Religion & Law

See the story here.  Apparently Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor teaching a course on Catholicism at the University of Illinois was fired (or more correctly not retained) for teaching what the Church teaches about homosexual acts, namely, that they are contrary to the natural moral law.  One student in the class took offense at this presentation and complained to the chair of U of I's Department of Religion anonymously through an e-mail sent by a friend.  The student complained that Howell's statements about homosexuality constituted "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."

According to Howell he made clear his own belief in the teachings set forth in the course.

 "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."

The story says that Howell also made clear that he did not demand that students agree with Catholic teaching on homosexual conduct nor did he evaluate students based on their acceptance or rejection of that teaching.

"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."

This episode raises serious questions about academic freedom,  Howell should not have been fired for explaining and endorsing the views that he did.  Indeed, he should not have been fired had he advocated the opposite moral position, namely, that homosexual acts are in keeping with the natural moral law.  (Whether advocating such a position would constitute a competent presentation of what the Church really believes is another matter, about which there may be some disagreement on MOJ, but it is nevertheless distinct).

The story raises other questions about the openness of public institutions of higher learning to Catholic teaching as an academic subject.  It calls into question the willingness of public universities to engage Catholicism on its own terms, and suggests instead that these institutions may feel free to select their own version of Catholicsm to present to students where someone might take offense, that only a filtered version of Catholicism  -- with the moral teachings that challenge modern sensibilites carefully removed -- will be open for discussion in university classrooms.   As U of I's associate chancellor notes in the story, while Illinois is "absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism . . .  it's up to the department as to who teaches a class."

The story notes that in correspondence with other university administrators the department chair made clear his intention to "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.'"