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.

Comments

Comments for this post are read only.

PanchoAngry wrote on July 18, 2010 at 11:07 am

The U of I was created as a land grant university for good reason: the hard sciences are our best chance of building a society on reality, not myth or sensibilities, or other subjective distortions. The addition of religion and other departments to the university's offerings was a huge and perhaps fatal mistake. With our poor finding situation we should divest ourselves of all non-land grant studies and get back to brass tacks.

Kayla wrote on July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am
silas1898 wrote on July 17, 2010 at 5:07 pm

I would never sign up for one of his courses. True believers make lousy teachers.

Good for UI for finally booting him.

mandy wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

I agree.

Demoder wrote on July 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm

To JNC, and others:

Many of you have completely missed the point of this entire dispute--just like, apparently, the department chair who fired the professor. If you, like this professor, are being PAID to teach a subject--be it Catholicism, Islam, evolutionary theory, or electromagnetics--you ought to be expected to teach it accurately. It is--indisputably--a tenet of the Catholic faith that homosexual acts (please note: acts, not people) are immoral, disordered, and against the natural law; also please note, that this faith likewise holds pre-martial and extra-martial sexual acts to also be immoral, disorderd, and actually sacrilege (martimony is a sacrament in Catholicism). You might not agree with this, and I can tell that JNC obviously does not agree with this, but it is a simple fact, and you cannot dispute it: THIS is what Catholicism teaches. Thus, if you are a professor, teaching a class on Catholicism, you had better get that right.

If your students don't want to hear it because they think its "hate speech," then it is your students who need to learn adamedic honesty. Read: just because you don't like what the subject teaches doesn't mean that your teacher is wrong for teaching you what the subject actually DOES teach. I have an baccalaureate in anthropology, with a concentration in human evolution, and never once did I think it was "hate speech" for one of my evoultionary theory professors to say that I was evolutionary and genetically similar to scavenging australopithicines who froliced about the Rift Valley two-million years ago. I never once thought, "Hey, did she just say that all you black people are descendants of poop-eating apes?! OMG, That's so HATE SPEECH! I'm writing an email!"

Seriously: what is the issue here? You either teach a subject accurately, or you don't. There is absolutely no argument that any sophist on the planet can offer that will contradict this professor's accurate teaching of Catholic morality. Period. If you don't like Catholic teachings, that is another topic: you're not in class to learn what you agree with, you're in class to learn what the subject is about. Again, you might not happen to like the idea that Ohm's Law says voltage is equal to the product of resistance and current, but if you ever take a circuits class, you'd better hope you teacher teaches you EXACTLY that. And if your professor doesn't, you need to get your money back. Same with this professor and teaching Catholic beliefs. Any professor worth her/his weight in sand will take very seriously what her/his students learn while in class, and no professor should knowingly present information on the topic of her/his expertise that is contrary to facts of it (at least not without prefacing that discussion with certain caveats). As far as this professor is concerned, he did exactly what the university hired him to do: he taught exact Catholic teaching. So what did they do? They fired him because a student didn't like what he/she was LEARNING. That is insane--and an affront to academic honesty: he should have only been fired if he DIDN'T teach this.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 5:07 am

I haven't missed the point at all. He's a lousy teacher. Period.

mandy wrote on July 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm
sahuoy wrote on July 16, 2010 at 4:07 am

U of I is its own worst enemy, ousting a teacher based upon a student complaint that in turn is supported by the administration. It appears the school not only censors free speech but is taking a leading role in the evolution of the gay community by acting on behalf of learning students and withholding the accomplished status quo. How the U of I could ever accomplish any thing of value with my tax dollars has morphed from the 8th truth to the 8th myth. Hypocrites at best and a very sad waste of time and money not best spent on free thinking, free speech, guiding, educating persons paying for an education but spending it on throwing a tantrum. Good bye U of Illinois, my nephew has crossed you off his list, I agree his money is better spent at a teaching university school of thought.

JNC wrote on July 15, 2010 at 1:07 am

Howell's arguments are very superficial and contrived to reach only one conclusion - that the Church is right and gay sex is bad. He attributes support for same-sex marriage solely to the empathy people might feel for particular LGBT people. Actually, the opposite is true. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based primarily on the animosity people feel towards gays. There are many substantive reasons to support same-sex marriage based on facts, not mere emotions. In fact, this is going on in our court system regularly, and only last week a judge ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it did not provide for equal protection under the law, was based mostly on hatred toward gays, and violated states rights. Another recent study found that children raised by lesbian parents have fewer emotional problems than those raised by heterosexuals. It's long been known that lesbian relationships are the longest lasting on average. The American Psychological Association ruled long ago that people in same-sex relationships can have meaningful, profound, caring, long-lasting relationships, and therefore to label homosexuality a mental disorder, as was done in the past, is completely wrong. There is more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetically caused, and therefore immutable. There is no evidence of an effective homosexual cure, no matter what the churches say. Howell conflates marriage with the need to procreate, but there is no requirement that people procreate in order to get married, as the courts have said repeatedly in these cases challenging the denial of same-sex marriage. See? I just gave a number of facts, not opinions or feelings, supporting same-sex marriage. What Howell does is take one weak argument and turn it into the only argument, ignoring all the strong arguments that contradict his and the church's position.

