Academic freedom is the treasure of the university. In a world that (allegedly) prizes education for education's sake, the currency is ideas. We come to the university to learn, to be exposed to different ideas, to challenge ourselves and others. But what happens when certain ideas are stifled in the classroom, like what happened to one professor?
Colleges are where what's left of the dying discipline of philosophy (and other theoretical liberal arts) lives on. Academics and scholars continue to pursue and create the cutting edge of theory and research under the canopy of the university.
But, let's face it, some ideas are less popular than others. Universities don't always like certain things being researched or said. Professors espousing full out Marxism (Communism) are often subject to certain types of censorship and tenure issues. Most unpopular of all though, might just be Catholicism. Nothing says politically incorrect like those crazy Catholics. Religious Studies in general is considered increasingly suspect as well. Harvard doesn't even have an undergraduate department of Religious Studies or Theology.
Apparently though, the university gotten to the point where certain ideas aren't even allowed to be told in their entirety. Dr. Kenneth Howell was fired from the University of Illinois for teaching what the Catholic position on homosexuality is in a course on Catholicism. Yes, for telling students what the Catholic Church teaches in a class about Catholicism, he was fired.
Read the article
here. A student anonymously claimed that an email Dr. Howell sent to students explaining the Catholic Natural Law theory on homosexuality was hate speech. The email also included a utilitarian view and a plea for academic integrity and making thoughtful, informed decisions.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has taken up Dr. Howell's case and is pushing for his reinstatement on the grounds that the university violated his first amendment rights and showed bias in censoring ideas merely due to their political incorrectness.
Should secular universities censor things they don't agree with? What about Christian universities? I personally favor allowing every position to be presented in the strongest light possible. I support honesty and putting political agendas aside in order to see and evaluate the agenda itself, and learning just to learn.
Isn't that what you're supposed to do in a college class? Present the ideas and study them? Or should we just reject ideas outright because they offend our delicate sensibilities? It would be absurd if a professor of political theory (who happened to be a utilitarian) was fired for teaching what John Stewart Mill taught, wouldn't it?
It saddens me that college has become a consumer product, bowing to students and their parent's money instead of academic ideals and commitment to knowledge for knowledge's sake. Academic freedom is what made college so important. Truth and untruth were out there to be weighed thoughtfully, though most people genuinely seek what is true. That's the point, education is help us figure out what is true, not to tell us what is true. We have to have as much information from as many different sources as possible in order to learn how to consider things and to see all the facets. Censoring ideas debilitates this process and changes education into conditioning.
So here are my questions for readers: should there ever be a limit on academic freedom? Do secular/Christian universities have a right to decide what will/will not be taught? What is the value of political correctness? Does the university have an obligation to explore ideas regardless of how unsavory it may find them?
Recommend
Comments (28)
That's a tough one. I think universities should on occasion decide what should be thought within reason. However in instances like this it sounds like they went too far. Teaching the Catholic position on homosexuality in a course on Catholicism isn't hate speech unless this professor actually said these were his own personal opinions. I think there will always be tension between the definitions of political correctness and free speech. Unfortunately when so many genuine bigots hide behind free speech it tends to cast an unsavoury light on the whole concept. As centres of learning universities have an obligation to explore ideas as long as you don't have a teacher forcing an extremist agenda on their students. What a university should and should not teach will always be open to debate and prone to trends. Right now they tend to err on the side of caution because they don't want to be sued or have their reputations tarnished.
When you read the e-mail that Dr. Howell sent to his students (which was the basis of the complaint, and you can read it here), I think there is some legitimate ground for terminating his contract. Specifically, Howell demonstrates an extraordinarily poor grasp of Utilitarianism, one of the topics he is supposed to be teaching, and shows that he is not competent to be an instructor on that subject.
However, if it's true that the basis of his termination was that the e-mail contained "hate speech", then I strongly disagree with the decision of the university. On that point I agree with you, it is a violation of a professor's academic freedom not to allow him to present controversial views, even ones (like this one) that I strongly disagree with.
i read the part of the e-mail quoted in the article. professors SHOULD be capable of discussing alternate points of view without making it sound preachy. this guy doesn't seem like he's capable of that. it clearly sounds like he's offering this information not as part of a class, but as part of his own personal message. i'd be offended, too.
unless he's quoting some other article written by a Catholic organization (and there's no indication that he is), he crossed the line right about here...
"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.”
if this was meant to provide general information, this sentence should not even remotely exist. that's preaching and persuasion... it's NOT teaching anymore than a commercial for Bank of America is an educational lecture about the banking industry. there's nothing scholarly or educational about it. it's something i'd expect to hear coming from a minister or priest, not a professor.
clearly, he has his own personal stance on homosexuality, and that's fine. but keep it out of the classroom.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I tend to agree with you that he doesn't try very hard to separate his own views from the Catholic teachings.
