<p>Its not censorship. Censorship is attempting to suppress material. No where is the Church trying to prevent this. They just dont have to let it happen at their institution.</p>
<p>
I guess this depends on your definition of “discredit.” When I use that term, I mean the view that people outside the institution have of it. By that definition, I’m afraid that I’m horribly right.</p>
<p>
If this is true, how can it be that the actions of the leaders of the institution can’t discredit both the institution and the faith?</p>
<p>All I’m trying to get at here is that you can’t justify the actions of the head of Villanova by just saying that he has moral authority by virtue of his position.</p>
<p>kayf: I am interpreting this as the president censoring the faculty.</p>
<p>Villanova teaches a course called Queering America: Queer Theory and American Literature</p>
<p>Will the Cardinal Newman society ask it be canceled?</p>
<p>The president’s intervention constitutes censorship of his faculty, and consequently, censorship of student education.</p>
<p>Only the president knows whether he is solely accountable for the decision or whether he allowed his powers to be usurped by the outside forces demanding censorhip.</p>
<p>This can happen anywhere! On any given “hot button” issue, influential third parties will attempt to shape the course of dialogue among students. It is irrelevant that this incident occurred at a college affiliated in some way with the Catholic church* vs. a college that maintains some other parochial connection or is secular. </p>
<p>*I asked upthread re: whether it makes a difference that Villanova is Augustine vs. DePaul is Vicentian. No one responded, so I assumed it didn’t matter. Now, there is a suggestion that Augustine isn’t Catholic and also talk about what colleges are “Catholic enough” to pass some muster. To my way of thinking, if it’s necessary to figure out what kind of Catholic Villanova really is before deciding whether the president should/should not have censored his faculty, that only reinforces my opinion it doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>I, too, am disappointed in the level of discourse here. The defense strategy has been to avoid talking about the merits and instead pontificate about private school rights, lob ad hominen “you Catholic basher” attacks and label those who express concerns ignorant because this is nothing more than a personnel flap over a rogue teacher (whose department chair stood behind and took the public fall for–so I guess we are really talking about a rogue department chair, as well).</p>
<p>Fine, the school is censoring the professor. The professor is the one who can complain. Those who knowingly chose to go to a Catholic school may say, good, why should I pay tuition to support something I don’t agree with. There are plenty of places this gentleman can speak at.</p>
<p>The better question, looking at the professor’s bio, is how she got tenure.</p>
<p>TXArtemis: I am with you. I asked much earlier if there were different ways to be Catholic since the Villanova mission statement and the Cardinal Newman mission statement seemed to me in conflict.</p>
<p>I am also pointing out that at any university canceling an invited speaker is a very controversial and newsworthy event and causes a whole lot of discussion among everyone associated with universities. There is not much reason for those not associated with universities to know this and it may be confusing the issue that what seems to some of us common knowledge just really isn’t.</p>
<p>The fact it isn’t common knowledge doesn’t make it debatable that such an event is, in fact, extremely significant and controversial.</p>
<p>kayf: I posted that course description on page 3, post 34, along with links to an upcoming conference. Archiemom, who has a child at Villanova, responded:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>kayf: Are you Catholic? Are you considering Villanova for one of your children? Or do you maybe have a child there?</p>
<p>kayf: Are you Catholic? Are you considering Villanova for one of your children? Or do you maybe have a child there? </p>
<p>I am not certain why you are asking this. I think that Villanova is entitled to define and live its mission. Just as Yeshiva U, West Point and a variety of other schools are. The strength of the US higher education system is its diversity. As can clearly be seen by how the facts are unraveling, the Villanova kids who want to listen to this person can easily attend. Doesnt mean that Villanova has to support it. How many conservative causes do most colleges support?</p>
<p>kayf: I ask because several Villanova parents have been posting and I don’t have the impression they consider Villanova a conservative school. None of them objected to the professor or the course description or gay/straight alliance. Instead they seemed to think those were all good things. As far as I can tell, those on this board, who are objecting to the proposed speaker are not associated with Villanova. Some of them are Catholic and have stated that some schools aren’t Catholic enough at the present time. Claremarie has not responded to Pizzagirl’s question this morning in post 147.</p>
<p>Maybe qdogpa is objecting to the speaker? He can say if he reads this. I’ll go back and try and reread his posts. He did make a point of talking about his daughter’s gay friends there. Mainly his posts have been kind of jokey about it all.</p>
<p>“I am also pointing out that at any university canceling an invited speaker is a very controversial and newsworthy event and causes a whole lot of discussion among everyone associated with universities.”</p>
<p>One reason that these incidents cause a whole lot of discussion is that many people associated with universities – especially professors in the humanities – have a LOT of free time. And because today’s students need a cause. And because journalists are hard-wired to prick up their ears at anything that even hints of “censorship” or “threats to academic freedom.” Bring those ingredients together, and poof – you have a controversy. Having the Catholic Church as the bad guy is just the icing on the cake.</p>
<p>claremarie: This causes controversy because it goes to the mission of the university, any university. It has nothing to do with whether the university is Catholic or not. It is all about what the purpose of a university is… why they exist… what their best role is in society.</p>
<p>Your post might be read as indicating you don’t believe humanities professors have any useful role in society. However, many believe they serve a very important role and are worthy of respect.</p>
<p>I have been around universities a long time. I have very little respect for professors in any discipline who spend their time fanning the flames of these nonexistent “controversies.” Some of these folks have never quite gotten over the 60’s, and the rest of them feel shortchanged at having missed that era and look for every possible opportunity to find noble causes to support. If most of those academics are in the humanities rather than, say, business or engineering or chemistry, that tells me something about the respective demands of those various disciplines. If nearly all of them are political/social/religious liberals who contribute to Democratic candidates, well, that tells me that political/social/religious conservatives are probably the most justified in complaining of censorship or lack of academic freedom. </p>
<p>It’s no secret that many professors are teaching at Catholic universities despite, rather than because of, their Catholic identity. But the academic market being what it is, they held their nose and took the best available offer. They may lie low until they get tenure, but then all bets are off as they take every available opportunity to demonstrate their secular bona fides by mocking the tenets of Catholicism in the classroom, or signing angry faculty senate statement decrying the university’s lack of a queer studies program, or demanding that the offensive crucifixes in the classroom be removed. It must be exceedingly difficult to accept a paycheck from an institution so despised, but somehow they manage to do it.</p>
<p>I have not read of any humanities professors at Villanova fanning any flames or creating any controversy with regard to this invited speaker. They have been “no comment” haven’t they? I agree with JHS they they were surprised by the controversy that resulted when groups outside Villanova objected to what seems to have been a rather standard sort of Villanova activity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know you weren’t. And, even if you did, that just come with the territory when discussing issues in this forum. Had I a thinner skin, I would have left in 2003. And, before JHS attempts to correct me with another grandiloquent and grandstanding post about playing the victim card, I am happy to acknowledge that I give just as much as I take. ;)</p>
<p>xiggi…you make me smile! 
:)</p>
<p>And… I have learned some great SAT vocabulary words in the process.</p>