His arguments comparing gay sex to sex with a dog or a 40 year old man with a 10 year old child are the product of a hateful mind. The students who complained pegged that one correctly. Apparently Howell is unaware that in the past it was not uncommon for poorer parents to marry off their 14 year old daughters to 60 year old rich guys. Since they could procreate, though, Howell would not find that morally objectionable. Regarding same-sex marriage, we're talking about consenting adults (for Howell's benefit, I'll add human). Since when does a dog consent? It's not difficult to make distinctions. The fact that Howell has to resort to such extreme and ridiculous comparisons illustrates the weakness of his arguments.

Men and women are complementary in their psychology? Really? How old school could you get! If that were the case, you'd see a lot less divorce than actually occurs. Those who study gender roles, and actually know what they're talking about (meaning people other than Howell), will tell you that gender is learned and socially conditioned, not natural, as Howell insists it is. There is nothing natural about women wearing makeup and men watching football. These things are learned and conditioned into us.

The sweeping generalizations, the polarity in his thinking, the ad hominem attacks on gays and lesbians, the leaps of logic, the conflating of tradition with natural law - all of these point to a weak thinker. I find it very hard to believe this guy was ever a good instructor. That he's an indoctrinator seems clear - and all in defense of a church known for its pedophilia. Go figure.

Paul H wrote on July 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm

Hi JNC,
 

Opposition to same-sex marriage is based primarily on the animosity people feel towards gays.

It's sad to know that someone thinks that. That isn't true of anyone I have encountered who opposes same-sex "marriage."
 

The American Psychological Association ruled long ago that people in same-sex relationships can have meaningful, profound, caring, long-lasting relationships

I'm not sure if this is exactly what they said, but so what? If an association of psychiatrists and/or psychologists says something, does that mean it must be true?
 

There is no evidence of an effective homosexual cure, no matter what the churches say.

The Catholic Church, which was the subject of Dr. Howell's class, does not teach that there is a "cure" for homosexuality. You are arguing against a straw-man.
 

There is more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetically caused, and therefore immutable.

Again, the Catholic Church takes no position on whether homosexual inclinations are caused by genetics, upbringing, other factors, or some combination. Again, you are arguing against a position that your opponent does not hold. (Also, just because a condition has a genetic cause does not necessarily mean that it is immutable.)
 

Howell conflates marriage with the need to procreate, but there is no requirement that people procreate in order to get married

And Catholic moral teaching does not say that procreation is a pre-condition for a valid marriage (though the couple must at least be open to the possibility of procreation). Again, you are arguing against positions that Dr. Howell presumably does not teach, assuming that he is giving accurate information about Catholicism.
 

His arguments comparing gay sex to sex with a dog or a 40 year old man with a 10 year old child are the product of a hateful mind.

Apparently Howell is unaware that in the past it was not uncommon for poorer parents to marry off their 14 year old daughters to 60 year old rich guys. Since they could procreate, though, Howell would not find that morally objectionable.

These comments reveal more about your prejudices than about Dr. Howell. You have no way of knowing his motivations, and there is no logical basis in his e-mail to conclude that he would approve of a marriage between a 60-year-old and a 14-year-old.
 

Those who study gender roles, and actually know what they're talking about (meaning people other than Howell), will tell you that gender is learned and socially conditioned, not natural, as Howell insists it is.

I can only guess that you must not have ever spent much time around children, if you believe this.
 

The sweeping generalizations, the polarity in his thinking, the ad hominem attacks on gays and lesbians . . . [snip] . . . and all in defense of a church known for its pedophilia.

Ad hominem attacks? Pot, meet kettle. :-)

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Now that I have a little time, let me respond to you more carefully.

"It's sad to know that someone thinks that. That isn't true of anyone I have encountered who opposes same-sex "marriage."
- It's actually true of everyone you encounter who opposes same-sex marriage. Without the animosity towards gays or toward the fact of homosexuality, there's no reason to decide their relationships do not warrant the protection of marriage afforded to heterosexuals.

