<p>
</p>
<p>I am afraid you missed my point in its entirety. It is obvious that I did not write anything that could be twisted in such manner. </p>
<p>This only becomes a gay issue if you want to make it and, decide to define the artist solely based on his sexual preference. </p>
<p>This discussion has nothing to do with gay rights or gay marriages. It has to do with the rights of a private school to sponsor and approve EC performances at their discretion.</p>
<p>xiggi: For me, the interesting question is what direction Catholic education is heading in this country. I am not looking at the particular but the general. </p>
<p>If that is possible ;)</p>
<p>I think JHS’s original post is all about gay rights in the Catholic university. That is, of course, my personal opinion. </p>
<p>Is a discussion of gay rights in the context of a Catholic education off-topic and/or bashing?</p>
<p>xiggi, I am disappointed with you. The “stunt” of inviting him? Really? That’s what you think it was? If so, I think your focus is a little too narrow.</p>
<p>As for the “testimonies” (not “testimonials” – that’s a different word) I offered – they were personal communications to me. I know plenty of Villanova alumni, but none of the one’s I know were exercised about Miller’s invitation (or if they were they certainly didn’t choose to share it with me). I chose one because it gave a sense of what Miller had been invited to do, and why I’m sure no one thought they were pulling a “stunt”. (This is not an environment in which someone with an actual academic job in a marginal field wants to be pulling stunts.) The other I think gives a little peek at some of the actual nuances of teaching charged subjects at Catholic institutions – lots of freedom, a sense there are no-go areas, and a shadow of concern (but only a shadow) that you will wake up one morning to find that something you care about has just become no-go. But, I hope the emphasis was not lost, just as you, and alh, and others have pointed out, freedom of inquiry and discussion is very much the rule, and restriction the exception.</p>
<p>As for the charge of Catholic-bashing – I wish you all would stop whining. From my standpoint, the only reason we are discussing Catholic universities is because (apart from the Quakers) they are pretty much the only ones who aspire to reconcile active faith with academic freedom in any respectable way. It isn’t worth bashing the Evangelicals or Orthodox Jews, because they don’t really even pretend to be meeting elite standards for university education. An institution like Villanova obviously has a substantial commitment to academic freedom as well as to inclusiveness, which makes it much more interesting when someone suddenly runs into a wall.</p>
<p>Oh, and the question of Guantanamo detainees at West Point? They should be required to do that. Frankly, once the Army takes responsibility for that particular strategy, they have a moral responsibility to pay attention to what the consequences are. (Maybe I have an unrealistically high opinion of West Point, but I don’t think they are that closed-minded at all there. I know a high school friend of my daughter’s, from a family of Quakers, went to Annapolis, and found that there was much more openness and acceptance of dissent there than he had expected.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot disagree with your point. But it does indeed require to look well beyond this simple incident and analyze the broader picture. And that is why I suggested to look at the classes taught by the professor who scheduled the workshop in the first place. Why did Villanova hire and support her as a member of the faculty, and “allows” her classes to be taught? This needs to be balanced with the decision to not allow the performance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only JHS can tell us with certainty. I had a different interpretation. Perhaps too much SAT Critical Reading theory … which insists on only considering what is in the four corners of the text. /smile </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“This%20is%20not%20an%20environment%20in%20which%20someone%20with%20an%20actual%20academic%20job%20in%20a%20marginal%20field%20wants%20to%20be%20pulling%20stunts.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>YES!!! The way I’m reading this is a young assistant professor is working hard to get tenured, doing all the things she has been led to expect she should do by those who hired her and all at once — she’s in the midst of a huge brouhaha.</p>
<p>xiggi: In my opinion the history, over centuries, of the place and role of homosexuals in the church is intriguing. IMHO what is happening now at Villanova has to do with the changing of the church’s attitude toward its gay members, as well as a possible loss of freedom by university administrators over their individual schools. But I don’t know. Just speculating wildly. But not bashing!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, JHS, I am equally disappointed in you. Not in small part because of the paternalistic tone that comes as close to condenscending as possible. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I cannot believe that you thought it necessary to perfect my education by discussing the differences between "“testimonies” and “testimonials.” Not being a legal eagle with your experience, I tend to rely on the simpler definition of words. What can I say … I am only part of that google generation that has a limited and faulty vocabulary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as the stunt, I stand by my previous comment.</p>
<p>xiggi: I don’t know if she is tenure track but in no way will this help her in finding a permanent job. IMHO this is probably an academic career killer. Any professors and/or administrators disagree?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>I do not think that this will hurt her career at all. And it should not.</p>
<p>Her bio says she is an associate professor. I thought that generally meant tenured.</p>
<p>Re post #34 It’s no conspiracy. Try this link [OASIS</a> (Outreach to LGBT)](<a href=“http://www.villanova.edu/campusministry/spirituality/groups/oasis/]OASIS”>http://www.villanova.edu/campusministry/spirituality/groups/oasis/)</p>
<p>And FYI, students at Villanova are also interested in the reasons behind the workshop’s cancellation:</p>
<p>[Igniting</a> Change: Constructive Dialogue with the Villanova Community](<a href=“http://www.facebook.com/events/171893662926229/]Igniting”>Redirecting...)</p>
<h1>69 oops!</h1>
<p>Mom of young academics projecting more than a little here</p>
<h1>71 I found that link, too, but there is a link on the university website I found that doesn’t work. I found yours on google. I couldn’t link to your link through the university website. But I obviously make mistakes and this could just be my misunderstanding?</h1>
<p>“This “institution” is a university where opposing ideas are tested.”</p>
