U. of Illinois Adjunct Dismissed for Comments on Homosexuality Was Picked and Paid by Church

Here is an excellent discussion about this issue.http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/19/illinois

Having now read the article pointed to by #2, I must say I’m shocked that this arrangement has been in place at UIUC for such a long time. As someone with no connection to the state of Illinois, but who has been involved with higher education for my entire life (both parents were professors too), this item plus several others (notably the admissions scandal) have made UIUC’s reputation really sink in my mind. It used to be right behind Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UCSD, UNC, maybe Wisconsin and Washington. Now, I think of it as distinctly second tier (and falling).

I really don’t understand why anyone is surprised that a course on Roman Catholicism covers the doctrine. I’ve read the email in question. Again, I don’t understand how it was considered hate speech. He very clearly states that his intent is to provide additional information on two theories covered in class and gives several examples of how each theory would approach the examples. Yes, SEX was covered….yes, even homosexual sex was covered. But as someone that grew up in the Catholic church, I knew that was their view on sex in general and homosexual sex in particular. I still don’t understand how saying…here is the known doctrine of Roman Catholicism about sex (not just homosexual sex) is hate speech?And no, I am not an active Catholic because of their views about homosexuality and womens place in the church…womems place in the world in general.

I too have just read the article and discussion cited in comment #2 above. What I haven’t found is the text of the actual email that began this brouhaha, so it’s difficult to say whether Dr. Howell was proselytizing or not. Frankly, I doubt it; I don’t see how anyone who’s not far-left politically could think it’s OK to proselytize. What do I mean? Faculty and Departments who insist that only an African-American can teach Black Studies courses, or that only a radical feminist can teach Women’s Studies, or that only a Native American can teach Native American Studies. (Well, at least a pseudo-Native American.) It’s routine that such courses are heavily into indoctrination, and administrators defend it. As I understand it, Dr. Howell was better qualified academically to teach Catholic Thought than Ward Churchill was to teach Native American Studies at the university level.In terms of academic integrity, no one who has defended frauds like Ward Churchill has any business howling (Ahem. Sorry.) about the Illinois situation.

If the professor was instructing the class on the tenets of Roman Catholicism, then there is no foul here, even if one disagrees with the tenet. The question becomes “was the professor giving an scholarly opinion (possibly exercising academic freedom), given his personal beliefs ( exercising freedom of speech) or on a tirade (possibly creating a hostile environment)?” No matter who pays, the faculty member must abide by the University standards.

Well said #7. 1) “One, of longstanding, is the absolutely unacceptable arrangement with an outside agency (of any kind) for purposes of hiring and teaching.” You are absolutely correct, but universities compromise ethics to obtain financial advantage in every area imaginable. How do you stop it.2)”The second, immediate, issue is a professor’s conveying a particular point of view in his or her subject matter, linked to a corollary….” I am a bit confused on this. I try not to give my point of view on any subject. I usually state the facts and then ask the students to debate their point of view. A student should be grateful to hear the facts on this position, but not necessarily the teacher’s position. Nor, should a point of view be forced upon anyone.

Re Mr. Cade (11)’ comment: ” Hatred of others who don’t believe as you do is a sin and against the law if you express it.”I don’t think so, Mr. Cade. Would you care to cite exactly which law expressing hatred of others is in violation of? And how that law, if it exists, is likely to hold up in court agains the 1st Ammendment?