"I'm not sure if this is exactly what they said, but so what? If an association of psychiatrists and/or psychologists says something, does that mean it must be true?"
- Yes, that is what they said. A sexual disorder is something that prevents or inhibits you having a healthy relationship with another person, and that simply is not true of gays and lesbians, ergo it's not a disorder. Psychologists and psychiatrists know this because they are experts, they study these things, and they base their conclusions on actual evidence, not the teachings of a church stuck in the Middle Ages.

"Again, the Catholic Church takes no position on whether homosexual inclinations are caused by genetics, upbringing, other factors, or some combination. Again, you are arguing against a position that your opponent does not hold. (Also, just because a condition has a genetic cause does not necessarily mean that it is immutable.)"
- I wasn't arguing against the church. I was showing that, contrary to what Howell said, there are many reasons besides empathy to support same-sex marriages. Let me spell it out for you. If people are simply born gay or straight, if being gay is simply one variety of the human condition, if gays can have happy, stable, loving relationships, and if children raised by gays are just as emotionally adjusted or even better off than children raised by straight people, then denying them the right to marry is merely discriminatory. Therefore gays should be afforded that right. I made the argument without appealing to empathy for a gay person I happen to know. Howell claims that the main reason people have for supporting same-sex marriage is empathy, but that is not the case. Same-sex marriage is being argued for in the courts using evidence like this.

"And Catholic moral teaching does not say that procreation is a pre-condition for a valid marriage (though the couple must at least be open to the possibility of procreation)."
- That is definitely not true. I'm a recovering Catholic myself. Infertile couples are still allowed to marry in the Catholic Church. Post-menopausal women are still allowed to marry in the Catholic church. The only time this possibility of procreation comes up is when it comes to gays. And Howell most definitely does indeed confer only one reason for sex - to procreate.

"These comments reveal more about your prejudices than about Dr. Howell. You have no way of knowing his motivations, and there is no logical basis in his e-mail to conclude that he would approve of a marriage between a 60-year-old and a 14-year-old."
- Homophobes regularly compare gay sex with bestiality and pedophilia. It's a common accusation. That Howell chose to associate gay sex only with bestiality and pedophilia, while conjuring up images of happy, complementary heterosexual sex tells us a lot about his motivations. Why, when he was talking about heterosexual sex did he not conjure up images of a 60 year old man with a 14 year old girl, when that sort of thing was actually quite normal as recently as the early 20th century? He chose to ignore dysfunctional heterosexual relationships and characterize homosexual relationships solely as dysfunctional. That tells us plenty about his motivations.

"I can only guess that you must not have ever spent much time around children, if you believe this."
- I spend a lot of time around children. Not that that has anything to do with what I said. Gender and sex are two entirely different things. You are born male, female, or intersex. Your gender is a performance that you learn. That's not me saying that. That's what the word means in social science. You can be biologically male in the US and biologically male in Sweden, and your performance of the male gender will be different in both countries because what you learn about gender performance is different. It doesn't come with the anatomy. BTW they've done studies of dressing up toddlers as the opposite sex, then asking adults questions as they observed them playing about which they thought were more assertive, passive, etc., and the adults invariably thought the toddlers dressed as boys were more assertive and those dressed as girls were more passive, along gender lines, even though the assertive boys were really girls and the passive girls were really boys. In other words, you see gender in children because you want to see it. Then you reinforce it, and the children learn how they're supposed to behave. That's how we learn gender.

"Ad hominem attacks? Pot, meet kettle. :-)"
- That was not an ad hominem attack. That was a description of his argument. And don't tell me the Catholic church is not known for its pedophilia. It's been in the press quite a bit for years now. That's probably one of the things the church is most famous for of late.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Animosity to gays is the primary reason for opposing same-sex marriage. People opposed to same-sex marriage might not want to admit it, but it's true. They think that gay relationships are not worthy of the same recognition as straight relationships because they think it's icky, or they think gays are subhuman, or whatever.

I was giving reasons besides empathy for being for same-sex marriage, not responding directly to Howell. The APA said that a sexual disorder is one that prohibits forming healthy sexual relationships, so being gay doesn't cut it. And people care what psychologists and psychiatrists say about human psychology because they're the experts.

I know a lot about Howell's motivation when he uses a homophobic accusation against gays. And that was not ad hominem.

JNC wrote on July 15, 2010 at 1:07 am

I should add that Howell's knowledge of history is also quite poor. Contraception did not lead to promiscuity - and it certainly did not lead to homosexuality. That's not even logical. If heterosexuals could have sex without it resulting in pregnancy, why would they then turn to homosexuality to avoid pregnancy? The fact is homosexuality has existed throughout history. And if Howell had read any Medieval literature, he'd know that promiscuity was rampant back then. In fact, a common joke in Medieval literature is about the voracious promiscuity of Catholic priests. Maybe Catholicism leads to promiscuity? :D

Paul H wrote on July 15, 2010 at 11:07 pm

Contraception did not lead to promiscuity . . .

