academic freedom was not violated in this case. Frankly, I would be a bit concerned over incorporating classes from a religious center to begin with and I believe it is problematic to enlist religious organizations to teach courses on their faith for credit. Indeed, the student’s objection would seem as much to the course as to the professor. However, Illinois decided to offer a course on Catholic values. The question is whether the professor crossed the line between teaching the tenets and proselytizing for the faith. If the statements above were truly the cause for the action against the teacher, it would appear to violate the principles of academic freedom. We simply do not have enough information in the case.
The fact is that I have seen many university courses on feminism, race politics, and other subjects where the professors teach highly controversial views (which they are known to share). It is incumbent on Illinois to distinguish Newman (and his lectures) from those other professors to establish some objective basis for the termination. They may be able to do so, but the record so far is worrisome.
Source: CatholicNewsAgency.
Gabe, thanks for the link. I did read it and it was definitely stupid. But that does not change my view of the freedoms involved in this controversy.
Mike,
Try reading the actual email the professor sent. I gave the link above, but here it is again: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
If you read the email, it’s quite clear he’s expressing his views, not just the views of the Catholic Church.
And, again, the term “hate speech” here is deeply unhelpful. Whether or not what he wrote constitutes “hate speech,” it was definitely stupid and has no place being taught in a college classroom.
My personal view is that the only blameless player in this “controversy” is the terminated professor. I put the word “controversy” in quotes as an expression of sarcasm.
In 1964 (I think it was 1964), I watched Mario Savio leading a free speech demonstration at Berkeley. Now, almost 50 years later, academic freedom and fundamental freedom of speech have given way to absurd “speech codes” on college campuses and to the criminalization of language deemed to constitute “hate speech.” The academic community is reaping what it has sown.
As I understand it, the course in this instance is given under the auspices of the university’s department of religion. It is denomination specific, meaning that it is intended as an examination of a single religious tradition, the Catholic Church in this instance. The exposition of the church’s position on homosexuality and its teachings on natural law were accurately outlined by Prof. Howell. Although one cannot determine from the synopsis whether Prof. Howell himself espouses those views or sought to proselytize his students, that information would be immaterial. One would expect the students to debate the views, to compare them and contrast them with opposing ideas. In other words, one would expect the students to think.
Moreover, the assertion that the statements attributed to Prof. Howell constitute “hate speech,” which is absurd on its face, illustrates what is to be expected when we insist upon regulating speech by reference to whether it may be deemed offensive to particular racial, ethnic, religious or gender groups. I defy anyone to provide an example of a racial, ethnic or religious opinion which could not be deemed hateful by a racial, ethnic or religious body somewhere in a heterogeneous society.
The University of Illinois may need to examine whether the course should have been offered, unless it also offers courses examining other specific religions. But its reaction, and the reaction of Msgr. Ketcham as well, was cowardly and anti-intellectual. As this country grows increasingly diverse, the protection of First Amendment freedoms becomes increasingly critical. A proper commitment to academic freedom should start with the abolition of speech codes entirely. This story is pathetic.
Marionette Hicks,
” … These new hate speech policies are directly tied to the equally frightening Hate Crime Laws. … Just contemplating it brings the musical notes in the childrenās game of āMusical Chairsā to mind. I wonder who will be the first to find themselves standing in a courtroom, when this absurd music stops. It is a judicial atrocity waiting to happen. …”
==================================================================
Marvelous choice of words to underscore an important point.
I am glad to see that you have chosen to address these frightening new policies and laws intended to govern hate speech.
Those who know me, know that I do not embrace the use of such forms of speech, but I do embrace fully the right for one to speak as they choose.
What frightens me about such policies and laws, is they are not written in a manner that equally protects all. They have incorporated with-in them, language that implies there are protected classes of people to which they apply.
I tend to believe that people should have a right to choose the manner of lifestyle they feel at ease with living. As long as it does not seek to infringe upon another’s.
I have encountered in my travels many Homophobes, but I have encountered many Heterophobes as well. Just as I encounter many who chose to be White racist, but no more than those who chose to be Black racist, and so on.