A further note: I’ve found the offending e-mail; it’s linked to the insidehighered article which #2 cites. I’m more bewildered than before about the reaction to it. The professor sent an email to his class to clarify a question on an upcoming exam. (Apparently they ran out of class time while discussing the issue.)The question he was clarifying dealt with the philosophical basis of moral decisions. There are several major possibilities: Consequentialism (of which one type is Utilitarianism), Deontology (of which some types are the Categorical Imperative, the Social Contract, and Divine Command morality), Human Nature ethics, and “Natural Moral Law.” In his email, he focused on only two of the possibilities, Utilitarianism and NML, because that was (those were) the focus of the test question. To illustrate the problem and indicate the *types* of answer he was looking for in the exam, he took as an example, homosexual acts. Maybe not the most tactful choice, but it provides clear alternatives of ways to decide moral behavior. He made it clear that students were free to disagree with his point of view, but that they were expected to understand the two ethical theories and how they would apply to a specific moral problem. In other words, he expected *critical thinking.*And for this he has been pilloried, excoriated, and fired. Sad.Perhaps his basic fault was communicating by email. We seldom edit and refine emails—consider the number of errors in logic, spelling, sentence structure, etc. in a vast majority. Sometimes we don’t notice that we’re sending a reply to an entire listserv instead of one person. We ramble; emails are frequently rather stream-of-consciousness, particularly when we don’t think we’re writing for publication. The courts have made it clear that a person using email has no right to an expectation of privacy, but people keep on writing things they *hope* won’t go any farther.On the strength of one anonymous complaint, the university terminated the professor because he was teaching critical thinking and not political correctness. In crude terms, they censored him for the content of his beliefs rather than for professional malfeasance.

drtlegg says (post #3):”I still want to know why they are teaching Voodoo in a public institution…this is just freaking me out…”Not only is this a blasphemous assertion, but it also betrays a commitment to the sort of naive positivism that was popular in the early 20th century. You know, the kind that views science in terms of proven “facts” over and against “gray” areas like religion, philosophy or history.The problem here is the ignorance of a vast literature by scientists that challenges this kind of simplistic worldview.Welcome to the revival of an old, discredited viewpoint, all in the name of setting up a false dichotomy between “Voodoo” and areas depicted as black-aqnd white. This is truly a worn-out re-run, drtlegg!

The intellectual study of any religion is a legitimate academic undertaking. When the institution is a public university and the instructor is proponent of the religion, a dangerous line has been crossed. Teaching students how a particular religion developed — its history, doctrine and tenets — is legitimate. Proselytizing is not.

“Teaching students how a particular religion developed — its history, doctrine and tenets — is legitimate. Proselytizing is not”Of course the real question is: what is proselytizing? Is it proselytizing to say this is what the Catholic Church believes and I agree with it? Is this any worse than the professors who proselytized against the Vietnam war? Must we keep all of our opinions to ourself?

21. Niolonra, thank you for quoting directly from the e-mail It’s now clear the professor wasn’t writing about church doctrine but was presenting prejudices as if they were fact; homosexual acts are harmful to your health, one of the partners plays a woman’s role, etc etc etc. Nothing to substantiate any of those claims exceptm that “a physwician told me” I don’t see any trace of critical thinking and the teaching of it here.

Inciting prayers (particularly in a language that your congregants don’t use) to convert bread into human flesh and wine into human blood is, for many of us, about as good an example of voodoo as you can find.

Yes agpbloom (23), what is legal is not necessarily mnoral. But I hadn’t known we were discussing morality. This is primarily about a. what kind of course on Roman Catholicism (or any other religion) is appropriate in a PUBLIC university in a secular society, b. what kind of relationship is appropriate between the public university and a religous organization that sponsors and pays for the course, c. the particular email in question and whether it was within the bounds of explaining parts of the course. That you consider an equation of Roman Catholicism with Voodoo to be blasphemy is really not relevant here. As far as public institutions and citizens are concerned, blaphemy simply does not exist. No. 27, I don’t think anybody here is proposing that nothing about religion be taught or any research about it be done at the University of Illinois or any other public university. I taught and did research at a public university in Ohio for 40 years and taught our course ‘Religion in Culture’ for over thirty of them.

jffoster indicates that a large part of our discussion here concerns “what kind of course on Roman Catholicism (or any other religion) is appropriate in a PUBLIC university in a secular society…”Here is that naive positivism again. We are informed now that America is a “secular society.”Perhaps, jffoster, as one who claims to have taught a course called “Religion in Culture” for 40 years, sort of missed out on the fact that a large MAJORITY of Americans reject secularism as a worldview. Isn’t it appropriate to mention this in an educational forum about religion? I would think so.How could you omit this item in our discussion after all those years of teaching religion and doing research? What sort of selective forgetting is this?Besides, with all the Voodoo apologists and Anti-Catholic posters on this board, you would have to see that we are anything but “secular” these days? (The Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins true-believers cult aside!)