Really? It didn't? Do you honestly think that "hooking up" (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) would still be as common if there were no such thing as contraception?
 

. . . and it certainly did not lead to homosexuality

I haven't seen anyone argue that contraception leads to homosexuality, but certainly the same idea lies behind both -- that it is fine to divorce sexual pleasure from procreation.
 

If heterosexuals could have sex without it resulting in pregnancy, why would they then turn to homosexuality to avoid pregnancy?

Where or when has Dr. Howell or ANY Catholic ever claimed such a thing???
 

The fact is homosexuality has existed throughout history.

Granted. And this proves what, exactly?
 

In fact, a common joke in Medieval literature is about the voracious promiscuity of Catholic priests. Maybe Catholicism leads to promiscuity? :D

Isn't it funny how if Dr. Howell repeated a "common joke" about homosexuals, you would be up in arms, but you see no problem with repeating a mildly insulting "common joke" about Catholics. This is precisely the type of double standard that the university appears to have employed in dismissing Dr. Howell.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm

"I haven't seen anyone argue that contraception leads to homosexuality, but certainly the same idea lies behind both -- that it is fine to divorce sexual pleasure from procreation."
- Howell makes that argument in his email message. And sexual pleasure, thank god or whatever, is divorced from procreation in most instances. Otherwise our overpopulation problem would be worse than it is.

"Where or when has Dr. Howell or ANY Catholic ever claimed such a thing???"
- In his email message.

"Granted. And this proves what, exactly?"
- It proves that Howell is wrong. The rampant promiscuity that Howell says followed the advent of easily accessible contraception did not lead to homosexuality being rampant.

"Isn't it funny how if Dr. Howell repeated a "common joke" about homosexuals, you would be up in arms, but you see no problem with repeating a mildly insulting "common joke" about Catholics. This is precisely the type of double standard that the university appears to have employed in dismissing Dr. Howell."
- Howell's email was funny, but only because it was so incredibly stupid. There was no intentional humor in it, I am sure. He was not repeating a joke. If you have a problem with the Medieval texts, you're going to have to talk to the Medieval writers who wrote them. But you are wrong. It is Howell who employs the double standard. He invokes only positive images of heterosexual relationships, ignoring the abundant instances of dysfunction in heterosexual relationships. At the same time, he paints only a negative picture of homosexual relationships.

Les Reid wrote on July 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm

I am not surprised that Howell was let go. He seems to have a very poor grasp of moral reasoning, probably in inverse proportion to the strength of his Catholic faith. He denounces homosexuals as immoral because same-sex relations are "unnatural". Likewise, following orthodox Catholic dogma, he denounces contraception as "unnatural".

But what would a totally "natural" way of life be like? No knife and fork - eat with your hands. No clothes - naked as nature intended. No trains, planes or automobiles - these feet were made for walking. No cultivation or farming - let nature have its way. In short, we were better off living in caves and feeding on berries.

Howell's arguments to base morality on nature are quite fatuous and would be merely laughable, were it not for the despicable prejudice against gays and lesbians that they support. I am not surprised that students objected to his style of teaching, nor am I surprised that that university has decided not to continue employing him. He is not up to the job.

Paul H wrote on July 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm

Les,

You need to understand the way that the words "nature" and "natural" are used in Catholic moral theology. They do not mean the same thing that they mean in common, everyday speech. That is why your analogy in the second paragraph does not work; you are assuming natural means "not man-made," which is not the meaning of "natural" in Catholic moral theology.

Kayla wrote on July 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm

His reasoning is based on natural moral law, not just whatever is natural. He based it on the Catholic Church's beliefs, not just his own ideas and arguments. He has an excellent grasp of moral reasoning because he was teaching not his own concoction, but the belief system of the Church. Your argument about what is "natural" isn't even relevant to NML. You're talking about something entirely different and then getting offended by your thought process. You said, "Howell's arguments to base morality on nature are quite fatuous and would be merely laughable . . ." but he's not basing it on "nature." Your conclusion is laughable. You missed the whole point.

JNC wrote on July 15, 2010 at 2:07 am

Howell is a very weak thinker (as I noted in my post). His reasoning is very easily refuted. You are right that he bases his arguments on the beliefs of the church, but therein lies the problem. Catholicism is a faith. The nature of faith is to believe things that are unseen, unprovable, and often contrary to actual evidence.

