Thursday, February 4, 2010
Academic Freedom and Catholic Universities
Today, my distinguished colleague in Theology, Jean Porter, had this letter published in the South Bend Tribune:
As a member of the faculty of the University of Notre Dame, I was dismayed to learn that the university sponsored faculty and student participation in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., and is considering the adoption of a policy statement committing the institution to a pro-life agenda.
Whatever the merits of this agenda may be, I do not see how we as a university can take an official, public stand on such a difficult set of moral and political issues, while at the same time maintaining an atmosphere of free and open inquiry and debate.
We do respect academic freedom at Notre Dame, and I don't expect that anyone here would be penalized for expressing the view that abortion is sometimes morally permissible, or defending a pro-choice political agenda. But when the university takes an official, public stance on these very controversial matters, what kind of signals are we sending to our students and colleagues about the limits of acceptable discourse on campus? How can we educate our students to think for themselves, while at the same time telling them so clearly what they should be thinking, as members of the Notre Dame community?
We worry a great deal here about our character as a Catholic university. Perhaps the time has come to worry a bit more about what it means to sustain our character as a university — as such.
In response, I wrote -- I don't know whether or not it will be published -- this:
My Notre Dame colleague, Jean Porter, is an accomplished scholar, but she is mistaken in thinking that there need be any conflict between Notre Dame's "official, public stand" in support of a "pro-life agenda", on the one hand, and its commitment to academic freedom, on the other.Universities, including Notre Dame, take official, public stands on all kinds of things, all the time -- decent working conditions, the desirability of peaceful resolutions of nations' disagreements, environmental sustainability, etc. Right or wrong, these stands are not inconsistent with a commitment to students' and faculty members' freedom to disagree, or to follow their studies where they lead.Notre Dame's Catholic character is what makes the University interesting, distinctive, and important. The University's pro-life stance reflects and honors that character. And that character, in turn, enriches and broadens the conversations among faculty and students, and makes Notre Dame a better university than it could otherwise be.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/02/academic-freedom-and-catholic-universities.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Indeed, it may send the odious message to the students that the university is Catholic and that they should know the truth and think the truth. is the purpose of education, especially a Catholic one, to teach students to think for themselves in all things, i.e., disagree with the Church on a fundamental teaching, or to teach students the truth? There either is or is not an objective truth to the morality of abortion. It't not merely a difficult issue with many possible answers. Why a Catholic university should not accept what the Catholic Church, and right reason, show to be the objective truth Jean Porter has not explained.
Posted by: John O'Herron | Feb 4, 2010 9:12:16 PM
What neither of my University colleagues in this exchange nor University administrators have addressed yet is this issue: what are the *consequences* supposed to be of the University officially being "pro-life"?
This University stance does not imply that faculty, students, staff or administrators are pro-life...nor does it imply that advocacy of any kind by any individual is mandatory or forbidden. Nor does it imply....well, what does it imply?
Rick says the University being pro-life (or, more accurately I suppose, *saying* that it is pro-life) "reflects and honors" Catholic character. Is that all that's involved? Notice that if it is, there's nothing especially *pro-life* in the consequences of being a pro-life University. But perhaps it is all about the symbolism. If there's more involved than this symbolic honoring of Catholic character, we the faculty have not been told what it is yet.
As for the previous commentator, Professor Porter can speak for herself, but as one who regularly teaches advanced courses reading the best material available on a variety of life and death issues (abortion, euthanasia, etc...), I confess that I am unaware of the Catholic Church or 'right reason' having definitively settled the debates about the topics in question.
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 4, 2010 10:17:07 PM
Re: the comment of Prof. Warfield: The fact that abortion is wrong is a conclusion ascertainable apart from theology, and will always be ascertainable as long as an unborn child remains human and abortion kills that child. The Catholic Church has definitively held (i.e., consistent teaching that will not change, because it is based on the reality of what abortion is) that abortion is immoral. Whether advanced courses using the best material available shows this, I suppose, depends. The issue will never be settled in the sense that there will always be people who reject the Church's teaching, but that does not mean they are not settled questions.
Posted by: John O'Herron | Feb 4, 2010 10:57:07 PM
I should note that I deleted an earlier comment, because I thought, at the end, it crossed the line from engaged criticism to snark. I disagree with Prof. Porter, completely, on the matter under discussion. But, I see no reason to interrogate her reasons for wanting to be at Notre Dame.
