|
July 10, 2010
Exclusive rhetorical questions about "university standards of inclusivity"
To what extent are college professors entitled to voice opinions without being fired for them? I recently learned about an Illinois professor who stated his religious and personal opinion that homosexuality is immoral. Predictably, this caused a student to complain about "hate speech" -- which led to the professor being fired: URBANA, Ill. -- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church's teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.I think it does violate academic freedom -- and the fact that I disagree with the professor is irrelevant. I would feel the same way if a university fired a professor for saying that homosexuality is natural and moral. However, I don't think the fact that the professor's views reflect his religious opinion really changes anything. (As I have explained, I see no reason that religious opinions should afforded more protection than non-religious opinions.) Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.Well, good for him! By not requiring his students to agree with him, he is showing more consideration for their intellectual freedom than most of the leftie professors. Howell also said he makes clear to his students that he's Catholic and that he believes the church views that he teaches.Standards of inclusivity? What the hell does that mean? It's not as if he threw gay students out of his class; what he did was merely to state his opinion, and explain why he thinks what he thinks, leaving students free to disagree without penalty of any kind. How does that exclude anyone? Are students considered so delicate that the slightest mention of something with which they feel uncomfortable is now to be considered a form of "exclusion"? Hmmm... Perhaps I can return to school and complain that I am being "excluded" every time a professor says something I disagree with. "Your statement that libertarianism is a selfish and materialistic doctrine makes me feel excluded!" Or suppose another hypothetical student who shared the view of Howell that homosexuality violates "Natural Law" were to take a class in which the professor stated just the opposite (based, say, on studies of Bonobo chimp behavior). Wouldn't such a student have just much right to make the claim that he too was "excluded"? Come on. This leads me to wonder about something else. How about a Muslim professor who said that the Koran condemned homosexuality, and that he agreed with the Koran's position. Would he too, be fired by the University of Illinois? (Yeah, I know the answer. So do you. It's just another rhetorical question....) UPDATE: My thanks to Sean Kinsell for linking this post in a typically thoughtful discussion based on his personal experience. Read it! posted by Eric on 07.10.10 at 01:51 PM
Comments
I just feel so bad for the poor delicate pussy boy...... jimd · July 10, 2010 10:33 PM This is one part of the policy at the university I teach at. Notice how it immediately morphs from "unlawfaul" to 'unhappy.' Basically, it leaves you up to the judgment and mercies of whoever it is decides to complain and whoever it is winds up on the bodies that hear and judge any complaint. More concrete guidance is not forthcoming—I know because I've asked. "[deleted] University abides by the principle that its students, faculty, staff and HMI · July 11, 2010 12:04 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Where's The Party, Man?
The Problem Is Self Induced This I-dosing thing is giving me heavy flashbacks, man! We still have the First Amendment, right? The horse has left the barn, and the barn is gone! And we long since threw away the toothpaste tubes! barking back at authoritarian dogs House of Cards A Decline In Morals NAACP Audience Applauds Racism At The Economist, rationing is in demand
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I do wish people would get one thing straight: the individual has the right to hold and express racist, sexist, or anti-homosexual views. Any attempt to police nasty speech can only be arbitrary and capricious, as far from justice as any activity could be.