The News Gazette is reporting that an adjunct college professor was let go from his position because he was espousing beliefs of the Catholic Church. The course he was teaching was actually…Catholicism 101. One student labeled it “hate speech” and the school responded the way liberal nutjob academics always do -they hyperventilate, send lots of emails, and do the stupidest most politically correct anti-Christian thing imaginable. And then tell their therapist they’d had a stressful week.
The story by the News Gazette is a very good one. Check it out here:
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.”
You’ve got to read the rest. The school essentially wants to put a warning label on the class that the class on Catholicism doesn’t reflect the school’s thinking.
I’ll give you some choice quotes though:
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.
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 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.
You know, political correctness and anti-Christianity are beginning to seem pretty similar, aren’t they?
July 9, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Political correctness is a straight jacket of the mind and is applied selectively to those out of favor with current social fads and adolescent propensities. Polymorphous perversity in its rainbow of practices has been elevated to a place on the pedestal of politically correct prejudices. As such, it is a sacred cow of promoting its own bigotry and frightening timid liberal academics into potential worktime enuresis.
July 9, 2010 at 11:36 pm
When you have a known Catholic, teaching a course on Catholocism, telling his students he personally agrees with his Church's doctrines, how is that (A) "hate speech" and (B) not protected by his First Ammendment rights to freedom of speech??? Oh, that's right. pre-emptive political correctness trumps the Constitution. More proof that anti-Catholic bias truly is only permissable bias in America. In fact, it appears required by the marxists and pseudo-intelligentsia running these public universities. Sheesh! I live in Illinois. Looks like U of I is off my son's list of potential colleges. I used to think that if I wanted my kid to go to a college openly opposed to Catholic teaching I'd just send him to Notre Dame. What's next?
July 10, 2010 at 12:15 am
This is the world of academia for you
July 10, 2010 at 12:38 am
Stupid question time;
1) Would a Muslim teaching the Koran get fired for antisemitic comments?
2) Would an athiest mocking religous believers get reprimanded?
As I said, they ARE stupid questions. What is really disturbing are the answers.
July 10, 2010 at 12:57 am
This is the same university that recently caused a stir on both the liberal & conservative sides of the fence with it's Indian (make that Native American) sports mascot. A small, vocal group of 50-60 year old, white ex-hippie professors felt the need to destroy the 80 year-old tradition of "The Chief" (the mascot – a student performing with the band at halftime in full Indial regalia). Their reasoning was based on the possibility that real Native Americans might be offended by the display, basically a stereotype. Even though numerous Native American groups in Illinois, when asked, said they had no problem with "The Chief." Finally bowing to political pressure, the university caved and banned "The Chief" – much to the anger of many rich, white conservatives who, as alumni, make major contributions to the university. But, as usual, the aging hippies win and the tradition dies (note the similarities with the post-Vatican II dismantling of tradition).
So, given it's history of cowering when things get "too PC" it's not surprising that this university is acting this way. Sad. Pathetic, but not surprising.
And to answer the stupid questions: (1) The Muslim prof teaching the Koran's class would be made a required undergrad course at this school. And an atheist mocking religious believers can probably be found in every one of the University of Illinois' lecture halls. After all, we wouldn't want to censor the open discussion of ideas and differing viewpoints.
July 10, 2010 at 2:52 am
It would be okay, most likely, for a homosexual to teach that homosexuality is fine and normal and if someone were offended–too bad, they must be a homophobe. Or other religions to teach what they believe and all that would be inclusive in academia BUT Catholicism is what cannot be tolerated. Really, nothing new under the sun. Our Lord told us this would happen.
I expect this will continue and grow. Persecution has long been coming.
July 10, 2010 at 2:55 am
This is bad, but when I saw the heading "College prof fired for being Catholic"…my first thought was, I wonder if it was a Catholic college?
July 10, 2010 at 3:29 am
Quite simply, the university is so "inclusive" that it excludes the largest religion in the world (Catholicism), as well as the second largest (Islam), and the third largest (Hinduism), and the fourth largest (Buddhism)….all of which take a dim view of homosexuality.
Who's included? Why western liberal elites of course. Sounds like what liberals like to call "Western Imperialism" to me.
