Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
URBANA – An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.
Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI's Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John's Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.
One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.
"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."
He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.
The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell's class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell's statements about homosexuality, which the student called "hate speech."
"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote in the e-mail. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.
"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said. "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."
He also said he's open with students about his own beliefs.
"I tell my students I am a practicing Catholic, so I believe the things I'm teaching," he said. "It's not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it's pertinent to the subject."
Cary Nelson, a UI emeritus professor of English and president of the American Association of University Professors, agreed. He said while many professors choose not to share their beliefs with students, they are free to do so and to advocate for a particular position.
"We think there is great value in faculty members arguing in a well-articulated way," Nelson said. "What you absolutely cannot do is require students to share your opinions. You have to offer students the opportunity to freely disagree, and there can be no penalty for disagreeing."
Nelson is the co-author of a 2007 AAUP statement on "Freedom in the Classroom," as well as the author of a recent book that deals with academic freedom.
"It's part of intellectual life to advocate for points of view," he said, adding he has often used it to start a lively discussion in his classroom.
"Hopefully when they go out in the world, they can emulate that. They can argue a case, and do it in a well-informed and articulate way, and can make a more productive contribution to our democracy that way," he said.
Nelson also said it would be inappropriate to remove someone from a teaching position because they advocated for a position, unless they also required that their students to share the same belief.
Howell said when McKim talked with him about his teaching position, McKim expressed concern that Howell's statements in class would hurt the department. McKim is currently out of the country, and he deferred questions to Robin Kaler, associate chancellor for public affairs.
Kaler declined to comment on the specifics of a personnel matter. She said adjunct lecturers are hired on a semester-by-semester basis, and they have no expectation that their employment will last longer than that semester.
Kaler also said the UI is "absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism, but it's up to the department as to who teaches a class."
The religion department's website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009.
In a series of e-mail exchanges between McKim and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell's teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell's students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, "disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein."
In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes "the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."
Howell said he and McKim have deep disagreements over religious matters, and his job loss was the result of "just a very, very deep disagreement about the nature of what should be taught and what should not be taught.
"It's an egregious violation of academic freedom," he added.
The UI Academic Staff Handbook's statement on academic freedom states that faculty members must teach their courses in a way consistent with the scheduled time, course content and course credit. "Within these constraints, they are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned."
They must also provide students with "the freedom to consider conflicting views and to make their own evaluation of data, evidence, and doctrines. Furthermore, faculty members have a responsibility to maintain an atmosphere conducive to intellectual inquiry and rational discussion."
Howell said he disagrees with the idea that a professor must present lessons without even hinting at his own beliefs on a subject.
"It doesn't seem to me to be particularly honest or fair to a student. If you believe something, you can tell the student that," he said. "Where it becomes problematic is if it becomes injurious to a student by penalizing them for their beliefs. I always tried to be fair and honest and upfront with my students, and engage them on questions of human reason."
In his e-mail to students, Howell wrote: "All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions."
Howell said he's often had students who disagree with him, but "that's always been done with courtesy and respect on both our parts. This semester the students were the most negative and vociferous and critical that I've ever seen."
Howell is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based organization that "provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values," according to its website. Howell said his goal is to be restored to the classroom so he can continue teaching his courses.
The Alliance Defense Fund has just begun looking into Howell's situation, according to a spokesman.
Senior counsel David French provided a written statement, saying "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."
After losing his teaching position with the UI, Howell was told by the Newman Center that he would no longer be employed there either. The Newman Center referred requests for comment to the diocese office in Peoria.
Patricia Gibson, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese and an attorney, said, "We funded the position so he could teach at the UI. He has been told he cannot teach these classes in the future.
"We are very concerned and very distressed by what we understand is the situation from Dr. Howell," she said, adding the diocese has contacted the UI and hopes to meet to talk about the matter.
Howell was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1978. In 1996, he converted to the Catholic faith. He came to the UI in 1998 to teach at the Newman Center.
News-Gazette staff writer Lynda Zimmer contributed to this report.
There is a material difference between teaching about Catholic doctrine and preaching Catholic doctrine. It should come as no surprise that Catholic doctrine holds that homosexual acts are contrary to natural moral law and thus sinful by definition. Nor should it come as any surprise that when teaching about that doctrine an instructor might engage in spirited debate with his students while exploring the parameters of the concept of natural moral law. Any teacher worth his salt would encourage and promote that kind of free wheeling discussion even to the extent of appearing to advocate one or the other side of the debate.