Your mention of certain curriculum ideologies, which appear to be immune to hate speech policies, brought back to memory one that occurred in my state of North Carolina several years past.
There was a Black professor at one of our State Universities who openly taught, and nationally spoke in support of the extermination of every white man, women, and child in the world. Somehow the University, State, and Federal Government saw this as acceptable speech. There were no cries from the media to fire or withhold funding because of it. You can still hear him preach the same hate on C-Span today, fortunately he is no longer teaching to my knowledge.
Although, I would not classify myself as white, the thought that anyone could find grounds to justify such an outrageous ideology was terrifying to me, and remains so to this day.
These new hate speech policies are directly tied to the equally frightening Hate Crime Laws. It does not require one to strain their imagination to perceive how such a form of protectionist law could find itself abused in our courts.
Just contemplating it brings the musical notes in the children’s game of “Musical Chairs” to mind. I wonder who will be the first to find themselves standing in a courtroom, when this absurd music stops. It is a judicial atrocity waiting to happen.
As you said, based upon what we are allowed to know at this point, one can see a wrong committed as a result of the policy. For the institutions to take such a forceful position based solely upon utter hear-say is extreme and over reaching. I would offer three words for them to reflect upon, before they humiliate themselves further “Duke Lacrosse Scandal”.
If someone is so offended by such remarks as to impugn and destroy the integrity and life of another, they should demonstrate the courage to express them openly, if such remarks were ever made at all? Such a lack of consideration for the rights of another human-being, suggest that they have far deeper issues in play than the choice of their sexual identity.
As for the institutions, they must learn to temper their response in such matters until they have fully investigated such volatile allegations. Less they be deservedly sued from existence.
When will the contemptuous leaders of the Catholic Diocese, stop dragging the church of the good and decent people of the Catholic faith into their light of vain deception. To offer this man up as some form of sacrificial offering, based upon nothing more than unknown, and unnamed source of hear-say will not serve to foreshadow a path to justice for the crimes you have for to long allowed to be suppressed, this serves as nothing more than another shameful act.
For those who have yet to catch-on, to the fact that I took the same path as the University and Church. I did so in the hope that someone involved in this matter sees just how far one can take a small amount of information, and vastly expand upon it to such a detrimental extreme.
While I disagree with the philosophy, I realize that this was a course on Catholicism taught by a Catholic who’s given this speech to hundreds of Catholic students before to reinforce their faith. What he espouses is news only to non-Catholics who misunderstand the context. To expect different language would be a stretch. I think he should not have been canned.
BTW, I’m not Catholic and don’t play one on TV.
Anonymously Yours
Blouise,
Religionās are just a vehicle for how we get to where we are going. Golf anyone?
================================================================
Or, for the sake of aggravation, a vehicle from whence we came … Karma Golf Balls
“Golf is a way to ruin a perfectly good walk.” – Groucho Marx
Blouise,
I don’t have to tell you that Catholic means universial.
The Orthodox churches defected over the purse strings and marriage of the priest and well who was going to be able to use the nunnery as a brothel. (I have earn my place in hell already).
If you will look at the strict observants of the Catholic Orthodox churches, you will see very little difference between that and Jewish services. That is my take on it.
Religion’s are just a vehicle for how we get to where we are going. Golf anyone?
It’s pretty clear from his entire email that he’s not just summarizing the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality, but, in fact, advancing what he believes is a correct argument for why homosexuality is wrong: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
There’s lots of idiotic, offensive garbage in the email — “one of them tends to act as the ‘woman’ while the other acts as the ‘man'”! — stuff that one should be embarrassed for having said at a cocktail party, let alone at the lectern.
I probably agree with PZ Myers on this. He shouldn’t have been fired for hate speech. He should have been fired for advancing stupid arguments.
āA homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.ā
Just keeping on with the family tradition, keeping it secret, by keeping it secret. Geeze
“Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
Thank G*d!!!!
