At Religious Universities, Disputes Over Faith and Academic Freedom

The situation here at Notre Dame was recently covered by the New York Times February 18 article. (Registration required)

"Watching the controversy unfold at Notre Dame is Father Hesburgh, who, though long retired, retains a campus office. He said Father Jenkins's effort to define what Notre Dame stood for was important. But in an interview, Father Hesburgh also said a modern university had to face the crucial issues of the times.

'I think the real test of a great university,' he said, 'is that you are fair to the opposition and that you get their point of view out there. You engage them. You want to get students' minds working. You don't want mindless Catholics. You want intelligent, successful Catholics.'"

Questions to discuss

Observer Viewpoint
Nicole Stelle Garnett, Professor of Law
20 February 2006

"... several years ago, Yale Law School (my alma mater) announced that it would no longer permit the Christian Legal Society to interview on campus. Yale adopted this policy because the Christian Legal Society reserves certain high-level positions for Christians. At the time, I wrote the dean of the law school to object. I argued that a full commitment to religious liberty required Yale to respect the Christian Legal Society's institutional autonomy and noted that the Society's hiring practices were in keeping with federal anti-discrimination laws. The dean - who is a friend and former professor - respectfully but firmly rejected these arguments. He said that it was critically important for Yale Law School to take a "no exceptions" position against all "discrimination." Yale's institutional commitment to the anti-discrimination principle, in his view, trumped concerns about religious freedom in the employment context.

"Yale continues to exclude the Christian Legal Society. I am certain that there are members of the Yale Law School faculty who share my view of this policy, but I do not believe that the policy infringes upon the academic freedom of these dissenting faculty members. They remain free to write, speak and teach about the importance of religious liberty - and to argue that Yale's policy is wrongheaded.

"... That Notre Dame asks radically different questions than Yale is both not surprising and good. Notre Dame has different questions to ask - questions that the secular world will be enriched by hearing."

(Read More)

On the Italics

Due to popular demand, future posts will not be using long blocks of italics. We will also be working on de-italicizing previous posts throughout the day.

We apologize for the readability problems.

'Monologues' Not Compatible With Goals

Observer - Viewpoint
Brian MacMichael
February 6, 2006

"I think all sides can agree that the preeminent goals of stopping violence against women and helping victimized women to heal need to be taken seriously and strongly promoted. The Catholic stance is overwhelmingly in favor of this agenda.

However, the means by which the 'Monologues' attempts to achieve these goals suffers from an incredibly dangerous flaw - it helps to fuel and perpetuate a masculine view of women as sexual objects rather than as dignified persons to be equally respected and protected. It does so by portraying the female performers precisely as sexual things whose personhood can be equated with their vaginas. I understand that many women feel that the play is a form of art that enables a cathartic emotional release on the part of women who have been victimized and need to find a sense of security and community. Nonetheless, the manner in which this is achieved only serves to entrench participants even further within a culture of sexual commodity.

Why do you suppose so many men attend the 'Monologues?' None of them, I would imagine, are seeking the healing from the play that many female viewers desire to receive. And I would wager that a relatively small number of the men attend solely out of deep feelings of empathy for the plight of victimized women. Rather, I am willing to assert - and plenty of my male friends agree - that many, many guys are attracted to the "Monologues" for its patently risque nature. The play may not be intended as pornographic or heteroerotic, but a voyeuristic male mentality can be aroused by even the most innocent or artistic immodesty, not to mention graphic sexual descriptions and depictions."

(Read More)

Below, Mr. MacMichael responds to criticisms, such as this February 8 letter from 2002 Notre Dame V-Day organizer Kerry Walsh:

Perhaps should have better clarified that not all men go with the intention of being aroused (I do not believe that they do) or that men who are in attendance will necessarily become more disposed to treat women as objects. I do, however, maintain that - like it or not - the risque content of the play does appeal to men's passions and only encourages the male mentality to think of women in a purely sexual/bodily manner. Perhaps, as a woman, you do not fully understand how male sexuality operates, but I can assure you that glorifying sex organs alone is not how to make a man respect you as a person. And yes, it is wrong that men have this reaction and ideally they would be able to go to such a performance and still treat women with respect. But in reality, most men need to have a sense of the sacredness of the total female person renewed within themselves, if they are to overcome a deep-seated sexual drive that urges them to claim the female body as a possession.

