Illinois professor fired

[xoxoxoBruce]

Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality.The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor for teaching in a class on Catholicism that homosexual acts violate natural moral law.

Dr. Kenneth Howell was informed that he could no longer teach in the university's department of religion. The decision came after a student complained that Howell's statements were “hate speech.”

I think this is fucked up, and here's why...

“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.

“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.

Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”

WTF? If he was hired to teach Catholicism, isn't he supposed to tell the students what the Catholic Church's tenets are? He even stated his own position differing from the church, which I don't think was necessary, but certainly permissible.

Some might say the Catholic Church's position is a hate position, and I couldn't argue with that, but to explain it to the students certainly isn't "hate speech". Seems to me, the offended party has no business being in college.

link

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WTF? If he was hired to teach Catholicism, isn't he supposed to tell the students what the Catholic Church's tenets are? He even stated his own position differing from the church, which I don't think was necessary, but certainly permissible.

Catholic Church has a long history of teaching hate. It did not start with gays. It even existed with the very first human organ transplant because transplants vilolate Natural Moral Laws.

This professor apparently does have bias against gays. He also condemns planned parenthood and the reason why (in 1970) you could not trust anyone over 30 - ie the sexual revolution. That revolution really only took sex out of the closet.

Read an e-mail he sent to his students. Whereas his biases are obvious, what he is teaching is not. One can easily come to two different conclusions from the same text:

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. ... In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. ...

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. ...

I think it's fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. ... The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning.

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. ...

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

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. ...

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won't go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. ...

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn't answer all the questions in many of your minds. 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. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Nobody can judge from that e-mail. Necessary details do not exist. He is obviously teaching that Natural Moral Laws must be the basis for informed decisions - when those Natural Moral Laws are a reason for so much hate from the Catholic Church. As xoxoxoBruce notes, his task is to teach it. A fine line between teaching it and proselytizing. From his e-mail, he could have been proselytizing. Nobody knows how much. Nobody has enough detail to know if he had clearly and fully crossed the line. I suspect he did not. But then I also know that one had to be there to have the ‘necessary and not provided’ details.

One factor that clearly is problematic is this Catholic Church nonsense about Natural Moral Law. Propaganda that should not be part of a public discussion of how people act. Natural Moral Law is a concept that is fundamental to Church teachings. Has promoted hate while condoning pedophilia.

His teachings promote Natural Moral Law. Without details, we don't know if he criticized the church for that teaching that has been used to promote hate. Those necessary details are not provided.

[Flint]

So what if you taught a history course about the Holocaust? [/Godwin's Law]

[Trilby]

/off topic sorta/

I had a prof who got in trouble for teaching HUCK FINN, FFS!, because of the N word in there.


FFS!!!!!

carry on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

One factor that clearly is problematic is this Catholic Church nonsense about Natural Moral Law. Propaganda that should not be part of a public discussion of how people act. Natural Moral Law is a concept that is fundamental to Church teachings. Has promoted hate while condoning pedophilia.

His teachings promote Natural Moral Law. Without details, we don't know if he criticized the church for that teaching that has been used to promote hate. Those necessary details are not provided.

But that "nonsence" of Natural Moral Law is a large part of Catholicism, which is what he was hired to teach. Even if he was hired to teach about the basic Catholic Church, rather than Catholicism, Natural Moral Law should be included because it plays a large part in the church's philosophy.

[classicman]

oh bruce - you and your common sense... please.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brianna

/off topic sorta/

I had a prof who got in trouble for teaching HUCK FINN, FFS!, because of the N word in there.


FFS!!!!!

carry on.

Not that far off, I think this is an ongoing problem of "politicaly correct" stifling real education.
And another problem is sheltering little Johnny from reality...

[Lamplighter]

Here's a snip from the Professor's email, above:

"... NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. ..."

I'm not at all versed at all in the details of Natural Law or NML, so I'm asking... Does NML actually specifically require "complementary" or is this the Prof's personal interpretation while teaching NML." ?

