Catholic Professor “marginalized” by homosexuals

[Mornac]

• Tweet

Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom

By Jodi Heckel
07/09/2010

URBANA – 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."

Cary Nelson, a UI emeritus professor of English and president of the American Association of University Professors, agreed. He said while many professors choose not to share their beliefs with students, they are free to do so and to advocate for a particular position.

"We think there is great value in faculty members arguing in a well-articulated way," Nelson said. "What you absolutely cannot do is require students to share your opinions. You have to offer students the opportunity to freely disagree, and there can be no penalty for disagreeing."

Nelson is the co-author of a 2007 AAUP statement on "Freedom in the Classroom," as well as the author of a recent book that deals with academic freedom.

"It's part of intellectual life to advocate for points of view," he said, adding he has often used it to start a lively discussion in his classroom.

"Hopefully when they go out in the world, they can emulate that. They can argue a case, and do it in a well-informed and articulate way, and can make a more productive contribution to our democracy that way," he said.

Nelson also said it would be inappropriate to remove someone from a teaching position because they advocated for a position, unless they also required that their students to share the same belief.

Howell said when McKim talked with him about his teaching position, McKim expressed concern that Howell's statements in class would hurt the department. McKim is currently out of the country, and he deferred questions to Robin Kaler, associate chancellor for public affairs.

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.

"It's an egregious violation of academic freedom," he added.

The UI Academic Staff Handbook's statement on academic freedom states that faculty members must teach their courses in a way consistent with the scheduled time, course content and course credit. "Within these constraints, they are entitled to freedom in the classroom in developing and discussing according to their areas of competence the subjects that they are assigned."

They must also provide students with "the freedom to consider conflicting views and to make their own evaluation of data, evidence, and doctrines. Furthermore, faculty members have a responsibility to maintain an atmosphere conducive to intellectual inquiry and rational discussion."

Howell said he disagrees with the idea that a professor must present lessons without even hinting at his own beliefs on a subject.

"It doesn't seem to me to be particularly honest or fair to a student. If you believe something, you can tell the student that," he said. "Where it becomes problematic is if it becomes injurious to a student by penalizing them for their beliefs. I always tried to be fair and honest and upfront with my students, and engage them on questions of human reason."

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 said he's often had students who disagree with him, but "that's always been done with courtesy and respect on both our parts. This semester the students were the most negative and vociferous and critical that I've ever seen."

Howell is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based organization that "provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values," according to its website. Howell said his goal is to be restored to the classroom so he can continue teaching his courses.

The Alliance Defense Fund has just begun looking into Howell's situation, according to a spokesman.

Senior counsel David French provided a written statement, saying "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."

After losing his teaching position with the UI, Howell was told by the Newman Center that he would no longer be employed there either. The Newman Center referred requests for comment to the diocese office in Peoria.

Patricia Gibson, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese and an attorney, said, "We funded the position so he could teach at the UI. He has been told he cannot teach these classes in the future.

"We are very concerned and very distressed by what we understand is the situation from Dr. Howell," she said, adding the diocese has contacted the UI and hopes to meet to talk about the matter.

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.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

[JC]

What a long winded piece of shit. Just like you. Catholics do enough to marginalize themselves, you just don't know better.

[johnhp]

Seems like that story left out some of Ken's email:

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Nothing would be more disconcerting to me when i was a student than a note from an ethics instructor about anal sex.  But there is something in his email that does, in fact, suggest he should be terminated.  His appeal to authority: "a physician has told me".  A good instructor marshals evidence.

And speaking of evidence, i am not sure that not renewing a contract of an adjunct instructor is the same as firing him.  Adjunct instructors are term to term instructors.  Not offering this guy new contracts can be based on many things: sending creepy emails to students or his obvious failure to avoid basic logical fallacies in his thinking.

[Mornac]

Doing what they do best: The Novus ordo runs for cover

July 09 2010
"Shut Up!' They Explained

Professor Kenneth Howell has been fired from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Department of Religion because he dared to teach - in a course dedicated to the exploration and explanation of Catholic theology - that according to Catholic belief, homosexuality is wrong.

Welcome to academic freedom in the 21st century!

It mattered not that Dr. Howell has won several awards for excellence in teaching from that same august institution. He has spoken ill of the dead (morally dead, anyway), and so must be punished!

