I'm confused. I didn't read the source documents, but how would defining the Catholic church's position on homosexual behavior in a class on Roman Catholicism classify as "hate speech?" The Catholic church, as well as most Christian protestant churches, consider homosexual behavior to be immoral. I myself do not share that view, and firmly support gay rights, but if I took a class on Roman Catholicism, I would EXPECT to hear homosexual and "pre-marital" sexuality condemned. Sure, I would get mad and feel attacked, but I would be IN A CLASS OUTLINING THE BELIEFS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, an institution that has historically condemned homosexual behavior. If this professor's lessons are equivalent to "hate speech," then the doctrine of the Catholic church is equivalent to hate speech. It seems that the messenger is being shot in this case. Go after the source. Now I could be wrong, and the professor may have overstepped his bounds and expanded his condemnation beyond the official anti-gay doctrine of the Catholic church, but if I'm wrong, then prove me wrong.

You can read a lengthy article from *The News Gazette*, the local newspaper for Illinois Urbana-Champaign, here:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

The article is sketchy but suggests that the instructor was not advocating anything but simply setting forth the positions taken by two philosophical viewpoints, utilitarianism and natural-law theory. That is exactly what an instructor is supposed to do.

Should a class at a public institution be involved in "outlining the beliefs of the RCC" or should it be devoted to the critical, historical, theological examination of the institution? If the prof. "outlined" a message hostile to non-heterosexuals without subjecting it to discussion, criticism, or even examination from a non-RC perspective, then obviously he should not be teaching the course. Were students invited to contravene vatican dogma? Where they invited to present and learn about this history of homosexuality in the catholic church itself? Were they engaged in critical inquiry into the social, political, psychological, and spiritual consequences of catholic doctrine?

Have you read the email this professor sent? I quote:
"One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body."

I've read this email twice and this seems to be the prof's personal opinion. I can see how this would qualify as hate speech.

Yeah, sorry, but from the article: ""My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said."

This is simply not appropriate at a public institution. His responsibility is to promote critical reflection on and historical awareness of catholocism as a global institution while not lying about the church.

Welcome to America: a country of freedom where, I am sorry, you can't say anything!
Why teaching Catholicism there? They should teach Muslim views on gays instead, and then everything will be fine!

Nobody should comment until reading the actual e-mail this professor sent to students. The e-mail is not written in the context of teaching "this is what the Catholic Church believes." It's written as a personal message from the professor, effectively telling his gay and lesbian students that they're unnatural.

If, as Ivasady points out, he was discussing the pros and cons of anal intercourse, he should at least have been more clinical and less evasive about it. The email sounds like Mrs. Grundy describing pornography.

After reading the e-mail written by Dr. Howell, I would not characterize it as "hate speech," but I can see that one could interpret as advocacy of a position rather than a critical examination. He may not have made the distinction between teaching about religion, which is permissible at a public institution, and teaching religion, which is the purview of seminaries.

What has not been addressed is the reason Dr. Howell not be teaching at UI again. We do not know that reason. Adjuncts are in a vulnerable position as contract laborers, hired on an ad hoc basis. There is no contractual obligation to continue hiring an adjunct, and we are not privy to the reason behind the decision not to continue the relationship. Any assumption that a student's angry e-mail "got him fired" is speculative.

from bphil: Yeah, sorry, but from the article: ""My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said."

I agree, it is not appropriate. The problem here, as I see it, is that he should be teaching ABOUT the Catholic church, not taking a postion of advocacy, which it appears he is doing.

Even if what these posters claim the professor wrote is accurate, it is hardly "hate speech." An opinion you don't like or don't agree with IS NOT HATE!

Ivassady, how was that hate speech? It was a natural law explanation based upon medical opinion. The subject matter can be correct or incorrect without "hate" coming into it? This was no more hate speech than explaining what any cult might believe about a given activity. Whether the activity has merit or not has no connection to hate when the belief is being explained. How can one teach WWII History without talking about the Holocaust? THAT was hate, in its most dramatic form, but teaching the history of it in an of itself is in no way an endorsement of it, i.e. hate.

