University of Illinois Catholic studies professor Kenneth Howell, who was let go from his job earlier this summer
due to his anti-gay beliefs (according to him gay sex is "injurious" to
the body), has been given the chance to teach at the public institution once again. If you recall, one of student complained about his viewpoints, calling them hate speech.
According to the Chicago Tribune: "The university released a statement Thursday saying Howell's appointment as an adjunct instructor in the Religion Department - teaching Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism - will be continued for the fall. Howell also taught a course on modern Catholic thought, and the statement did not make clear whether he will still do so. A review of whether Howell's firing by the Religion Department violated his academic freedom is continuing, the university said. 'The University of Illinois is committed to upholding principles of academic freedom and the requirements of the First Amendment,' the statement said."
The university also revealed that they would no longer pay adjunct professors, such as Howell, who teach Catholicism courses through the a local church group, St. John's Catholic Newman Center. They'll now be paid directly by U of I.
But, Howell, as an adjunct professor, could still be dismissed from his teaching position at any time.
Censorship happens all the time in academia, let's face it, nothing new. It's one thing to defend this professor and his 'academic freedom' but it's a whole other story when we aren't blasting by the same token. And although you might defend a professor's academic freedom to preach slavery is NOT a moral issue, you better believe there would be an uproar at that university and across the nation in general. So that fact this story became a 'story' and had some negative consequences for the professor does not bother me in the slightest.
8/2/2010 2:13 PM
-
Das
Then we have to tolerate its being taught, though. As I said earlier, the fact that someone is wrong is not grounds for censorship in academia. Holocaust deniers, proponents of bigotry, and holders of similarly vile positions must not be silenced; if they are, then we weaken the arguments against their positions.
Tolerate is the operative word here Das But you're right, we can only challenge if it's taught
8/2/2010 2:01 PM
-
Das
"Can people here honestly say with a straight face that if the Catholic church still defended slavery and it was taught in academia, we'd tolerate that position?"
Francis Patrick Kenrick was a leading American Catholic moral theologian back in the 1800's who believed it was permissable for Catholics to own slaves citing Catholic doctrine that slavery in the states was a political and not moral issue. The defense here about Catholic doctrine is, in my opinion, lame and weak. Catholic doctrine has changed over the years/centuries.
Can people here honestly say with a straight face that if the Catholic church still defended slavery and it was taught in academia, we'd tolerate that position? The church's views about homosexuality should be challenged because first it's wrong and second the Catholic doctrine does not adhere to many of the teachings of the Bible anyway so that should be pointed out.
IF the class were on Catholic Thought or Catholic doctrine. Then sure. It should be taught that Catholics believe that Homosexuality is X Y Z. . . .
BUT to present it as undisputed fact that Homosexuality is X Y Z. . .would be outside of the scope of the course . . . .
To me, I would have had to evaluate what was actually taught, vs. what the perception of what was taught. And clarify it. The professor should have had the opportunity to make that clarification.
UNLESS he were clearly coming from a space of bigotry. Then it would have to be dealt with differently.
This is one of those cases where the devil is in details.
BUT even if the professor did bugger it up. . .so long as it wasnt systemic, or pathological, I think I'ld be apt to possibly err on the side caution with a reprimand, course correction and him continuing to teach.
"Btw a good Catholic doesn't hate the sinner, they hate the sin. "
Please give me the biblical citation for that little gem.
8/2/2010 10:02 AM
-
Das
"would this way thinking be TOLERATED if the professor held views against these groups?"
Well, yes. It's called academic freedom. Some of us happen to understand that our ability to defend a pro-LGBT position is reliant upon the same principles of academic freedom that this professor enjoys.
"I personally do not believe in any religion, but I do not tell people that they cannot believe what they want."
What if that belief involves thinking a certain group should be killed for who they are?
8/2/2010 3:33 AM
-
Robert
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If you don't want to learn about the Catholic religions viewpoints on homosexuality or on any subject why would you take the class? Homosexuality is deemed a sin by the Catholic religion, the class is teaching about Catholicism... I really don't see what the teacher did wrong. I personally do not believe in any religion, but I do not tell people that they cannot believe what they want. Btw a good Catholic doesn't hate the sinner, they hate the sin.
He better watch out! I can't for the life of me figure out why some on here don't believe he should be fired. In this day and age so many people still think it's okay and a matte of an opinion to hate and be bigoted against Gay people without any repercussions. The simplest way I can put it is take the Gay away and replace it with being Jewish or African American, would this way thinking be TOLERATED if the professor held views against these groups? You can't use religion with a guilty free conscience to justify your views because we all know it's about picking and choosing from the Bible...this is clear and evident and absolutely not defendable.
8/2/2010 1:18 AM
1|0
D O U G
"Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."