Posted by: Rick Garnett | Feb 5, 2010 12:28:28 AM
John O'Herron perhaps thinks I was unaware of what the Catholic Church says about these topics? Does he have that low an opinion of Notre Dame and its faculty?
The Catholic position on life issues (together and individually) is represented in readings and debated and evaluated in the classroom and in student papers. Students learn, among other things, that various parties to the ongoing debates view the debates as "settled" and others do not. By evaluating the arguments and taking guidance from whatever experts they trust or find most convincing, students arrive at intellectually informed conclusions about the topics themselves and about whether the debates in question are definitively closed off by reason alone or by anything else.
This is, I would think, a sign of healthy academic activiity and it is an activity that shows that at least in the advanced seminar, the learning that Professor Porter feels might be lost will can survive any symbolic statement from Notre Dame endorsing particular positions in ongoing debates. Prof. Porter's worries seem to me to be on more solid footing with respect to certain kinds of lower level classes but that will depend on whether what Notre Dame proposes to do has any consequence beyond the merely verbal and symbolic.
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 5, 2010 8:18:14 AM
According to Professor Porter Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, should not take a "public stand on such a difficult set of moral and political issues (i.e.: life), while at the same time maintaining an atmosphere of free and open inquiry and debate." Would the good professor have the University abstain from taking a position on such difficult moral and political issues as apartheid? How does the support of life impede the University's search for truth?
Posted by: gabriel marcella | Feb 5, 2010 1:08:06 PM
Well, I was unaware of where you taught, Prof. Warfield. Nonetheless, I was not implying that you didn't know what the Church taught. I guess the difference stems from what "settled" means.
While the method of education Prof. Warfield describes is healthy academic activity, the point remains: an institution that identifies itself as Catholic should inform its students as to the truth of abortion, not merely seek to present the Catholic Church's position on the issue as one of many for the student to decide which he finds most persuasive. A Catholic university should not present teachings of the morality of abortion the same way it presents the relative merits of Steinbeck novels.
A Catholic university should be teaching that the morality of abortion is *not up for debate, as if the answer is unclear.
BTW, thanks Prof. Garnett for opening comments on the site.
Posted by: John O'Herron | Feb 5, 2010 4:36:15 PM
One issue is whether a Catholic University should present certain issues in certain ways. The more interesting question for those of us who teach at Notre Dame is what implication the *University*'s taking (or not taking) a position should have for those of us individuals who teach about the issues in question. The University can say what it wants about a wide variety of issues. This does not inform the faculty about what can and can't be taught in classes appropriate to our disciplines.
When one says that "A Catholic university should not present teachings of the morality of abortion the same way it presents the relative merits of Steinbeck novels" one needs to remember that "the University" does not teach any classes and does not, so far as I am aware, give *any* presentations on the topic of abortion or Steinbeck. The University spokespeople who are authorized to speak on behalf of the University are not qualified to teach courses. And the few University administrators authorized to speak on behalf of the University who also have faculty appointments are too busy to do so.
I'll be surprised if the public relations office starts giving presentation on topics that go far beyond their expertise. But perhaps that's what people want when they want the *University* to take positions on various moral issues. Even if the public relations office starts giving public talks on moral issues on behalf of the University, that office is not authorized to speak for individual faculty just as individual faculty are notauthorized to speak for the University.
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 5, 2010 7:35:16 PM
Only Mr. Herron can say what he meant by the terms "University" and "institution," but I for one thought it clear that he was not speaking of University administrators in the classroom but rather of the faculty at a Catholic university. So construed, his position is not met by Professor Warfield's response. So construed, the question is whether professors at a Catholic university should be teaching in substance that "the Catholic Church's position" on abortion is but "one of many" so that the issue is "up for debate" with the "answer unclear," and that it is accordingly "for the student to decide which he finds most persuasive." It is a crucial question in terms of the Catholic identity of a university, for it applies to a number of issues. It would be good to know Professor Warfield's answer. We know Professor Porter's. Professor Warfield's view may be suggested by his conviction that neither faith nor reason provides a clear answer respecting the morality of abortion, as I read what he wrote; but I may misread what he wrote or misconstrue the implications in terms of Mr. Herron's question.
Posted by: William Dempsey | Feb 7, 2010 6:38:52 AM
My point was and is that "the University" taking or not taking a position on particular issues (for example, the moral status of abortion) does not commit any faculty member to any position on any topic and has no implication for faculty *teaching* and research.
