An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom…the decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Here is the story.
[Hat tip to Jim Gimpel.]
{ 13 comments }
The Catholic concept of Natural Law can be taught well, which appears to be the case for Robby George at Princeton, or taught in ham-fisted manner, which appears to be the case here. Partisans on both sides of this issue will undoubtedly see what they want from this case. What lesson is to be learned by those of us who occasionally have to teach controversial subjects? To be nice, probably.
It seems obvious from context and from the teacher’s later statements where he states that advocacy is fine that he was not teaching that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong, he was simply teaching that homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Many, many doctrines insist that they are not simply true for adherents, or one possible viewpoint existing alongside many, but they are true, for everyone, even those who would deny that they’re true for everyone.
One can’t count the number of times liberals and anti-clerics in big universities have taught as if what they believe to be true, is true, for everyone. This happens hourly.
But I guess that’s okay. “Free inquiry” is only for some.
so UofI decided they didn’t want an outspoken homophobe teaching their intro to Catholicism anymore. Seems like a pretty reasonable decision to me. I’m sure there are adjunct contracts not being renewed for much more petty reasons across the country.
I’d also guess they wouldn’t have renewed the contract of someone teaching Intro to Islam who favored the stoning of (female) adulterers either. Somehow I don’t feel my academic freedom threatened.
No your academic freedom isn’t threatened because you don’t believe in the truth of any of these things. Your freedom is only threatened when YOU are not allowed to voice what you believe to be true.
Slightly off the subject: How much do you have to hate a person to simply blow them off, and remain silent, when you positively believe that they are lying to themselves, are ignorant of a basic truth, or are on a truly harmful path? You really believe this and you are not going to say anything to them about it?
Seems like it would take a lot of hatred and disrespect to simply ignore people you truly consider to be wrong about anything potentially this weighty or important.
So just who is being nice and who is being offensive?
Finally, the article indicates that Howell won teaching awards, or was recognized for teaching excellence, in two previous years. That suggests that he was likely not dismissed simply for being a poor or ham-fisted teacher.
I think Sebastian is absolutely right: adjuncts have been let go for much pettier reasons than being an outspoken homophobe. And let’s make no mistake, that’s what this guy clearly is. As recent Supreme Court opinions have demonstrated, homosexuals represent a class of citizens, and it follows that discrimination against them on the basis of their sexual orientation is wrong in terms of civil law. UI is a public institution subject to civil law. This instructor advocated for discrimination personally in his position as an instructor at a public institution and not as an academic discussing the range of viewpoints in religion, as AC notes above. Therefore, it is reasonable — totally independent of any claim to academic freedom — that the department let this instructor go. Academic freedom, here, is a complete red herring.
Read the controversial email the professor sent here, for yourself:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
There is nothing here but a restatement of Catholic doctrine (the *elective* course is on Catholicism!)
Of course as an adjuct he has no rights, and can be fired for any reason. That does not mean that the complaint that caused his dismissal has merit.
Reading the emails, it is impossible for all but the most myopically sensitive to see anything but a statement of Catholic teaching, and nothing but wild overstating from the student.
Furthermore, I think an adult making an accusation like this should stand up and make himself known. The accusation is 3rd hand, and the evidence does not support it.
If I were an attorney, I’d beg Howell to let me have his case.
Personally, I found what the guy wrote offensive, and if I were the chair of the department I would have let him go too. You can’t get by making outrageous claims like how some gay men act like a “woman” and how gay sex is somehow more unhealthy than straight sex. It’s utterly ignorant.
Moreover, I particularly liked — and agree with, being a former theorist myself — this quote from the Inside Higher Ed post: “Still other scholars are suggesting that — whatever the academic freedom issues involved — Howell’s e-mail offers grounds for not wanting him to teach. Brian Leiter, the John P. Wilson Professor of Law and director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago, blogged: ‘I imagine any philosopher reading the e-mail can see a legitimate reason for terminating Howell’s contract, namely, that his characterization of utilitarianism and the quality of reasoning and argument are incompetent.’ “
OK, so let’s look at the e-mail and see how many signs of homophobia we find
1. Using man on dog sex in a discussion of homophobia
2. Using rape of minors in a discussion of homphobia
– now, obviously you will say that he’s not equating them, he’s just making a theoretical point yadda yadda. But anyone who claims, like him, to “have done extensive research into homosexuality” knows that these are frequently things especially homosexual men are accused of (cf. the use of the word “sodomy” for both bestiality and homosexual sex). I am assuming that he’s aware of this and is doing this on purpose. The alternative is that he really doesn’t know, which doesn’t make things better.