He does state exactly the Catholic view of the topic though, and that's what the class is about (not moral theory).
If he added, "Catholics (or Natural Law Theory states) believe that... " to "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.” then it would be fine. He would be explaining why the issue matters to natural law theorists.
It is sticky. He interweaves his own opinion without a break. At the same time, he doesn't say that you have to agree with him.
Another issue is whether or not professors should be able to give their own opinion at all. I had a political theory professor once (who was at the other end of the spectrum completely & openly gay), who ranted and raved at how silly it was for professors not to give their own opinion in the classroom. He stated on the first day that it was his class and he was going to give his opinion on the issues. He didn't think his opinion could be separated from what he was teaching.
Overall, the topics weren't extremely controversial (most people agree that human rights are a good thing in international law), but it did get obnoxious at times they way he would make assumptions about certain things. But I didn't think he should have been fired; he was a fine professor and he had a right to his opinions.
I can see why the students in Dr. Howell's class may have been irked. I don't think it's worthy of him being fired though. The unfortunate difference, I think, is the level of controversy. That seems like the reason the university fired him.
I can also see why people like professors who never give their own opinion. One of my favorite professors (also in political theory), was a secular Jew, and I never ever new in all the classes I took with him, how he really felt about the issues. We would read the sources, he would lecture about them and summarize them. He would say pros and cons of each. One difference with him was that he never staked his career on pushing through a new theory or point of view. All of his publications were just explanatory; he would write articles and books explaining different points of view on certain issues so he never had a dog in the fight while teaching.
Anyway, this is kind of a ramble, I'm just saying that some professors inject their own opinions, others don't. Both are usually fine professors. I don't think it warrants being fired most of the time.
i have a feeling that a professor teaching evolution as truth at a catholic university would be fired.
"Do secular/Christian universities have a right to decide what will/will not be taught?"
Christian Universities have a right to teach content that is within their belief system -- that's honest. For example, a Catholic University ought to teach that which is in line with Catholic doctrine.
Secular Universities claim to be open to basically anything. But in practice, it is more like a popularity contest. If certain Catholic ideas are politically incorrect, then fire anyone who says them. So, here we see how the open-to-anything free-thinking Universities are not honest.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "
"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.”
if
this was meant to provide general information, this sentence should not
even remotely exist. that's preaching and persuasion.."
I don't know about the preachin' part. It is obvious to most that we find completion in our opposite. A homosexual union is between sames -- where is the mystery?
It is normal to grow up, marry, and have kids -- our race depends on it. If we didn't do this, our race would die out in one generation... but, luckily, there will be no shortage of us to remake the world every generation.
@StephanieP -
"He stated on the first day that it was his
class and he was going to give his opinion on the issues. He didn't
think his opinion could be separated from what he was teaching."
it depends on what the opinion is about. i'd say this professor's opinion was valid if the class was SPECIFICALLY about homosexuality and its conflicts with Christian morals. but even then, the issue becomes where exactly his opinion is coming from, and whether it's applicable to all students.
for example, i was/am an archaeology student. there are tons of theories in archaeology, and everyone has their own opinions. but, any professor is coming at the theories from the perspective of an expert. it is a part of their jobs to formulate their own theories, or agree with existing ones. in the case of this professor, teaching this class, how exactly is it his job to offer his opinion of homosexuality as though it's worth anything academically?
@monobeam@xanga -
"I don't know about the preachin' part. It is
obvious to most that we find completion in our opposite. A homosexual
union is between sames -- where is the mystery?"
i don't know about you, but i find way more mystery in the individual's personality, rather than their gender. and i'm straight.
but the simple reality is, that's not a scholarly opinion related to a class on Catholicism. he shouldn't have been preaching it.
I don't know exactly how he was actually teaching. If he was preaching his personal opinion as "too_pretty_to_die" stated then I'd say there might be reason to dismiss him. If I was a student, paying for a class in which a professor was preaching his opinion as truth I would probably want to drop the class and lose money and credits as opposed to remaining in the class and having to complete exams with answers I felt I had to give in order to grade well, even though I did not agree with them. That's not a choice a student should have to make. I don't know if that was the case here but if so, then I would have wanted the guy to go. Those are a lot of ifs and I can't really say without knowing more.
I believe another factor in all of this that cannot be overlooked is there is a right-wing Christian push to turn this country into a Christian run country and it's making everyone else much more sensitive and concerned about their freedoms. In a less polarized environment this incident might not have even come up.