If one thinks that, for example, Notre Dame formally declaring itself to be fully aligned with the Catholic Church's teaching on the sanctity of life means that faculty members in various disciplines who teach courses taking up moral issues are thereby committed to teaching in a certain way or towards conclusions then one is mistaken.
A University declaration of that sort would mean only, so far as I can tell, that those authorized to speak for the University (a few administrators and official spokespersons employed by the public relations office) would be guided and constrained by the declaration. Some (Rick I take it) find value in this, but not because it somehow constrains or gives new powers to faculty. Faculty members are not authorized in our teaching or research to speak for the University and so we do not. That applies to faculty who fully endorse Church and/or University positions and those who do not.
Mr. Dempsey's questions is
'whether professors at a Catholic university should be teaching in substance that "the Catholic Church's position" on abortion is but "one of many" so that the issue is "up for debate" with the "answer unclear," and that it is accordingly "for the student to decide which he finds most persuasive."'
My answer is that professors at a Catholic University should teach (like professors at all Universities) as they see suitable for the subject matter of their courses and appropriate to their disciplines. The fact that I am at a Catholic University leads me to believe that there is an especially good reason to cover specifically Catholic perspectives on certain topics (for example, topics in medical ethics). But others in my department teaching similar courses may choose not to do this and still others will choose to emphasize or even advocate for those perspectives.
So my direct answer to Mr. Dempsey's question is: if the question means should *everyone* be required to teach in the way (or with the agenda) he asks about then "no"; if the question means should anyone be permitted to teach in that way or with that agenda, then the answer is "yes". In general, it is of course up to the faculty teaching in their disciplinary specialities and teaching courses appropriate to their expertise to decide in what way to teach and whether or not to press for specific conclusions or stay away from advocacy entirely.
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 7, 2010 8:33:53 PM
Mr. Dempsey did capture my question. I think Prof. Warfield is largely right about a declaration type effort from a Catholic university and that such a formal position will not result in every Professor conforming their teaching methods. I still think it would be meaningful to at least have the University administration adopt such a position to show what they want the University to be, even if the faculty do not agree.
But larger than that, I think faculty at a Catholic university that are teaching in disciplines where the Church has pronounced a moral truth ought to teach that position as the truth. This is not pressing for "specific conclusions" or "advocating"--this is teaching the truth. This does not necessarily apply to teaching Catholic perspectives about certain other subjects-this is valuable and I think ideal for a Catholic institution but it is not the same thing as teaching the truth about something like abortion. It is up to the university to hire professors in those disciplines that will teach the truth-i.e., theology, philosophy, ethics, whatever such subjects there are. If a Professor of English says abortion is allowed, he is not only anti-Church teaching, he is outside his discipline.
This is a complex issue and a comments section does not lend itself to all of its issues. But that's why I love MOJ-- and thanks to Prof. Warfield for engaging.
Posted by: John O'Herron | Feb 8, 2010 7:55:28 PM
Professor Porter teaches at a University whose most public symbol -- known across the country and the world for its gilded majesty -- proclaims an "official, public stand" on the nature of all reality: namely, that God became man through a young woman around 2,000 years ago, who now herself plays a unique intercessory role for human beings before her Son in heaven. Moreover, the leader of the University walks around in clothing (the collar) that necessarily signals his and the institution's belief that certain men are called to mediate between God and human beings via the priesthood. The University is founded on a belief that certain truths have ALREADY been revealed and that these truths find expression in the Catholic Church. And, what's more, the University is, by its very Catholic identity (and by the money it spends and the courses it offers) committed to the belief that Jesus Christ (and no one else, or no other idea) is the "way, the truth, and the life" (cf Jn 14:6). Why are all those "stands" not a problem for Professor Porter, but yet the commitment to a pro-life agenda is?
I am completely at a loss.
Posted by: Matt Emerson | Feb 8, 2010 10:38:17 PM
Perhaps Professor Porter doesn't think the "stands" you mention are positions on difficult political or moral issues?
She objected to that kind of stand only in the letter Rick quoted.
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 10, 2010 11:09:13 AM
My question was limited to abortion and to those whose discipline and course subject matter include that issue. I am not entirely clear that Professor Warfield's response is so limited, but if it is then his answer is that at a Catholic university a professor may appropriately, in a moral theology course, teach "in substance that 'the Catholic Church's position' on abortion is but 'one of many' so that the issue is 'up for debate' with the 'answer unclear,' and that it is accordingly 'for the student to decide which he finds most persuasive."' Do I have it right, Professor?
