Religion professor fired for teaching religion
For nine years Kenneth Howell has been an adjunct lecturer at the University of Illinois in its Department of Religion. One of the courses he has taught for the school is “Introduction to Catholicism.”
As part of this course, Howell discusses natural law theory and its application to social issues. In preparation for an exam, Howell emailed his students a lengthy discussion of the theories of utilitarianism and natural law and how they would apply in judging the morality of homosexual acts.
Here’s a small portion of that e-mail:
“Natural Moral Law 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.”
Professor Howell is not breaking news here. He’s simply explaining the theory of natural law and how it is used in Roman Catholic teaching regarding homosexual acts. It’s what he’s paid to do.
Or was paid to do. The University of Illinois Department of Religion has decided it will no longer use his services. Why? A student complained that Howell was engaging in “hate speech.”
A friend of one of Howell’s students emailed the head of the religion department with the complaint, apparently because the student wished to remain anonymous.
Here’s a portion of that email:
“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. 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.”
The Alliance Defense Fund has taken up Professor Howell’s case. In a press release, the ADF’s senior counsel, David French, sums the situation up rather succinctly: “It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor . . . when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top99 Comments to “Religion professor fired for teaching religion”
This is what is wrong with “hate” crime legislation, which is blatantly unconstitutional. “Hate” is too often defined as ANYthing a leftist or a homosexualist disagrees with. Any and all offenders of PC dictates will be fired and have their career tract abruptly halted. No mercy!!! They will be punished severely.
Notice we don’t discuss “greed” crime legislation. That would put our government and our congress into deep legal trouble.
Report comment to moderator
The sticky wicket here is complementary. Talk to your avg Butch or Fluff. Talk to your avg Pitcher and Catcher and they will argue til the cows come home that they actually are complementary to one another. And broadly speaking they are though certainly not to the extent that a hetero couple is.
I’m sad that after all these years in academe he somehow failed to grasp and absorb the party line.
Report comment to moderator
A “friend” of a student complained? An annonymous student had that sort of influence and power to hurt a professor??
What a gutless thing to do! I mean both the “offended” student and the Dept of Religion at the U. of Ill.
And I do mean “Ill.”
Report comment to moderator
So, if “…courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview…,” as the anonymous student complained, then why doesn’t s/he allow for discussion of a view with which s/he disagrees? It seems this student has not learned to have an “independent” mind, and should have to listen to Prof Howell.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #3
A great post.
Ordinarily most schools allow students who took a class to post reviews on how well/poorly the teacher did in teaching the class.
This is amazing that all it took was an anonymous fried of a student.
The gay folks can sometimes be quite in-your-face militant as our California friends learned recently. I think the university yielded to real or imagined gay intimidation
Report comment to moderator
Buh-bye now Academic Freedom!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, but if you are teaching Catholicism, why can’t you teach Catholicism?
Report comment to moderator
Hate Crime legislation has nothing to do with speech. Hate crime laws are a response to violent bigotry that does emotional and psychological damage to communities far beyond the direct physical or financial injury. If there is no violence then hate crime legislation does not apply.
Joel Says “This is what is wrong with “hate” crime legislation, which is blatantly unconstitutional. “Hate” is too often defined as ANYthing a leftist or a homosexualist disagrees with..”
Too often? Lets see, for an act of violence to be considered a hate crime the victim has to have been selected based on their Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Gender, Disability, Sexual orientation, or Gender identity.
Joel, which of these of these communities don’t deserve the protection provided by laws meant to deter violent bigotry, and why?
Report comment to moderator
“Truth” teller, I’ll answer your question to Joel by asking it a different way: Which human being doesn’t deserve the equal protection of crime laws?
Report comment to moderator
Leftists are all for free speech as long as they approve. Nearly all of the censorship in America today is coming from the left, the so-called Fairness doctrine, hate speech laws, campaign speech laws, religious speech laws.
Liberal schools fancy themselves as vanguards of academic freedom, but the opposite is true. They only want leftist teachers to teach leftism. The movie Expelled showed how anyone who didn’t tow the secular progressive line was instantly fired.
John Stossel reported last night that many US campuses are restricted speech zones. A few universities have set up small areas (like 20 x 20 ft) on remote parts of campus where students can go and after having obtained written permission can say what they want, but only if the stand within the free speech perimeter.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (10),
Great post!
I missed Stossel last night, so these “free” speech zones are news to me – I knew that the conditions on most US campuses are terrible, but these zones are pathetically incomprehensible
Report comment to moderator
It’s all about control.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that a student at a university believes objective truth is hate speech says a lot about that student. Stay in your little self-limiting cocoon, link arms with your group-thinking hive members and rail at the hatefulness of objective reality all you want. Truth won’t shrink before your narcissitic adolescent whining.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller,
Hate Crime legislation has much to do with speech and will have a chilling impact on it. It has already. But my point had to do with the biased DEFINTION of the word “hate” in both “hate crime legislation” and in what is often called “hate speech.”
Truthteller, conservatives have a long track record of seeking strong convictions and serious punishment for those who commit acts of illegal violence. Your comments about violence are a red herring. I oppose it in the strongest terms and it has nothing to do with my comments above regarding biased re-definitions of the word “hate.”
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller,
Sculptures of Lady Justice has a blind-fold on (with scales in her hand) to symbolically represent the principle that she does not take various “communities” or groups into consideration when ruling justly and fairly on a criminal case or on the law. All citizens deserve equal justice under the law. “Hate crimes legislation” can mitigate against that principle of justice becasue the same act of violence may be regarded as “hateful” from or for one group and NOT “hateful” from or for another. This has already happened.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. Which human being doesn’t deserve the equal protection of crime laws?