In all this discussion, one of the biggest elephants in the room is the one that tip-toes whenever a challenge is made in opposition to the chersihed sacred icons of the LGBT lobby.Remember what launched this whole issue. The first concern was not about the so-called separation between public and religious.Would the same scuttling about be in motion today if some of the prominent, gay-activist scholars at this institution had offended heterosexuals with their religious comments in a classroom. I wonder.There is no need to delve into names and personalities right now, but the U of I has a longstanding college industry in queer studies and homosexual/ scholarship activism. But this seems to be just fine. What we really have got to “look into” are the teachings of a man that went way out on a limb when he defended the concept that men and women have a natural propensity for each other. Give me a break! Even older, progressive liberals would not have questioned this natural law approach to sexuality. In 2010 it’s treated as if it is a scandalous view. Just look how far the academy has de-evoled.Does anyone see how out of hand this situation is? I wonder how many tribunals Howell will have to endure before his opponents are finally satisfied.

Agpbloom in 30 commenting on my 28 says, among other things, some of them howlers, the following:”Here is that naive positivism again. We are informed now that America is a “secular society.”Well first, I see neither naivety nor philosophical positivism in the claim that the United States are a secular society. Mr. Bloom may have only just been informed of it but many of us, including almost all social scientists and many ecclesiastics have known it for a long time. Mr Bloom in a phrase of sophomoric sarcasm goes on to say: “Perhaps, jffoster, as one who claims to have taught a course called “Religion in Culture” for 40 years, sort of missed out on the fact that a large MAJORITY of Americans reject secularism as a worldview. Isn’t it appropriate to mention this in an educational forum about religion? I would think so.”I wouldn’t. It’s not relevant to this original news item and discussion. We don’t decide curricula nor analyze social organization by short term majority vote of the populace general. Moreover, it’s not relevant to whether the United States are a _secular_, in contradistinction to a _sacred_, society. It’s not about “world view” of individuals, Mr. Bloom. It’s about whether government and the sovereign groups in the social organization are independent of religious practice and belief. A _sovereign group_ is a group that has original and ultimate jurisdiction over some sphere of social life. The nuclear family, counties in some states but not others, a State of the Union, are examples. The armed forces, the schools, and yes, churches, are not sovereign groups in the legal and social organizational sense of _sovereignty_. Churches in some societies are sovereign, having original and ultimate jurisdiction over things outside their membership. But in the United States, church is strictly optional, and so are church doctrines and practices. This is true even in Utah. Establishment of religion is constitutionally prohibited, and the United States constitutionally prohibit requiring a “Religious Test” as a qualification to hold office under them (Article VI). But even more telling is how “unpervasive” religion comes up in normal operations of the society. There is no “Christian Democrat” or the like political party, political speeches either for the public or in legislative operations are sparse on references to religious dogma. The State has no authority over religious beliefs and only limited authority over religious practice, and religious organizations have absolutely no authority over governmental decisions, operations, or ordinary life. A person can “affirm” in taking an oath and cannot be compelled to swear an oath, mention God in the affirmation, or use a Bible or a cross, &c. Wal Mart is open on Saturday AND Sunday, although Sam and Helen Walton were active and devout Presbyterians and Helen supported a pretty fundamentalist college in the Arkansas. Mr. Bloom, the Republic of Turkey / Türkiye Cumhuriyeti is, a secular republic, despite the fact that something on the order of 97% of the population are Moslems, mostly Sunni. Given the current government, they may not be able to stay secular but they have been since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and are for the present, in contradistinction to, say, Saudi Arabia, a sacred society. Compared to Yurp, divine service is still widely attendedin the United States with some measure of regularity, but these are family and individual acts. Indeed, Americans have been generally and over middle and longer range periods of time remarkably good and clear about what is God’s and what is Ceasar’s. The attention and debate of course attracts to the borders, which are sometimes clear and other times fuzzy and fluxy. Now, given Mr. Bloom’s phrasing of me “as one who claims to have taught a course called “Religion in Culture” for 40 years,…”I should add one additional comment. (Actually, I wrote that I had taught the course ‘Religion and Culture’ for over 30 years). It is of course possible that ‘jffoster’ is a pseudonym and that I am really Queen Marie of Rumania. Or maybe even the Archdruid of Wales. But assuming that it is in fact my initials and name, it ought be pretty easily checked, so if you doubt, LOOK IT THE HELL UP! Ive already told you it was a public university in Ohio. I’ll help you further — it was in a Department of Anthropology. Wonder what Mr. Bloom has been doning the last forty years or soand where he has done it. BTW, I was also once a student in a course about religion given by a public university — the University of Illinois — the main campus at Urbana-Champaign, where I did my graduate work in Anthropology and Linguistics. And despite the expressed “worldviews” of a good many downstate churchians, the Anthropology and Biology departments delved into evolution — all the way from Oyster to Foster.

