Professor of Catholicism Fired for "Hate Speech," because...

[Bill Mattocks]

He had the temerity to note that Catholicism holds that homosexuality is a sin. That's 'hate speech' now?

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Adjunct-Who-Taught-Catholicism/25423/

July 9, 2010, 12:33 PM ET

Adjunct Who Taught Catholicism at U. of Illinois Says Job Loss Violated Academic Freedom

An adjunct professor who taught courses on Roman Catholicism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says that the loss of his job, after a student complained about how he addressed the morality of homosexuality in a class, violated his academic freedom, the News-Gazette, a local paper, reported today. The instructor, Kenneth Howell, sent students an e-mail describing how homosexual acts would be viewed under utilitarianism and natural-law theory.

This is the email he sent. I'm not seeing the 'hate speech' here. Am I missing something?

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/re...plaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html

 

[Archangel M]

Let me get this straight..this kid enrolled himself in a "course on Roman Catholicism" and was shocked by the stance on homosexuality? Are you kidding me?

Although I don't know who the bigger fool here is. The student or the University for not having a spine.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Let me get this straight..this kid enrolled himself in a "course on Roman Catholicism" and was shocked by the stance on homosexuality? Are you kidding me?

Although I don't know who the bigger fool here is. The student or the University for not having a spine.

Yeah, I'm totally hip. Even if I were not a Catholic, I'd certainly expect a course on Catholicism to explain Catholic beliefs according to them. I can disagree with them all I want - but the course is designed to teach what they believe, not why it's correct. I read the email the professor sent - it was very clear to me that he was expressing why the Catholic church has the stance it does on homosexuality, not that the Catholics are therefore correct.

Every time I think we're pulling back a bit from the brink of Political Correctness Chaos, something like this happens. No one has the civil right to not be offended. Don't like the class, don't take the class. Don't like the instructor, take the class from someone else. Even complain about the instructor if you feel that strongly about it. But 'hate speech' for explaining what the Catholic church believes? Excuse me?

 

[d1jinx]

Let me get this straight..this kid enrolled himself in a "course on Roman Catholicism" and was shocked by the stance on homosexuality? Are you kidding me?

Although I don't know who the bigger fool here is. The student or the University for not having a spine.

This is the Bullcrap world we live in now. We must be sensitive to everyone else.

What happened to the days of, you dont like it... leave.

While I can understand some need for intervention, we have taken this to a whole other level. :barf:
The school has only facilitating more of this "I'm offended" behavior.

 

[Empty Hands]

He should be fired for his extremely poor reasoning, not for having a negative view of homosexuals.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He should be fired for his extremely poor reasoning, not for having a negative view of homosexuals.

I don't think you're following the point. He teaches a course on Catholicism. So what he believes has very little to do with it. His job is to explain what Catholicism believes, which it appears he does. I don't agree with every jot and tittle of his email, but I do agree that it expresses the official Catholic doctrine, which again, is his job to do.

It is *not* his job to explain that the Catholic church is right, or that it is wrong. He may well have the viewpoint that it is right, and it is his right to say that in class - but that's just his viewpoint, it's not a requirement of the job. Presumably, if he disagreed with the Catholic church's viewpoint, he'd be equally privileged to say that.

What you're saying is that he should be fired because the Catholic church's viewpoint is wrong. It's not his reasoning you have an issue with, it's the Catholic Church's reasoning. That is an entirely different matter.

It would be like taking a class on Atheism and then complaining because the instructor insisted on explaining what Atheists believe is the cause of the universe.

 

[Archangel M]

I wonder what results a Catholic student in a "Gay Studies" course would have gotten if he/she complained?

 

[Archangel M]

I wouldn't be surprised if this student was a "plant" who took the course with the intention of doing something like this...

 

[jks9199]

A student then e-mailed the head of the religion department to complain on behalf of a friend who had taken the course, calling the contents of Mr. Howell's message "hate speech."

So the complainant wasn't even someone who took the class? Or received the email directly?

Forget everything else about the guy actually presenting the teachings of the Catholic Church... That's a load of crap right there.

 

[Empty Hands]

I don't think you're following the point.

No, I got it just fine. You are convinced the teacher is simply putting forth the Church's position, and the reaction is basically religious intolerance. That might even be true, but his arguments are very poor. He does a particularly poor job of explaining Natural Law, and there are holes in his application of Natural Law big enough to drive a truck through. The Jesuits would be ashamed to have him representing them.