I know it's not the same thing, but I can try to relate this to a guy who finds himself alone with a gorgeous woman who is wearing nothing but suggestive lingerie - is it out of the ordinary for him to experience urges that are not entirely platonic? Obviously, no men are going to become completely irrational during a performance of the Monologues and feel the need to find immediate sexual release (at least, I hope not); but the nature of the content will at least partially appeal to the male sex drive from an angle men are susceptible to. When men are looking at Maxim or read sexually graphic literature, one cannot say that they should be doing such things "maturely," because they really should not be doing it at all - simple exposure to it is often enough to ignite their passions at least somewhat, which is why even the most chaste and pure men look away.

Engage in Contemporary Culture

Observer - Viewpoint
Gary Anderson
Professor of Theology

"Some people have come to believe that the recent address by University President Father John Jenkins is an assault on free speech that would result in Notre Dame becoming a pariah among universities. But is it the case that secular universities are promoting a freer discourse than Notre Dame? Having spent the first 10 years of my career at the University of Virginia as an assistant and associate Professor and the next eight years as a full professor at Harvard Divinity School I do not believe this is the case. ...

"Mary Ann Glendon of the Law School had been ordered not to use Harvard stationery to promote pro-life values even though colleagues on the other side of the fence were able to do so with impunity. A pro-life ethicist was not going to be appointed to this faculty in religious ethics. And all of this occurred at a school whose very raison d'être is that of offering a pluralistic perspective on the great religions of the world. That pluralism could often reduce itself to a very narrow bandwidth."

(Read More)

An Ideal Worth Striving For

Observer - Viewpoint:
Paolo Carozza
Professor of Law

"But then what is the place of Notre Dame's Catholic identity in this insistence on the freedom of our reason to reach always onward? The intellectual and moral tradition in which we are situated provides a sustained, complex and deep grappling with the mystery of human life and the universe around us, but one that is mostly ignored, and sometimes systematically excluded, from the intellectual life of most elite universities today. ...

"Which is the more ambitious, more demanding and more exalted view of academic freedom, education and research: one that is satisfied with a complacent welcoming of every diminished or demeaning view of our rationality and our humanity that may be given by the prevailing conventions of the world; or one that insists uncompromisingly on the scholarly temperament and urges us not to settle for anything that fails to correspond adequately to the ultimate value and meaning of our lives?

The greatness and promise of the University of Notre Dame consists in striving toward the latter as its goal. It pushes our research to be both broader and deeper. It impels our teaching to be more dedicated to the good of our students in friendship rather than giving in to boredom or the temptation to indoctrination. It urges students always to look for reasons and to remain open to those answers that can more fully satisfy their deepest yearnings for truth, justice, beauty and happiness."

(Read More)

See also the discussion of this article on Catholic blogger Amy Welborn's site.

Carry out simple fact-checking

In a February 10 letter to the Observer entitled "Contesting academic equivalence," Philosophy professor Fritz Warfield challenged:

"Here's a take home assignment for Jenkins, his staff and for any reporter interested in investigating his claims about academic freedom. Ask presidents and department chairs at major universities whether academic freedom at their institutions permits academic departments to sponsor events as they see fit. The answer one can expect to get is an unambiguous 'yes.'

Clearly some members of the University community believe that because of our Catholic character, academic freedom at Notre Dame should work differently than it does at major universities. I and others disagree and the debate continues.

Jenkins' remarks indicate that he apparently wants to have it both ways: He wants to say that academic freedom at Notre Dame is the same as academic freedom at, for example, Michigan, but he wants the freedom that Michigan academic departments have to sponsor events as they see fit not to attach to Notre Dame academic departments. "

Four days later, colleague John O'Callaghan responds:

"Warfield suggests that it is a simple 'fact-checking exercise' to determine that at other major universities, the University of Michigan being his chosen example, 'academic departments [are free] to sponsor events as they see fit.'