BPhil: I always thought that learning about a religion meant learning about what it taught. Catholicism bases a number of its teachings on natural law, and the medical example offered was an example of how a natural law position would be formed. It was not an endorsement of the position, but an exhibition. Critical thinking is what gets applied to such information. It does not and cannot replace it.

Let me ask a more fundamental question....isn't U of I a publicaly funded school? If so, why is it teaching "ooga-booga" religion?

Yes, the professor's e-mail was utter baloney. I had big problems even before he started invoking his "natural law" notions, even in his characterization of utilitarianism (and I'm no fan of utilitarianism). His knowledge of his subject is faulty (or else his bias prevents him from understanding it). If I were in that class, I'd worry about how he'd grade my papers. I find much to criticize about that e-mail ... but not hate speech.

Only thing that makes me waver is the fact that this guy is the teacher, an authority figure. When other people spout such nonsense, you argue back, you call them idiots, you walk away from them. Here, the audience was, to some degree, a captive one, and constrained from showing this guy the disrespect he deserved. In student-professor (or employee-boss) sexual relationships, there is greater concern about whether consent is genuine or coerced. So here too, one might worry about whether students are being coerced to internalize this doofus' opinions.

But I still wouldn't call it hate speech. SW

Whew. What a doofus!
Yeah, he goes from pedophilia to bestiality as analogies for male homosexual sex in one paragraph. He seems fixated upon sexual "perversions" into which he enfolds homosexuality--it is conspicuous that female homosexuality is excluded, a lack that exposes Mr. Howell's interest as one that is discretely personal; as a man, he cannot participate in lesbian relations and is seems not at all interested in them.
The email is hate speech folks. When a student of mine said something like, wolves eat their young therefore women who have abortions are basically killing their babies so that they can go on living the easy life and are thus like those wolves, that student was producing hate speech through that analogy--and making my week more interesting, in an unpleasant way. Comparing women who have abortions to wolves eating their young is hateful, as is comparing homosexual sex to a 40 year old having sex with 10 year old or someone having sex with their dog. These are disgusting analogies that clearly expose Kenneth Howell's hate towards gays or, more specifically, gay men.
Furthermore, the email is ridiculously stupid. Like, not at the level that U-Ill Urbana would or should find acceptable for an instructor.

I read Dr. Howell's email.
I believe, strongly, that Dr. Howell has the right to state his philosophy.
I believe, strongly, that his interpretation of Natural Moral Law is too narrow.
“Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology.”
True for many, but for others, “anatomy” neither is, nor trumps, “psychology”.
If two men, or two women, enjoy mutual sex, then they “are fitted for that act.”.
If a person enjoys sex with either gender, then that person is “fitted for the act”.
“Consent is important but there is more than consent needed”, Dr. Howell writes.
But who, then, determines? No one outside the consensual relationship.

Hm. Mutual enjoyment equals "fitted" for a relationship?

So anything at all that two peple enjoy means they are "fitted" for that activity? Two sadists who enjoy mutilating one another can be considered "fitted" for their activity?

Clearly that kind of principle can be carried too far.

Anatomy in fact does trump psychology in the case of sexual relations. Two women or two men will never be able to have intercourse the way a man and a woman do. The equipment doesn't fit for people of the same gender. (I have to say that?) Whatever two men or two women do, it's not natural sex.

U of I, and the state itself, are broke. Likely many courses and programs are being considered for the chopping block. Perhaps the incident tipped an already teetering scale.

I read the e-mail in question. Perhaps the guy was fired due to the stupid "reasoning" in the e-mail. Consent from a dog or a 10 year old? "Utilitarianism" as a straw man? If the Catholic Church can't find better apologists than this, then it is in bigger trouble than I thought.

How well connected politically is this students family? Remember, posters, this is Illinois were talking about.

Reading the email the professor sent, it is clear that he explains a teaching of the Catholic Church, and that he tries to present one of the rational arguments used to support this position. It is also clear that, in his course on Catholicism, the professor intended to - and did - present what the Church teaches, and that his email endeavored to clarify a particular issue in this regard.

It is pretty clear, also, that the student making the complaint quite simply did not understand the intent and the content of the email. Unfortunately, he or she never engaged the argument, but completely bypassed it, and simply dismissed the result of the argument, as "absurd," based ion his opinion. The right way to go about this would have been to present a rational critique of the argument, exposing its problems. That's what a university is for - engaging various arguments.