Posted by: William Dempsey | Feb 12, 2010 4:51:01 PM
Yes. My view is that within their disciplines of expertise faculty are and should be free to teach as they see fit. This would permissibly include both teaching, as in the example you give, that
"in substance that 'the Catholic Church's position' on abortion is but 'one of many' so that the issue is 'up for debate' with the 'answer unclear,' and that it is accordingly 'for the student to decide which he finds most persuasive."
My view also permits faculty to teach about this same topic while neither taking a substantive position nor teaching that one is correct. My view also permits faculty teaching about this same topic to teach the issue is closed off both by the light of reason, the natural law, the authority of the Catholic Church or by all of these or some combination of these. As I said, "My answer is that professors at a Catholic University should teach (like professors at all Universities) as they see suitable for the subject matter of their courses and appropriate to their disciplines."
Though I of course do not speak for Notre Dame (I am a faculty member, not a University spokesperson or administrator), my understanding as a faculty member is that the view I am expressing is shared by my employer. If this view is not shared by Notre Dame then it is odd that Notre Dame places no formal or informal restrictions on (nor gives formal or informal guidance to) those of us who teach relevant courses in departments such as philosophy and, as I understand things, theology and also law.
Do you have a different view? Should philosophy faculty not be free to teach philosophy courses as we see fit? What restrictions should be placed on me?
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 12, 2010 8:52:14 PM
Thank you, Professor. That is very helpful. Taking it just one step further but consistent with the principle of academic freedom you hold, I take it a teacher should also be free to add, in the hypothetical I gave, that in his or her own view the teaching of the Church is incorrect.
In these circumstances, I waver somewhat in my initial opinion that the adoption by the University of a formal declaration that it is pro-life would be a good step. I had thought of it, not as in the nature of a legislative measure, but rather as a representation of fact. A representation, not merely that the administration is, or at least will act as if it is, pro-life, but also that the instruction on the subject at the University is pro-life. But since that may well not be so, It now occurs to me that to declare that the University is pro-life might be considered in a sense false advertising.
I add that it occurs to me also that there may be an explanation I hadn't thought of for the dramatic decline that has been recorded in students' agreement with the Church's teaching on abortion during four years at Notre Dame. There is, of course, no way of knowing, but here is another possibly relevant factor.
To shift to a related question, I wonder if you would agree that under this policy Notre Dame does not meet the essential criteria of a Catholic university set forth in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. I have in mind, for example Article 4: "All Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching," and, in particular, Catholic theologians "are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church." I raise the question in part because I have read Father Jenkins's statement that Notre Dame conforms to Ex Corde and also Bishop Rhoades's emphasis on the document. Perhaps there is some way to distinguish these injunctions that I have not thought of.
Finally, you pose a question as to philosophy courses generally that carries far beyond the issue raised initially by Mr. O'Herron that interested me. I expect we would likely have no differences there, but I find it difficult to speak of the relationship between academic freedom and Catholic identity in the abstract. In discussing the question of abortion, I think of it in terms of moral theology. I would extend the analysis to other central teachings of the Church, which would include in moral theology, for example, assisted suicide and in other branches of theology, for example, the inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, and the infallibility of the Pope.
And I should perhaps emphasize out of caution that I do not remotely suggest that all perspectives on all these issues should not be examined.
Posted by: William Dempsey | Feb 13, 2010 2:31:01 PM
On this --
"Taking it just one step further but consistent with the principle of academic freedom you hold, I take it a teacher should also be free to add, in the hypothetical I gave, that in his or her own view the teaching of the Church is incorrect."
Yes. Of course. In doing so a faculty member would be speaking,as always, as an individual and not for the University or any department or other unit. I'll add that I don't know a single faculty member at Notre Dame (Catholic, non-Catholic, traditional conservative, liberal, who thinks that faculty should not be able to state their positions on issues whether or not those views are consistent with the teachings of the Catholic church.
About this:
"In these circumstances, I waver somewhat in my initial opinion that the adoption by the University of a formal declaration that it is pro-life would be a good step. I had thought of it, not as in the nature of a legislative measure, but rather as a representation of fact. A representation, not merely that the administration is, or at least will act as if it is, pro-life, but also that the instruction on the subject at the University is pro-life. But since that may well not be so, It now occurs to me that to declare that the University is pro-life might be considered in a sense false advertising."