That injures me
8/2/2010 12:55 AM
-
D O U G
Bigotry wins at UIC. Shocking!!!
8/1/2010 9:52 PM
1|0
Das
Well, if you're interested in Natural Law theory, start with Aquinas, who posited the existence of a kind of natural justice. And Aquinas has had a huge influence on Church policy.
I still don't think the professor should be fired, but am glad that people are pissed off at him. The controversy and debate can be healthy and can push our side to come up with stronger arguments for our position.
8/1/2010 8:48 PM
-
Ted
I'm just trying to say that there are deeper intellectual arguments even though understanding them isn't necessarily required. Of course, also the church doesn't like to be questioned even if you can use these arguments to come to a different conclusion. For instance, if God is love, sex is a natural expression of intimate love, and a person is to let their conscious be their guide, how can you say it's wrong for a person who identifies as gay to love someone of the same gender? The argument of, "if everyone were gay, there wouldn't be children" and "god made penises and vaginas to go together and make babies" really ring hollow. So it's easier to just trust the church if you don't think about it too much anyway.
8/1/2010 8:28 PM
-
Grant
Oh Ted, relax, I'm just teasing you.
8/1/2010 8:27 PM
-
Ted
I didn't go to school in the 1950s.
I mean it was intellectually challenging and required a lot of work to do well. The average third-grader could have easily passed my confirmation class, by contrast.
8/1/2010 8:24 PM
-
Grant
so by "pretty serious" do you mean metal rulers? I bet you had bloody knuckles by the end of most days.
8/1/2010 8:09 PM
-
Ted
Most of my religion classes were pretty serious. The confirmation classes were just memorization and busy work. Some of the religion classes were like that too, but not most of them.
8/1/2010 7:58 PM
1|0
Grant
Mine was on Tuesday afternoons/evenings...oh so much fun, but yeah.
More like CCD K-12 for me. I suppose every curriculum is diff. to some degree.
8/1/2010 7:39 PM
-
Ted
There usually isn't much high theology in confirmation classes. They keep it pretty basic without getting into the philosophical underpinnings. I might not know about it if it weren't for Catholic high school and university.
8/1/2010 7:34 PM
-
Grant
Seriously, first time I've ever heard of "Natural Moral Law", and I'm confirmed, yet to formally defect
Ok, so the school says that they had to fullfill the "requirements" of the First Amendment, which as everyone knows is the right to freedom of religion and speech and a lot of other things...those two being the most important. And I do agree that people should be able to practice whatever religion they choose...just dont fucking preach it to the world. Not all of us want to hear your Bible bullshit. And not to hurt anyone's feelings but Catholics and Christians are the WORST about that kinda crap....just sayin.
Now as far as freedom of speech. That needs to be clarified a little more...what its really saying is that we can say whatever we want AS LONG AS WE DONT SAY IT ABOUT OR DIRECTLY TO A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP. So its really not freedom of speech. Its kinda like saying you can have your cake and eat it too only to have the cake pulled away from you at the last second and someone saying "Just Kidding!"
And yeah...this is a huge step in the wrong direction for this school....sad news.
8/1/2010 5:07 PM
-
Aaron
I agree with Das. While I disagree with this professor, to fire him would be unfair; at least he's passionate about what he teaches and truly values its importance. To fire him would be like firing a biology professor for talking about evolution.
8/1/2010 11:57 AM
-
Ted
Exactly, Das.
It is an application of the Church's natural law theory. I believe it's an incorrect application, but the course is about what the Church believes, not what other people believe.
8/1/2010 11:55 AM
-
Das
Lol! And like a demon, I appear?
What the guy's teaching has been the position of the Church for a very long time. It's based in a philosophical theory known as Natural Law theory, and while I disagree, the theory as a whole is not without value. If we silent the opposition, how do we ever address their points and show they're wrong?
8/1/2010 11:51 AM
2|0
Grant
If I thought this moron could disseminate material to the students without crossing the line into hate speech and discuss anal intercourse which has by the way nothing to do with Catholicism, I might agree with you Ted, however I'm not sure that's the case with this individual.
8/1/2010 11:34 AM
1|0
Ted
If you took a course about what Nazis believe(d), that wouldn't be hate speech either.
You have a freedom not to take a course wherein you learn about "bigoted viewpoints that are patently wrong," Grant.
I said when this story broke i thought the University was in the wrong, the e-mail could have just been a supplemental lecture to his course. What he wrote is indeed the doctrine of the Catholic Church, my question is why are gays still Catholic when there are so many closely related denominations that are far more open and friendly?
General Discussion
Justin Gaston Shows Some Emotion
Couple Whose Photo Made Them Gay Rights Icons in South Africa Involved in Tragic Auto Accident
But you're right, we can only challenge if it's taught 