You are wrong that Howell does not think he's talking about nature. He does have nature all wrong, but he definitely thinks he knows what is and is not natural. That's the whole crux of his argument. Look at this quote from his email message:

"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's completely wrong because: a. Homosexuality is just as natural and real as heterosexuality (it exists throughout the animal kingdom and has existed among humans for as long as there have been humans); b. No two people are interchangeable, no matter what their gender; c. Sex is not practiced solely to procreate; there is also a pleasure component that Howell doesn't seem to know about; d. Men and women are not actually complementary. Tradition would like to shape men and women into that, but men and women are really more alike than different, so they are in no way opposites that complement each other; e. Gender roles are learned, not natural. This completely debunks Howell's premise.

Kayla wrote on July 15, 2010 at 10:07 pm

Dr. Howell has researched and written extensively on this topic. You might not agree with him, but to state that he doesn't know what he's talking about -- and to imply that you do -- is unconvincing and presumptuous.

You are still confusing natural moral law with, as someone else pointed out in another post, "all things that happen in nature." Not the same thing at all. Something that exists in the animal kingdom, like fish eating their young, does not make it natural for human beings. And to your "C," you clearly don't know the Catholic (and this is a course in Catholicism) teaching that sex is both a unitive and a procreative act, and you can't separate them. While procreation doesn't always occur, removing the aspect from the act entirely is denying the meaning of the act. (And before you shoot back that that would mean sex after menopause or in other times of natural infertility would then be wrong, no. The Church already thought of that and answered those issues. But Dr. Howell didn't need to cover all of that in his email because it was BASED ON A CLASS DISCUSSION, not for the purpose of explaining every aspect of the Church's beliefs to an international crowd not even in his class.)

D. Men and women are complementary, and research has explained that the androgynous view of childrearing and looking at people over the last few decades is erroneous.

E. Gender roles are not learned; they are natural. Look at the research over the last decade that tells us the idea of gender is programmed by nurture is totally false. While some people continue to cling to the notion, psychologists, doctors, and researchers over the last years have found it to be ridiculous. Guess Dr. Howell's premise is supported by current research. But then he's an expert in his field, so that's not a shock.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 6:07 pm

"Dr. Howell has researched and written extensively on this topic. You might not agree with him, but to state that he doesn't know what he's talking about -- and to imply that you do -- is unconvincing and presumptuous."
- Believe me, I have done a lot more research on gender and sexuality than Howell has. And unlike Howell, when I write about the topic I base it on evidence derived from research, not something a nameless physician told me.

"You are still confusing natural moral law with, as someone else pointed out in another post, "all things that happen in nature."
- No, I am saying that Howell thinks he knows what is natural and real. For heaven's sake, he even capitalizes the two words: REAL and NATURE.

" you clearly don't know the Catholic (and this is a course in Catholicism) teaching that sex is both a unitive and a procreative act, and you can't separate them."
- Having survived 12 years of Catholic schooling, believe me, I know all the nonsense the Catholic church teaches about sexuality. Why anyone would still think the Catholic church a good source of information on sex is beyond me. Thankfully, most Catholics don't practice what the church teaches about sex. There's a reason for that. It's stupid nonsense.
"The Church already thought of that and answered those issues."
- Yeah, the church is really good at covering its ass after the fact. The things that the Catholic church has thought of are precisely the reasons why I am no longer a Catholic.

"But Dr. Howell didn't need to cover all of that in his email because it was BASED ON A CLASS DISCUSSION, not for the purpose of explaining every aspect of the Church's beliefs to an international crowd not even in his class.)"
- Howell didn't need to cover any of what he wrote unless his purpose was to show how ignorant he is on those subjects.
"D. Men and women are complementary, and research has explained that the androgynous view of childrearing and looking at people over the last few decades is erroneous."
- ???? I study that field, and I can tell you that you are completely wrong. In fact, all of us are to a degree androgynous, whether we like it or not. Why? Because traits that are really human have arbitrarily been labeled female or male. Boys don't cry? Well, in fact they do. And their penises won't fall off because of it. Girls are passive? I know plenty of parents who will quarrel with you on that. Being psychologically complementary does not depend on being of the opposite sex. There are plenty of men with whom you would not be complementary and plenty of women with whom you would. Howell's entire argument here is fictional.
"E. Gender roles are not learned; they are natural. Look at the research over the last decade that tells us the idea of gender is programmed by nurture is totally false. While some people continue to cling to the notion, psychologists, doctors, and researchers over the last years have found it to be ridiculous. Guess Dr. Howell's premise is supported by current research. But then he's an expert in his field, so that's not a shock."
- If Howell is an expert in his field, I have no idea what field he's in. He's clearly not an expert in any of the things he writes about in his email message. You obviously don't know that in the actual research on gender and sexuality we always refer to both precisely because they are two different things. We never use the two terms interchangeably, because they are not interchangeable. They do not mean the same thing. Sex is what you're born with. Gender is what you acquire after the fact based on social norms. That's what the term means. The only research you can possibly be referring to has to come from religious studies, but that's wholly suspect because it's conducted to come to a predetermined outcome - the position held by the church. That's not empirically sound.