When, more than a half-century ago, I took comparative religion courses offered by both the U of I philosophy department and the various religious foundations associated with the campus that kind of lively debate was not only expected but encouraged - especially, I recall, by the Priest who taught the course offered by the Newman Foundation. It was in the Comparative Religions course taught by the late Prof. Harry Tiebout that I heard Leo Koch guest lecturing on atheism declare, "Praise be to man's penis for without it none of us would be here!" Prof. Tiebout interrupted with, "Except Jesus Christ!". Prof. Koch was let go shortly after that episode for, among other things, the infamous free love letter to the Daily Illini.
Dr. Howell's situation calls that incident to mind.
I should add that I am am a Protestant, heterosexual male graduate of the University of Illinois so that the reader may better evaluate my remarks.
Wow, the thought police have landed right at our back door! How on earth is that "hate speech"? If that's what the Catholic church teaches, and he was hired to teach the position of the Catholic church, what's he supposed to do? Gloss over it? Condone it? If he were to do either of those, then he's not fulfilling the terms of his agreement to teach!
And then the university claims to be "absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism", so who are they going to replace Howell with to teach the class, someone who WON'T teach some of the core beliefs of Catholics and Christians worldwide? Sheesh!!
For the record, I am not Catholic, nor will ever be, but you don't have to be a legal analyst to tell violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech when you see it. And since all the libs are great advocates of freedom of speech, certainly you will agree with this.
While adjunct professors are hired on a semester to semester basis, this is clearly an abridgement of academic freedom. Professor Howell will easily prevail should he choose to litigate.
While I will wait until more details emerge before reaching a firm judgment, I'm very troubled by what has been divulged at this juncture. It certainly does appear that Mr. Howell is being silenced for simply and accurately conveying what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexual acts violating the natural law.
It has been some time since I have seen or spoken with Mr. Howell, but I always found him to be an extremely bright, decent, charitable, forthright and honest person. Unless one turns the definition of "hate" upside down, I don't believe for a moment that he has engaged in actual "hate" speech. It seems far more likely to me that this is another case of extreme sensitivities and political correctness.
I hope and pray that this matter is resolved soon and he is allowed to return to teaching at UI -- for his sake, for the sake of UI and most importantly, for the sake of all the students at UI.
I read both emails now, and I don't see a problem with the professor's email. I don't agree with the Catholic churches position, but the professor was merely teaching his students a framework for evaluating whether something is moral or not. I can understand an undergraduate not understanding the method of using a framework, but the university should have recognized that the professor was just teaching a framework and using homosexuality as the example for act being evaluated.
Our rights as Americans are expanding to include the right not to be offended, even when the offense comes as a result of the education received from a class someone paid good money to take.
Understanding other perspectives with which one disagrees is a crucial skill for students, and one this course seems to be encouraging them to develop. It's easy to label an opposing viewpoint (as "hate speech", for example) but it takes much more thought to consider that viewpoint and respond rationally, which would including reasoning about the criteria for a label like "hate speech". If a professor is guilty of hate speech for explaining in a class on Catholic thought the basis for a Catholic moral position, much discussion in classes dealing with the history of thought or any debatable, controversial issues could be shut down.
The Natural Moral Law basis of the Catholic viewpoint is of course appropriate content for a class on Catholic thought. Professor Howell's email explains how NML applies to the relevant cultural issue the class had been discussing and he asks the class to consider two opposing moral theories (Utilitarianism and NML) rationally. Based on what's presented here, they aren't required to agree with the Catholic position, but to understand it. How can students be fully educated if professors can’t discuss ideas and theories that offend any student or group of students? My education at the U of I and elsewhere would have been diminished if I hadn't been exposed to perspectives of professors and other students whose beliefs, ideas and arguments differed from my own and even made me uncomfortable at times. I'm very glad my education included opportunities to gain an understanding of the reasons others, including professors, have the viewpoints they do. I'm deeply concerned that the university would now go in the direction of restricting academic freedom, rather than promoting the kind of rigorous thought and engagement with difficult issues and contrasting arguments that is a key part of a college education.
"The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."
Does nobody catch the irony here? Certain contributions to public discourse are not to be tolerated? Independent thought must not tolerate certain world views? Freedom of speech can be free only if heavily censored? I hope UIUC pays dearly for this!
His freedom of speech has been violated. I don't understand why the University opposes the same inclusion it claims it stands for!