July 10, 2010 at 3:34 am
This tells you something about the fact that the department head would accept a letter from someone who was speaking on behalf of someone who wants to stay anonymous. In my mind this person does not care enough to "own up" to their complaint and therefore this email should not have been even looked at. if this person is not "old enough" to write a letter on their own with their own complaint of the professor, then their complaint is one of a child and should have been disqualified for that reason as well.
July 10, 2010 at 3:59 am
University of Illinois is a Catholic University or a government University?
Prof. Kenneth Howell should leave that hell… there are better universities than that.
Blessings in disguise.
July 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Well done to Mr Howell,
Completely sensible behaviour throughout. No doubt the truth smarts a little but great good will come from it. Please God he will go from strength to strength.
July 10, 2010 at 1:10 pm
"You know, political correctness and anti-Christianity are beginning to seem pretty similar, aren't they?"
Are you kidding? If you look at the essence, they have been the same from day one!
July 10, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Everyday there are stories of government interfering in our religious freedom. You can't say this, you can't wear that, you can't hand out pamphlets, you can't pray, you can't have a service in your own home, you must offer this or you must allow that. What area of personal and working life has religious freedom not been attacked? On and on it goes slowly confining religious thoughts and actions into a closet. One large group of people being pushed into a closet for the mental relief and benefit of a small minority.
July 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I don't think that the student should be allowed to be anonymous. If I were the administrator, the email from the friend, who is not in the class himself, of someone who wants to be anonymous would hold zero weight.
July 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm
My deepest sympathies for Professor Howell. I have been cautioned by my dean about allowing students to give pro-life speeches in my public speaking class, because it offends some of the young women who may have had abortions. I made the mistake of saying that I was pro-life, and almost lost my job.
This is truly a freedom of speech issue. Anyone who reads hate-speech legislation can see it is simply designed to stifle speech from traditional religious and conservative perspectives.
July 10, 2010 at 7:21 pm
History is proving the Catholic Church is to homosexuality, as was the KKK to slavery. Sad. Very sad. But society, especially in the U.S., has proven a staunch supporter of everybody's rights. But unfortunately for the Catholic Church, hate is not a right.
July 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
It's strange how almost all scientist and homosexuals say homosexuality is not a choice, but the Catholic Church says it is a choice.
If homosexuality is about love, how can it be bad? Yes, we know the bible says it's bad, but the bible also condones slavery and relegating women to second class citizens.
July 11, 2010 at 12:58 am
Suvent and Helen:
Race is different from homosexuality. One cannot help one's skin color or ethnic background, but one can choose whether or not to act upon same-sex attraction, just as one can choose how to act upon a predisposition to alcoholism or other addictions.
And, Helen, your second paragraph shows your ignorance. If you know anything about the cultures and practices of the other peoples in the Middle East, the Mosaic Covenant practically put women on a pedestal. There were also strict rules on how slaves were to be treated, and with again with much more leniency more rights than the surrounding peoples.
Lastly, the homosexual lifestyle is a distortion, as anyone who is familiar with it eventually realizes. Male gay culture is focused on getting one's jollies – actual monogamy is very rare, and usually with older men. Lesbian relationships are an emotional mess, with an abuse rate proportionately higher than the rate of heterosexual couples. So it's not about love – far from it.
July 11, 2010 at 1:11 am
Suvent, apparently you do not actually understand the concept of "rights". In the US, hate is absolutely a "right". For instance, you might check out the "right" of the Nationalist Socialist Party to march in Skokie, IL. As long as Howell's students are not being judged on their opionions/beliefs, then he has done nothing to violate their rights. (If there is evidence that he has done so, then he should be fired, but nothing in this story indicates any such evidence.)
July 11, 2010 at 1:51 am
@ Dave, I appears you fell into Helen's trap. I assume you are Catholic and saying homosexuality is not a choice.
I believe what Helen is trying to say is your opinion is common amongst Catholics. If you were gay, then you'd probably say it sexuality was not a choice.
The bible has gotten a lot of things wrong. It might be that it's also gotten the homosexual issue wrong too.
I hope history doesn't portray us as the KKK! That is not a great image.