Kayla wrote on July 16, 2010 at 9:07 pm

If you are so competent in the field of psychology, then surely you are familiar with research by Sandra Witelson, Louann Brizendine, Michaell Gurian, Kathy Stevens, E. B. McClure, and many more in the last decade who have said that viewing gender as disassociated from sex and as something that is primarily caused by nurture is completely ridiculous.

You say, "You obviously don't know that in the actual research on gender and sexuality we always refer to both precisely because they are two different things." Not sure what gives you that impression.

You also say, "Gender is what you acquire after the fact based on social norms." As the researchers mentioned above have written, that is false. And their research is not based on religious studies, but on scientific studies. Some of them are probably religious people, but I don't know if they are or think that would matter. You could add Dr. James Dobson to that list as someone who writes about the topic and has earned respect for his research and writing on gender, but I wouldn't call him a scientist in the same way as the rest of them. But I don't think being religious makes them incapable of studying science or conducting scientific studies.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 11:07 pm

Here's what people have to say about some of the people you cite:

Gurian: "a claim so unscientific it takes your breath away"
Brizendine: "incredibly crappy science"
James Dobson: "fundamentally skewed view", "the Christian right’s crusade against all things tolerant and reasonable", "a right wing demagogue"

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

You can find some "people" who will criticize anyone. You don't cite anyone you're quoting here, but I guess since you're just closed-minded that's not a surprise. I cite scientists; you cite no one. You just voice your opinion. How impressive. Wow, you're to be believed as an authority. (And that's sarcasm, since you don't seem to recognize the meaning of what just about anyone is saying.)

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

BTW, you misrepresent what some of the researchers you cite actually say.

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Really? So you've read them all and argue that they don't say that males and females are not the same? Somehow I don't think you've actually looked at their work at all. But then you don't cite anyone that still believes there is no difference between males and females. Not that it matters. We could lob researchers back and forth for eternity since there will always be researchers on both sides of the matter. But the mainstream view now is more toward a difference in genders. Not that you would know. You don't apparently know of any researchers or understand what they write about if you do read them. Not to be too critical.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 5:07 am

You have no idea what the "mainstream" view is. Don't pretend. You have your prejudices and you grab on to anything that supports them. There are lesbians and bisexual women who are extremely feminine as per the social norm of feminine. There are gay men who are extremely masculine as per the social norm of masculine. There are straight women who are extremely dikey and heterosexual men who are very feminine. The world, alas, will never fit into your narrow stereotypes. Better get used to it.

Kayla wrote on July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

You have no researchers to cite and nothing to say again but calling me prejudice. I'm sort of feeling sorry for you now. You arguments diverge from substance to name calling when you are without a good response. That's sad.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 12:07 pm

The mainstream research on gender and sexuality diverges from what you say. You don't have to take my word for it. Just look it up. Please do look it up, and don't get hung up on one "researcher" who says exactly what you want to hear.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

After reading this from you, and knowing that you approved of what Howell was teaching, I am now convinced that the student's complaints about Howell were well founded. He was indoctrinating the class in ooga booga nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

I think you're concluding whatever you want to conclude. Gee, I'm so sad that you disagree with me. Boo hoo.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

Ohhhh! You tipped your hand, Kayla! Dobson? Please! You are relying on a bunch of right-wing people with an agenda. Nobody in the field can possibly take seriously anything Dobson says. He's obsessed, consumed, impregnated with his homophobia. He is his homophobia. The people you cite are exactly the kind of people who conduct research so that it confirms their pre-established conclusions. Let me pull a Howell on you. The people you cited are EXACTLY the kind of people who conduct research so that it confirms their pre-established BIASES. A word of advice: in the future do not simply accept that one researcher or even a handful of researchers have established once and for all that X, Y or Z is true. That's simply not the way it works. And don't selectively seek out researchers who merely confirm whatever it is you already believe in. It will be better for you in the long run. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your imagination. It's not scary finding out that the world is not as you thought it was. It can actually be quite fun finding out how it really is.

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

So Dobson, who you don't like but who most of the world recognizes as an authority, is someone you feel you can criticize as someone who knows nothing? That's hilarious! A word of advice: take your own advice. You seem only to accept researchers who believe what you believe. "That's simply not the way it works." Funny you mention heaven and earth. I doubted you actually buy into the heaven thing. "It's not scary finding out that the world is not as you thought it was. It can actually be quite fun finding out how it really is." I hope you do that. Go get an education, JNC. You might find there's more out there than you currently believe. The world is not this lawless, cynical place with no moral boundaries that you think it is.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 5:07 am

If your point was to defend Howell, you have done a great disservice to your cause. You are praising professional homophobes. Dobson is a person who makes his living off of persecuting gays.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 5:07 am

Most of the world recognizes Dobson as a professional homophobe. Dobson is a deeply immoral man who makes his living off of hatred.