Both the student and friend both reacted illogically to the situation. They knew that they were attending a class on Catholic teaching or thought. And most people (unless you live in a cave or romote island somewhere) know the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning morals. Aparently they had no logical, rational or intellectual defense of their views, therefore they went into a defensive mode by making false accusations such as his authoritarian demand for his belief only. If this was truely the case, I think there would have been alot more complaints earlier and he would not have been teaching for as long as he did there. Also I believe that the student was probablely not the first homosexual to attend the class and others probablely handled it in an adult manner by approaching him either privately or publicly with an intellectual response or defense. I beleive that Prof. Howell should not have been fired (because he was obviously following all guidelines and laws) and that those in authority should have taken the time to investigate the incedence by interviewing present and past students and faculty members about the case before making a decision on the matter,rather than taking a reactionary, defensive approach to the matter.
The email was very offensive to GLBT people equating them with pederasts people having sex with animals. But I suppose that someone from the Catholic Church can claim some level of expertise on the matter of 40 year olds having sex with 10 year olds.
And where is this debate you people seem to think is involved here? This was an email sent to students just before the final exam.
Saying in class that the Catholic Church hates gay people is one thing, but this email creates a hostile learning environment that should not be tolerated.
EdRyan, are you kidding me?? The point of this class is to explain and teach the tenants of the Catholic Church. The student was pretty aware of that, or at least should have been given the title of the class! The professor never said in class that the Catholic Church hates gay people (nor does the Church hate gays, in fact), but you clearly just want to write an inflammatory post. The professor's email does not say anything insulting to GLBT people, but it does explain why natural law is opposed to homosexual acts or acts of bestiality or any other sexual act that is not natural -- and argue as you will, they are not natural according to human natural law, but are tolerated according to current social standards.
And in regard to your sweet little dig about the Catholic Church and a 40 year old having sex with a 10 year old (although your wording is terrible, I presume you are referring to sex abuse), the Church no more condones such a thing than a school or a scout troop or any other similar group would condone the same thing just because a member had done so. A person doing something does not mean the organization supports it. But then you already know that. Bringing up such an insult is in no way pertinent to this professor, the email, or the discussion.
Just because you are offended that natural law excludes homosexual acts does not mean this professor is wrong for teaching it as a part of the Catholic faith in a class on Catholicism.
GLBT people have seen enough of this equating gay people with pederasts and bestiality by R. Catholics ranting against us. These are clearly code words. He might just as well have said "God Hates Fags" because that is exactly the meaning of his rant. To a GLBT person, the language this clown used is exactly equivalent to refering to an African-American person by the "N" word.
As to the Catholic Church and child sexual abuse, perhaps you have failed to notice what has been going on around the U.S. and the rest of the world the last few years, eh? Where exactly in the world has the Catholic Church not been covering up thousands of instances of child sexual abuse and protecting the abusers?
There are as many concepts of natural law theory as there are philosophers. The Catholic Church has a version as do others. Teaching a theory that students in the class don't buy is fine, but teaching in in a manner using such inflamatory language to some students and members of the student body is not.
The professor went to great lengths to separate the homosexual person from the homosexual act.. He was in no way disrespectful or insulting to a group of people. He did his job, which is to explain the teachings of the Church. And he did it in a respectful and academic manner. If you have a problem here, it is with the Church's teaching, not with the professor who explained the teaching. Your disagreeing with the email because he says the action is wrong does not make him wrong.
If you can relate the sexual abuse scandal to this particular professor, that's one thing. But you can't. To just bring it up to throw stones is ridiculous. It is in no way pertinent to this professor or to the article.
You're right that others may view natural law differently. But this professor was not teaching all interpretations of natural law. He taught the Catholic understanding of it in a course on Catholicism, and he did not teach it in an inflammatory manner or with inflammatory language. If you read his email objectively -- whether you agree with it or not -- you surely can't find it inflammatory. If he sent it to the entire student body, then perhaps it would be offensive since it would not serve a purpose. Sending it to the students in his class who are learning Catholic interpretation of moral law for the class on Catholicism -- uh, no.
I'm a Newman alum. I've never met Dr. Ken. But what I do know is that Newman touts itself to be the world epicenter of Catholocism. I get their mailings such as the Catholic Illini and they come across as being more Catholic than the Pope! Fine. I guess I've been fooled all these years because I actually believed them. Not anymore. The University of Illinois fired him for teaching the positions of the Church regarding homosexuality. Then the Newman Center fired him which is a silent statement that they agree and side with the University. Newman when you fired Dr. Ken you sold out. If you are truly "Catholic" you would be defending Dr. Ken right now. To the University, to the media, to the students etc. but what I can see you have done no such thing. Sad
Double standard at the U of I, why didn't they fire Professor Kaufmann for his anti-Chief hate rhetoric?