"... on Jan. 27 of this year, the departments of philosophy and theology at the University of Notre Dame sponsored an event, a Roman Catholic Mass to celebrate the vigil feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Given that St. Thomas is the patron saint of universities and students, this was not only a liturgical event but also an academic event, including an erudite homily about the nature of Catholic intellectual life and universities, as well as prayer for the University, its students, faculty and staff. Several hundred students, faculty, staff and community members filled the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. Such an event perfectly exemplifies the Catholic refusal to segregate the worship of God from the intellectual life, or to divorce faith from reason in academics, in contrast to prevailing secular norms like those at the University of Michigan and elsewhere. Or does my colleague really believe that the department of philosophy at the University of Michigan is free to sponsor this type of event 'as it sees fit?'"

(Read More)

Open letter to Father Jenkins

Observer - Viewpoint
by Jessica Nelson

"By claiming that 'The Vagina Monologues' are the only vehicles through which such healing can take place, its supporters are demanding that Notre Dame take a position which has clear theological implications. Let me sketch out the ramifications of their argument as follows:

(1) Assuming that 'The Vagina Monologues' are indeed egregiously opposed to Catholic teachings,
(2) and accepting its supporters‚ position that no comparable production, which would include the Catholic perspective, could accomplish the same goals,
(3) it follows that Catholic teachings must be ignored for the said goals to be fulfilled.
(4) If Catholic teachings must be ignored, this must mean that Catholic beliefs about sexuality are not only insufficient (in which case a performance which united both secular and Catholic viewpoints would suffice), but completely wrong.
(5) If the University agrees that 'The Vagina Monologues' do indeed have an irreplaceable impact on campus, and therefore allow them to be performed, the implication is that the University believes statement 4 is true."

(Read more)

Live your position

Observer Viewpoint:
by Daniel DiMassa

"For those who want to denounce the typical opponents of the 'Monologues' (the stereotypically male, conservative, religious types), consider this: These young men are not the ones violating women. Au contraire, they are probably some of the most chaste men on campus. So, supporters of the 'Monologues,' lay off these folks and view them as your partners.

And to you, opponents of the 'Monologues,' consider the group supporting the 'Monologues': it is dedicated to demolishing all violence against women. So, work together with this group in establishing a campus more dedicated to Christian ideals of non-violence.

Both groups must come together and impose immense pressure on the one group that is the enemy of all of us: The self-centered young men at this University who rape, abuse, take advantage of and hook up with the women of Notre Dame. These jerks use tools like alcohol and vulnerability in working toward their end. While we sit and argue about the 'Monologues,' our discussion does not thwart the weekend plans these men have. "

(Read More)

Unique atmosphere must be preserved

Observer - Viewpoint
Emmet Day
Alumnus, Class of 2002

In this editorial, ND alumnus Emmet Day argues that a homogenous idea of academic freedom between universities would limit the range of college choices for students.

Do the Monologues Promote Virtue?

The Monologues address a definite problem: violence against women. In order to judge how well they prevent violence against women let us first examine the source of this violence. Knowing the problem, we will be better able to formulate a solution. Then we can compare this proposed solution to the Monologue method.

The source of violence against women is men. A man violates a woman because he sees her as a source a pleasure, and he expects this source of pleasure to be available and subservient to his desires. The expectation is a perversion of the natural marital bond in which husband and wife form a self-giving union. The distorted view of women comes from a man’s upbringing and lust.
First, while a man is developing he realizes that he has a powerful sex drive. This can be developed in two ways with regard to women. He will either believe that this sex drive is intended for marriage and his wife, or he will believe that his sex drive is merely an appetite for pleasure which he fulfills through the use of women.

Second, in regards to lust, healthy men have a powerful sex drive. Even those men who believe that sex is something only appropriate to marriage, can at times be so blinded by lust that they have sex merely for its pleasure while forgetting the self-giving union intrinsic to conjugal love. Those men, on the other hand, who have never even considered sex as self-giving, will easily succumb to lust and will use any available woman that offers pleasure.