I agree with you. College in the U.S. seems to have lost the purpose of teaching critical thinking. Simply memorizing correct answers is something monkeys can do and does not really comprise getting an education.
@TheSutraDude@xanga -
It's not his opinion, it is the teaching of the Church in a class about the Church. If there is some right wing push, it has obviously failed. We have the most liberal President and Congress in the history of the country and anyone who speaks up in favor of morals is called hateful.@Megan - "and anyone who speaks up in favor of morals is called hateful."
I have to disagree with you there. I've never been called hateful by anyone....at least not to my face. :P And my mistake. I meant to say far right wing, not right wing. Some moderate right wing candidates have been pushed out as of late by those who are farther right.
@Megan - You have quite a persecution complex, don't you? It must be rough living in a country where the overwhelming majority shares your religion.
@zaerix@xanga -
Butterscotch!@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "i find way more mystery in the individual's personality, rather than their gender."
Christianity's strength is in valuing the person, as an individual, with a unique personallity, and also with a God-given gender. There is a great mystery a person's personallity; let's remember that we are not just floating intellects, but that each quirky/unique personality is housed within a body, which is created either male or female. The body is central to our interaction as a community, as a culture... it is strange that talking this way can get a person fired... but we will never get beyond our bodily nature, it is intrinsic to who we are, how we were made.
@bekkabrutality@xanga - Actually the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution so that wouldn't be a problem
@monobeam@xanga -
"Christianity's strength is in valuing the
person, as an individual, with a unique personallity, and also with a
God-given gender."
good for you. i'm not Christian. and unless he knew for a fact that everyone in his class was Christian, that opinion shouldn't have been anywhere in the classroom. religious teachings presented as fact belong in church. religious teachings presented as opinion or theory belong in a classroom.
Educators are tasked with giving young adults both the facts and skills needed to develop informed opinions about the world. However, it is often difficult to draw the line between a "fact" and an "informed opinion"--especially when someone is passionate about the topic--and educators occasionally present their opinions as fact.
Should such a slip-up result in the termination of an educator? In general, educators should be allowed a wide margin for error. However, if the educator is seeking to misinform his/her students, then s/he should obviously be removed from the classroom.
In addition, there is a second type of speech that should be prohibited: Educators should never single out a group of students (or an individual). Especially when teaching a sensitive topic that is currently affecting the lives of students, educators should make every effort to remain unbiased.
In this case, the professor clearly stepped across that line when he said that we are denying our own humanity by encouraging homosexuality, and hence implying that gays and lesbians are somehow sub-human.
Yes, he should have been fired.
@Megan - The beliefs of the Catholic Church are obviously relevant to the curriculum. A discussion about the origin, evolution, and merit of the Church's anti-gay beliefs is not hate speech by any means. Such beliefs can (and should) be analyzed, evaluated, and criticized safely by students.
However, the unsolicited beliefs of the professor have no place in the classroom (or in emails). It is a very different thing for Prof. Howell to say to his students that "encourag[ing] [gay] relations ... den[ies] something essential about our humanity." In this case, the professor is clearly communicating to the (potentially gay) student his bias that gay students are somehow sub-human.
(Prof. Howell's email can be read here.)
There is no excuse for a professor to create a learning environment in which some students are promoted as "better" (or, in this case, "more human") than others. Prof. Howell did just that, and his ability to teach was rightly questioned.
In this case, I think the transgression was grievous enough to warrant dismissal.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "religious teachings presented as opinion or theory belong in a classroom."
Christianity is no opinion and it is no theory. It is a way, but if we can not say anything about this way, then we are unfairly excluded from the society we helped to make here in the US.
The question is: who gets to make up these exclusionary rules? This leads to a second question: why aren't universities also anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim? Universities seem to have chosen to go after only Christians. Can you find an example of a university firing a Jew who spoke about what Jews believe, or a Muslim who spoke about what Muslims believe?
@monobeam@xanga -
"Christianity is no opinion and it is no
theory. It is a way, but if we can not say anything about this way,
then we are unfairly excluded from the society we helped to make here in
the US."
you can say all you want about this "way", just not in a classroom where students are paying the professor to be taught, not converted. i hear about Christians throw hissy fits all the time when they're taught evolution, or any other theory perceived as going against their own. you play the "religious persecution" card both ways, and you're being ridiculous.
you are not being unfairly excluded. every religion is excluded just the same.
"This leads to a second question: why aren't universities also anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim? "
actually, that leads to a better question: why are Muslims and Jews somehow more mature and intelligent when it comes to keeping their beliefs out of the classroom? i've been taught by Buddhists, Christians (conservative and liberal), Jews, Muslims, and atheists. only the conservative Christian has ever made me feel like i might actually fail their class simply for disagreeing with them.
obviously, Jews and Muslims must do a better job of following the rules.
