Articles and Archives
Most recent posting below. See other articles in the column to the right.
12 comments - Last on 07/19/2010
The Illinois Railroad: Making Quick Work of a Catholic Prof
Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor of religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, was dismissed from his position after the end of the spring semester. His firing has provoked widespread condemnation of the University’s actions and demands for his reinstatement. The National Association of Scholars concurs with the critics: Professor Howell should not have been fired and the University of Illinois should move immediately to restore his appointment.
The case involves a few simple facts. Professor Howell has taught at the University as an adjunct professor since 2001, in an arrangement with the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center. His major assignment was to teach an “Introduction to Catholicism.” This was the course he was teaching in spring 2010 when the trouble began. It was a course aimed at teaching students about Catholic thought, not a course aimed at persuading students to accept Catholic beliefs. On May 3, Professor Howell lectured on “The Question of Homosexuality in Catholic Thought.” Central to Catholic teaching on that topic is the idea that homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law because it violates the purposes of human sexuality.
There appears to be no question that Professor Howell accurately represented Catholic teaching during his lecture. The next day, he sent his students an email (full text here) in which he elaborated on the main point of the lecture. The email was forwarded by one or more students to others and went into broad circulation in the weeks following May 4. This eventuated in a complaint (full text here) from a student who was not in the class but who characterized Professor Howell’s email as “hate speech.”
On May 28, the Head of the Religion Department, Dr. Robert McKim, called Professor Howell into his office for a meeting and informed him that, as a consequence of complaints about his email, an unnamed “higher official” of the University had determined that Professor Howell would no longer be permitted to teach classes there. Howell asked if he would be permitted to defend himself against the accusations and received no response. Howell the next day emailed McKim in an attempt to reopen the discussion. McKim responded on June 2 that “the decision has already been made.” A subsequent statement by an associate dean, Ann Mester, offered the further explanation that Howell’s email “violate[s] university standards of inclusivity.”
The chronology I have provided here follows an account in a letter (text here) sent to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, officials by the Alliance Defense Fund, checked against original documents and other various news reports. Having worked for many years in University administration, however, I know that cases can be very complicated and that important details can go unreported for long stretches. So I don’t assume that we know each and every relevant fact. The facts we do know, however, cast the administration of the University in a dim light.
In plain terms, Professor Howell was fired for properly carrying out his responsibilities. He was appointed to teach students about Catholic doctrine. Some students and other members of the University community, however, so dislike the doctrines he described that they organized an effort to remove him from the classroom. We can only speculate why the University administrators acceded to this effort to censor Howell. Do they really think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is “hate speech?” Or did they calculate that there are advantages in siding with the gay rights activists and others intent on silencing Howell? A combination of the two? Whatever their reasons, their actions are completely unacceptable.
The Alliance Defense Fund has framed this as a matter of First Amendment rights. Last week, the University Chancellor, Bob Easter, asked the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to review the decision before the start of the fall semester—an unusual timetable, since most such committees do not meet during the summer. A University graduate student in mechanical engineering, Eli Lazar, is leading a student campaign for Howell’s reinstatement on the grounds that such efforts to censor faculty speech “censor [students’] abilities to understand each other.” The Catholic League wrote in a press release, “The University of Illinois should be sued, and we will work with Professor Ken Howell in seeing to it that it is.”
FIRE’s Adam Kissel wrote to Chancellor Easter today, expressing concern about “the serious threat to academic freedom, freedom of speech, and due process” inherent in the University actions.
Various figures on the left have likewise come forward to defend Howell. Peter N. Kirstein, professor of history at Saint Xavier University in Chicago and a former student of Howard Zinn, wants to leave no doubt about how vehemently he disagrees with what Howell teaches:
To state that consensual sex between same-sex partners is wrong, sinful and violative of so-called natural law is intolerable in a modern, progressive, diverse society. It is contemptible and utterly without justification.
But Professor Kirstein also believes that the University violated Howell’s academic freedom and denied him due process. AAUP President Cary Nelson likewise says that Howell deserves a hearing before the Department of Religion faculty and should get his job back if it turns out he was fired because of his opinions. Nelson also takes up the point that the University was able to treat Howell so shabbily because of his adjunct status. “That damages everyone’s academic freedom.”
The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, deserves this opprobrium from nearly all sides. It truly did show contempt for Professor Howell’s First Amendment Rights, his academic freedom, his rights to due process, and the vulnerability of adjunct faculty members. It demonstrated what looks for all the world like anti-Catholic bias and craven submission to PC extremism.