It seems, therefore, that lust is the problem underlying violence against women. Due to its effects, a man sees a woman as an object for pleasure and forgets her dignity as a person.
Now the question remains, how does a man overcome lust and order his appetites so that they do not lead him to violence against women? In terms of appetites, lust is a defect of the concupiscible appetite (the appetite for pleasure). The proper ordering of the concupiscible appetite is temperance. Education in temperance requires discipline by authority; growth of temperance within a person requires self-control. Discipline by authority requires that punishments be enforced upon those who do violence to women. Self-discipline in regards to the concupiscible appetites requires abstinence from unnecessary, and especially, inappropriate pleasures.

Growth in sexual temperance (chastity, continence, purity), therefore, requires that unnecessary erotic pleasures be eliminated, both those which are mental/visual and those which are physical. In the case of an unmarried man this would mean eliminating all erotic pleasures; in the case of a married man it would consist of reserving his desires for his wife alone and not forcing himself upon her when she is unwilling.

Therefore, to prevent violence against women, men should be punished for violating women, and they should be taught sexual temperance (chastity). Each man must ultimately decide for himself to live chastity but certain steps can be taken to promote this free choice. For example, this could be done by eliminating pornography and sexually suggestive material. Women, on their part, could act and dress modestly so as not to give a man an occasion for experiencing erotic pleasure in the fantasies of his mind, or worse, give a man an occasion for inappropriate physical pleasure.

Now it seems that the Monologues certainly support punishment for those men who abuse women. This is crucially important. However, punishment always follows the violation. Even though the men are punished, the women have already experienced the shame of abuse. Knowledge of a punishment does prevent some men from harming women, but, unfortunately, many women bear witness that it has not prevented all men from doing so. In order to further prevent violence, before it happens, men should not just be threatened with punishment but encouraged to live chastity, purity, and continence. This is where the Monologues fail.

The Monologues do not promote the aforementioned virtues because they violate modesty and decency which guard sexual temperance. The Monologues provide the audience with images of sexual experience which arouse their passions. This arousal causes lust which is the very source of sexual violence. Therefore, the Monologues seem to fail in their own objective.

Jake Nistler
Senior

Perspective

From how far away and at what angle you look at an object make a great deal of difference in how you see the object. Likewise, from what perspective you reason makes a great difference in what conclusions you come to. To make my point differently, it is not just what you reason about but how you go about your reasoning. Since I was a freshman, this campus has debated whether it should allow the Vagina Monologues. When the Queer Film Festival was started, a similar debate occurred about it. These debates point out to us that there are deep differences in what the members of Notre Dame hold to be true. It is my thesis that it is not just a difference in propositions but a profound difference in perspective and foundational truths that divide our campus.

This ideological difference can be seen in how we think of freedom. To the best of my knowledge the strongest argument for academic freedom relies on the premise that increasing freedom allows for an increase in human flourishing. However, it is not just any kind of freedom that the premise is referring to. It is freedom as individual autonomy. Now, I am big fan of individual liberty and believe that it is worth dying for to preserve. But for me talking about freedom or liberty in terms of autonomy is inherently flawed. Call me a realist if you must, but I do not see any material evidence for this thing called “freedom” anywhere on a human person. In other words, the human body itself does not present to me any convincing reason to think that freedom occurs. Yet, my encounters with other human beings convince me that they are indeed free. How could this be so? Because human freedom is a power intrinsically connected to the human soul – the immaterial part of man. Talk of human freedom then must be based in a metaphysical discussion of what man is. Moreover, such a conception of human freedom as a power makes it an absurdity to talk about human freedom as an end to be pursued. Powers are not ends that agents pursue; they are the abilities that allow agents to attain their ends. Luckily, man always seems to have a guide to his powers – we call it morality.

From this, my own perspective, the debate on campus is rather silly. Once someone has argued successfully that the Vagina Monologues are immoral – something that will not help man –, it would be idiotic to pursue them as a good themselves. The problem, however, is what is convincing to me is not at all convincing to everyone. Talk about goods as things that perfect man has little bearing on talk of freedom as autonomy. I suggest, therefore, that for a while we discuss our thinking in order to see whether we can actually get anywhere through debate. If we can, then we should continue; if we can’t, we should save ourselves a lot of grief and let Fr. Jenkins worry about it. After all, at least his order is getting paid for his troubles.

