Bryan Berry has written an excellent and detailed piece, "Fired For Teaching the Truth" (July 27, 2010), for the National Catholic Register about the situation of Dr. Kenneth Howell at the University of Illinois. Highly recommended reading. One passage that I found most revealing, or instructive, was this account of what Robert McKim, Ph.D., the head of the religion department at the University of Illinois, told Dr. Howell:
On May 28, McKim met with Howell, gave Howell a copy of his e-mail of
May 4, and told him, “The university has an interest in not offending
people.”
“There has always been a relationship of cordial and mutual respect
between Robert McKim and me,” Howell said. “We didn’t talk as
antagonists but as colleagues. I responded to him, ‘Robert, you’re a
philosopher. Part of our task as professors is to challenge our students
to think; it’s not our job to make them feel comfortable. I have no
desire to offend people, but that’s our first job.’”
Although Howell left the meeting thinking that the matter was
unresolved, McKim e-mailed him on June 2 “to reiterate that the decision
has already been made to have someone else teach our courses on
Catholicism.” McKim then sent an e-mail to all the students in Howell’s
course “disassociating our department, college and university” from the
views expressed in Howell’s e-mail of May 4.
McKim's remark about "not offending people" is a shining example of how complete silliness passes for serious thought in our day. The many problems with such a stance should be apparent, but apparently are not.
First (somewhat glibly): what if his statement about not offending people offends people? It offends my intelligence, most certainly.
Second, there is only one sure way to avoid offending people: have absolutely no contact with anyone in any way, shape, or form. (Another option, I suppose, is to only have contact with people who have no beliefs, opinions, or emotions. Good luck.) Being offended, by its very nature, has a rather—but not completely—subjective and fluid character, for what offends Mr. A. or Ms. B. might not bother Dr. Y. or Mrs. Z. for the simple reason that they agree with or do not find "offensive" whatever it is that upsets or bothers the beliefs, attitudes, values, etc. of the former. (Beauty may be in the eye of the behold, but can't we also say that, in many cases, being offended is also in the eye of the beholder?) In a pluralistic society, being offended is not just common, it's to be expected. A key question for someone who is offended must be: "What is the proper and just response to this offense?" Obviously that can become complicated, and good people can disagree at times about such responses. But first and foremost there must be an examination of the nature of the offense, and whether or not the offense has an objective basis, rooted in logic, morality, and so forth.
Third, if McKim is intent on not offending people, he is surely working in the wrong field (teaching religion) at the wrong place (a secular university). Frankly, if I were a student at a state university, I would expect to be offended from time to time, if by "being offended" we mean encountering views and beliefs contrary, even openly antagonistic, to my own views and beliefs. A pluralistic society, of course, has to have basic agreement about certain actions (say, using racial slurs) that everyone should find offensive—not simply because an authority says they are offensive, but also because such actions actually do go against what decent people know is good and right.
Finally, Dr. Howell's "offense" was that he explained the Church's teachings about homosexuality/homosexual acts, and then proposed some natural law arguments upon which that teaching rests. But what if Dr. Howell had instead argued against the Church's teaching, and had thus offended a student who adheres to that teaching? Would McKim and the University of Illinois then pursued having Dr. Howell fired if that student had complained? Hmmm. Of course, the firing of Dr. Howell has itself offended many, many people. The fact is, once an idea is proposed and defended within an academic setting, or any setting at all, someone is likely to eventually be offended by it. That such a simple fact can be overlooked or ignored is, frankly, a bit unsettling.
(By the way, my guess is that a few people would respond, "McKim is referring to teachings that are intended to be offensive." But that begs the question: Did Dr. Howell really intend to offend someone? Having read the e-mails, I would say, "No, don't be ridiculous!" The burden of proof would have to be on anyone wanting to make such a weak and pathetic case.)
The late Fr. Francis Canavan, S.J., wrote an excellent little book, The Pluralist Game: Pluralism, Liberalism, and the Moral Conscience (Rowan & Littlefield, 1995), that made many fine observations about the tensions between pluralism and objective truth within the public square, especially in the realm of education. Here is one, from an essay, "School Prayer and Bible Reading Decisions," first written in 1965 about public schools (K-12), but which applies quite well to the situation at the University of Illinois:
The very effort to remain neutral while educating forces the state to adopt an agnostic position in regard to ultimate truths. But agnosticism is not an escape from doctrine. On the contrary, it is only one of several possible doctrinal positions, no worse than others in the eyes of the law, but no better either. "Neither [a state nor the federal government] can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions found on different beliefs," the Supreme Court has said [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961)]. But that proposition is reversible. The state cannot pass laws of impose requirements that aid nonbelievers as against religion or that aid religions that are not based on a belief in God as against those that are. Therefore, precisely because it is religiously neutral, the state is not really capable of acting as educational institution. (p. 21)
McKim appears to be a professor of religion who wishes to be religiously neutral and completely tolerant of other views at the service of avoiding offense. But liberty and equality, understood in such a way, cannot hold together. Something has to give. And the very criteria of not offending speaks to a "doctrinal position," as Fr. Canavan rightly notes. And so Dr. Howell, in transgressing against that unspoken but apparently dogmatic position, was sacrificed to the god of politically-correct tolerance, an act which is both intolerant and offensive.
Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration
Recent Comments