To my knowledge, President Jenkins has on no occasion clarified what he means in saying that "the University is pro-life" beyond having said a couple of times that "Notre Dame is supportive of Church teaching on life" and that (paraphraising) 'Notre Dame stands in opposition to embyonic stem-cell research.' He has not, to my knowledge, made any representation that classroom instruction at Notre Dame concerning such topics must always defend those same positions (or at least not oppose those positions). I'm confident he would not make such a representation about classroom instruction. So far as I can tell, he has no authority as President of the University to speak on behalf of individual faculty nor to mandate that faculty endorse particular positions on topics in our courses. Given this, my understanding is that the statements that "Notre Dame is pro-life" are to be taken as statements of the University position there being any clear content or implications beyond this: those authorized to speak on behalf of Notre Dame will consistently make that statement when asked and at other times they see fit. If there are other consequences of the University "being pro life" those have not been shared with the faculty at this time (unless I missed the memo).
About this:
"I add that it occurs to me also that there may be an explanation I hadn't thought of for the dramatic decline that has been recorded in students' agreement with the Church's teaching on abortion during four years at Notre Dame. There is, of course, no way of knowing, but here is another possibly relevant factor."
I won't take a full guess at what you mean here...but I will say that you should not conclude from my position on what and how faculty are and should be *permitted* to teach on issues such as abortion that students are commonly exposed to the variety of perspectives that I say are permitted. After all, *very few courses* cover these topics at all. For example, take abortion. In the large philosophy department, I teach a course on "Abortion, Euthanasia, and Capital Punishment" to 15 philosophy majors once every four years on average. No one else in my department has taught this course at least in the past 15 years. I am not aware of any course taught in my department in the past decade that has included anything beyond a small 2 week unit on the topic. I read course descriptions thoroughly but not exhaustively so I wouldn't be shocked to learn that a course or two every few years also covers the topic in non-trivial detail. But I'd also not be surprised to learn that this doesn't happen. To my knowledge but certainly open to correction, the topic is covered a bit more, but not a whole lot more, in Theology. But it's not as if even a significant fraction of Notre Dame students are spending even a 6 week unit on the topic during their four years at Notre Dame. Students are instead, as you're surely aware, primarily taking their required general courses and then advanced courses in their varied majors with electives across a very wide range of topics. I conclude that if I shift like you describe is happening during students' four years at Notre Dame it is not because of what is being taught in courses on the topic of abortion. It can't be that, beause almost no students take a course that even partly covers the topic.
About this:
"I wonder if you would agree that under this policy Notre Dame does not meet the essential criteria of a Catholic university set forth in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. I have in mind, for example Article 4: "All Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching," and, in particular, Catholic theologians "are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church."
-- I don't have sufficient information to comment on the latter issue -- I'll leave that to those with a better current understanding of the interplay of Theology departments and Ex Corde than I have. As you've likely noticed I'm not bashful about discussing these matters so please do accept that answer at face value -- I'm not one to duck questions! There was a time several years ago when I was more conversant with some of the discussions regarding Catholic theologians coming out of the American reception of Ex Corde. But now I'm not specially qualified to comment.
On the intial question, however, I'll make a few remarks. I'm not sure what "this policy" refers to? If it refers to what I have sketched concerning the freedom faculty have at Notre Dame to teach in the various ways I have described, then though I see how there could in principle be tension and conflict I don't see that it is automatic. As it relates, for example, to philosophy, as I noted above, almost no one in my department teaches courses on the topics we have been discussing. To my knowledge, the two who do on a regular basis (I am one) are not Catholic (I am protestant and so is the other faculty member last I knew) and I am aware of no commentary on Ex Corde that promotes reading "respect" in the key passage you quote as anything incompatible with what is going on in the classroom settings with which I am familiar. Presumably coming into conflict with the clause you emphasize requires that there be *actual* "disrespect" of Catholic morals - that a University has policies that in principle permit a "disrespect" that is not taking place presumably doesn't place the University in violation of the directive.
Final point: as this discussion is pushed farther into the archives at Mirror of Justice I won't be checking for additional remarks regularly beyond today. If you'd like to follow up on the discussion you are welcome to contact me at my University email address: [email protected]
Posted by: Fritz Warfield | Feb 13, 2010 5:13:23 PM
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