Now, this by itself would not be particularly big news.
Universities are renowned for their hatred of things Catholic.
What a lot of people don't realize is that, for over 60 years, the UIUC campus has hosted the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Conference. The largest conference of its kind in the world, once every three years evangelical Christians from across the nation gather at UIUC for short summer courses that discussed how best to evangelize the nation and the world to Christianity. The last conference was in 2009. The UIUC happily rented classroom, auditoria and dormitory space to these evangelical Christians with nary so much as a whimper. They did, after all, at least embrace contraception with open arms.

Money has reasons which ethics knows not.
Apparently, however, ethics eventually triumphed because it looks like UIUC has kicked out the IVC, who ultimately had to relocate a short way down the road to St. Louis. If you can dump the income from 16,000 evangelical Christians, then dumping one Catholic professor should be easy. It has the added bonus of potentially scaring all the other Christian faculty into silence.

According to my sources, Dr. Howell, upon being notified of his dismissal, went back to the Newman Center and told the sad tale. In recognition of the terrible narrow-mindedness shown by UIUC, the Newman Center patted the good doctor on the back, commiserated with him for a few moments, then fired him as well.

Why?
Well, because he had been hired to teach UIUC courses, and now that the horse had thrown the rider, there was no need for the rider, you see.

Dr. Howell reportedly pointed out that the classes could still be offered through the Newman Center, if they were accredited through a Catholic college and the credits were then transferred back to UIUC - a reasonable solution, if you were really interested in accurately teaching Catholic theology on campus.

"No, oh NO!" replied the Newman Center, "That would NEVER do!"

The plan was then pitched to the Bishop's office - the good Bishop Jenky and his lay woman chancellor.

"No, oh NO!" replied the bishop's office, "That would NEVER do!"

And so it is, dear readers, that Dr. Kenneth Howell has to rely on the good offices of a Protestant legal defense fund because his own department at the UIUC refused to endorse academic freedom, the Newman Center saw nothing Newman-like in Dr. Howell's presentation, and the bishop's office saw no reason to employ or even to support a Catholic professor who accurately teaches Catholic theology.

Oh, did I mention?

Bishop Jenky is from Notre Dame (founded by the CSC), is himself a CSC (Congregation of the Holy Cross), and is himself a fellow of that fine institution. It may also be of mild interest that he is one of the men who stayed conspicuously silent when Barack came calling for his Ph.D. in law last year.

What a COINCIDENCE!
 
Posted by Steve Kellmeyer

http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2010/07/shut-up-they-explained.html

[johnhp]

Poor Mornac.

You do not understand that this guy was an adjunct instructor with no expectation from semester to semester.  From the perspective of academic freedom, he is off the mark because his contract was not renewed.  If he had actually been terminated, that is to say, if his contract had been terminated during the term for which he was contracted he might have the basis of an argument.


On the other hand, sending students emails about anal sex is kind of creepy.  What his arguments certainly are not is Catholic Scholarship.  His claim amounts to an improper appeal to authority.


But let's look at his CV.  i challenge anyone to point us to his credentials which allow him to teach Catholic Theology.

EDUCATION

1974   B. A. University of South Florida
Subjects:  Linguistics and German

1977   M. Div. Westminster Theological Seminary
Subjects: Systematic Theology and Biblical Languages

1982   M. A. University of South Florida
Subjects:  Linguistics and Philosophy

1987   Ph.D. Indiana University
Subjects:  Linguistics and The Philosophy of Science

1995   Ph.D. Lancaster University, United Kingdom
Subjects:  History of Christianity (esp. Catholicism) and its relations to Science

Westminster Theological Seminary?  Doesn't sound like a very Catholic institution to me.  MDiv?  That is professional ministry degree.  Is/Was Mr Howell some sort of Protestant minister?  Lancaster?  A public university?  His dissertation is on the philosophy of science rather than Catholic theology.  Seems like he is a Presbyterian minister, ordained 1978 and pastored several churches for a decade.

From his publications it looks as if he was publishing on protestant themes and for marginalized Catholic publications.  As late as 1995 he was publishing Protestant biblical commentaries.  I cannot find a book that has been published by a peer reviewed publisher.  What appears to be his first book was published by Queenship Publishing.  One of their titles, on theor home page is this: Medjugorje, Triumph of the Heart!: Medjugorje the 90's.  From just about this point, his articles are published by niche conversion journals which are not, of course, peer reviewed.

he converted, according to his statement in 1996, a years after getting his PhD in Lancaster.

[Velleity]

Mornac, why are you defending this guy? What are you really trying to say here?

[johnhp]

Mornac's seems to be a knee jerk reaction to what he sees as a liberal institution.  He obviously does not understand what the term adjunct means, what semester to semester hiring is, how creepy it is for students to get email from an instructor discussing anal sex, etc.

