HATE SPEECH:
Sacred Scripture and Church
Doctrine
in the Academ c Eye of the Storm
The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
vs. Professor Ken Howell, the Federalist Papers, Scholarship,
et alia
"Now,
see here ... despite what James Madison stated in the Federalist
Papers
1, I wish to believe otherwise, and in fact
hold it to be not only an effrontery to me were I a pacifist, but in
and of itself an incitement to violence --- and must, therefore,
be deemed "hate speech" specifically directed against pacifists.
I demand that we amend the Federalist Papers to reflect this
by either omitting the text or revising it to accommodate pacifists.
That failing, I demand any course on the Federalist Papers be removed
from the curricula, or so taught as to omit or revise this statement,
among others, which I, together with the pacifist community, construe
as hate-speech offensive to pacifists."
The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign appears
to side with me against Madison, the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution
itself. What is more, any professors of Law who, "violate
university standards of inclusivity", will be summarily
terminated for any breach of this standard that supersedes every
other standard including truth and scholarly objectivity ---
even if the university's Academic Staff Handbook
states that faculty "are entitled to freedom in the classroom in
developing and discussing according to their areas of competence
the subjects that they are assigned."
Any takers for a
degree in Constitutional Law from the University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign?
There is a queer, if consistent resonance between
the above two paragraphs --- and the university's firing of Professor
Ken Howell who was brought on board to teach Introduction to
Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought --- only to be dismissed
for doing so:
"My responsibility on teaching a class
on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,"
Howell said in an interview with The News-Gazette in Champaign.
"I have always made it very, very clear to my students they
are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll
never be judged on that."
2
The reason for his summary dismissal? He taught
authentic Catholic doctrine concerning homosexual
activity as intrinsically sinful and disordered --- a 2000 year
old doctrine --- that offended the "sensitivities" of a
homosexual student:
"An
unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department
head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell's e-mail
"hate speech." The student claimed to be a friend of
the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his
friend wanted to remain anonymous...Teaching a student about
the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote.
"Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of
man is another." ... Ann Mester, an associate dean at the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Howell's e-mail
justified his firing."
2
This is both troubling and
frightening. Not only does it violate the free and critical
examination and exchange of ideas upon which the enterprise
of higher education is presumably predicated--- as distinct from
indoctrination, or the promotion of "acceptable ideas"
--- but it makes ideological coercion a matter of
policy. In other words, the coupling of ideology with
policy supersedes the primacy of education, co-opts it,
eventually supplants it, and then rigorously enforces it.
Education, in a word, is the extension of ideology, and ceases
to be the free and critical assessment of ideas. The distinction
between ideas and ideology is more than
morphological --- it is stringently punitive. Associate Dean Ann Mester,
for one, is clearly an advocate of this rigorous enforcement.
What is more, if the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign's
principal focus --- as an institution of higher learning --- is
enforcing "standards of inclusivity" to the
exclusion of historical and objective truth and refuses
to teach what is in fact the case, and not what it would
prefer the case to be, then its academic credentials are worthless
and the diplomas it grants (at least vis-à-vis the world of actual
scholarship) are so many pieces of toilet tissue on a single ply
roll at about $25,000 per sheet. We hope the analogy does not make
you flush ...
This, at least, is the background for the actual
state of affairs --- rather than the state of affairs that we would
prefer to be the case. We ourselves would that the
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign turn out scholars rather
than ideologues, that a genuine correspondence exist between "learning"
and primary sources, and that facts superseded sensitivities. But
what we wish were the case really doesn't matter, does it?
After all, we are not employees of the university, and are exempt
from fictions-by-policy.
Sacred Scripture
and Church Doctrine as "Hate Speech"
The most urgent question at hand is this: does,
in fact, the enunciation of an historical or even a hypothetical
doctrine (ecclesiastical or otherwise) which conflicts with my sensitivities
and personal beliefs eo ipso constitute "hate-speech" because
it does not accord with my own sensitivities or beliefs?
Of course I am free to believe that the 19th
Amendment 3 infringes on my sovereignty as a male. I
may insist that it displeases me, and that its legislative articulation
implicitly makes me a "male chauvinist" with all the negative connotations
and social sanctions that attend it. Shall I then insist that
the 19th Amendment never be invoked in a scholarly inquiry into
Constitutional Amendments? Do I have the right --- by "standards
of inclusivity" --- to demand that the Amendment be amended to accommodate
my sensitivities as a male? Or that failing, demand that the 19th
Amendment be expunged from any study of Constitutional Law? Shall
I deem the primary source "hate speech" because it implicitly disapproves
of (and legally infringes upon) my presumed male chauvinism? Is
the Constitution itself implicitly a body of "hate-speech"?
That the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture
teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically and gravely sinful
in all circumstances and at all times is a teaching with an
historical continuity of 2000 years is incontestable. If you dispute this, we suggest that you return
to "primary sources" (e.g. Sacred Scripture, and authentic
Catholic teaching) that have apparently been concealed from you
"by policy". Of course you are free to believe that Holy
Scripture and Catholic Doctrine do not teach this. You are also
free to believe that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. Neither,
however, are corroborated by primary sources. It may enrage you
that astronomical research and empirical evidence reveal that the
Moon is composed of basalt rock and other minerals rather than Green
Cheese. It infringes upon your illusions and "damages" your childish
imagination --- so much so, that you go to the head of the Physics
Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and
proclaim your indignation and your insistence that such things,
damaging to your sensitivity and that of others who choose to believe
that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, be excluded from study, and
that any faculty member who indulges in primary sources be dismissed
for transgressing "standards of inclusivity".
In the real world (that is to say, the world outside
the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign --- and other green-clad
pretensions to disinterested learning), you would be dismissed
as cognitively-impaired and quite possibly insane. But at the Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign, your "sensitivities" --- not your academic
aptitude --- would prevail, and any study of the Moon would systematically
exclude any suggestion that its composition is anything other than
Green Cheese. Of course you can believe what you wish,
--- but wishing it does
not make it so.
Any volunteers for the next Space Shuttle with a
graduate in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
behind the Cheese Wheel?
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Assistant Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Printable PDF Version
_____________________________
1
"Is the power
of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question
in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into
a proof of the affirmative." James Madison, Federalist Papers
No. 41
2 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/university-illinois-instructor-fired-catholic-beliefs/
3 "The right
of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."(19th
Amendment.)
|