This reminds me of the story of the Emporer's new clothes where the university wants everyone to remain ignorant. The professor was simply pointing out the obvious that an entire species that is homosexual is not natural and therefore cannot procreate and will perish. The professor probably just thought of this fact as self evident. The real question is this university in the business of promoting higher learning or more interested in political correctness.
An entire species that is celibate cannot procreate and will perish. Is the test of "naturalness" in the supposedly morally relevant sense of that term whether the behavior is such that if people universally engaged only in that behavior, the species would survive? By that criterion, bi-sexuality passes, celibacy fails.
Double standard at the U of I, why didn't they fire Professor Boyle for his anti-Israel hate rhetoric?
Why the Department of Religion believes it can afford to reject a free adjunct instructor is beyond me. Howell's argument is pretty poor, but it reflects Catholic doctrine and is certainly not worthy of censure, much less firing. If a student doesn't agree or finds it offensive, as I do, then make that argument in your exam!
Given the PC climate that has inveigled itself into the University of Illinois adminstration and campus culture, one can only wonder how Mr. McKim would deal with it if a similar complaint were lodged against an adjunct professor teaching an Introductory Course on Sharia Law. Islam holds a similar, if not more stringent, position on homosexuality even if it's not based on the same theoretical argument relative to Natural Moral Law.
It seems these days that you can mock, denigrate, and caricature Jesus, Christians, or the Christian faith itself, and there is no hue and cry from the same self-righteous and smug intellectuals who decry even the slightest critique of Islamic tenets.
Yeah, that's the academic freedom I came to cherish when I matriculated at the U of I.
PC police run amok.
It sounds to me like someone has fatwa envy.
I, for one, have heard a *lot* of intellectuals criticize misogynistic, homophobic, and violent teachings when it comes to Islam. If you can find a similar lecturer at UIUC that is evangelizing the homophobic teachings of Islam, let's hear about it.
May God bless Dr. Howell for teaching the truth of our Catholic faith! A faithfull Catholic accepts all the teachings of the Church and just not to pick and choose to fit thier life style. The Church explains all these teaching thru the Catechism and Church documents.We are called out of Love and true charity to love the sinner and hate the sin. It is easier for people to justify their bad behavior than to change it.If you want to get to Heaven confess your sins,keep close to Sacraments of the Church, be a good example in Christ. Be a Saint not a bad example! Thank you Dr. Howell!
The whole argument comes down to the paragraph below where Dr Howell out of the blue declares what is REAL, or what "fits". And the best proof it's so is that he says so ?? If this is what he considers teaching students to think for themselves, then the University should have let him go long ago.
"But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. "
He declared nothing "out of the blue." Put the email in context -- nearly an entire semester of class behind it. This email alone wasn't meant to encompass every discussion of a semester of a course. It's just all you've read from the course. And the proof behind it is not that he says it's so, but that he's teaching a course on the subject of Catholicism, and this is the Church's conclusion. What else is he supposed to teach in a course on the Catholic faith?
If Dr Howell said "Church says that this is reality" he would be teaching. But he says "This is reality" and this is preaching.
So every statement he makes should begin with "The Church says"? Wow.
The letter from the instructor ends with a statement that Catholic morality is based on correct understanding of the world: "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 has two faults as far as classroom teaching goes:
1. given that there is no logical argument leading to this conclusion, it is faulty teaching.
2. It is not teaching ABOUT Catholic thought but a declaration of correctness of Catholic thought. What if it were a course on another religion that promotes different morality as "natural morality law" - including things you consider immoral and repugnant - and if the instructor stated "XXXX don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."
For starters, he could actually study what utilitarianism actually is before discussing it and know a thing or two about homosexuality before he decides to go on and on about it so ignorantly (and laughably).
In all fairness, the student who "reported" Ken Howell and the student who remains "anonymous" (should he be called "The Wimp"?) should have been kicked out of the school for "hate speech" towards Catholics.
They said nothing hateful about Catholics. In the classroom, a professor has power over students. Howell's comments are so deeply offensive to gays that it does not surprise me that the student would be afraid. That's not being wimpy. That's being realistic. If you're gay and the person grading you is an obvious homophobe, why would you speak up? No professor should behave the way Howell did. He is a disgrace to the profession.