Therefore, both the student and the university seem to have abdicated from an essential element of any university - the rational examination of various arguments and aspects of reality: in this case, of the arguments behind one of the positions of the Church.

It is also sad because this is a case of the university enforcing - and reinforcing - conformism with the given ideology that dominates in a given society, at a certain time (or at least the official rhetoric). By doing that it stops being a place of critical inquiry, but becomes simply an enforcer of whatever canned opinions dominate the public discourse.

The question could be raised - shouldn't the professor present himself a critique of these positions? From the email it is clear that he tried to do so, and probably in the course itself... but certainly about the issue at hand. If he failed to do so in a satisfactory manner, the right reaction, if one so considers, would be to present a better argument against. One can even make the case that he needs to incorporate better counterarguments throughout the course etc - that is clearly somethings that could have easily been asked, if that were the case. But the student's complaint was about the conclusions, and not about the arguments, which were left unengaged.

It is not illegal - as in, punished by law - to have positions that go against the mainstream. Presenting such positions, and the arguments supporting them, might lead however to losing one's job?

As a department chair, I would have immediately deleted the complaining student's email. The student was not in the class in the first place, so therefore has no standing to complain about what a professor in that class either says or doesn't say.

The professor was setting out his personal views. That can be fine in a class, although it is always something that needs to be done carefully. In this case however the professor obviously stepped over the line in advocating for views that would be highly offensive to many students. As a chair, I would look for someone else to teach the course.

The professor is employed as an adjunct -- not on the tenure track -- and so has no right to be employed again. The talk of academic freedom is a red herring. He still has the right to peddle his hateful and badly argued views wherever he wants.

The problem is that the professor did not outline Catholic thought. If he did, he would have made an argument more akin to this (read the section on homosexuality):

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Natural_Law_Theory.htm

The relevant argument (quoted from the above) is:

"God made Nature. God made the Natural Laws. God made humans. God gave humans reason by which they are to learn of the natural laws. God also provides revelation concerning god's will and wishes. In the scriptures there are passages dealing with human matters and they are interpreted to have been given as a guide for the moral life. So in addition to the physical universe which is provided for the study of humans there is also the word of god."

Essentially, the reason why Natural Law Theory (from a theistic and, specifically, Roman Catholic perspective) says that homosexuality is unnatural is because God dictated that only sex for procreation was valid for humans (see Sin of Onan passage, Genesis 38:6-9). Similarly, and equally invalid from this theistic standpoint, are all forms of birth control (contraception), all sex between those with at least one person who is incapable of having children (barren women or men). Even the rythym method could be attacked on this basis.

The problem with Catholic doctrine is that they do not carry their logic to this (logical) conclusion (anymore). Here is what Pope Pius IX in 1930 said about the subject:

"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (note: to "deliberately frustrate its natural power" means to have sex with the intention of not having children, i.e., practicing any form of birth control).

In other words, you have to try to have babies every time.

So the problem isn't that Dr. Howell is engaging in advocacy when he states that homosexuality violates Natural Law Theory but rather that he doesn't explain Natural Law Theory either correctly or well. He also attempts to argue that none of this depends on isn't based on the dictates of God's will when, in fact, according to traditional Catholic teaching, it is. In fact, it is modern Catholic thought, which allows the rhythm method that muddies the waters and meanders away from Natural Law Theory in the first place.

Finally, a point needs to be raised defending Dr. Howell: he never states explicitly that violation of Natural Law Theory is, by itself, immoral. He states that such a violation is immoral under Natural Law Theory. Under other theories of morality, it very well might be moral. Where people get confused and upset is that they too often equate "nature" with "Natural Law". The former is factually based and amoral. The latter was a theistic invention (that later had an athiestic counterpart) that attempts to circumvent its reliance on religious dogma (and it is dogma even if you do agree with it) in order to determine what is moral or not.

Conclusion: Dr. Howell is 100% correct that, according to Catholic Natural Law Theory, homosexuality is a grave sin. What he should have said is if you accept that theory, you must reject homosexuality, rather than the muddled mess he ended up writing. Still, I don't think he strayed over the line of academic freedom. Teaching something imperfectly is no sin (pun intended).