Mr. Bloom in 35, responding to my 34 has the following, which I believe goes to the core of our differences: ” You also noted that “…the Republic of Turkey / Türkiye Cumhuriyeti is, a secular republic, despite the fact that something on the order of 97% of the population are Moslems, mostly Sunni.” So I guess, according to this approach…you are defining “secular society” in terms of minority rule.”No. It would be a little closer to say it’s defined in terms of the relative presence or absence of “religion rule”. Suggest you read again carefully my 34, and especially the paragraph beginning “I wouldn’t.” To characterize societies as relatively sacred or secular, we do not count how many people go to Mosque, Synagogue, Church, or even how many have a kamidana in their house. We do not depend on an inventory of individuals’ beliefs, or on whether they individually would “accept the secular label”. We look rather at the extent to which “government” and nonreligious social groups are independent of religion and religous beliefs and practices. You go on to say “Applied to America–which was my focus before you went global on us–this would mean that the minority of secular elites who are in positions of power and authority have the power to define America as “secular” even though approximately 90% of Americans would not accept the secular label.”Since it’s about the nature of societies, “global” adds an important perspective, and the contrast between Turkey and Saudi Arabia is a good illustration. But it’s not about anybody “defining” America or Arabia as secular or sacred. It is a matter of discovering, describing, and analyzing what is.

I peruse the “Brainstorm” threads and post a comment more than my fair share of the time. There are some topics, however, that either fail to light my fire or that have developed into a pas de deux that third parties should just let play out. (I’ve been involved in, again, more than my fair share of them.) But seeing my old opponent/friend jffoster step into the quicksand of trying to counter religious certainty disingenuously disguised as philosophical skepticism and deceptively peppered with intellectuals’ names, with his own breadth and depth of linguistic anthropological knowledge prompts me to offer him a bit of advice:Put down your drink, back out of the bar, there’s nothing here for you except prolonged torture by hair-splitting, quote-parsing, inevitable Scripture-waving and, finally, eschatological mumbo-jumbo. Be secure in the knowledge that America–however churchy its citizens–is a secular society. Take a walk down a big-city street, or a drive through the heartland, or have an ice-cream cone in a small town; the rules and customs by which most people interact most with most other people are secular. I haven’t seen shaming stocks in the village square in years, nor police ticketing people on Sunday for not being in church.PS: Unreligious as I am, I do think, however, that the Illinois adjunct was treated a little harshly. Somebody who makes a meagre living saying and writing lots and lots of words dismissed because of a slip-up involving rather tepid e-mail that some students found “offensive”? Please. Thicken thy skins, people. (The Church-State deal is another matter.)

Oops, sorry, shouold read “…freshmen than to Mr. Bloom”. I can see a can or nun buoy half a mile down the river but have trouble proofing on this comment software.

They had no business to fire this guy for giving a thoughtful and honest response to an email. He was just replying to his students and explaining his views on Catholic theology, the subject of the course.