Kayla wrote on July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

Haha. That's very slanted and misguided. I see you've never read Dobson. Pity.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Dobson is a fraud and a professional homophobe. Deal with it.

Origin wrote on July 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm

After reading the article and some of the comments below, I feel that I must give my own opinion. Unlike everyone else who has reported or commented on this story, I was actually in the aforementioned class with Dr. Howell. As such, regardless of what anyone may have read or heard, they weren't in the class and so in essence don't really know what they're talking about. The truth is that whatever the reason for it, I'm glad that Dr. Howell was released. I am completely clueless as to how Dr. Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in that he was a horrendous teacher with a style of teaching that is at odds with the necessities of a University class. The class felt less like a class and more like a Catholic revival camp. Like the student in the article, I also complained to the department via ICES form (Instructor and Course Evaluation System, feedback given by students to the department rating classes and teachers' performances at the conclusion of the semester) citing his lack of objectivity and consideration for alternative viewpoints. If anything I think I was too kind to him in my evaluation.

Two years ago I took a class at UIUC called Introduction to Islam to fulfill a University requirement. The professor in that class was enlightening, gracious, and entirely objective (3 qualities not possessed by Dr. Howell) even though he was a practicing Muslim. I strongly disagreed with many of the positions advocated by said Muslim professor but was able to do so in a courteous and balanced manner. After seeing how a religion class is supposed to function I can confidently say, without giving my personal beliefs any weight, that Dr. Howell's class was severely lacking. There's a line between an academic objective presentation of material and an injection of personal vitriol, a line which Dr. Howell saw fit to not only cross but leap over on every occasion. The real question shouldn't be why he was let go, but instead why the University took so long to do so.

Disclaimer: Lest you think I'm a bitter ex-student who is criticizing a teacher who graded him poorly, I did receive an A in the class.

Kayla wrote on July 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm

I also took the class, and I completely disagree with you. Having taken four other religion classes at UIUC, I have to say that the best ones are by the teachers who can explain the why behind a religion's beliefs, not just what the beliefs are. I found Dr. Howell's teaching style to be gracious, respectful, and insightful. He's been recognized for excellent teaching because he IS an excellent teacher. I do not believe that Dr. Howell crossed any lines. There were some belligerent, disrespectful students in there, but he remained respectful and professional. He made some people mad because they didn't agree with the Catholic teachings, but they couldn't make a good argument. I learned a lot and thought it was an excellent class. I would have liked to take his other course. And I also received an A in his class.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Judging from what you've said in other posts, it's clear that Howell confirmed for you beliefs you already had. That, in a sense, leads me to believe that what the student complaining about him said he did is what he actually did. Education isn't really about having all of your a priori prejudices validated. It's about challenging all the beliefs and ideas you come with to the classroom. If your beliefs are right, they'll withstand the scrutiny. If they're wrong, dump them. What Howell says in his email message is deeply wrong on so many levels. Forget the homophobia. He doesn't even know what utilitarianism is.

Kayla wrote on July 16, 2010 at 9:07 pm

Actually, I came to Dr. Howell's class as a rather anti-Catholic Protestant, having been raised with a great deal of prejudice against the Church. I learned a lot. So it can't be "clear" that he "confirmed" beliefs I already had, given that I disagreed with him, but that's beside the point. You're right that education isn't about having prior prejudices validated. Dr. Howell's class taught me a lot that ran against what I believed, and I respect his beliefs and appreciate what I learned. Does that make him a poor teacher? Not at all. I appreciate what I learned, whether I embrace everything or not.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

I say that homophobia is a disease (which should be obvious to anyone watching the amount of time and energy homophobes spend denouncing homosexuality) and that it can be cured because I was cured of it, as were most of my friends and family. Believe me, 99.99% of what homophobes say about homosexuality is dead wrong. And the obsessive nature of homophobia is not good for the soul. I, like you, was indoctrinated in homophobia. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. I overcame my illness and I am now happy and well adjusted.

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

You've mentioned "surviving" Catholic school a couple of times. Funny thing is, that doesn't prove you know anything about the Catholic faith. Most of your posts prove quite the opposite. I didn't know much about Catholicism even a year ago, and I know most of what you're saying is crap. (Besides, how many 12th graders are experts on anything? Especially a kid who harbors animosity toward what he is being taught. I know plenty of Catholic kids who can't even recite the Ten Commandments. Pathetic.) So saying you know Catholicism because you went to Catholic school is like saying I know all about Nigerian culture because I visited there.