As far as I can tell, no one was forced to take Professor Howell’s course; no one has made a serious case that Professor Howell taught his material incompetently or inaccurately. The case against him rests solely on the hearsay claim that he conflated his role as a teacher in a secular university with advocacy of the views he was describing and explaining. That is a complaint that has no substantial support from students who took his courses, but it seems plain that Professor Howell, a one-time Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism, regards the doctrines he teaches as true. For his critics, that is the heart of the matter. If he taught the same material with sufficient irony and a sneer towards those who believe in Catholic views of homosexuality, it seems unlikely he would have become the object of complaints about “hate” speech.
As for Howell’s email: his tone is generally temperate. If he is describing views that are anathema to some, he certainly doesn’t do so from a vantage that all discussion is closed. He does, however, reach for examples that would seem unnecessarily provocative, the most extreme of which is this:
[I]f a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don't think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.
The case against Howell comes down to whether a handful of sentences of this sort add up to some kind of firing offense. Or as associate dean Ann Mester put it, words that “violate university standards of inclusivity.” We don’t really know what those standards of inclusivity are, but it doesn’t take much imagination to think that faculty members at the University say things every bit as provocative or more so than Howell did without any risk at all to their University standing or their careers. What makes the difference in this case is that Howell perturbed the sensitivities of an identity group looking for ways to manifest its power. That’s how identity politics works on campus. Declare that you are deeply aggrieved by someone’s action and demand an apology or better yet a firing. Success at either one moves your identity group up a notch in the status hierarchy.
Notwithstanding comments such as those of Professor Kirstein (“contemptible and utterly without justification”) it seems doubtful that anyone confused Howell’s words with “hate speech.” This was rather, an opportunistic attack. And Cary Nelson surely has it right that the University saw Howell as an expendable sacrifice precisely because of his adjunct status.
But I disagree with Kirstein and Nelson on another part of their responses: their assumption that Howell really was preaching. They both defend Howell on the grounds that using your classroom as a platform for summoning students to your ideological program is legitimate. Much as they dislike his views, they feel obliged to defend this principle because it is a bedrock position of the academic left. But in truth there is no evidence that Howell used his classroom or his email to students in this fashion. Howell leaves no doubt that he himself believes in Catholic teachings, but a mere statement of belief is not the same as an effort to win converts. The National Association of Scholars would not defend Howell if he had in fact abused his position in that fashion.
The Alliance Defense Fund and FIRE call for Howell’s immediate reinstatement. Cary Nelson has called for a department-level review of the decision. The National Association of Scholars believes reinstatement is the right answer. Chancellor Easter’s convening of a special session of Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to consider the case looks to us like a face-saving device. It may eventually reach the right answer, but it allows a basic affront to good academic governance to linger.
At its heart, this is a story of PC bigotry and bullying. A handful of activist students, faculty members, and administrators decided to punish a professor for holding views they disagree with and dislike. It is the ignominy of the contemporary university that such academic bullying so often succeeds. The case of Professor Howell is further evidence of the need for strong public scrutiny of our colleges and universities. Freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of intellectual inquiry are widely supposed to flourish on campus, but in truth these freedoms have a tenuous hold and often crumble when the zealots of “progressive” values see a target of opportunity.
Restoring Professor Howell to his classroom is important, not just for his sake but for the quality of academic inquiry and classroom teaching throughout the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Add a Comment
RSS Feed 
del.icio.us 
Digg this 
Share on Facebook
I wrote to the university asking for Dr. Howell's reinstatement and received the following response:
"Thank you for your message regarding the Department of Religion. The University is dedicated to providing our students the best education possible, and academic decisions are designed to ensure that goal is achieved. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions, and for that reason the chancellor of the campus has requested additional and expedited review of the facts and applicable policies and principles. Pending that review, no final decision will be made regarding an instructor for the Catholic Studies course.
Warm regards,
Robin Kaler
Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs"
In light of my response from Robin Kaler repesenting the university, I am led to ask if the majority of the members of the group demanding Dr. Howell's dismissal were Jewish? The attacks by Jewish intellectuals on Christianity are becoming more intense in the academic arena, and I am certain the issues are better argued and settled in academia than worked out in the greater society. Dr. Howell is a persecuted Christian. This has the potential for getting much worse unless it's stopped. Now that the conflict has again erupted in academia, scholars once again have the opportunity to engage on the issue. Open persecution of Catholic scholars is bad for everyone. Raise an argument on behalf of Dr. Howell.
The ball is in your park, scholars.
