![[Critical Mass]](http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/cmlogo.gif)
Second thoughts in Illinois
The University of Illinois has been getting hammered for firing a professor who was accused of hate speech after explaining–on topic, and as part of a course–the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. Now they’re rethinking things.
Here’s the email that caused all the uproar. See what you think. My own sense is that the professor–who, until he was fired, was a religion professor and director of the St. John’s Institute for Catholic Thought–is perhaps a bit too complacent in his expectation that readers will differentiate between his explanation of principle, which is a relaying of ideas held elsewhere, and an exhortation on behalf of his own belief, which is something else entirely. Matters are complicated when we consider that the students in receipt of this email knew their professor to be a committed Catholic. Still, it takes real boneheadedness to decide that the email is an example of hate speech as the brave anonymous student complainant did — and it likewise takes stupidity that far exceeds the professor’s naive trust in his students’ intelligence for administrators to run with the complaint as they did. I think Professor Howell is likely to give his students far less credit in the future, if he has a professional future–and to cover his backside better as a result. Will the student and the enabling admins learn anything from this? Doubt it. Righteousness is not a receptive frame of mind.
I know my own readers are far too suave and worldly ever to be caught up in the sort of confusion that lies behind the Illinois debacle. But just for the record, let me say that I think the position articulated in Howell’s email is hogwash, that homosexual love and sex are every bit as legit as straight love and sex, and that, if I were less secure in my own beliefs, I might be personally offended by his email. But as it is, I think it’s interesting to see the elaboration of a moral system that is established and powerful and has enormous institutional weight behind it — precisely because it bears so little relation to my own baseline moral set points. It’s always empowering, enlightening, and stimulating to understand how people different from oneself think. There’s nothing intimidating or hateful about it.
[...] on 14 July: Erin O’Connor has posted more—apparently, Illinois is reconsidering its decision. O’Connor ends this way: I [...]
Wow. Is Howell teaching his students that utilitarianism says sex with 10-year-olds is OK?
If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral.
I am not a philosopher, but that sure doesn’t sound right to me.
“Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.”
I think it’s clear from that sentence that the writer is stating his own understanding of “natural reality” and the morality it should lead to, and that he agrees with the Church on this. It all looks pretty screwy to me. But ALL religion looks pretty screwy to me. This is a course on RELIGION for God’s sake, and people who are offended by these sorts of things should take some other course.
It doesn’t strike me as a very impressive e-mail. To state in a tone of certainty what “utilitarianism believes” about adult-child sex seems to me a misstatement of utilitarianism, which is a methodology rather than a set of conclusions–different utilitarians could come to different opinions about the matter, but I doubt many would actually say what Howell asserts that they would say.
Also, I thought Catholics believed that *some* moral principles could be derived from Natural Law, while *others* were dependent upon divine revelation. Is this not correct?
Again, not impressive, but not a firing matter, IMNSHO. I can see why students would find the tone irritating, but dealing with irritating people is a part of life.
No, not a firing offense. Howells is no Mel Gibson, but still, some old tropes seem to have calcified in his mind. Check out, e.g., how easily his email slides from homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. He needs to take a toilet brush to his brain. I suppose it could have been worse. He could have been busted trying to clarify some bit of Catholic theology by contrasting it to some bit of Jewish theology, and then illustrating the dangers of the latter by suggesting it could lead to the kidnapping and murder of little Christian babies….
Thank you, Eveningsun, for beating me to the punch. This is very superficial philosophy indeed and there are many, many Catholic educators who could present this line of argument much more coherently and, I would add, with much more tact. One of the alarming aspects of this email is the glib presentation of the natural law argument (with “REALITY” in caps) combined with the straw man account of utilitarianism. Not a firing offense per se, but not highly competent teaching either.
As an alum and resident near the University of Clout, I was in no way surprised by the school’s actions.
The fact that the emails are dated back to April, suggests that the timing here is inentional by Hogan and his underlings to try to keep the whole matter on the QT, or minimize fallout by addressing it during the summer recess.
Yet, at about the same time, high-ranking officials in the Vice-Chancellor’s office (google the name “Renee Romano” for a telling story) were demonstrated in emails via FIOA requests to have explicity conspired to hinder, dismantle, and surpress a student organization, the only crime of which was to support the former school symbol. Not only were those included in the conspiracy immune from any form of inquiry by the school’s echelons, but the administration ciricled the wagons around them, and their actions garnered blessings by the professtocracy.
No question a double standard here when you consider that blatant smoking guns of derelictions of academic duty are rewarded, while anonymous hearsay brings the unfavored down.