<p>So you say. But no university is required to sponsor any program that any faculty member dreams up, simply to satisfy outsiders’ concerns that “opposing ideas” be “tested.” Surely an historically black college would not be expected to invite a white supremacist to come “test” the idea that blacks are inherently inferior to whites, nor would a predominantly Jewish university be criticized if it “uninvited” an anti-Semitic writer whose seminar had somehow slipped through the cracks. </p>
<p>Villanova has to answer to its students and their parents, its faculty, the local Catholic bishop, its alumni and its donors. They spoke, the University listened, and it’s over.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I apologize for forgetting what a bloody-minded cultural warrior you are, xiggi. But rather than throwing around words like “stunt” that denigrate other people’s motives, without any predicate as far as I can tell, why don’t you try explaining what you mean? It’s not obvious to me why I should regard any of this as a stunt. And while you are at it, maybe you can also explain why allowing Mr. Miller to lead a workshop on developing and sharing personal narratives is such a core offense to Catholic and Augustinian values that a previously approved invitation must be rescinded by the university president. Because that’s not obvious to me, either.</p></li>
<li><p>An associate professor, I believe, can be tenured or untenured. Back in the day, when I knew a lot more of them, people were generally promoted to associate professor status (from assistant professor) as they approached tenure consideration, and remained associate professors for a period after being granted tenure (if that’s what happened). You had to be on track for tenure consideration to get the promotion, usually, but it didn’t guarantee a positive outcome of the tenure process. Given Prof. Rose’s time since her PhD, and not knowing anything about her, she might or might not have tenure.</p></li>
<li><p>I wasn’t thinking about gay rights at Villanova when I started this thread so much as about academic freedom and institutional censorship, although I’m not certain I would think any differently if I came at it from a gay-rights or gay-inclusion perspective.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Clearly, Catholic colleges want to attract the best students but then they don’t want to walk the walk of being truly welcoming. I think eventually that will start to effect the quality of student being attracted because it is not just GLBT students that will steer clear but their allies, of which there are many in that generation.”</p>
<p>It depends upon what you mean by “truly welcoming.” The Church teaches that homosexual activities are intrinsically disordered. It also teaches that persons who experience same-sex attraction should be respected and loved. So, a university striving to be faithful to its Catholic mission will welcome homosexual students, while also making clear that it cannot in any way condone homosexual activities. Therefore, it will not sponsor student organizations that attempt to normalize homosexual activities or gay “marriage.” It will sponsor organizations that offer friendship and support to students who experience same-sex attraction but who are trying to live a chaste life, and it will condemn harassment aimed at homosexual students. A homosexual student who insists that the university and his fellow students recognize and respect his same-sex relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage will probably NOT feel “welcomed” at this kind of Catholic university, and would probably find his educational needs best met elsewhere. </p>
<p>This is not really a difficult concept. The Church is not going to change its teachings because they are unpopular, or because homosexual students and their sympathizers decide to “steer clear” of Catholic colleges.</p>
<p>
I would just note that I find it peculiar that this was listed by several folks as one of the justifications for rescinding this guy’s invitation.</p>
<p>What sort of test would you apply to determine whether any particular artist (in whatever medium) should be invited to speak on a Catholic campus? Would you, for example, exclude any film director who has made a film that included nudity and/or sexual activity? You could, of course, and I might expect that at Liberty or Bob Jones, but it would surprise me if that was the standard at Catholic schools.</p>
<p>Frankly, it would surprise me if what clairemarie described in #75 was the standard at Catholic schools. I have a sense that what she considers appropriately Catholic universities is only a subset of the universities that identify themselves as Catholic. But maybe the bishops will start cracking down more.</p>
<p>The church also defends and pays pedophiles. Don’t make it right. As for the bishops, well, they don’t represent the vast majority of Catholics and how they act. They are losing influence because they don’t deserve respect. Only until they admit their coverup of horrendous crimes, only then should they be paid any attention to.</p>
<p>Villanova is “Augustinian.” DePaul is “Vicentian.” Is there any distinction between the two that could account for Villanova’s refusal to bring this artist to campus when DePaul previously hosted him?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bloody-minded cultural warrior? JHS, would it be too much to ask to take a closer look at the exchanges in this thread. It is one thing to tell others to stop complaining about the bashing, and yet another one to stop pushing the lack of courtesy envelope. Go back and compare the nature and contents of our posts in this thread. </p>
<p>As far as answering your questions, I do believe that my posts were pretty clear. But let’s take another look. Here’s the first “denigrating” post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do I consider the invitation of a performer such as Miller at a Catholic school to be a stunt? Well, short of a legal definition that escapes me a la testimony, I think that a stunt can be defined as “any remarkable feat performed chiefly to attract attention.” And I happen to think that without the decision by the school to cancel the workshop, it would have been a remarkable feat for an activist with a long history at ACT UP to be in residence at Villanova. Was the performance scheduled to chiefly attract attention? Considering the uproar created by the mere announcement, one could imagine what the workshop itself might have generated. </p>
<p>Now onto the reasons why Miller was de-invited? My first post in this thread noted your irritation by the lack of explanation offered by Villanova. If my imperfect speculation is acceptable to you, I think I can repeat an earlier post that intimated that Miller’s “problem” was not so much about what he might say or convey through his performance at Villanova, but what he had done in the past. It’s not the potential message; it is the individual. If I am correct can only be confirmed by Villanova. Your guess is just as good as mine.</p>