"an you find an example of a university firing
a Jew who spoke about what Jews believe, or a Muslim who spoke about
what Muslims believe?"
one, that's not what happened here. this professor spoke about what HE believed. sorry, but having taken classes on Judaism which were taught by a Jew, i know there is a perfect way to speak about what you may believe yourself, but without coming across as preachy. this professor failed.
two, can you find an example of a Jew or Muslim bringing their own beliefs into a classroom... a student complaining... and them not being fired?
After reading the letter, I think he's absolutely wrong, but I wouldn't consider it hate speech. The issue becomes complicated, because if it was a class about Catholicism, then it may have actually been relevant to the class. If he was doing this in a class about another subject, then that would have been wrong.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I read the letter, and I think it does get preachy at the end a little bit, but I'm unsure. He seems to start off talking about the class, but then his own emotions get into it (which is strange since that's what he's counseling his students against doing). You make a good point; it does seem that the attitude is that it's only persecution if it happens one way and not the other. I think perhaps the reason why it seems like people of other religions (e.g. Muslims and Jews) don't do this as often is because they are the minority and wouldn't get away with it. If they were the majority, I think some members of these religions would be doing the same thing.
@Megan - "The class is about Catholocism. This was
bigotry. Of course the Christian haters will defend the school, but try
and fire someone like PZ Myers and they will scream about persecution.
It's absolute hypocrisy."
Maybe that's because PZ Myers and the whole incident with a Communion Wafer didn't take place in class. It was something he did on his own time. He also wasn't teaching prejudiced religious dogma to his students.
From this letter, the professor seems to have been
1) a terrible teacher2) incapable of separating his own beliefs from what he taught
It is the job of any professor to teach a subject 100% objectively. If the students are interested in having a candid discussion about the topic, a class-wide conversation or meet-up during office hours is a perfectly legitimate place to discuss your own opinions concerning the facts you've covered. But the guy was talking about utilitarianism and natural moral law as his own belief (and as absolute fact) from the outset of the e-mail. To compound the issue, a number of a poor definitions and poor examples were made. Via utilitarianism, a sexual relationship between a 40 and a 10 year old would be considered wrong even with consent, due to the number of cons (psychological damage, physical damage) outweighing the pros (mutual consent). So beyond teaching utilitarianism and natural moral law in a biased, subjective, and incorrect manner, he uses this e-mail to disperse the type of propaganda that the Church uses to defend it's stance on homosexuality (aka, if we allow homosexuality, we'll all ride the slippery slope down to polygamy and pedophilia).
Beyond this, the guy may have been given warnings before. He may have been on probation for other misgivings. The final decision to fire him may have come after meetings with him in which he gave the university even more reason to fire him. I'm not a huge fan of UofI (going to ISU I'm pre-programmed to hate the school that hogs all of the state funding), but I'll defend them on this decision. Howell is not fit to teach, at last not at a public university, and as far as I'm concerned, the Christian universities he is fit to teach at are not fit for actually educating students.
Sadly, college is nothing like the OP suggests. Gone are the days where thoughts mattered, and ideas could come from any source. Now, college(undergrad especially) is basically extended high school with less financial support. All the admins care about is maintaining a bottom line, all the teachers care about is their research, and all the students can afford to care about is not-getting-noticed enough to get decent grades.
The idea behind Academic Integrity is that what counts most is the thoughts. By the time people graduate from undergrad, and are in/thinking about graduate school, good thoughts are about the least important thing. Putting together a doctoral committee to review a proposal or hear a dissertation defense has nothing to do with finding those most qualified to comment upon the ideas, it is purely about finding people you've done enough favors for in the past few years to get a "yes" vote.
While I laud your idealism, college simply no longer works this way. Lets also recall those first college WERE private colleges, and they were funded by people who could afford to support dissent and disagreement. Nowadays, colleges are responsible to donors, attendees, and most importantly, GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT. Guess where the majority of the funding comes from! As several people have pointed out in their comments, we have a polarized legislation, with a very left-leaning majority at the moment. No University that receives government money would afford to risk those very, VERY large checks on a single controversial prof. (and yes, it can happen... there's a rather famous Sup Court Case where a University lost funding for prohibiting interracial dating... an issue that was never as polemic as the current issues of homosexuality).
I'm going to avoid specific comment on this exact situation, because its impossible to know the real details of what happened. If we are to debate each individual situation for merits, especially as third parties who cannot be realistically informed, no one will get taught anything worthwhile. =P That said, tally-ho! to those with a specific opinion on the case, but plox 2 be writing something about the university system in general, as I think that was more the drive of the OP's original query.