Sincerely,
Richard Faussette
by primoterminego Posted on 07/16/2010
I see Professor Howell as simply advocating for his beliefs, which is something any professor should be able to do, so long as he or she encourages students to do the same and disagree fully. The principle is politically neutral. It is, furthermore, AAUP policy that any time a faculty member--full-time or part-time--claims he or she was fired or nonrenewed for reasons that violate academic freedom that faculty member is entitled to a hearing before a committee of his or her peers. Because the religious studies head was responsible for Howell losing his job, the department faculty are compromised. The review should be conducted by an elected college-level faculty committee.
Cary Nelson
by Cary Nelson Posted on 07/17/2010
It was shocking for the University to dismiss him without due process based on anonymous accusations. I bet they didn't expect anyone to actually defend such a low person on the totem pole no matter what principles were at stake.
by SanePerson Posted on 07/18/2010
In regard to Richard Faussette's question about whether the "majority of members of the group demanding Dr. Howell's dismissal were Jewish," I am surprised by the question. It seems clear that the animus against Dr. Howell comes from members of the University community who take strong exception to Catholic views on homosexuality. I don't see any grounds for picking out "Jewish intellectuals" as a source of this animus.
I'm glad to have Cary Nelson's response, which I read as confirming my main point about his position: he defends Professor Howell for "advocating for his beliefs." But I see very little evidence that Professor Howell engaged in advocacy in any meaningful sense. Nelson also seeks to have a college-level faculty committee review the case, which is indeed consistent with AAUP policy, though probably not with good governance. This was an extra-judicial firing. The faculty ought indeed to weigh in on it, but Professor Howell shouldn't have to wait for that kind of intervention.
by Peter Wood Posted on 07/19/2010
It is not Catholic doctrine that gay men either "play the man or play the woman". It is not Catholic doctrine that homosexuality being "intrisically disordered" has anything to do with Prof. Howell's doctor's stories about anal fissures.
In fact, such discourse -- at least now that we've reached modern times -- is contrary to the Catholic call to respect the dignity of gay individuals. People should consider the possiblity that this man has learned more about homosexuality from talk radio and Focus on the Family than he ever did from antying emanating from Rome (at least this century).
As to the claim that he encouraged his students to remain open to ideas, I think the final paragraph of his email makes it clear that that interpretation is rather suspect:
"I know this doesn't answer all the questions in many of your minds. 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. 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."
It's rather ironic, of course, as he admonishes his students to keep an open mind while simultaneously parrotting some of the worst stereotypes and prejudices against gay people.
But on to YOUR coverage. What "activist students"? ONE student, a heterosexual Catholic, wrote a letter about conversations he had with one of Prof. Howell's students, another Catholic, about how distorted a view of Catholicism the professor was teaching. The anti-gay stuff was just an example of how badly he was teaching. No one in this scenario has been identified as gay, let alone as an activist.
Shame on you for perpetuating distortions.
by BobN Posted on 07/19/2010
Though not an atheist, I must concur with many of Christopher Hitchens' views with regard to religion being used in some very negative ways.
by Diva Posted on 07/20/2010
In my graduate school days, one of my instructors, while discussing the theoretical aspects of a particular English poet and playwright, uttered--in my paraphrase--that Bolshevism did some things right, no? No one in the class dared to say anything as this same expostulator of poetic and dramatic meter had earlier proclaimed that he was right on all matters and, in effect, we the students needed to repeat in our work that sense of rightness. No one, however, started a campaign beyondf the class to oust this same professor for the incomprehensibility of his beliefs and no one asked for a meeting with our department chair to express dismay over this professor's ideological inflexibility. It's perfectly acceptable, evidently, to sanction the slaughter of tens of millions, the starvation of children and the brutalization of dissidents, but howls of protest emanate when teaching of an idea goes contrary to the left wing "There is No Truth, but we Proclaim it Just the Same" Truth Machine.
by walkergeorge Posted on 07/23/2010
Peter Wood wrote:
"In regard to Richard Faussette's question about whether the "majority of members of the group demanding Dr. Howell's dismissal were Jewish," I am surprised by the question. It seems clear that the animus against Dr. Howell comes from members of the University community who take strong exception to Catholic views on homosexuality. I don't see any grounds for picking out "Jewish intellectuals" as a source of this animus"
Perhaps you are surprised because you have not closely considered the issue?
I did not "pick anybody out."