However, in the end, what you have to understand (and this is the point that should have been made) is that you can't have your Catholic Natural Law Theory and your homosexuality too. You must choose one or the other. Cafeteria Catholics, go back to the buffet and learn that there isn't really a choice if you are a "true" Catholic.

"In this case however the professor obviously stepped over the line in advocating for views that would be highly offensive to many students"

Is this the standard we really want for our universities? That professors can only teach those things that do not offend students? Who is restricted from offending people? Is it just adjuncts, or should tenure track and tenured professors also be fired for offending people?

"Is this the standard we really want for our universities? That professors can only teach those things that do not offend students? Who is restricted from offending people? Is it just adjuncts, or should tenure track and tenured professors also be fired for offending people?"

The adjunct wasn't fired: he wasn't rehired. When it is clear that professors are making offensive personal statements in class that are not part of the course, then yes, it makes sense for a chair to find someone else to teach the course next time. TT and tenured faculty have more protections.

In this case the adjunct could make the case that although he expressed himself badly, he wasn't making a personal statement, but was just elaborating Catholic doctrine. As Zagros points out above, however, if that's what was happening, he was then incompetent, and so a better teacher should be found.

Of course faculty should have the right to hold and make public controversial, unpopular and even offensive views. There's even a place for them in the classroom. But they need to be expressed carefully in the classroom, in an appropriate context. Sending off an email like that was idiotic.

The professor has done his job. Consider the number of comments elicited by his email. As to the email itself, I would criticize
it on the basis of what 'fitted' means and how evidence from one physician he knows stands as part of an academic argument. I would also counter the Genesis 38:6-9 proof by parsing it and by presenting Hebrew bible counter arguments beginning with 'God created man!'

It is not hate speech to put into common terms, for students to reflect on and react to, such lofty notions as utilitarianism and natural law.

To lvassady (post 5 on 7/9), explain how any part of the e-mail you quoted is "hate speech?" We might disagree with the analogy, his assertions, or whatever we want to think about the e-mail but where in there is the professor hateful? No where, at least in that passage.

This kind of thing, non-renewal of your employment contract becuase of an opinion (not technically being fired but essentially being fired) is the inevitable outcome of political correctness run amuck on campuses. Not a good sign for the future of the academy.

Naturalname is right. The issue is not whether the email constitutes "hate speech" (it doesn't, although it articulates positions that are too often used to justify abusiveness), or whether there is some nefarious plot to exclude Catholicism from the public university. After all, the course wasn't cancelled. He just wasn't rehired--a perfectly appropriate course of action for a department chair faced with what is manifestly a certain "incompetence" problem. Public universities simply can't organize courses that teach doctrine. That's why this professor was let go: the course cannot be taught as a seminary course. No harm in not rehiring him, and I think it's not only within their rights, but it's the right thing to do.

The real lurking issue here--and I don't think anyone has mentioned this--is how the uncomfortable relationship between the donors and the department is working. Donors too often give money thinking that, in this example, they're introducing Catholic doctrine to students who need it in some way or another. But the university cannot agree to do this, and I'll bet they didn't. So now the donors have to watch while the department hires someone who will actually promote critical thinking about the institution that has funded the position. And when the young Opus Dei student writes HIS letter to the diocese, watch out.

There is more to this story:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-13/ui-administrators-ask-committee-examine-academic-freedom-over-issue-fired-p

I don't understand why the university would want to review its decision. It is very clear from his e-mail to his students that Dr.Howell had abused his position as instructor and has crossed the line from teaching to advocacy. He has no business teaching in a secular university. The university should maintain some standard and not bow to external pressure.

First, as has been suggested, commentators should read the fuller article referenced above from the local paper. Also people should remember that 'natural law' in Catholic teaching is much different than 'whatever happens in nature'.
Finally, I believe the instructor has a good chance to win a lawsuit. This is a public university and therefore comes under rather broad first amendment protections: if he is teaching (and even advocating) positions that are contained in his area of expertise, his speech is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution. This has been through the courts many times recently. FIRE would love to get a hold of this one.

A better perspective.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-catholic-professor-20100717,0,5015388.story