[Sheldonrs]

I say you shouldn't teach about "immoral acts" until you've committed them. :-)

[ZenGum]

And professor Sheldon can be very complimentary.


Seriously, there is no part of this that does not piss me off. It's all been covered already, though, so Imma leave this dead horse alone.

[BrianR]

I would have taken exception to his example of sex changes being about the sex act.

It clearly is not about sex, it is about mind/body congruity (is that a word? it should be!). All the transsexual people I know agree that they did not undergo the physical and chemical changes so that they could engage in sex; they did it so that their brains and their bodies would be better matched than nature allowed. Sex is only a small part of it. In fact, many transsexuals remain attracted to the same gender that they preferred before their transition. Homosexuality has nothing to do with gender noncomformity. If a transsexual was "straight" before, they will likely be "straight" after. It is believed that those who switch gender preference during their transition were actually attracted to that gender before but repressed that desire to better conform to the roles that were assigned to them at birth.

Not that I don't take exception to more than that one topic, but that professor and I would have had to have a debate on the matter of gender and sex right then and there.

I don't support firing him however. He was doing what he was hired to do. Anyone taking that course should have known that they would be exposed to Catholic doctrine and thought. If they didn't like it, as I do not, there was room for debate and idea exchange. That is the purpose of higher education. To expose yourself to new ideas and to think about them in depth and detail. You don't have to agree with everything you are taught, you just have to learn to think about things critically.

Some people are just not ready to challenge their ideas.

Brian

[tw]

Originally Posted by BrianR

I don't support firing him however. He was doing what he was hired to do. Anyone taking that course should have known that they would be exposed to Catholic doctrine and thought.

We have no reasons why U of IL fired him. A conclusion without such critically important details is only speculation. The original article is a party line information sheet for the Catholic Church. Why did U of IL fire him? Not provided by a publicity rag for the Church. Those reasons must be provided by sources that will report what the U of IL saw.

From the e-mail, there is nothing worthy of firing. But we only have his e-mail. We clearly do not have the entire story.

[BrianR]

The University will not comment on a personnel matter as a matter of policy.

So we will never know exactly whether or not the student complaint caused the discontinuance of the professor's contract. It seems clear, however, that the University fired the professor for violating their standards of inclusivity with his email to his students. I get that from Ann Mester, an associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Here is the relevant link.

Coming on the heels of the proxy complaint by a student (the actual complainant wishes to remain anonymous), it seems suspicious that the firing is anything other than a pandering to political correctness. I cannot as of now condone the firing, absent other information.

The professor has responded this way:


Dear Friend:

I write this short narrative to explain why I am no longer teaching at the University of Illinois and am not employed by the Diocese of Peoria as of 30 June 2010. First, a little background.

I came to Champaign-Urbana in August of 1998 to be employed by the St. John's Catholic Newman Center as a teacher in the courses of the Catholic faith that were then taught through the Center. For seven years I enjoyed a working relationship with Monsignor Stuart W. Swetland, the Director of the Center, who taught alongside me in that program. In 2000, Monsignor Swetland negotiated an agreement with the Department of Religion in which he and I would be adjunct professors in the department and would teach courses on Catholicism. We simultaneously established the Institute of Catholic Thought of which I became the Director and Senior Fellow. The purpose of the Institute was to promote the intellectual heritage of the western world in which Catholicism played such an integral role.

Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the Department of Religion. Since Monsignor Swetland's departure in May of 2006, I have taught the equivalent of a full-time professor every semester, sometimes even more. This past semester (Spring 2010) something occurred which changed an otherwise idyllic academic life. One of the courses I have taught since 2001 has been "Introduction to Catholicism." I think that it is fair to say that many students at the University of Illinois have benefited greatly from this and other teaching I have done. Every semester in that "Introduction" class, I gave two lectures dealing with Catholic Moral positions. One was an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church. The second was designed as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed issue in our society. Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts. I would be happy to explain more fully the Catholic Church's position on this matter but, for the sake of brevity, I can summarize it as follows. A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong. This is what I taught in my class.