I asked a direct question for which there is certainly an answer, but the question was not answered, just critiqued. I asked the question because the architects of the gay agenda were and are predominantly Jewish intellectuals. The greatest critics of Christianity are Jewish intellectuals. This is amply documented. I wish it were not so, but it is a fact and it has to be dealt with.
Should you wish to consider the issue more closely you can begin with Kevin MacDonald's 'Culture of Critique, An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements' in Praeger's Human Evolution, Behavior and Intelligence series, 1998.
The late political scientist Samuel Francis published my essay explaining the conflict in the last book he edited before he died, 'Race and the American Prospect.'
I have no animus. You can get both books on Amazon. And, I'm not personally selling anything. It's just wrong to see good people like Howell get ruined without anybody acknowledging what's going on. Howell's not the first. Christians are being removed (quite often in movements spearheaded by Jewish intellectuals), from positions in the military, government and academia for beliefs that are quite similar to the beliefs of orthodox Jews: principally no abortion, no homosexuality.
This issue begs academia for resolution.
I wish all of you in academia the best in your efforts to end the conflict, but you have to consider it first.
Richard Faussette
by primoterminego Posted on 08/17/2010
As Peter Wood was earlier, I am also surprised - not to say bewildered - by Richard Faussette's assertion that Prof. Kenneth Howell was dismissed due to the machinations of "jewish intellectuals." Where is the slightest particle of evidence for this? Citing the authority of an obscure book published in 1998 doesn't really help explain an incident taking place in 2010. As Peter noted, the whole sorry episode is testimony to the power and intolerance of Political Correctness that reigns on so many campuses, in this instance the rather obvious influence of gay activists and multicultural enforcers. Mr. Faussette is entitled to his opinion, but I can't see where it has the remotest connection to the events at U of I.
Glenn M. Ricketts
by Glenn M.Ricketts Posted on 08/18/2010
I asked a question in my first comment: "I am led to ask if the majority of the members of the group demanding Dr. Howell's dismissal were Jewish?"
There is an answer to the question, but no one has provided it. I offered two excellent books one written and the other edited by two important American intellectuals and the books were characterized as "obscure" probably because you're not aware of them. I'm not aware of you or your books either, but I know what to ask to get to the bottom of an issue and find the truth while avoiding subjective critique.
Someone in the NAS, and certainly some of the faculty at the Uiversity of Illinois must know these events and players intimately. Who were the people who initiated and then spearheaded Howell's dismissal? Were they predominantly Jewish? I ask because of the severe intellectual criticism Christianity has endured at the hands of Jewish intellectuals for centuries. It's a simple question. It is of the utmost importance to know if Howell's dismissal fits that historical pattern which is why I expressed my naive but heartfelt hope that academia consider the issue more closely.
Regards,
Richard Faussette
by primoterminego Posted on 08/19/2010
I can't really add anything to Peter Wood's article or to what I've already said in my own comments. As a final observation, I'd simply note that Richard Faussette's strange fixation with "jewish intellectuals" seems to prevent him from seeing the ubiquitous and omnipresent power of academic PC. Not only can it get you canned for teaching Catholic sexual morality accurately, it can also force you out from the presidency of Harvard if you offend reigning feminist sensibilities, or get you shouted down if you're a visiting speaker that multiculturalists don't like. Needless to say, this ethos is often decidedly hostile to traditional Christianity - or Orthodox Judaism, for that matter - since it is usually intensely secularist. On this point, it may interest Mr. Faussette to know that it was the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish and Community Research (some genuine "jewish intellectuals" there, alright!) whose 2007survey convincingly documented a "disturbing level of prejudice" toward evangelical Christians among secular academics. Mr. Faussette is right to think that contemporary college campuses are often not friendly places for traditional Christianity, but he needs to distinguish more carefully between its obvious antagonists - and its real friends.
Glenn M. Ricketts
by Glenn M.Ricketts Posted on 08/20/2010
Dear Mr. Faussette,
I understand you are simply asking a question, not making an accusation. We don't have an answer. You say, "Someone in the NAS, and certainly some of the faculty at the University of Illinois must know these events and players intimately." Perhaps someone on the ground at Illinois does, but the student who complained did so anonymously (see http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-complaint-student-about-ui-religion-instructor.html) and we don't know what his/her religious affiliation is. In any case, the fact stands that the University was catering to PC demands by firing Howell. No matter what religion the student who complained espouses, that person knew he/she could get support from the university because an "underrepresented" identity group was involved in the complaint. That gives a carte blanche to people of all religions who want to complain about things like this.
by Ashley Thorne Posted on 08/20/2010