[the one true and only….]
Now armed with these new facts, and given my oft faulty gadar, I can now hit the dating scene with an ever growing confidence and verve!
There will however need to be a honing of sly surreptitiousness in order to put this new knowledge to good and effective use….
I agree that there is a First Amendment issue here, but I have to echo Prof. Turley’s question as to why the U of I had someone from Newman Center teach a class at all. If someone wanted to learn the tenets of the Catholic Church, send them down to the Newman Center on their own dime. Did the University have courses on all major religions like this one for the Catholic Church? I would guess not.
mespo,
I would agree with that absent the poor phrasing and value loaded word choice of the instructor. They leave room for reasonable people to differ on what the intent was. As the Prof. noted: “The question is whether the professor crossed the line between teaching the tenets and proselytizing for the faith. If the statements above were truly the cause for the action against the teacher, it would appear to violate the principles of academic freedom. We simply do not have enough information in the case.”
“He reportedly summed up the position of the Church in the following way:
A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.” [emphasis mine]
********************
I saw nothing in the Professor’s email to suggest that he was doing anything more than explaining the RCC’s position on the matter. Were I to say that it was the belief of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party that homosexuals must be exterminated from society, my statement would be both historically accurate and shed no light on my own personal beliefs. Why should I be terminated from my employment for stating a manifest fact of history? This is political correctness run amok, and the reason our conservative brethren believe that liberals’ notions of tolerance are reserved exclusively for liberal causes.
And what Blouise said. š
BF,
I submit that it can be both inline with teaching the dogma of Catholicism and be hate speech due to the instructor’s poor word choice.
“Natural moral law” implies that Catholics – in specific the Pope – somehow have a corner on the market in defining what is natural. One need look no further than Galileo and their “Protect the Pedophile” to see that the RCC has a long time record of being wrong when it comes to defining both what is natural and what is moral.
If your concern that critical thinking was not applied, you are correct, but it was not applied by the instructor in preparing his presentation first thus creating the reaction he did with students. He presented the issue with loaded words that some could and did naturally interpret as “homosexuality is unnatural” when the latest science says otherwise (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa) and by implication that it is somehow “evil” with that judgment coming from the very human men of the RCC as absolute truth. These are the same guys who brought us the Inquisition and recently had a Pope encourage aiding and abetting child molesters by urging this bit of Papal advice: “I have myself repeated numerous times that these serious facts must be dealt with by civil law and by canon law, in reciprocal respect of the specificity and autonomy of each.
In this sense, I hope that justice will take its course and guarantee the right of persons and institutions, in the respect for victims, in the recognition without prejudice of those who commit themselves to collaborating with it and in the refusal of everything that could obscure the noble duty assigned to it.” Or in other words, the Church is above the law. Yeah, that makes for real credibility when it comes to having a corner on the truth let alone nature.
The issue could have been framed differently and this whole issue avoided, but this instructor’s karma simply ran over his dogma. That being said, I agree with the Prof. that allowing a religious organization to directly control the content of what is nominally supposed to be a comparative religions course devoid of such dogmatic assertions made by the instructor as somehow being fact in what’s supposed to be a theologically neutral ethical framework.
The following quote is dated July of 2007: “Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.”
Catholics, if they are following the admonishments of their Pope, accept that Jesus established only one church and that that one Catholic Church is the only True Church. Thus when an adjunct professor of religion teaches that “the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.ā he is simply parroting the only True Church’s opinion on homosexuality.
It may be hate speech but, by god, it’s holy hate speech!
What, exactly, did the University expect?
If the above statements are accurate and he was teaching about Catholic policy within the confines of Catholicism, whats the problem? How else could one teach the dogmatic rules of Catholicism if they didn’t address the specifics, like views on homosexuality or birth control?
If he was advocating that such measures be the accepted practice for individuals in there daily lives or should made public policy then its clear he should be fired so he can pursue a career in the clergy.
Hate speech? Seems just as probable to be a case of over reaction.
Do we not teach “critical thinking skills” at college anymore?