That’s exactly what I’m asking. Nobody complained about hate crime laws when they applied to religion and gender because the vast majority of people see the difference between a random act of violence and the same act of violence meant to intimidate and terrorize an entire community. One crime has more victims than the other.
Since this doesn’t seem to be obvious to you I’ll elaborate. New York City has about 500 murders a year. This is of course 500 too many, however most New Yorkers go about their daily routine not overly concerned that they might be murdered. If however if there are 3 or 4 Jews murdered in a short period of time with swastikas spray painted at the murder scene, the effect would be to terrorize the Jewish community causing disruption and harm far beyond that of the same number of non-hate crime murders. Hate Crime laws are meant to deter this kind of terrorism, and to provide greater resources to investigate and prosecute the terrorists.
Now, with the inclusion of sexual orientation and sexual identity in the protected classes, conservatives somehow claim that homosexuals are being granted special protections not afforded to other people. This is simply not the case. Everyone was already equally protected from violent bigotry for reasons of religion, race and gender, including you. Yet shamefully, violent bigotry against homosexuals was not included. With the addition of sexual orientation to hate crime legislation more equal protection under the law was achieved, not less.
Report comment to moderator
#16
Bunch of hog wash.
And, has nothing to do with “hate speech” and the issue at hand.
How, in Heaven’s name, does teaching about Catholic beliefs in a class on Catholic beliefs constitute a hate crime???????
Report comment to moderator
TruthTeller – so this student, who target the Roman Catholic Teacher, based on his churches teaching. Was a bigot, why? because he targeted the teacher, based on the teacher religious views. So the student was promoting hate towards the Catholic Church and this teacher.
So my question is why was this student not kicked out of school for promoting hate speech?
Report comment to moderator
Tammy the real question, Is this student the bigot?
Report comment to moderator
16. If there are 3 o4 rapes in a area most women become terrorized. They become more cautions and their lives are disrupted. The same with a child kidnapping. Parents begin to restrict things they let their children do. Elderly people are very often targeted by thieves and muggers causing them to alter their lifestyles. Are these hate crimes? What about convenience store clerks? Bank employees? Do think these people ever feel targeted?
Report comment to moderator
I get the feeling that this teacher was just presenting the Catholic rational for their beliefs. Is there any evidence that he even believed them himself?
Report comment to moderator
kBells 07.16.10 AT 2:10 PM
I get the feeling that this teacher was just presenting the Catholic rational for their beliefs. Is there any evidence that he even believed them himself
–
It does not matter he spoke out against the GLBT Community.. This puts his speech in the hate crime area..
an that is ok for people that view the way TruthTeller does.
Report comment to moderator
I have read elsewhere that he firmly believes RCC doctrine, and he’s entitled to hold those sincerely held beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Jesse Jackson attacks a white owner of basketball team an his speech is not call hate speech.
You have the New Blck Panters talk about killing white children and women. An this is not called hate speech.
But this Prof states this ““Natural Moral Law 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.”
An it is hate speech, an loses his job.
What is wrong with this picture?
Report comment to moderator
TruthTeller do you support calling Jackson a bigot? An the New Black Panthers a raciest group? Will you support the calling on Obama to denounce his relationship with Jackson? Do you support the calling on Obama to denounce the New Black Panthers and for him to publicly call them a raciest on the same level as the K K K?
Report comment to moderator
#21
Actually, the teacher admits that he is Catholic and does believe Church teachings on the subject.
But, this is beside the point. He has always been respectful of other beliefs, and has only taught Church beliefs in the context of what the Church believes. He has not ever brought his own personal beliefs into the picture.
Report comment to moderator
If there are 3 o4 rapes in a area most women become terrorized. They become more cautions and their lives are disrupted. The same with a child kidnapping. Parents begin to restrict things they let their children do. Elderly people are very often targeted by thieves and muggers causing them to alter their lifestyles. Are these hate crimes?
No, these crimes are directed at individuals and not communities. Elderly people get mugged more because they are easy targets, not because the robbers hate old people. Similarly, child kidnappers aren’t doing it because they want to terrorize parents, and people don’t rob banks with the aim of terrorizing bank tellers. There is an argument that rape should be considered a hate crime based on the targeting of a specific gender, but in general it is very difficult to demonstrate specific animus against women as a class in the case of rape. Generally hate crimes don’t go into effect until there is evidence that the crime(s) specifically target a random member of one or the protected classes.
There have been plenty of instances where perpetrators of hate crimes have been quickly apprehended without triggering the aspects of hate crime legislation that allow for the deployment of federal recourses. The fact is, the provisions in hate crime legislation that allow for the deployment of additional law enforcement and prosecution rescores is to help ensure justice for perpetrators of hate crimes in areas where bigotry inherent in some law enforcement organizations leads to lackluster investigation and prosecution. I can’t imagine there are many law enforcement organizations that would be hampered by disdain for parents or bank tellers they way they might be for blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I’m not familiar with the latest Jesse Jackson outrage, or the “new black panthers”. But a mid-term is coming up, so I’m not surprised there are some scary black men making the rounds on conservative media. It’s called the “Southern Strategy”.
Report comment to moderator
#28
Then you aren’t paying attention.
They just excused the “new Black Panthers” from having intimidated a whole bunch of people at the poles using night sticks.
Funny how we can overlook completely “hate crimes” perpetrated in the other direction.
Report comment to moderator
All crimes involve “hate” of some sort.
To make the punishment more for certain classes of people is inherently wrong and goes against everything our Constitution and this country was set up to represent.
If I am murdered, my death should have just as much importance as when a gay is murdered or a Black person is murdered.