John Schneider
Senior

Acadmic Freedom and Common Sense

Observer - Viewpoint
by William Dempsey
Alumnus, Class of 1952

"For my part, I supposed that the fuss over the Monologues was probably unwarranted - until I read the play. Then the question became, for me, not open to reasonable debate. Violence against women is but a footnote - just a handful of pages. The body of the play is a paean, couched in the most graphic language in the relevant lexicon, to illicit sex of all varieties short of bestiality (including sexual seduction of a minor by an adult). Strip those passages, and there is no play. If the University may not exercise control respecting this play, it is hard to imagine any meaningful bounds to academic freedom."

(Read More)

Beyond either-or

Observer Viewpoint
by Brad Gregory
Professor of History

"I see no obvious models for us in the endeavor to create a Catholic, great research university in this age. But this open-endedness is precisely what is exciting and important about Notre Dame and its ambitions: we are being invited to participate in an original exercise of institution-building, not to submit to the patterns and conform to the precedents of other institutions.

Sectarian Catholic universities such as the Franciscan University of Steubenville or Ave Maria University can offer no instruction. They are not research universities, and their missions seem too narrowly, inwardly Catholic to allow for (in Jenkins' words) 'a variety of views expressed vigorously, even those contrary to deep values of Catholicism.' Rejecting such institutions as models doubtless will displease those Catholics who want to refashion Notre Dame in their image and likeness.

Neither will the best private secular universities such as Stanford or Princeton suffice for Notre Dame. We must learn all that we can from them, for they have much to teach us, but we cannot uncritically mimic them without forsaking our Catholic identity. They forfeited commitment to their religious traditions (or in some cases never had one) and forbid consideration of religious positions on their own terms in the classroom. Rejecting such institutions as models doubtless will displease those uneasy with Notre Dame's Catholic character, particularly if they equate secularization with progress and hope that the University will eventually "get over the whole Catholic thing."

Finally, traditionally Catholic universities whose Catholic identity has been perhaps irretrievably compromised will not do. They are difficult to distinguish from secular universities in all but certain devotional respects. Their lack of vigorous discussion about how to be both first-rate and Catholic fostered their uncritical emulation of highly ranked, secular institutions. As a result, they appear to have forfeited any serious commitment to Catholicism and Catholic intellectual traditions. Rejecting such institutions as models doubtless will displease those who think that Catholicism's "universality" should oblige Notre Dame to sponsor all things for all people. But a university that gauges its identity primarily by how much it tolerates, that speaks of truth only as something to be pursued and never as someone already incarnate and that is embarrassed to be a witness because it no longer knows what it is witnessing to, is arguably no longer a Catholic university."

(Read More)

Monologues can still be useful tool

Observer - Viewpoint
by Ian McDole

In this letter to the editor, Mr. McDole proposes that while the Vagina Monologues have served a purpose in bringing up important issues, there must be a better way to solve said issues.

"True academic endeavors should aim to find the truth, not play off the emotions of students.

What I suggest is an effort by students and the administration and faculty alike to try to find another means to combat the issues of violence against women. It is ludicrous to think that the only way to raise awareness about violence against women is with a crude performance."

(Read More)

Editors note: Mr. McDole later noted that he meant for the letter to read "Some of its skits have a skewed view of rape and glorify abortions," rather than, "Some of its skits glorify rape and abortions."

True Academic Freedom

It is said that the premise of a disagreement is seeing the same things. You cannot claim to disagree with someone else if you are not talking about the same thing. Clearly, with the current debate about academic freedom and our Catholic character, opposing parties are not seeing the same thing.

On the one hand, we have those who push for the promotion of this so-called academic freedom. Violence against women is most definitely a topic that needs to be addressed. Rape, incest, and brutality—none of these particularly heartwarming—but these are matters that cannot be ignored in spite of their unpleasant nature. More stunning than the shock value they carry is the reality that they all embrace, they are true occurrences that happen whether or not we are aware of them in our Notre Dame bubble. Similarly, there are issues of homosexuality and all the emotional and societal implications this carries—this yet another reality we cannot ignore. These are issues that must be addressed. For the sake of the preservation of our academic freedom, they must be addressed; we’d be at moral odds if we didn’t.