This is going on among fanatic Catholic sites as if this guy was terminated.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Velleity]

Mornac's seems to be a knee jerk reaction to what he sees as a liberal institution.  He obviously does not understand what the term adjunct means, what semester to semester hiring is, how creepy it is for students to get email from an instructor discussing anal sex, etc.

This is going on among fanatic Catholic sites as if this guy was terminated.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

My alma mater, the University of Illinois, is generally referred to as U of I and not UI. It is not only a "government school" but it is special in that it is a federal land grant university.

There is a viable gay community there and I'm neither surprised at nor unsympathetic to the offense that this adjunct professor committed. I don't see why this creepy behavior needs to be tolerated.

Mornac, on the other hand, seems to think it does need to be tolerated, which undermines his notion (as he has expressed it to me, poorly I might add) that he thinks he can separate his condemnation of the gay lifestyle from the politics of that attitude.

That said I'm sure that Mornac will evade this inescapable example of his hypocrisy.

As I said before regarding the analogy of Plessy v. Ferguson, the doctrine of separate but equal isn't separate and isn't equal. Mornac's rationalization just doesn't cut it any better than Plessy v. Ferguson did, and Plessy v. Ferguson eventually let to Brown v. Bd. of Ed.

As much as I don't agree with this aspect of the gay rights movement, people like Mornac are pushing me more and more in that direction. I do wish Mornac could understand this, but alas this is how ideological blindness seems to work.

[johnhp]

Mornac will probably want to claim, as other defenders have, that this guy is just stating what Catholics believe.  This is not necessarily true, as i have pointed out before.  From an academic perspective, i am kind of astonished that he based his argument from natural law on what a doctor told him.  Not medical research, but what a guy told him.


It is one thing to suggest at a public university that a particular religion teaches X, Y, and Z.  It is another thing to advocate that position.  It is finally another thing altogether to advocate for that position based on fallacious logic.  Add to that the fact that this guy has no discernible expertise in Catholicism and the creepy letter and, quite frankly, the university is more than justified in not extending him a teaching contract.


Mornac is amusing as a culture warrior. 

[Velleity]

Mornac will probably want to claim, as other defenders have, that this guy is just stating what Catholics believe.  This is not necessarily true, as i have pointed out before.  From an academic perspective, i am kind of astonished that he based his argument from natural law on what a doctor told him.  Not medical research, but what a guy told him.


It is one thing to suggest at a public university that a particular religion teaches X, Y, and Z.  It is another thing to advocate that position.  It is finally another thing altogether to advocate for that position based on fallacious logic.  Add to that the fact that this guy has no discernible expertise in Catholicism and the creepy letter and, quite frankly, the university is more than justified in not extending him a teaching contract.


Mornac is amusing as a culture warrior. 

Any belief that contains the notion that it can't be adapted or altered is in and of itself perverse, as it defies the nature of our existence.

I have heard plenty of Catholics, of greater stature than Mornac, make statements that are contrary to his dogma. The thing that I find truly odd, though, is his need to speak in riddles instead of coming out with it directly.

[johnhp]

Any belief that contains the notion that it can't be adapted or altered is in and of itself perverse, as it defies the nature of our existence.

I have heard plenty of Catholics, of greater stature than Mornac, make statements that are contrary to his dogma. The thing that I find truly odd, though, is his need to speak in riddles instead of coming out with it directly.

i am not sure that i made my point strongly enough: this guy was not speaking as a Catholic.  He claims he was, the state hired him to do this, but he just did not have the credentials.

[Velleity]

i am not sure that i made my point strongly enough: this guy was not speaking as a Catholic.  He claims he was, the state hired him to do this, but he just did not have the credentials.

No, I understood that perfectly well. Mornac too lacks the credentials, doesn't he?

We're not in any disagreement here John. At least not any that I know of. As always you would know more about the subject than I would and I would defer to you at all times.

[johnhp]

No, I understood that perfectly well. Mornac too lacks the credentials, doesn't he?

Of course he does.  And, quite honestly, the ability or willingness to understand.

We're not in any disagreement here John. At least not any that I know of. As always you would know more about the subject than I would and I would defer to you at all times.

i did not think we were.  i just think allowing these people and their positions to be called Catholic is allowing too much.

[Velleity]

i did not think we were.  i just think allowing these people and their positions to be called Catholic is allowing too much.

Not having a dog in that race, I again defer to you and I certainly understand where you are coming from.

[johnhp]

oh, i find it interesting that Mornac posts this but doesn't know that much about this guy.  His knee jerk bullshit is just so amusing.