<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>if you're familiar with academic freedom, you know that a professor can't be penalized for ideas. <<<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Private colleges do NOT have to guarantee "academic freedom"... Catholic colleges are free to demand that their profs not ADVOCATE things in the classroom that the Catholic faith has said is "intrinsically evil" -- such as abortion, gay sex, etc.</p>
<p>While it is true that a private school does not have to guarantee "academic freedom" they lose significant credability if they become too heavy handed in enforcing orthodoxy of thought. My sense is that it is okay to allow those dissenting voices on campus that support abortion provided they do not speak for the school, only themselves.</p>
<p>My sense is that most of the Catholic schools have it about right, allow the opposing points of view on campus but they should not receive funding from the school and should not carry the name of the school. For example there shold not be a Holy Cross pro-choice club that receives fund from the school.</p>
<p>I would like to add that some Catholic colleges are demanding that its theology profs sign a mandatum promising not to promote things such as abortion. Their position is that if you want to teach Catholic theology then you better teach what the church believes , not what you may WANT it to believe.</p>
<p>To my view, this invitation is simply honoring the Position that she holds - Secretary of State of the U.S. Why should it matter what her personal views are or what her political affiliation is?</p>
<p>BC should only invite Democratic Secretaries of State to receive honorary degrees?! That seems a little ridiculous. You invite the person holding that position because you honor the fact that it is an amazing accomplishment to rise to the job of Sec. of State. The invitation to speak and the degree are not a "seal of approval" for the work she is doing in that position.</p>
<p>Is it really that surprising that people are upset with this choice? The approval rating for this presidency is at 31%. Those 69% who disapprove include many more than just liberal democrats. I think you respect people who deserve it, not because of the office they hold.</p>
<p>This is a tough one. She is an excellent role model but her integrity, much like Colin Powell's, has taken a hit due to thier having to carry the water for GWB and Cheney's controversial war. Bush has taken the reputation of two of the brightest lights in the African American community and sullied them by first asking them to perpetuate a falsehood (WMD) and second to become the lightning rods he was incapable of being. At least they, unlike thier boss, can form a coherent sentence. Unfortunately thier unwillingness to stand on principal, especially Powell, who KNEW the quagmire we were headed into, has hurt them enormously. Rice has been on the ropes during interviews for the last six months. She was a child prodigy, by all accounts she is brilliant. She could have been the first female, Afro-American, President if she hadn't gotten involved with Cheney (2 DUI arrests, flunked out of Yale twice), and Bush (3 arrests, "C" student, U of Texas grad school reject.) Collectively she is brighter than both. She should have steered clear of Bush and Cheney and run for office instead.</p>
<p>Just thought I'd post an update.</p>
<p>Links to three articles (and the full text of Condi's speech) can be found here: <a href="http://at.bc.edu/may-22-2006/%5B/url%5D">http://at.bc.edu/may-22-2006/</a></p>
<p>Jlauer: How did you learn how many Harvard faculty or BC faculty are Republicans? Are profs' political affiliations in the public domain? How did they get to be a matter of public knowledge? I'm curious because I would not know how to look for the information.</p>
<p>Regarding Condi Rice's speech at BC. Although I did not and do not support the war in Iraq, I see absolutely nothing wrong with inviting her to give the Commencement speech. The honorary degree is usally conferred on the Commencement speaker, so it's a no-started to suggest that she may speak but should not be awarded an honorary degree.</p>
<p>One may disagree with her policies in Iraq or elsewhere, or even with her decisions while a provost at Stanford, but there is no doubt in my mind that she deserves to not only be chosen as a Commencement speaker but also to receive an honorary degree. We can disagree over many things, but not about her achievements in many many fields. </p>
<p>As for Mary Daly, she is a crackpot and a disgrace. In the same league as Ward Churchill.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>She is an excellent role model but her integrity, much like Colin Powell's, >>has taken a hit due to thier having to carry the water for GWB and >>Cheney's controversial war.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>As a very dear friend and elite statesman told my son - "Unfortunately, compromise - even to the point of offering public and official support for causes you disdain, etc. are all part of such careers. No one, and he repeats, no one has the luxury of only supporting his/her own belief system if he/she wants to work "within" the system." His "system" includes the three branches of government and their tributaries.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I think the comment was sarcastic on jlauer's part. Reading the press in the Globe it is pretty clear that there is more than one Republican at BC as I am sure is also true of Harvard. Another alternative label is conservative or liberal.</p>
<p>I have trouble with the labels. Particularly when viewed at a Catholic school. Depending upon the issue the position on one subject could be viewed as liberal(immigration, death penalty) where on another it would be viewed as conservative (abortion, gay marriage).</p>
<p>For more on this see Boston College's recent panel moderated by Tim Russert titled "Catholic Politicians in the U.S.: Their Faith and Public Policy".</p>
<p>A video of this is at:</p>
<p>Eagle:</p>
<p>Thanks. I have no idea whether JLauer was being sarcastic or not, considering that MA is a solidly Dem state (never mind the succession of Repub governors!). But the idea of judging profs by their party affiliation bemuses me.</p>
<p>I agree that with Catholics in particular, the death penalty and abortion make it difficult to separate neatly into conservative and liberals. And among liberals, there are different levels of support for abortion, but that's another topic of discussion.</p>