And yet, we have the “suppression” of two events that claim to do just that, the Vagina Monologues and the Queer Film Festival. Is this really academic freedom? Now, let us consider what is really meant by academic freedom.

First let us consider the notion of freedom. It would be absolutely false to say that freedom implies doing whatsoever one pleases without restraint; in fact, that would be a hindrance to our freedom. It is only within the rules of a particular context that we are truly free. We are only free to speak if we follow the rules of language, only free to write if we follow the rules of grammar, only able to enjoy a game of basketball if we abide by its rules, that is, what makes up the game. In brief, one could say that rules define what freedom is in any particular area. And if we are talking about academic freedom, then what are the rules of our game? Those would be the rules of academia which the dictionary defines as “an environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship,” in other words we are concerned with the freedom regarding the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Yet, more importantly, it is fundamental that we remember that we are a Catholic University (Catholic first); that we are conformed to a Catholic character. Though the student population may not be made up of all practicing Catholics, that does not deny the reality of the university as one that promotes and abides by what Catholicism is. It is also important to understand what Catholic, or “universal” isn’t: by saying “Catholic” we do not mean to say that we believe anything and everything. And here is where the premise of disagreement proves crucial. Once both sides see what the rules of the game are, once they are seeing the same things, they can begin to see where the nature of the disagreement lies.

Even when understanding and abiding by what our Catholic character implies, does this mean that there is a limit to what we are to learn? Yes, to be entirely honest there is, but it is a limit that abides to our identity, to our very Catholic nature. That is not to say we don’t get a wide range of many a time opposing views. Philosophy studies everything from St. Thomas Aquinas to Nietzsche and his superman. Psychological studies may involve topics as diverse as Freud and Paul VI’s Humane Vitae. Yet, if we were to explicitly promote a view that went against our very nature—this as opposed to merely presenting it and studying it—we would be denying that nature. We would cease to uphold the ideal of a Catholic university.

Furthermore, it is important to mention that Fr. Jenkins called academic freedom “essential to a university” and went on to say that “It ensures that faculty have the ability to research, create, teach, and express themselves in accord with their own best judgment.” Crucial to point out here, is “in accord to their own best judgment,” which implies, in some very pop culture terms, that “with great power comes great responsibility,” or in the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman, “conscience has rights because it has duties.” In brief, we must always consider the big picture.

And what is the big picture? The Queer Film Festival and the Vagina Monologues have stirred much debate, and rightly so. Are the themes they seek to raise awareness to being properly addressed? I wouldn’t make such lofty claims. Can we improve? I believe so whole-heartedly. But are the means they use the proper ones? I don’t believe so, and Fr. Jenkins, within his authority as President, and fulfilling his responsibility in protecting our Catholic character doesn’t either. More importantly, in seeking to find proper means for a noble cause, I believe we are upholding the nature of the University that Fr. Sorin founded, and that Our Lady and Mother holds so dear.

Victor Saenz
Freshman
Knott Hall

Freedom and Responsibility

Observer - Viewpoint
by Peter Wicks

"Rather like contemporary debates over the constitutional separation of church and state, disputes about academic freedom tend to go wrong because everyone assumes that 'academic freedom' means whatever they think it should mean. ...

Departments that allocate their resources in ways that do not - directly or indirectly - further the goal of intellectual inquiry are failing in their duties. If that failure becomes chronic then the President of the University has an obligation to intervene.

In the case of the Monologues I fail to see how the sponsorship of a play that has been performed on campus every year since 2002 can be justified by an academic department on academic grounds. Saving the world is not part of the English department's academic mission, which is just as well because there is no reason to suppose that they would be especially good at it."

(Read More)

Uniting Under Common Ground

Observer - Viewpoint
by Arina Grossu

As we continue discussion about academic freedom and Notre Dame's Catholic character, I urge people to re-read University President John Jenkins' speech. It disturbs me that a few people have oversimplified his stance, purporting some breach of free speech.

(Read more)