Report comment to moderator
TruthTeller 07.16.10 AT 3:14 PM
Pastor Roy,
I’m not familiar with the latest Jesse Jackson outrage, or the “new black panthers”. But a mid-term is coming up, so I’m not surprised there are some scary black men making the rounds on conservative media. It’s called the “Southern Strategy
–
awh blaming it on the Southern Strategy, when it is true racism.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy – it seems if a black man kills a white man, it is not a hate crime and will not be looked at as a hate crime. If someone from the GLBT Community kills a Christian it is not a hate crime and will not be looked at as a hate crime.
But you let some evil white man kill a black man, his crime will be look at as a hate. just like if a false christian kills someone from the GLBT Community his crime will be look at as a hate.
Report comment to moderator
Truthteller, Can you please explain how anything the teacher said can be considered “hate speech”?
Can you also please explain how saying anything true can be considered “hate speech”?
For example, if I said that two female electrical sockets are not complementary, should I be fired? No? Well, then how about if I said two females? Aren’t they both saying essentially the same thing? Aren’t both statements true?
Report comment to moderator
# 28
Bigotry on parade!!
Could this possibly be the new and improved version of KKK with a black sheet on
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I don’t believe the professor engaged in hate speech, and I think his firing was defiantly an overreaction. I’m sure he could have avoided any complaints if he simply added something like “Catholic doctrine states…” instead of writing his e-mail as if it where a fact. Unless there’s some pattern of behavior that the school was already upset about, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he’s reinstated.
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing wrong with what he said. What’s wrong is that all someone has to do is complain and aperson loses his job w/o due process.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – I wonder if a threat of a law suite was encluded in the complain.
Report comment to moderator
28. What do you call the MSM, the NAACP and the democrats over blowing every slightest hint of a scary conservative white man.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not familiar with the latest Jesse Jackson outrage, or the “new black panthers”. — The reason TruthTeller, the state run media of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSN refuse to report the stories in regard to Jackson and the new black panthers. The reason is would bring back up black raicsm and Obama relationship to such views throught his pastor Mr. Wright.
Report comment to moderator
If these Black Panther Bozos where really interested in intimidating McCain voters, they sure picked the wrong spot. These guys where at public housing complex in an African American section of the city, where only 84 of the 1,535 registered voters in the District are registered Republican. Obama won the district 596 to 13, Kerry won the district 501 to 24, and Gore won the district 382 to 8.
Despite numerous credible accusations of widespread voter caging, voter intimidation, voter misinformation, voting machine misallocation, vote flipping, and telephone jamming by the Republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006, the Bush Whitehouse did absolutely nothing. No, they did worse than nothing. There is evidence in the form of cell phone records that show the boss of the two men who went to jail for jamming DNC phones spoke to Ken Mehlman, Bush’s White House political advisor, 24 times around election day 2002. Considering Rove made his chops as a political dirty trickster nobody should be surprised that the highly partisan Bush Justice department hardly lifted a finger on voter intimidation matters. It should also not be surprising that a leftover Bush partisan in the Justice department is the one stirring the pot.
Now as we ramp up to the mid-terms we have to witness the spectacle of Republican race baiting yet again. From Nixon’s “law and order” campaign, Regan’s “welfare queens”, and Bush’s Willie Horton ads, too Acorn, Rev Wright, Mexicans beheading people in Arizona, and now, the New Black Panthers, it’s the same old Story.
We see this electoral Race baiting every time there’s a national election because it works. It’s embarrassing to watch conservatives, who are trying mightily do deny accusations of racism in their ranks, react like Pavlov’s dogs to the newest pictures of scary black men.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson,
The term ‘race baiting’ implies that racism is a motive in the actions of one group when they aren’t, towards another group whose ‘race is being baited’ or smeared. For example, political ads can imply a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices and about black or white stereotypes. The Willie Horton ad is a good example. Obama calling his grandmother a typical white person is another.
However, how is the Black Panther case ‘race baiting’? This is not about menacing black men threatening polls. It has to do with a Department of Justice that has stated categorically that it will not prosecute cases where blacks are accused by whites, at least according to sworn testimony.
Is that not news? What if instead of Holder, the DOJ was headed by a mafioso who said categorically that they will not prosecute Italians? Is that the kind of justice you want in America? And why do you so vehemently oppose reporting such an outrage?
Why can’t liberals be open and honest and stand by their principles? Instead, you defend ad nauseum “your team” even if it violates everything you stand for. If you believe in justice, then how can you call this just? Why mindlessly defend everything this administration does without a single critical thought?
Rather than dealing with the actual facts of the case, the left is on an all-out smear campaign against anyone who disagrees with Fearless Leader. Is that healthy for any country? Aren’t liberals supposed to be independent thinkers and to question authority. Why have liberals have abandoned everything I love about them?
Report comment to moderator
“It has to do with a Department of Justice that has stated categorically that it will not prosecute cases where blacks are accused by whites, at least according to sworn testimony”
How in the world is claiming the black President and his black Attorney General will not prosecute blacks accused by whites not race baiting! That’s the most absurd slanderous accusation of the whole stinking affair.You’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker!
Here’s the transcript of the testimony you’re referring to. I’ve read it in it’s entirety. It’s very interesting.
http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/07/NBPP-Hearing-Transcript-7-6-10.pdf
Mr. Adams talks at great length about the historical reluctance of the Civil rights division to go after blacks accused of breaking various voting laws. But nothing even close to ” Department of Justice that has stated categorically that it will not prosecute cases where blacks are accused by whites”.
If you read the transcript you will see this is a gross out of context exaggeration. I’m not saying there isn’t anything for conservatives to be angry about in the testimony,’ there certainlly is. But any suggestion that this is somehow a grand Obama/ Holder plan to protect black criminals is race batting pure and simple. As a matter of fact Adams was asked to address that in his testimony:
MR. BLACKWOOD: Was there any indication that anyone higher up than Loretta King or Steve Rosenbaum was making the decision to override the six career attorneys who said the case should go forward?