By the time students reach college, they are considered adults in most states. Reading the emails, it is impossible for all but the most myopically sensitive readers to see anything but a statement of Catholic teaching from Howell, and nothing but overstating from the student. I think an adult making an accusation like this should stand up and make himself known. The accusation is 3rd hand, and the evidence does not support it. If I were an attorney, I'd beg Howell to let me have his case.
And the first thing I would prove in court through testimony would be that these two students who were "raised Catholic" and "didn't go to Notre Dame for a reason" knew exactly what they were signing up for, expected an easy A, didn't get it, and are now shooting the messenger.
It is clear from the last two paragraphs of his email that Howell has passed from description (of Catholic doctrine) to advocacy. The question for me is, Is this acceptable behavior by a classroom instructor? Frankly, I'm not sure.
What bothers me most about his description of "Natural Moral Law" is that he doesn't question what is "natural". For example, many primates practice prostitution (exchange of sex for food), but I seriously doubt that Howell would take this to mean that prostitution is moral.
His description of Natural Moral Law in the email is essentially a summary of what was discussed in the class. He can't very well reproduce stacks of documents written by Church philosophers and theologians in an email, but he can remind the students of the basics of what was discussed in class or in their readings. Read more about "Natural Moral Law" and you will find that it is not synonymous with "anything that occurs in any animal in nature." But there are tons of documents on the subject. A decent professor of religion can't just present a theory without explaining why the Church advocates such a theory. So the last part that explains why the theory makes sense is sort of essential to understanding why the Church embraces it. I doubt anyone would have read the email if he included hundreds of pages further explaining Natural Moral Law.
In his email, Howell finds the space to critique utilitarian morality. There is no similar critique of NML. Surely, if he's "teaching, not preaching" (as another poster put it), he would have made a more balanced presentation. "Stacks of documents" are not required.
If you think that Howell is simply a teacher (not an advocate) please reread his last two sentences:
Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.
He is saying that natural moral reality is not a religious doctrine but an actual description of the world. In his view, those who disagree are wrong. If that's not advocacy, I don't know what is.
Let's see - oh my alma mater - we hire within the U of I system, enable, and give awards to a "suspected" criminal ( off on technicality ), attempted murderer, and unrepentant terrorist like Willy Ayers, but fire a good catholic for teaching what good catholics believe in a course stating that is what it is going to teach. How come no one is offended by a guy who wishes he had read the bomb making manual a little better so he didn't blow up his friends instead of our military and government officials !! So if a straight kid purposely signs up for the Lesbian studies class and then says he is offended, does the lesbian get canned too ????
Robert McKim should be fired as department chair for a lack of managerial competence and leadership. His action reinforce the perverse notion of student as consumer. If the consumer (student) is offended or does not like something, then the consumer (student) should receive immediate and satisfactory redress. This notion bastardizes the purpose and intent of education especially at the collegiate level. McKim should know better. His action belies his ignorance of the purpose and intent of education. Thus, he should be fired as department chair for his shameful behavior.
The anonymous student who received the e-mail should be encouraged to leave the university. This student refuses to accept the yoke of responsibility for intellectual rigor and challenge that higher education should demand from its student. This student's behavior shows a lack of acceptance and perhaps maturity. Thus, this student belongs at an institution that does not require such responsibility and maturity.
Internally, the student who forwarded the complaint should be brought up on academic charges. Externally, this student should be investigated for making defamatory comments. The student's e-mail is reprehensible. Further, this student involved themselves in a situation that did not concern him or her. This student needs to learn the lesson of "not my pig, not my farm."
Finally, UIUC's failure to investigate this matter lowers its place as a world class institution. Either UIUC stands either (1) for an education that offers intellectual rigor and demands intellectual honesty from its students, or (2) for a credentialling service where consumers receive a certificate because they completed certain workshops or classes.
Bevo: Right on. I personally wouldn't suggest quite the same final outcomes, but no matter. Students are no longer students, they are consumers, and professors are service providers. Blech.
Let's remember that the student was complaining about an entire semester of behavior by the professor, not just this single email. May I suggest to all the outraged readers that perhaps this single email doesn't grant us the full picture of what went on in this class. Frankly I thought the email ranged a little creepy. Why couldn't he have discussed teenagers on either side of the age of legal consent instead of summoning the image of adults seducing children? Why was the image of a man-dog relationship even necessary, when he's already broached the topic of flawed consent? Why is it necessary to summon graphic images of homosexual acts when you can simply state that male-female sexual relations are more complementary? This email didn't say much, but it indicates that he's accustomed to talking about subjects in a manner that's bound to raise some hackles, and unnecessarily so. Does it indicate an outside agenda? Maybe.