The Catholic Church is not homophobic, as you seem to insist. There's a difference between being "homophobic" and simply believing that homosexual acts are immoral. If you can't see that, you are really, really blinded by something -- intolerance, ignorance, or just plain hate. I'm not sure what it is. You can accept a person without believing everything they do is right. You just can't seem to accept that fact.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 6:07 am

The Catholic church is homophobic, paternalistic, patriarchal, sexist, hypocritical, misogynistic, anti-natural, and just plain stupid. Just this past week they had an edict saying it was "immoral" for women to be priests. Not anti-traditional. Not contrary to church practice. Immoral. Why any self-respecting woman would still proclaim her catholicism is beyond me. The Catholic church clings to deeply immoral political leaders like Berlusconi while condemning anti-Catholic but very moral leaders like Zapatero in Spain. The Catholic church has become a joke. They come up with excuses to justify the pedophilia practiced by Catholic priests and still expect to be taken seriously on matters of morality. In the US, the Catholic church has become little more than a branch of the Republcan party. They are a disgrace. The reason I am against the Catholic church has everything to do with the rot the Catholic church has become.

Kayla wrote on July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

Funny you say that. In essence, "I disagree with the Catholic Church because they're stupid." How mature. Actually, you clearly don't understand the Church. And how funny that you say they're a bunch of Republicans when most of them actually vote Democratic. Now I see you are actually just anti-Catholic and anti-Republican. Typical liberal blathering.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 12:07 pm

No, Kayla, I disagree with the church because they are full of it. The Catholic church, whether you realize it or not, has lost all reasons to be respected because of its own actions. If people calling themselves Catholics vote more Democratic than Republican, its because of the fact that what the Catholic hierarchy says has no relation to reality. The Catholic hierarchy most definitely said last week it was immoral for women to be priests. If you're okay with that, you have no real sense of morality. Neither does the Catholic church. It's a sexist, paternalistic, patriarchal, homophobic institution. It's worthless in the 21st century.

JNC wrote on July 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

You have clearly been indoctrinated into Christian beliefs (Protestant and Catholic, especially of the fundamentalist kind, are not really that different) and homophobic beliefs, and Howell's class confirmed and validated those beliefs. I don't think you're a hopeless cause. Homophobia is a disease, but it can be cured with a little knowledge. I know that Howell's class didn't provide that knowledge, but you can still acquire it somewhere along the way.

Kayla wrote on July 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm

See above post. Wow, arguing with you is really getting boring. You don't have much to say other than that everyone else is wrong. You also seem to think that you're very liberated and open-minded. Guess you'll tolerate anyone -- if they agree with you. You're so "tolerant" that you're intolerant of those who disagree with you. They couldn't possibly have good reasons to see things differently from you, right? Disagreeing with you means people are blinded, ignorant, and unenlightened, not that they have a well thought-out set of opinions and beliefs. That's just not possible because you're infallible, right? So you accuse others of hate, mental illness, or whatever else you can think of to insult. But I can throw that back to you -- some day you can be cured of your intolerance. It just takes work.

JNC wrote on July 18, 2010 at 6:07 am

You see, Kayla, I am a professor. You absolutely refuse to accept anything I say as being in any way valid. This leads me to believe that, if I were your professor, you would absolutely reject anything I had to say. Yet you defend Howell wholeheartedly. This tells me many things. Howell was indoctrinating his students into believing the things you already believe, and you were cool with that. If he had been saying the exact opposite things of what he was saying, you would not have been cool with that. If anything, you have confirmed that Howell was indeed indoctrinating, not teaching.

I hope never to be cured of my intolerance toward prejudice and hatred, but thanks for the offer anyhow. Like I said before, with any luck you'll be blessed with a gay child and you'll recognize the error of your ways.

Kayla wrote on July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

I could say the same thing -- you absolutely refuse to accept anything I say as being in any way valid. You have basically said that I am homophobic, unenlightened, and insinuated that you are a beacon of wisdom. If you are a professor, as you say, you must be the most closed-minded, self-important professor on your campus. Being open-minded, I found a lot of my previously held notions changed by Dr. Howell's class. You, however, seem so stuck in your ways that you are tolerant only of your own intolerant viewpoints. That's very sad. This discussion has come to the point where it's so off topic and circular -- you just keep throwing insults. I must for pity's sake let you off the hook, as you are clearly unarmed with anything other than your own prejudice and name-calling. You can't even argue with facts, research, or anything other than insults and your own opinion as your evidence. You've lost all credibility.