MR. ADAMS: None that I had any indication of.
As you can see, there’s no evidence of anti-white White House conspiracy in this testimony, yet that hasn’t stopped Megan Kelly, Beck, O’Reilly, Doocy, and there “fair and balanced” quests from suggesting White House involvement. This is Race based politics at it’s absolute worst.
Report comment to moderator
This man is not a professor. In fact, he’s not even an associate professor or an assistant professor. He’s a mere adjunct lecturer who teaches on a part-time basis, probably on a year-to-year or semester-to-semester contract. The school didn’t “fire” him, as the article falsely suggests. The school allowed him to teach through the remainder of his contract and elected not to make use of his services next semester.
Besides, Howell should be asking students to read other Catholic writers on the topic. I doubt that the university has hired him to use self-authored email communications as the means of conveying information on Catholic social teaching.
Furthermore, his email seems to be a bit immature. Why is “morality” capitalized? Why is “reality” in all caps? Why is he not citing to any authoritative sources?
Furthermore, it’s not clear that he’s even correctly articulated Catholic teachings on sex (i.e., it is not merely limited to complementarity). It’s also not clear that he understands the theological and philosophical reasoning underlying Catholic teachings on human sexuality. So, maybe his contract was not renewed because the email revealed how woefully ignorant he was of the topic he sought to teach.
Report comment to moderator
#42 KWatson “How in the world is claiming the black President and his black Attorney General will not prosecute blacks accused by whites not race baiting!”
Race baiting would be saying that blacks would never prosecute other blacks. No one is saying that. This testimony simply states what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has said, that there is a mandate to not prosecute cases of whites against blacks. It is simply a statement of fact. Stating fact is not race baiting.
In other words, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has stated categorically to ignore cases of whites against blacks.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, there is no such thing, in my mind at least, as “a mere adjuct professor.” Adjuct professors deserve to be treated as decently as anyone else.
Your view and your comments seem heartless, RSD. What they did to that adjuct professor on the basis of some complaint by an anonymous student was as unkind as it was unfair and unjust.
An adjuct professor is not paid as much as tenured profs and they don’t get as much prestige or benefits, but they are educators and they often do their work for the joy of teaching and for the love of students rather than for high salaries. I guess only conservatives advocate for fairness for the “little guy” any longer.
Report comment to moderator
FYI: The quotes above are from page 53 of 131 of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Hearing of July 6, 2010 as provided in the link by Kwatson in #42.
Report comment to moderator
Modern liberal academia (much like liberal politics) swallows the camel and coughs up the gnat—especially if the gnat is Christian. My professor of religion at the state university I attended was a Buddhist, and taught his personal beliefs. He even took the class to a Buddhist temple, where everyone was required to bow before a 20ft Buddha statue. Everyone sat on a wooden floor for 3 hours straight meditating in full and partial lotus positions. Everyone took a 1 hour break, ate a small lunch, and resumed meditation, in position, for another 3 hours. Extra credit.
Dr. Howell is apparently well respected by both current and former students. I’m glad to see they’re rallying behind him. The president of U of I has now ordered the academic freedom committee to investigate his firing.
http://www.examiner.com/x-57178-Peoria-Religion–Politics-Examiner~y2010m7d14-U-of-I-president-orders-academic-freedom-committee-to-investigate-Howell-firing
Can anyone now doubt that Professor Barack Obama taught constitutional law the way an Atheist teaches religion: with an eye to destruction, rather than instruction? And is it any wonder? That’s the way they’d like to see Christianity taught as well.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
First, you have misquoted me. I never called him an “adjunct professor” as you falsely state. I called him an “adjunct lecturer,” which is what his title is.
Second, plenty of adjunct lecturers lose their jobs every year for any variety of reasons. It may be nothing more than a coincidence that the student complaint occurred at about the same time as the university’s decision not to sign a new contract with Howell.
But I make my point again…as someone who’s been a professor (a real one, in fact). Universities expect that instructors will use third-party vetted sources to convey information to students, unless the the instructor is widely recognized as an authoritative source on the topic of the course (e.g., Maya Angelou teaching poetry). Nothing suggests that Howell is a well recognized scholar on Catholicism who has been hired to provide his first-person experience on the topic. Therefore, there is no reason why he should be using self-authored emails as a didactic tool.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Section 5 can only be applied to the benefit of groups that have historically faced discrimination. There is no history of discrimination against whites in this country whatsoever. In fact, whites have historically been the ones who have dished out the discrimination. Even today, the overwhelming majority of those making over $150k a year are white. Therefore, it’s hard to argue that white people, as a class, face hurdles because of race.
Or maybe upper-class whites are simply unconcerned about the alleged difficulties faced by lower-class whites.
Report comment to moderator
The college is wrong. I support Dr. Ken, and will donate to his cause.
There.
Now, I really hate to side-track this discussion, but
This just in from the “Whose Ox is Being Gored” Department …
Xion (10): John Stossel reported last night that many US campuses are restricted speech zones. A few universities have set up small areas (like 20 x 20 ft) on remote parts of campus where students can go and after having obtained written permission can say what they want, but only if the stand within the free speech perimeter.
Rond (11): I missed Stossel last night, so these “free” speech zones are news to me – I knew that the conditions on most US campuses are terrible, but these zones are pathetically incomprehensible
Frank: Huh?
Xion and Rondu, you’re really only hearing about these so-called “Free-Speech Zones” just now?
