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, “Introduction to Catholicism,” 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:
“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.”
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.”
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. John’s 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.
ooops. It turns out that this guy may have been trying to be “satirical” with an “immodest proposal.”
Yep, right-wing religious nuts suppressing the speech of progressives. Har-de-har-har. That’s hysterical. I’m sure that a lot of folks at universities in Iran would have a good belly laugh at this professor’s oh-so-funny joke.
Well, as usual, the Carolinas prove the old adage, “it could be worse…” (At least it’s not SOUTH Carolina this time)
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/11/unc-prof-vows-to-des.html
This article links, in turn, to another article titled, “Christianist Professor Calls for Religious McCarthyism” we need to use the word “Christianist” more often. It’s the equivalent of “Islamist”.
A University of North Carolina at Wilmington professor wants to flood atheist and similar groups with fundamentalists to suppress their activities, and presumably, suppress their speech.
This bozo is quoted as saying that he plans “to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.”
Yep, “disagrees with ME”. It’s all fun and mob-rule games, until he brings out the big tubs of KoolAid.
TomDarch:
What is wrong with natural law? Thomas Jefferson used it, Newton used it, Aristotle used it. Isn’t nature governed by laws/principles? If I drop a rock from a second floor it falls to the ground. It is what keeps our solar system and universe in order and prevents chaos or more properly it ensures existence.
Homosexuals are part of nature so they are governed by natures laws, i.e. they may not fly or change form. Morality is a different issue and follows from the nature of man. Morality should be based on rationality and reason with an individuals well being it’s prime motivation. Well being defined as what is right for a particular individual to the extent he doesn’t inflict himself on others.
It is actually no wonder you were exposed to those individuals in a Catholic high school religion class, they aren’t very far removed from the teachings of the RCC. Anti-man is after all anti-man.
As a graduate of both an academically rigorous high school (St. Ignatius in Chicago) and the U of IL in Urbana-Champaign, my gut guess is that his firing would have to have been driven by more than this one complaint and this one pathetic e-mail. My (totally groundless) suspicion is that he’s been on thin ice for some reason for some time, and this was either an excuse to fire him or the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” If my (absolutely wild) supposition is right, then it’s politically unfortunate that the tag of “hate speech” was applied in this case. Instead, it might be the case that “being a jerk” or “totally sucking as a faculty member” was the cause, but employers can’t say that.
Reading through the e-mail that was published in the local paper (The News-Gazette), it was far below the standards that I saw in general at U of I, and way below the standards I saw from Philosophy professors. If the “religious studies” department has very low academic standards, then perhaps this guy was fired due to political correctness. But, if they have similar academic standards to the portions of the University that I was familiar with, then his writing in this case would show him to not be up to their standards.
I was going to pull a bunch of the really egregious quotes from this e-mail, but there are too many. If you have any doubts about the situation, read the e-mail. If it isn’t clear to you that this guy shouldn’t be teaching at any real university, particularly a public university, then you’re probably not familiar with high academic standards.
(An aside: Howell’s comments on “natural law” seem to be a large pile of evidence supporting the hypothesis that “any claim of ‘natural law’ is simply a projection of the speaker’s own desires, biases or unconscious.” Can anyone point to an example where a “natural law” analysis contradicted the political aims of the individual/institution that engaged in the analysis?)
While I was writing this, I remembered that I had a faculty member at my high school try to present this sort of “natural law” material in a religion class. Even among high school Juniors in a Catholic high school, he didn’t get very far with this line of argument, and dropped it. Of course, in the context of a Catholic high school, it was fine that he was clearly presenting his own, “orthodox” beliefs (and those of some guys in funny dresses in the Vatican), in contrast to a prof at a university.
Keep in mind that the main text for this “Catholic high school religion class” was “Seven Theories of Human Nature: Christianity, Freud, Lorenz, Marx, Sartre, Skinner, Plato” by Leslie Stevenson. We pretty much skipped over Christianity (covered in other classes) and Lorenz (we may have combined that with Skinner?) So the bulk of the class was comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the theories of Plato, Freud, Marx and Sartre. I don’t know that I learned much critical thinking at U of IL, but I was lucky to learn a great deal in high school!