This past semester was unusual. In previous years, I had students who might have disagreed with the Church's position but they did so respectfully and without incident. This semester (Spring 2010) I noticed the most vociferous reaction that I have ever had. It seemed out of proportion to all that I had known thus far. To help students understand better how this issue might be decided within competing moral systems, I sent them an email contrasting utilitarianism (in the populist sense) and natural moral law. If we take utilitarianism to be a kind of cost-benefit analysis, I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.

After the semester was over, I was called into the office of Robert McKim, the chairman of the Department of Religion, who was in possession of this email. I was told that someone (I presume one of my students) sent this email to the Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns at the University. It was apparently sent to administrators in the University of Illinois and then forwarded on to Professor McKim. I was told that I would no longer be able to teach in the Department of Religion.

Professor McKim and I discussed the contents of the email and he was quite insistent that my days of teaching in the department were over. I offered that it would be more just to ask me not to address the subject of homosexuality in my class. In fact, the other class I regularly taught (Modern Catholic Thought) never dealt with that subject at all. I also averred that to dismiss me for teaching the Catholic position in a class on Catholicism was a violation of academic freedom and my first amendment rights of free speech. This made no difference. After that conversation and a couple of emails, Professor McKim insisted that this decision to dismiss me stood firm.

I then consulted with our Diocesan lawyer, Mrs. Patricia Gibson, to see if the St. John's Newman Center could sue the university for breach of contract. Mrs. Gibson, kind in spirit and articulate as regards the law, told me that unfortunately the university had made very careful provisions to protect itself and so would not be liable in a law suit. I am still consulting with other lawyers about possible legal action on the grounds of the first amendment.

Then Monsignor Gregory Ketcham, the current Director of the St. John's Catholic Newman Center and my superior, informed me that the Center would not be able to continue employing me since there was no longer any teaching for me to do. I then reiterated what I had mentioned to him the day before. I suggested that we work together to have courses on Catholicism taught at the Newman Center that could be accredited by a Catholic university and that could be transferred into the University of Illinois for credit. In this way, the students whom we had been called to serve could continue to be instructed in the Catholic Faith. I told him in fact that I had once had conversations with professors in Catholic universities who were willing to make such arrangements. Monsignor Ketcham said that he had no interest in such a plan.

Thus, after more than sixty years, students at the University of Illinois will have no classes on Catholicism available to them. If the Department of Religion continues to offer the courses I taught, I have no idea how accurately Catholicism will be represented. I know this subject well enough to say it can be easily distorted. I have tried in this document to portray in a straightforward manner what happened. I also am preparing another document giving my own interpretation of all these events. If you are interested in that, or you just want to be informed as things progress, please contact me by email: kenneth.howell1952@gmail.com

I look back at the twelve years I have spent in this position with memories of wonderful times with my students and friends with whom I have labored. It has been a time of great growth and joy. I thank God from the bottom of my heart. I don't know what the future holds but I do know Him who holds it. He is faithful and can be trusted.

Sincerely, Kenneth J. Howell

[classicman]

Ahhh I see it now -

I was told that someone (I presume one of my students) sent this email to the Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns at the University.

They threatened something and the University caved... typical.

Yes this is an assumption, but to fire a professor after 12 years without having some concrete proof of a serious indiscretion or blatant incompetence is surprising.

[Happy Monkey]

The argument he made shows a high level of blatant incompetence with respect to logic, but he wasn't teaching logic. Maybe he could have avoided divisive hot-button issues in an "Intro to Catholisism" class in a non-seminary, but professors should be allowed to do so, for the most part.

He veered a bit from presenting the facts about Catholicism to a bit of prostelyzation in the email tw posted, in the "REAL" bit in the last two paragraphs. There's no reason to suppose that Catholics have a particularly "thorough understanding of natural reality" that gives any weight to what they think of as "Natural Moral Theory". However, I don't think its enough, on its own, to justify firing him.

(It may not be "on its own", though)