Where were you guys when the Bush administration was cocooning themselves and their supporters in Happy Talk bubbles by setting up and enforcing similar “free-speech zones,” and always so far away from where the Bushites would be at any given Bush
worship serviceappearance or campaign event that it rendered his opponents’ dissent largely ineffective?Oh well, I suppose you can be excused, since World Magazine and Fox News most likely didn’t bother reporting on the Bush “Free-Speech” zones. But now that you know, that means that you really ought to expand your news and information sources beyond the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
America is a Free Speech Zone!
(While I just know this post will bring out certain people who suggest things like “Frank sounds like one-a-them paid leftist plants” … it’s soooo totally worth it.)
I now return you to the discussion at hand, already in progress …
Report comment to moderator
Testing …
Report comment to moderator
Okay … what’s up with WMB’s blogware?
I just wrote a post — with not one hyperlink in it, BTW — and it failed to appear when I clicked “Post.”
And when I tried to post it again, I got the “Duplicate post detected. It looks like you’ve already said that!” dialog.
Report comment to moderator
… and yet these last two posts (and very likely this one as well) are posted immediately? Hmm. Maybe I’ll change a few words around and try to re-post. (Operating System note: With my Macintosh, if a comment doesn’t post, all I have to do is “page back” and my comments are all right there in the text field. The Windows machine I use at work doesn’t do that. Gotta love the Mac!)
Report comment to moderator
First off, the U of I is wrong. I support Professor Howell, and will donate to the ADF to fight it.
There.
Now, I really hate to side-track this discussion, but
This just in from the “Whose Ox is Being Gored” Department …
Xion (10): John Stossel reported last night that many US campuses are restricted speech zones. A few universities have set up small areas (like 20 x 20 ft) on remote parts of campus where students can go and after having obtained written permission can say what they want, but only if the stand within the free speech perimeter.
Rond (11): I missed Stossel last night, so these “free” speech zones are news to me – I knew that the conditions on most US campuses are terrible, but these zones are pathetically incomprehensible
Frank: Huh?
Xion and Rondu, you’re really only hearing about these so-called “Free-Speech Zones” just now?
Where were you guys when the Bush administration was cocooning themselves and their supporters in Happy Talk bubbles by setting up and enforcing similar “free-speech zones,” and always so far away from where the Bushites would be at any given Bush
worship serviceappearance or campaign event that it rendered his opponents’ dissent largely ineffective?Oh well, I suppose you can be excused, since World Magazine and Fox News most likely didn’t bother reporting on the Bush “Free-Speech” zones. But now that you know, that means that you really ought to expand your news and information sources beyond the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
America is a Free Speech Zone!
(While I just know this post will bring out certain people who suggest things like “Frank sounds like one-a-them paid leftist plants” … it’s soooo totally worth it.)
I now return you to the discussion at hand, already in progress …
Report comment to moderator
Re-worded re-post FAIL …
Report comment to moderator
(Okay … Divide and conquer … )
Report comment to moderator
First off, the U of I is wrong. I support Professor Howell, and will donate to the ADF to fight it.
There.
Now, I really hate to side-track this discussion, but …
Report comment to moderator
… This just in from the “Whose Ox is Being Gored” Department:
Xion (10): John Stossel reported last night that many US campuses are restricted speech zones. A few universities have set up small areas (like 20 x 20 ft) on remote parts of campus where students can go and after having obtained written permission can say what they want, but only if the stand within the free speech perimeter.
Rond (11): I missed Stossel last night, so these “free” speech zones are news to me – I knew that the conditions on most US campuses are terrible, but these zones are pathetically incomprehensible
Frank: Huh?
Xion and Rondu, you’re really only hearing about these so-called “Free-Speech Zones” just now?
Where were you guys when the Bush administration was cocooning themselves and their supporters in Happy Talk bubbles by setting up and enforcing similar “free-speech zones,” and always so far away from where the Bushites would be at any given Bush
worship serviceappearance or campaign event that it rendered his opponents’ dissent largely ineffective? …Report comment to moderator
This just in from the “Whose Ox is Being Gored” Department …
Xion (10): John Stossel reported last night that many US campuses are restricted speech zones. A few universities have set up small areas (like 20 x 20 ft) on remote parts of campus where students can go and after having obtained written permission can say what they want, but only if the stand within the free speech perimeter.
Rond (11): I missed Stossel last night, so these “free” speech zones are news to me – I knew that the conditions on most US campuses are terrible, but these zones are pathetically incomprehensible
Frank: Huh?
Xion and Rondu, you’re really only hearing about these so-called “Free-Speech Zones” just now?
Where were you guys when the Bush administration was cocooning themselves and their supporters in Happy Talk bubbles by setting up and enforcing similar “free-speech zones,” and always so far away from where the Bushies would be at any given Bush
worship serviceappearance or campaign event that it rendered his opponents’ dissent largely ineffective? …Report comment to moderator
… Oh well, I suppose you can be excused, since World Magazine and Fox News most likely didn’t bother reporting on the Bush “Free-Speech” zones. But now that you know, that means that you really ought to expand your news and information sources beyond the Right Wing Echo Chamber.
America is a Free Speech Zone!
(While I just know this post will bring out certain people who suggest things like “Frank sounds like one-a-them paid leftist plants” … it’s soooo totally worth it.)
I now return you to the discussion at hand, already in progress …
Report comment to moderator
[And BTW, the reason WMB's blogware was preventing my posts was apparently my use of the word "Bushies" -- except that there was originally a "t" between the "i" and "e". So I simply dropped the "t" -- changed "Bush ites" to "Bushies" -- and she flew. The blogware probably thinks "Bush ites" is that crude word for bovine scat.]
Report comment to moderator
RSD @#43: I doubt that the university has hired him to use self-authored email communications as the means of conveying information on Catholic social teaching.