These UI kids are hurting themselves.–mespo
Why because a student made an objection to the administration?
Charging as Gabe calls it, “Educational malpractice.”
Mespo, I couldn’t find the exact quote but it was, ‘Pastor riding a dino written in green crayon,’ when an educational board denied certification to an outlandish curriculum/program.
Mespo you have terrific panoramic vision, this wasn’t hate speech. It was U of I discontinuing flat earth speech.
Byron,
“The Enlightenment was in large part a reaction to the oppression of Christianity in the Western world. The U.S., in its founding principles, is and always has been an affront to Christians, and the more intellectual of the witch doctors among them know it and have always known it, although they avoid saying so publicly.”
=================================================================
Boy, I wish Buddha or mespo would have commented in depth on that … at any rate … I’m going to do some more reading on the subject for, indeed, the founding principles, in order to be successful, more than likely needed to be disguised in order to gain acceptance by the masses and kept relatively safe from the zealot Christians of the day … at least that is my gut reaction before delving into the books and papers.
mespo,
I don’t disagree with that either and were I one of the students I wouldn’t have been demanding his ouster, but rater taking him to task. From an early age I am (in)famous in the family for telling a teacher, “You’re wrong and I can prove it.” Many more times than once. But given 1) this guy’s background and 2) the content of the e-mail? He wasn’t teaching comparative religion. He was trying to convert and propagate the idea that homosexuals are unnatural and ergo evil. It’s a fine line I’ll admit, but I think he crossed it.
Vince:
You know I’m a Payne-o-phile!
BIL:
“I agree that “hate speech” laws are a bad idea in general, but I still think this guy was proselyting and preaching, not teaching.”
********************
Some of the finest profs I ever had clearly had a point of view and wanted me to adopt it. I recall a fine philosophy guy at JMU who was an avowed monarchist and taught a course entitled, Democracy and Its Discontents.” He was a terrific teacher. Though I respected his lucid arguments, I never felt the need to don the purple. BTW, he taught me how to argue without emotion-laden issues without emotion. These UI kids are hurting themselves.
mespo,
I agree that “hate speech” laws are a bad idea in general, but I still think this guy was proselyting and preaching, not teaching.
Byron,
I don’t think that quote on collectivism is entirely off base. One of the elements of Buddhism that I found attractive as a philosophy was the focus on tsonga, or community. Civilization requires cooperation to survive far more than competition. By helping your community, you help yourself. If all is one, is helping your community a selfish act or a selfless act?
I submit that it is both.
Selflessness does not mean you quit being you or somehow surrender your individuality, but rather it’s a different form of consciousness – a different way of looking at the world. Collectivism captures much of that idea and logically would make a valid alternative to those seeking the benefits of Christianity without the chains of dogma.
Does breeching U of I standards of inclusivity establish enough of an objective basis for this termination? What are the standards of inclusivity? They sound vague and subjective.
Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, supported the student. “The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us,” she said.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6915
It seems Dr. Howell was fired twice, first by U of I then by Monsignor Ketcham.
Can the holy hand grenade be committed to combat holy hate speech?
Mespo/Buddha:
what do you think of these statements? I found them on another blog and find them to be rather interesting in their implication. I.E. that collectivism is nothing more than religious expression sans creator.
“The Enlightenment was in large part a reaction to the oppression of Christianity in the Western world. The U.S., in its founding principles, is and always has been an affront to Christians, and the more intellectual of the witch doctors among them know it and have always known it, although they avoid saying so publicly.”
“As a former college student of the ’60’s, I understand that many leftists then were children of Christians who rejected the hypocrisy of their religious parents and embraced collectivism because it more consistently embraces the ideas of selflessness, self- sacrifice, and altruism.”