He teaches a course on Catholicism. So what he believes has very little to do with it. His job is to explain what Catholicism believes, which it appears he does.

"As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."

This statement places what he said beyond the purview of Catholic doctrine. He went beyond simply explicating doctrine at multiple points in the email, and offered his own arguments as to why they were correct. He also offered arguments as to why a utilitarian analysis of homosexuality is wrong. Both sets of arguments were extremely poor, which concerns me far more as a scholar and is more important to his job as a scholar than his views on homosexuality.

What you're saying is that he should be fired because the Catholic church's viewpoint is wrong. It's not his reasoning you have an issue with, it's the Catholic Church's reasoning. That is an entirely different matter.

No, he did not really go into Church doctrine and reasoning. I saw no discussion of Papal documents, no arguments from Catholic scholars and theologians. He put forth is own explanation of Natural Law, and his own analysis of Natural Law and Utilitarianism and how they relate to homosexuality. His arguments were terrible. He could still construct what I would consider a wrong argument that I would not consider terrible. I expect far better from a scholar and teacher at that level. Maybe his classroom discussions were more rigorous, but I tend to doubt it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So the complainant wasn't even someone who took the class? Or received the email directly?

Forget everything else about the guy actually presenting the teachings of the Catholic Church... That's a load of crap right there.

Yes, that's correct. Here's the actual email that was sent:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/re...int-student-about-ui-religion-instructor.html

 

[jks9199]

Yes, that's correct. Here's the actual email that was sent:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/re...int-student-about-ui-religion-instructor.html

So, it appears that it was not just the email, but conduct throughout the semester. However, the complaining student didn't actually witness any of the alleged hate speech. I understand -- though I disagree with it! -- the school acting on the email. Especially if there were other complaints that didn't get the press or comments on student evaluations that supported it... but I think a more appropriate reaction given the information at hand would be a review of lesson plans and some auditing of the classes. I could even see the school putting a ringer of sorts in; a student to observe and report on the class. But a professor has to have freedom to teach, as well, even if the students don't particularly like what he says...

 

[Cryozombie]

Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution's mission and principles.

Holy **** no way! In a class ABOUT Catholicism? What next??? Limiting and censoring discussion of C++ in a SQL class?

*SHOCK*

 

[chrispillertkd]

So, it appears that it was not just the email, but conduct throughout the semester. However, the complaining student didn't actually witness any of the alleged hate speech.

Nor does he offer even a single example of the "inflammatory" and "downright insensitive" things the professor is supposed to have done or said. Odd, that since he immediately refers to the professors unspecified statements as "hate speech" in the second paragraph.

The fact that the complaining student and the student who actually attended class "were both brought up Catholic" is irrelevant to the topic and seems more an attempt at the student using an implicit argument of authority rather than stating any actual examples.

The very fact that the complaining student says a homosexual student would feel "ashamed and uncomfortable" in Howell's class is also irrelevant. Howell's job was to teach his students what the Church teaches. They job as students was to learn what the Church teaches. Hand holding and affirmations have little place in a college level classroom.

I understand -- though I disagree with it! -- the school acting on the email. Especially if there were other complaints that didn't get the press or comments on student evaluations that supported it...

A possibility, although highly unlikely since Howell was recognized by his dpeartment in both 2008 and 2009 for being rated as an excellent teacher by his students.

but I think a more appropriate reaction given the information at hand would be a review of lesson plans and some auditing of the classes. I could even see the school putting a ringer of sorts in; a student to observe and report on the class. But a professor has to have freedom to teach, as well, even if the students don't particularly like what he says...

I think a more appropriate course of action would have been for the university to ignore out of hand the accusations made by a student who was never even in the class and only reported on something a friend had supposedlly told him. YMMV.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Deaf Smith]

He had the temerity to note that Catholicism holds that homosexuality is a sin. That's 'hate speech' now?

No Bill you are not missing anything. "Right will be wrong, and wrong will be seen as right". A world turned upside down.

I know there are limits of free speech, but this 'hate speech' law is simply a way to muzzle criticism. Anything can be deemed ‘hate speech’, even lambasting Obama when you think about it.

And if they get away with this they will use ‘hate speech’ to outlaw the Bible, as the Bible considers homosexuality to be an abomination along with adultery being a mortal sin.

Deaf