Furthermore, his email seems to be a bit immature. Why is “morality” capitalized? Why is “reality” in all caps? Why is he not citing to any authoritative sources?
Read the article: Howell emailed his students a lengthy discussion of the theories of utilitarianism and natural law and how they would apply in judging the morality of homosexual acts.
So you see, RSD, that he was only sending a discussion question as preparation for the exam, which is something professors do often, isn’t it? I am a part-time adjunct and do this without needing citaitons by “authoritative sources”. (And I resent your use of the word “mere”, which gives the implication that we part-time adjuncts are in any way of less importance.)
Report comment to moderator
He didn’t just lose his job like lots of adjuncts do. He lost his job because he said something they didn’ like. That’s the big difference. This should be offensive to every American, but evidently is not to those who do not like freedom and want to take it away, no I mean, hand it over.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Howell is not just giving out a sample exam question. But then he goes on to answer his own question.
On essay questions, I never gave out model answers. Instead, I would give students 4-5 examples of previous student responses that had received high marks. Also, I would pick student responses that spanned the ideological spectrum. I worked hard to make sure that students could never discern what my opinions were on religion, politics, and other controversial topics.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, you had every right to hide your opinions on things if you chose. But a professor who sees teaching as “teaching” may also believe his opinions on the world to be correct ones, and may choose to tell students what they are–as long as he doesn’t grade them down for believing differently. I wanted to know what my professors believed, and why, though I didn’t always agree with them (and in some cases I agreed with them at the time but later research caused me to disagree). But really, what a professor believes shouldn’t have to be hidden, or you might as well give students a correspondence course with tests consisting of multiple choice and true/false and fill-in-the-blank and matching, which can be graded by anyone.
Report comment to moderator
And, any professor who purports to able to hide their opinions from their students is completely fooling himself.
Far better to admit it, and then be open to a good argument from a different point of view.
The best example of this I ever saw was when I was in a sociology class. On my paper, the professor had given me an “A.” His comments were (more or less…I don’t have the paper in front of me), “Good job proving your points. I don’t agree with your conclusion at all, but you did such a good job proving it that I gave you the A.”
I had a LOT of respect for that professor. A LOT.
He really understood freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and he truly encouraged academic freedom.
Report comment to moderator
“purports to be able”
Sigh.
I think I’m getting old.
Report comment to moderator
1. The Philadelphia precinct had a tiny fraction of registered Republicans and casts very few votes for Republican candidates. The “intimidating” behavior of one man with a night stick who had trouble finding subjects to intimidate hardly seems consequential — or even interesting — in a nation of 400 million people.
2. The authorities hauled the man away from the polling place, thus terminating whatever “intimidation” he had inflicted upon the voters, who were reported to be residents of a government housing project. The government got an injunction forbidding the man from brandishing a night stick at a poling place.
3. Yawn.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, RSD, to my mind there’s a big difference between firing someone and choosing not to re-hire someone at the conclusion of a contract. The fact that Marcia Segelstein’s headline exaggerates the non-renewal of Howell’s employment tells me that World Mag bloggers have become bored with the bone through Obama’s nose, and are begging for things to gnaw on.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
I have literally served as an adjuct professor/lecturer, teacher–there is really no big difference in the terms and you know it. My point stands. You belittled his role. He was treated unfairly.
Report comment to moderator
#49 RSD wrongly writes; “There is no history of discrimination against whites in this country whatsoever.”.
Thoroughly wrong. How about the Irish? The Italians? How about evangelical Christians in recent times? How about THIS adjuct prof/lecturer? How about singles? How about white women? How about the severely poor? How about the FACT that white males get unjustly fired with impunity more often than any other category of workers? Discrimination touches all people for good or ill throughout all human history.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, the President of the university, Michael J. Hogan, is sending out form letters where:
1) He calls Dr. Howell an “adjunct professor” (emphasis added)
and
2) acknowledges that he was removed for possible “hate speech” which is not the same as simply not renewing his contract.
and
3) claims that he is not yet “fired” and that they are now running a full investigation.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html
I would encourage you to read this article, by a Princeton Professor, and then tell me that there is no discrimination against Whites (or Asians) in this culture.
What we’re seeing, in an attempt to “make up” for past injustice, is a swing to present injustice.
Past injustice can never be made “okay” by perpetuating further injustice in order to “make up” for it. It just swings the pendulum the other way, and makes a whole other group or groups of people feel mistreated.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Our mothers knew what they were talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Good post at #63, NJLawyer. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Save-Dr-Ken/138639376164611?ref=ts
If you want to see the form letter that’s being sent out yourself.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amazing to read a lefty saying a little intimidation is of no consequence. Every voter should be able to vote w/o fear. It’s amazing what they tolerate — kinda like the DOJ.
Report comment to moderator
68. The fact that they are severely outnumbered makes this even more intimidating for republicans. Everyone has a right to vote. And who was this guy talking to when he was caught on tape saying “you’re about to be ruled by a black man, Cracker.”
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Tammy, just read the link in post 73–that’s some article.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s the one that no one was allowed to post on or discuss on the other list.
Report comment to moderator
I read the article at 73. This is why my college went bankrupt.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
They have no excuse — in a recent thread some here claimed that the Tea Party was coming under harsher criticism and police control than anti-Bush protesters. I posted two links one from American Conservative which describe the legal problems some anti-war protesters went through simply because they wanted to stand on the side of the road with anti-war signs.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
My point is that you purposefully misquoted me to strengthen the force of your retort to my comment. In other words, you blatantly lied about what I said so that you could make yourself look better. And instead of fessing up, you have merely said that your lie didn’t make that big of a difference. Well, if it didn’t make that big of a difference, then why did you proffer it in the first place?