I am for the Dr. What have we become? I saw nothing hateful only truthful in his Email. I am the mom of a person with gender disorder. I wish more people would speak the truth to my kid. I believe the U.S Goverment,and the APA, is guilty of child abuse by promoting this life style that causes so much pain.As far as the university goes appolagize to the Dr. you need good people like him. Most of America has a blind eye to this issue,because it doesnt affect them. Wake up America. This is going to blow up in all of our faces. Kids in kindergarden dont need men in dresses teaching them about sex education. That sounds far fetched ,but is very close to becoming a reality. Catholics and other religions are confusing people more. Quit being wish washhy on the subject. God is not going to reward us for lying to our children. Please stand up and say the truth. Homosexuality will never be normal and right. I just keep loving my kid and hoping that my country will love her too!
A lot of other posters have touched on this, but there are many more professors that would be fired if this was a legitimate basis for dismissal. I'll admit I don't have all the facts, but no matter how one student took it, it seems Dr. Howell was merely explaining the Catholic Church's views on moral law as it relates to homosexuality. If you think you're going to be offended by the presentation of the Catholic Church's views on morality, don't take a class on Catholicism. In many classes at UI, mainly in humanities departments, it's routine for ultraliberal professors to force their views on students. That's not just explaining them, but explicitly saying "I'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong", and grading papers, tests, etc., based on whether your opinions agree with the professor's. But I've never heard of a humanities professor being disciplined for it. I know there's more to this story than can be reported in a few newspaper articles, but as a UI alum, I'm embarrassed by what looks to be a blatant violation of academic freedom.
I remember hearing a university is a place for the exposure to unpopular views. Obviously, only if the ideas are "correct". Dr. Howell was hired to instruct on the views of Catholicism, and fired for doing just that. I took an Animal Behavior class at UIUC in 1989, and the professor MOCKED Creationists: "With all the evidence for Evolution, how can anyone believe in Creation?" He then laughed. I was truly offended at his attacking my religion. Now, if I had made a formal complaint, would he be sanctioned in the same manner? I have a sneaking suspicion.....no. So sad.
I wonder if anyone there is educating on Sharia law, and if so, do they face the same restrictions?
Regarding the question at the end of your post, the following is from http://www.relst.uiuc.edu/uged/ugdescriptions.html
RLST 480/LAW 792 Islamic Law (Khalil)
This course will introduce students to Islamic legal philosophy and the historical evolution of Islamic legal and jurisprudential systems. We will begin by studying the origins, nature, sources, and interpretive methodologies of classical Islamic law, and the main institution for upholding this law, the madhhab, or school of law, examining its development from the formative to the post-formative periods and highlighting important controversies generated along the way. We will then look at the early encounter of Islamic law with modernity. This will be followed by an exploration of several contemporary topics that have served as catalysts for new tensions and alternative approaches and interpretive theories. (3 undergraduate/law credits; 4 graduate credits)
As to the second part of your question, I have no information on whether the same restrictions apply. :-)
Dr.Howell's academic freedom is not the issue here. It is that he has abused it by using the classroom to advocate his beliefs. Why should someone from the Catholic Newman Center have the right to use the university classroom to spout off Catholic dogma? Has anyone look at the stuff that he writes? Can other professors get away with this kind of BS? I am surprised that he has been allowed to teach at the University for 9 years.
Because it's his JOB to "spout off Catholic dogma." That was the whole point of the class. How can you teach a class on Catholicism if you don't teach about Catholicism. How did you miss that?
If what you say is true, then he really should be fired. A public funded university should not tolerate this kind of teaching. There is a fine line between teaching about Catholicism and advocating Catholicism. Dr.Howell crossed that line. His-mail is proof of that.
Is there a fine line between teaching psychology and advocating it? Is there a fine line between teaching evolution and advocating it? It seems that in a course covering a particular topic, it works to have a professor who also advocates what he is teaching. This class was about Catholicism. Public university or not, the course was offered by the University and is on religion. Students aren't required to enroll in it. Unlike a high school, you pick your courses in college, and the University can have religious topics and other topics some find questionable. There is a queer studies major at UIUC. Does that major also offend you since it's supported by tax dollars as well? Regardless, you can't take away his right to free speech, and the Supreme Court has said professors do have a right to free speech in a classroom.
Comments
Comments for this post are read only.