Well, I guessed Paine, but having Google(R) means never having to guess again, mostly.
http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/def.html
QUOTE ON
Thoughts on Defensive War
[Note: This article was first published
in the Pennsylvania Magazine, Philadelphia, July, 1775. Some sources question whether it can be proved to be Paine’s. We include it becauseit has been widely accepted as Paine’s over the years.]
Could the peaceable principle of the Quakers be universally
established, arms and the art of war would be wholly extirpated: But we live
not in a world of angels. The reign of Satan is not ended; neither are we to
expect to be defended by miracles. The pillar of the cloud existed only in
the wilderness. In the nonage of the Israelites. It protected them in the
retreat from Pharaoh, while they were destitute of the natural means of
defence, for they brought no arms from Egypt; but it neither fought their
battles nor shielded them from dangers afterwards. I am thus far a Quaker,
that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms,
and settle matters by negotiation: but unless the whole will, the matter
ends, and I take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power….
I’m sure he can land a nice position @ Regent
Nice precedent, time to ban all the lovely world religions ..
I’ve read the email and it reads like a freshman essay on natural law – full non sequiturs and tortured logic. Regardless, I think this whole notion of “hate speech” needs to be rethought. Am I guilty of hate speech if I decry the actions of an oppressive ruler or nation? What if I lambaste an ethnic group for their terrorist tendencies? While I agree with Burke, that I have no method available to draw up an indictment agianst a whole people, may I not point out that what most of them do is indeed cause for alarm?
Here’s some arguably “hate speech.” Guess the author:
That which allures the Highwayman has
allured the ministry under a gentler name. but the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defense arms. The American, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized amounts to this. these people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the
courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually over-run by the vile and abandoned. while they neglect the means of self defence. They supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and
the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/personnel/Dr.%20Kenneth%20Howell He is a convert. Often they are much more conservative in their interpretations of the church’s teachings. That is my experience.
After reading the email I am no longer on the fence. I tried giving the benefit of the doubt thinking the offended student was possibly overly sensitive or had some vendetta with the professor.
Clearly, in the email he is not writing in an academic way about ‘catholic theory’, but rather a first-person coercing manner. He repeatedly states “we must” blah, blah….
Its pretty obvious why he got the boot.
I think the studens were right, and unless something is missing the professor actually was guilty of hate speech.
Here are two different statements:
“Natural moral law as affirmed by the church” states that homosexual acts are unatural and therefore sinful.
Secular or non-catholic theories of natural moral law in may or may not declare that homosexual acts are unnatural or immoral.
But the professor 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.”
No mention of the Church. The email says that any version of moral natural law theory must condemn homosexuality as immoral. Therefore he is saying that homosexuality is inherently unnatuaral.
That’s what the student said in the letter and he seems to have been right.
Blouise: … Karma Golf Balls
the problem with Karmic golf balls is that they always come back and whack you in the back of the head
Buddha Is Laughing: 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
I think it’s also fair to add the discoveries of previously unknown folks in previously unknown lands(the Americas).
I’m pretty sure the Catholic church professed anyone not believing in the Catholic version of God was doomed to hell.
But they would have a heck of a time trying to defend that when there were thousands and thousands of folks that had never heard of Jesus, Catholics or Europe.
It’s my semi-considered position that this had much to do with the Protestant Reformation and break away from the Catholic church.
then again, I’m no genius even though I like to tell people that I am
Mike,
As someone who teaches college kids for a living, I can earnestly say that stupidity is not protected by academic freedom and is, in fact, anathema to the purpose of the profession and the very basis of academic freedoms. Academic freedom is not a “human right”; it’s a practical system designed to improve human knowledge and one *earns* degrees of academic freedom by demonstrating rigor of thought, competency in teaching, and mastery of subject matter. Howell was hired to teach an introduction to Catholicism course in a religious studies department (note: not a theology department). Standard professional practice in that discipline is to maintain a degree of critical distance from the topic, such that one is not merely regurgitating dogma and personal opinions. Howell did not do this.
“Hate speech” is a red herring in this case. It’s a simple case of educational malpractice, reason enough to fire someone who has been hired to educate.