Report comment to moderator
Joel’s misquoting of me (and his refusal to apologize) reminds me of something else, which is related to the alleged crisis involving Howell.
Earlier this week, Ted Haggard noted that the Religious Right is losing power fast within evangelical circles. I suggest that this is occurring in large part because of the Religious Right’s propensity for hyperbole and dishonesty. People are not merely reacting negatively to the content of the message. They are reacting negatively to the shrillness of its delivery and the self-righteousness that suffuses the Religious Right’s public utterances.
For the most part, the Religious Right is nothing more than a power clique. Its leaders wax long about moral decay, suggesting that donations to their organizations will stop the tide of moral decline in this country. But over time, it’s become apparent to most younger evangelicals that our self-appointed morality czars (who have been sucking up our parents’ cash for years) are probably contributing to moral decline as much as any would-be leftists. The Rekers-rentboy scandal is the latest example of the morality czars’ apparent belief that they are above their own family values rhetoric.
And then there’s all the hyperbole. To keep the money flowing, these organizations have to keep manufacturing crises–crises so large that they can only be addressed by a well-funded para-church organization whose leaders have apparent access to the White House. These organizations have to perpetuate the myth that there’s a well organized enemy who never sleeps and who’s always looking to disenfranchise good Christian people. Otherwise, people may stop giving. While there may be a kernel of truth at the heart of this, the Religious Right has taken indecent liberties with this truth in an effort to increase donations and the apparent need for the services of the morality czars. But like the townspeople who listened to the little boy cry “Wolf” again and again, folks have grown weary of the constant warnings of impending doom. We are tired of having to sort out fact from fiction in the pronouncements of the morality czars, and have simply decided to write them off for what they have shown themselves to be–liars, whose interests are more in line with their own pocketbooks than with the moral state of our country.
In the changing of the guard in evangelicalism, I pray that we don’t lose our zeal to reach out to those weighed down by sin. On the other hand, we have to admit that we’ve allowed ourselves for too long to be preyed upon by smooth-talking family-values charlatans. We’ve been taken to the cleaners, and it will take us time to get back what the thieves in Colorado Springs and other places have taken away.
Report comment to moderator
#83 This has nothing at all to do with Dr.Howell’s unjust dismissal from the university. It’s just another shallow attempt to smear conservative Evangelicals generally. Next.
Report comment to moderator
#84
Agreed.
And, if you replace “morality czars” with “PC Progressives” and Republicans with Democrats, and so on, it could have been written just as easily about the other side.
Report comment to moderator
#82 – “My point is that you purposefully misquoted me to strengthen the force of your retort to my comment.”
RSD, then “your point” is a lie. RSD, I did not purposely do any such thing. I never thought of the words “professor” and “lecturer” as being even the slightest bit consequential or different in any menaingful sense. For the point I was making, they are sunonymous.
And my point was that an adjuct professor-lecturer-teacher in a college deserves all the same respect and fairness from the administration as any full-time professor. The adjuct status does not constitute a basis to treat them with less fairness and dignity, as I believe your were suggestting.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, in claiming that I “blatantly lied”, you lied. Why couldn’t you just address my response to you respectfully? My response was a defense of the equal dignity of the adjuct to all other professors, and I think the administration acted rashly and unjustly on the basis of an annoymous complaint of an alleged friend of a student. I had zero intent to say anything more or less that what I said about the equal dignity of the man who lost his position unjustly.
Report comment to moderator
I ask people to read RSD’s comment at #43 and decide purely for yourselves if those comments were not inappropriately dismissive of the equal dignity of the teacher in question on this thread.
RSD dismisses that this man was even a “professor.” Huh? I was always addressed as a “professor” by all when I was an “adjunct” teacher-lecturer-professor at the university level.
RSD dismisses that this man was even an associate professor or an assistant professor. So what? My point had nothing to do with his title.
RSD called him a “mere adjunct lecturer” and that distinction was unmeaningful to me. I still think he deserves to be treated as fairly as any other teacher-professor-lecturer regardles of what “label” they want to use for him. There is nothing that is “mere” about his role if he does it in earnest.
RSD also apparently attempted to dismiss this adjuct lecturer-professor–teacher’s “maturity” with regard to his e-mail (which seemed fully mature to me).
RSD also attempted to dismiss this teacher’s clear understanding of Catholic teachings on human sexuality. RSD dismisses this teacher as “woefully ignorant” on the topic on which he was teaching.
I thought RSD was overly dismissive of that gentleman and I said so in my own way at #45.
Let all decide for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
And, again, the PRESIDENT of the university called the man an “adjunct PROFESSOR.”
And, he didn’t add a “mere” in front of that.
Report comment to moderator
This is not the beginning of limits to free speech, nor is it anything new. Soon enough to speak any amount of truth will be called “hate-speech”, it is already happening in the military and soon enough speech restrictions will be rampant across the Nation. Although I am not Catholic, all defenders of the Constitution and all Believers must stand with this professor.
Report comment to moderator
The professional attainments which anonymous/virtually anonymous bloggers claim can’t be verified and are useless.
Very useless, when such claims are inconsistent:
And yes, I am an academic and have been a professor in the past. — WorldMagBlog 12.04.09
And strange, when when such claims belie gaudy pretenses to respectfulness:
In fact, my respect for Harvard academics is so low that I have no time to waste on their methods. — WorldMagBlog 12.04.09
With all due respect, of course.
Report comment to moderator
It’s worth mentioning that an “adjunct professor” usually does not, and is not expected to contribute to the university’s research.
Because adjuncts lack the independence of tenure, their teaching work itself is considered to be of a different order than that of professors.
Report comment to moderator
#91 – “In fact, my respect for Harvard academics is so low that I have no time to waste on their methods.”
