University of Illinois—more on the professor and his firing, part 3


From Illinois Family Institute: The Division of School Advocacy, e-mailed on July 12

“University of Illinois Inclusivity Standards Exclude Catholics
by Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s DSA -Illinois Family Institute

Examples of hypocrisy and viewpoint and religious discrimination are tumbling out of academia faster than I can keep track of. The latest is from the problem-ridden University of Illinois (U of I), or as I have come to think of it, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight (no pun intended).

U of I has fired adjunct professor, Dr. Kenneth Howell, who has taught for nine years in the Department of Religion. Most recently, he taught ‘Introduction to Catholicism’ and ‘Modern Catholic Thought.’ From all reports, it appears that Dr. Howell was fired essentially for being Catholic.

According to the News-Gazette, ‘One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue.’ To help his students prepare for an exam, Dr. Howell, who is open with his students that he is Catholic, sent a lengthy email explaining what the Catholic doctrine of natural law would say about homosexual acts, including the following:

‘NML (Natural Moral Law—my addition) 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 .... 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.’

Subsequently, a friend of a student in Dr. Howell’s class sent an email to the department chair, Robert McKim, accusing Dr. Howell of engaging in ‘‘hate speech,’’ saying that ‘‘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.’’ This email resulted in Dr. Howell’s firing.

I have two questions for this student:

1) How would teaching Catholic (or Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim, or orthodox Protestant) beliefs on homosexuality undermine public discourse, inhibit independent thought, or ostracize those who self-identify as homosexual?

2) And how in his view could a professor teach these theological beliefs without undermining public discourse, inhibiting independent thought, or ostracizing homosexuals?

Let’s imagine that the Department of Religion has a faculty member who teaches a course on the doctrines of Islam, which hold that homosexuality is a sin; and let’s imagine further that he has the good fortune of having a book published on some aspect of Islam and on this book jacket, the professor is identified as a Muslim. As a result, his students would know that he likely believes that homosexuality is a sin. Would this professor be fired? And would such a firing constitute religious discrimination, which one would think would be prohibited by school anti-discrimination policy?

One tool in the cliche ‘toolbox’ of activist ideologues currently ensconced in our ivory towers is to unilaterally change the definition of words and then enforce those unilateral redefinitions on society—redefinitions that conveniently disadvantage their philosophical opponents. So, redefine ‘hatred’ to mean ‘moral beliefs with which I disagree’ and then charge those who hold them with hatred. Voilà, sexual traditionalists become haters. So simple, so simplistic, so irrational—and yet so effective. (The libertines are masters of redefining words and/or substituting words to lessen the impact of the actual behavior. Thus, they use the word “gay” instead of homosexual behavior and a woman’s “right to choose” instead of MURDERING her unborn baby—my addition.)

According to Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, ‘‘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.’’ (In plain English, Mester’s tortured, obfuscatory rhetoric, ‘entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement,’ means they can fire him.) Apparently these standards of ‘inclusivity’ strictly exclude anyone who believes homosexual practice is immoral. One wonders if Dr. Howell would have been permitted to teach the Catholic views on homosexuality as long as he didn’t actually hold those views himself. (Of course not, since, in their view, the Catholic/Christian position that homosexual behavior is sinful is, in and of itself, not inclusive under the University’s, or at least it’s administrators, perceived understanding of inclusivity. Are these really educators?—my addition)

If professor A were to express her belief that adult consensual incest is immoral, would she be fired because her belief constitutes hatred of those involved in incest and therefore violate the university’s Orwellian policy of inclusivity? (Yes, if there were enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition)

If professor B were to express his belief that polyamory is immoral, would he be fired because his belief constitutes—in the university’s omniscient, omnipotent mind—hatred of polyamorists and therefore violates its standards of inclusivity? (Yes, if there were enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition)

Have U of I’s standards of ‘inclusivity’ become the de facto arbiter of morality for the entire faculty, determining which moral beliefs about behaviors are acceptable and which are not? (Yes, since there are enough politically active voices demanding that it be so!—my addition) It might behoove the university to spell out which beliefs are included under their policy of inclusivity—and which are excluded—because some employees might foolishly assume that the university’s standards of inclusivity would include Catholics.

And how are these standards—standards that evidently require the firing of anyone who believes homosexual acts are immoral—reconciled with commitments to intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, and diversity? As conservatives are well aware, when it comes to the contentious topic of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, many ‘educational’ institutions have become academic gulags, freely engaging in censorship and routinely violating their own commitments to intellectual inquiry, diversity, inclusivity, and tolerance.” (And FREELY PROMOTING such sinful behavior!—my addition)

Although the student was wrong to even suggest the e-mail was some kind of “hate speech,” the real blame in the whole sordid episode falls primarily upon the administrators of the University of Illinois for not knowing better! Just how much money is the public paying these people! Talk about evil people who do NOT understand JUSTICE!!!