Marquette University is making national news. This is only
partially because Philosophy Instructor Cheryl Abbate told a student that
opposed homosexual marriage that “Some opinions are not appropriate,” “you
don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments,” and “you can
drop the class if you don’t like it.” The
main reason for national coverage is due to Marquette professor John McAdams being
put on leave and investigated because he reported this incident on his
Marquette Warrior blog (http://bit.ly/13leFvr)
Cheryl Abbate
John McAdams
As a graduate from Marquette (with several years in the Philosophy
program) I know the leadership of the department (both Associate Dean Dr.
Susanne Foster and the chair Dr. Nancy Snow) that dealt with the student’s
complaint. I also remember how liberal both of these professors were. Despite
this liberalism in the leadership positions, there were conservatives in the department
that were unaffected. Knowing these women, it is possible more is going on here
than simply liberals ignoring complaints by a conservative student (though the
policy may justify them doing so).
Here are four problems with what is happening regarding the
circumstances at Marquette:
1.
Marquette needs to discover how to reconcile its
Catholic identity with the ‘speech codes’ that labels a statement offending any
party as hate speech.
A tension for ANY professor at Marquette would be that there
are serious problems with forbidding statements against homosexual marriage.
One problem is that the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Pope, or even the
Bible could be perceived as a personal attack or harassment and thus forbidden
from being subject to classroom discussion.
Another involves the issues with claiming that objections to
gay marriage are homophobic. This commits a logical fallacy. People can be homophobic, but arguments can’t.
Even if a person does have an irrational fear of gays, it doesn’t follow that
their arguments are invalid or unsound. Also, a phobia is an irrational fear
you can’t control. The person with this condition is handicapped. When one
person accuses another of being homophobic to ridicule their arguments, it is
the equivalent of making fun of the handicapped (which is more politically
incorrect than opposing gay marriage). These are distinctions any person can
perceive and philosophy professors can lead the way in making them.
Professors should encourage students to explore that there
are not only theological reasons for opposing gay marriage (Rom. 1, 1 Cor.
6:9), there are also strong philosophical (http://bit.ly/1z4L1TG),
economic (see http://bit.ly/16ADyVH), and
legal reasons for opposing it (http://amzn.to/1AmVdLv).
It remains to be seen whether Marquette’s new President Michael Lovell, its first non-Jesuit,
will take up the mantle of the Jesuits (who were once known to be defenders of
the Catholic Church). One can hope he
will support the right to engage ideas in the classrooms with Catholic teaching
(which opposes ‘gay’ marriage).
Dr. Michael Lovell
2.
Everyone should recognize a professor’s right to
control the classroom discussion.
The main fear the instructor seems to have had in bringing
up the issue of gay marriage is that some in the class would be offended. As
Cheryl Abbate certainly thought her students may feel harassed, she thought it
best to keep this off the table for public discussion. Ms. Abbate has the right
as an instructor to control her course content to stay on task.
3. In investigating John McAdams, Marquette is
employing a bullying tactic to try to squelch conservative views.
Although they have denied officially ‘suspending’ McAdams
(which consists of stopping his pay), opening an investigation into his
activity will effectively suppress students and faculty from discussing areas
where there is legitimate debate. This is not an atmosphere that will engender
public discourse on subjects that are of moral concern. In accordance with
McAdams initial blog surrounding the controversy, Marquette has taken the very
action of silencing debate of which Ms. Abbate was accused.
4. There has been a lack of integrity on the part
of some journalists in not reading Ms. Abbate’s side of the story.
Few reports present a balanced approach in trying to figure
out what actually occurred. I’m disappointed by the lack of research done on
both sides. It was not entirely unreasonable for Ms. Abbate to postpone or
prevent discussion on the issue of gay marriage in class as it would
potentially highjack the discussion. In an interview with Ms. Abbate right
after the initial report, we should admit that it is possible that there is more going on here than meets the eye
(see http://bit.ly/1taUzta). As a
conservative, I don’t have to create straw men to knock down liberal arguments
for gay marriage. Some of Ms. Abbate’s most contentious statements were not in
the actual recording the student provided Dr. McAdams. As these are the most
damning, we should give her the benefit of the doubt. All professors have
experienced students that have misunderstood what they were saying.
There are many problematic facets of this story. Ms. Abbate
will be welcomed practically anywhere due to the liberal majority in the
Universities (if it is proven she actually said what Dr. McAdams has claimed,
so much the better in the liberal mindset). The real question for many is
whether it is possible to reform liberal Catholic Universities to keep them in
line with the foundational beliefs of Christianity. Also, it is clear that the
logical outworking of these speech codes is that Jesus, Paul, Aquinas, and even
many Popes would be punished if they were to teach ethics at this ‘Catholic’
University.
No comments:
Post a Comment