Wow, Scroop Moth, that is an excellent quote. Harvard, Yale and other elitist politically-correct institutions have well earned this disrespect as an institution, by and large, from intelligent and grounded people. I fully agree. Thanks for sharing.
In the 1990s, I served as pastor of a church that was across the street from Yale on Whitney Ave and became quite familiar with their politics and political correctness. The Dean at the Yale Divinity school was a huge fan of Buddhism. Go figure.
Report comment to moderator
All attempts to belittle the role of this professor seem elitist, heartless and inrrelevant. He taught “Introduction to Catholicism” and it sounds like he did his job well. He is not being allowed to continue on unjust and unfair grounds. The left is getting more and more intimidating with impunity and they need more opposition with more resolve, or injustice and tyranny will only grow in our culture.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #44, Congratulations finding and providing the piece of testimony that Fox has been taking so out of context.
However, your paraphrase still wieldy exaggerates the testimony. You say “In other words, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has stated categorically to ignore cases of whites against blacks.”
The actual testimony refers to the overheard conversation of a co-worker. “So, anyhow, this person comes to Mr. Coates and he says, “I’m not going to work on the case because I didn’t join the Voting section to sue black people.” This is pure hear-say, and not even close to a categorical statement by the civil rights division.
As you know Mr. Adams talks at length about the historical reluctance of the Civil Rights Division to prosecute blacks accused of denying whites their voting rights, and it should be clear to you, that according to Mr. Adams, this is problem goes back to the founding of the organization.
Just once, be honest with yourself and with us, and admit that taking this testimony out of context and trying to use it against Obama and Holder is race baiting.
Report comment to moderator
#95 TruthTeller, “Just once, be honest with yourself and with us, and admit that taking this testimony out of context and trying to use it against Obama and Holder is race baiting. “
So I’ve never been honest a day in my life? Can you prove it? Why can’t liberals have a discussion without trashing others?
The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ won’t prosecute white against black cases. This is established fact which you acknowledge. Eric Holder is the head of this department. Holder refused to prosecute this voter intimidation case. Holder works for Obama who has signed numerous bills funding racial preferences.
Race baiting would be insinuating that blacks would never prosecute blacks. That would be ridiculous. I am not insinuating anything. I am presenting facts.
Report comment to moderator
“My point had nothing to do with his title.” -Joel
Then why did you elect to alter my words and then place quote marks around them? You were obviously trying to achieve some rhetorical advantage; otherwise, you wouldn’t have done it.
Also, I stand by my evaluation of Howell. His comments displayed an unsophisticated understanding of Catholic natural law theory. Further, he fails to state how draconian Catholic teaching is on human sexuality. It’s so draconian, in fact, that few Catholics even abide by it. It doesn’t merely forbid homosexual conduct; it forbids any sexual activity outside of that intended for procreation. Howell’s statement suggests that Catholicism only forbids homosexual activity. He fails to mention that pleasure-oriented heterosexual activity is also forbidden. Hence, it seems that Howell is more interested in promulgating an anti-gay viewpoint than he is in providing accurate teaching on Catholic doctrine.
Besides, professors and adjuncts do not have the academic freedom to teach views that are expressly contradictory to the university’s anti-discrimination policy. While he is free to introduce students to anti-gay ideas, he cannot serve as an advocate of such views. By capitalizing “morality” and by putting “reality” in all caps, it certainly seems that he is attempting to advocate the merits of what he asserts is the Catholic church’s teaching on human sexuality.
I think that he exercised a moment’s poor judgment. Because he apparently has strong beliefs on this subject, his passions got the best of him, leading him to write something that we would probably not have written had he thought about it a bit more. That’s unfortunate. But what’s done is done.
It would be the same as if I taught a course on WWII in which I suggested in an email that the Japanese were right to carry out atrocities against the Chinese and the Koreans. I wouldn’t have a job after that. Howell should expect nothing different.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
You’ve obviously read NOTHING about Howell, the university, or the agreement they had with the Catholic church.
Sometimes, it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, then to open one’s mouth and leave no doubt of it.
This is what you have done.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
Instead of making an ad hominem attack, I’d invite you to point to any facts in my statement in #97 that you believe are inaccurate. I have based my opinions on facts I’ve gathered from two articles from mainstream media outlets, although I’ve also perused a few articles from evangelical and Catholic media outlets.
I definitely think that Howell crossed the line from exposing students to Catholic ideas and acting as an advocate of those ideas. If the ideas didn’t expressly contradict the university’s anti-discrimination policy, then I wouldn’t have a problem with such advocacy.
Lastly, I’d suggest that most of Howell’s would-be supporters have no interest in this issue besides the anti-gay angle. Would you also support him if he were advocating white supremacy on a religious basis? I doubt it. In fact, you support him because you believe that he did exactly what I accused him of doing–advocating a basis for treating homosexuals differently from heterosexuals.
As I said above, I believe that Howell simply exercised a moment’s poor judgment. From what I can tell, he is a teacher who generally did not use his classroom as a bully-pulpit from which to advocate his personal views. But in this instance, he slipped up. Unfortunately, he slipped up in a manner that brought the university’s anti-discrimination policy into question. He appears to have shown genuine contrition. So, under the circumstances, I think his punishment may be a bit too harsh. Nevertheless, the department’s position is defensible, even if a bit harsh.
But c’mon, be honest with yourself. I’d suggest that you’d have no interest in Howell’s situation if you didn’t honestly believe that he was engaging in advocacy. Heck, this was the hottest news item on evangelical media outlets last week. Many of these stories had hook lines that implied that Howell had engaged in advocacy. So, if I’m a fool for making that assertion, then you need to pass that same judgment on plenty of others.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!