“The university has an interest in not offending people.”

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.

Comments

[Sawyer]

The silliness expressed in the statement that the university has an interest in not offending people has even trickled down to high schools, and even Catholic high schools. I know -- I teach at a Catholic high school in the religion department. My particular school doesn't even feel comfortable informing students accurately about the Church's own discipline regarding who may receive Communion at Mass out of fear that some students or teachers will be offended by feeling excluded. I have been over this with them to no avail. The most they will do is say, "If you are not prepared to receive Communion, please join us in receiving a blessing." Education has deteriorated into a vacuous leftist propaganda machine.

[Mike]

Just today I was reading an article by Chesterton for the Illustrated London News and found in the Collected Works that seems to apply very well to this situation....

"On Modern Controversy" (August 14, 1926)

[Howard]

See Matthew 15:12--14 and Luke 6:26.

[joe]

I note that McKim's bio says he is working on a book on the implications of religious diversity. Isn't that perfect? As a prof. myself, this episode makes me depressed if not sick. Carl, you are right: "If McKim is intent on not offending people, he is surely working in the wrong field." Ironically, usually profs. brag about shattering students preconceptions. The problem here is 100 percent the sacred cow topic. It is becoming increasingly clear there is no "neutral" ground on homosex. Either you endorse it as OK and having inherent dignity as a sexual expression, or you think it is wrong and sinful, and are vilified as a puritan dinosaur who also thinks the earth is flat, women should be barefoot & pregnant, and Palin should be Prez. In the blogosphere, Breitbart is evil and Andrew Sullivan sainted. Homosexuality is unfortunately a telltale flashpoint now, and an example of an issue that uncomfortably will not allow for moral deflections. Churches had best begin patiently discussing their counter-cultural teaching with their members.

[Charles E Flynn]

Once a university has decided that there is no objective truth, even in the physical sciences, that students are consumers, and that the university has the right to invent a bogus parallel judiciary, rather than following local, state, and federal laws, all kinds of embarrassing and catastrophic failures are inevitable.

[LJ]

Howard, I think that those passages can be applied here, but I also think that it is dangerous to not look at the wider picture, not necessarily to put up a political fight, but at least to know where we are and what we can expect. I fear there are large numbers of Catholics and non-Catholic Christians who are blithely ignorant of the enemy arrayed against them.

That is why Joe's suggestion is exactly the right one. Churches had best begin patiently discussing their counter-cultural teaching with their members.

I think that many of us have been under the delusion that there actually can be a neutral ground. There can be no detente with the Satan, and he is the one driving these battles here and there all over America. What we have imagined was neutral ground was only the intervening space as society morphed from dominantly Christian to dominantly secular humanist. What we are seeing is the tail-end of the transfer zone. Because we spent most of our lives in that zone we didn't realize that it was transitory. It seemed normal and permanent.

We need to realize that these attacks on Christianity, this limiting of religious free expression especially if it is Christian, will not peak and level out. It will only accelerate into outright persecution. There is no neutral ground. The difference is that under Christian domination, tolerance of other religions, of atheism, etc., while not perfect, is always at its best, because of the nature of Christianity. Under secular humanism, tolerance is no longer important because it was only a means to an end, not a deeply held principle.

[MCardaronella]

I think the fact that this university has decided there's no objective truth is the real issue. Their main concern is not offending anyone and making money. That's just short sighted. And, McKim can work in this hotbed field without offending anyone because obviously his goal is not to form students that understand the truth about different religions but to understand religion from a dispassionate viewpoint so that one can restructure the tenets based on the filter of tolerance. Isn't that just like so much of culture.

The sad thing is that one can never truly have dialogue with people of other religions unless there is absolute truth in the presentation of what they believe. McKim is failing his students miserably. They can't be sure of any teaching really because the handling of Catholicism is so botched. Are they learning the real truth of any religions in the curriculum? Or is it a presentation filtered through what the professor believes should be omitted? It's hard to say. If I entered into dialogue with someone from another religion, I would want to really know what they believe. Otherwise, I might say something stupid and seriously offend the other person.

[Teo Matteo]

How can a University have an Interest?
What he means is that: the people in charge at this university will dictate what is said here. Hmm... that's worth my $$$ to send my kid to!?!

[Kevin J Jones]

"I think the fact that this university has decided there's no objective truth is the real issue."

If they decided there's no objective truth, they wouldn't be treating certain sexual acts as objective goods which should not be questioned. They are committed to the principle of non-discrimination against Christian tradition, which is not the same as being committed to relativism

“The university has an interest in not offending people,” the university administrator said.

Of course by "people" he doesn't mean Catholics, he means something like "the faculty at Harvard" or "our gay friends."

[Randy]

The bizarre thing is that the connection between religion and the morality of homosexuality is something every Religious Studies major should understand. Even if students are taught that this is obviously wrong, wrong, wrong they need to be taught it. If they don't teach it the university should give them their tuition back. Such a huge failure to educate people on a much talked about issue directly related to their major just makes me wonder what they think they exist for. It is like being a music major and never discussing a guitar. It is like right in the middle of their chosen field of study.