3.
That’s a bizarre stereotype. I assume that he is talking about tops and bottoms during anal sex, but that has nothing to do with “man” or “woman” unless you believe that the only relevant detail here is who penetrates whom (which again is a view quite common among homophobes).
4.
OK. Many, many gay men – polls indicate between 1/5 and almost 1/2, don’t have anal sex. But sure, Mr. “studied homosexuality” doesn’t mind peddling that common misconception, either.
5.
Do you note the disgust in tone? The unwillingness to even name things by their name? And then, of course, again the peddling of misinformation (no, anal sex, if done right, is not deleterious to your health).
6.
That unnecessary aside and the idea that sex-change OPs are essentially just a frivolous exercise “because we can” is truly disgusting. Sure, Catholicism objects to sex-change operations, but it doesn’t tell you to brush over the years of agony and therapy of trans people.
Notice that none of what I point to as homophobia is actually part of the core of Catholic teaching.
And then finally, the part that perhaps irks me most as a teacher:
Which to me really doesn’t sound like he is willing to accept other viewpoints. Because what undergrad has done “extensive research” and is “cognizant of” a huge body of literature. So in the end of this e-mail he seals it with the hammer of authority.
I actually think the people in the IHE article John links to above that say there should have been a faculty hearing are right. Due process is always preferable. But I do sympathize with any department head who saw this mixture of homophobia, proselytizing and very shoddy philosophical work and decided that s/he didn’t want students to be taught by that person.
First, it’s an email, not a formal treatise or journal article on the subject.
Think about it: You go into a course on Catholicism, not believing any of it, possibly being hostile to it, and you aren’t going to like everything you hear. Duh. If I were a radical feminist, and I chose to take a course on Islamic fundamentalism, taught by an Imam (a course that should definitely be offered by the way), I wouldn’t like everything I would hear. But we are supposed to be adults. If you can’t air these contrasting and controversial views on a university campus, where can you air them?!
Sheesh! Major public university campuses show XXX porn at their campus theaters on a periodic basis. And yet we’re going to get all hurt and angry about the teaching of natural law doctrine on campus in an elective course on that subject?!
This is an utterly ridiculous complaint, and kow-towing to such frivolous complaints is tantamount to a heckler’s veto.
Hear, hear! Well done, Sebastian!
If religious kids on campus whined about “hate speech” every time they heard some faculty member make critical (even violently critical) claims about religion, and especially Christianity, campus administrations at our larger universities would be deluged, totally overwhelmed, with complaints.
A point clearly lost on vpeach is that there is a difference between speech which may offend one’s tastes and speech which may offend one’s intellect and reason.
In academic pursuits, one often runs across ideas one finds abhorrent. Personally, the concept of “Natural Law” and its implications are offensive to my tastes and opinions. Yet I don’t object to Natural Law being taught in general because it offends my tastes. Robby George has published lots of work in reputable journals trying to defend/rescue a way of thinking about Natural Law that is independent of Catholic religious thinking. I’ve read Clash of Orthodoxes and Making Men Moral. I find my arguments against Natural Law theory are strengthened for having made an attempt to understand the other side despite finding their views on abortion, women, and homosexuality absolutely wrong, and at times, offensive.
But then you have emails like those from the adjunct in question. As Sebastian aptly demonstrates point by point above, the adjunct’s email peddles in discredited myths, factually incorrect statements, and bigoted language absolutely independent of the subject matter he is putatively trying to teach. He then tries to shut down academic inquiry by saying that undergrads ought not question his statements unless they have done “extensive” independent research, which is simply not how to conduct a class regardless of what it’s about. Students should always be encouraged to question ideas and look for logical flaws regardless of (or indeed, because of) their lack of previous research on the topic. This type of speech is offensive to reason, and it does not have a proper place in an institution of higher learning — even one that claims Ron Zook as its football coach.
Comments on this entry are closed.