If the report is true, then I think UofI made a mistake. I think there is a difference between evangelizing for the beliefs of a religion and simply reporting, when asked, one’s own personal belief on a particular issue pertinent to the class.

I think it would be wrong to fire a professor if a professor, when asked, merely stated that he or she disagreed with a particular tenet of a religion.

The local Champaign-Urbana paper provides some more detail.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

Although it’s true that adjuncts have virtually no job security, the violation of academic freedom here is pretty egregious. The public affairs person says the univerity is “absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism…”, while the associate dean says “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity”. Since he was teaching Catholic doctrine, I don’t see how those statements can be reconciled.

(In #4, I should have clarified that my sibling is on the faculty.)

From the article:

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “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.”

Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.

“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”

It sounds like he was teaching Catholic doctrine instead of teaching about what Catholics belief. Big difference. The first is acceptable. The second, in a public school, is inviting a lawsuit.

Okay. Re-read it and I’m not sure I can find anything about him actually preaching Catholic beliefs at a public university. But I agree with the student who wrote, “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

Bbell, I think any teacher has a responsibility to their students which can be more important than the first amendment. Because hey—if all teachers just knocked themselves out enjoying their freedom of speech (with regard to their classrom), there’d be a big problem.

bbell,

I think that we are mostly trying to figure out the details which are very relevant to your question. Also, I am not sure if this is about the 1st amendment or academic freedom.

Of course, I work at BYU. I am not sure if I would recognize academic freedom if I saw it.

“Quite honestly, the major wrong here is the fact that a non-religious university has a religion department. They should roll it into the philosophy department.”

Since the study of religion often has more to do with history, literature, anthropology, or sociology…that is just silly. Studying about religion is a perfectly legitimate academic venture at any university.

In fact, BYU should look into having an academic religion department.

“It is a very different concept than the issue of the 1st amendment.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

From the article, it appears to me that the professor was arguing that catholic beliefs regarding homosexuality are grounded in natural law. I’m not sure that’s a tenable position, but I think he has a perfect right to make that argument for purposes of discussion in a class on catholicism. Students who are homosexual or who are sympathetic to homosexuals also have a perfect right to disagree vehemently with that position.

Just because someone has the first amendment right to say something does not make it a good idea to actually say it. As a teacher, I would loathe saying something a student could interpret as an insult; comments like girls’ brains can’t handle math as well as boys’, all abortion is immoral, southerners sound stupid, Republicans are idiots, people that have more than four children are loco, or that immigrants weaken our country. Many people may believe it, an academic argument may be made to support it, but the statement that can be construed as an insult by a student holds little to negative educational purpose.

I am not saying that controversial issues should not be discussed, especially at the university level, I am just saying that teachers need to be smart enough to spark those debates without alienating their students.

I also think employers have the right not to renew contracts.

the bigger question in all this is not the first amendment, nor academic freedom, nor whether or not this guy will become the new poster boy for right wing idiots to claim liberals are out to get religious guys. The question is why bbell thinks this is a “slippery slope.”

hey bbell, so BYU must be at, or near, the bottom of the “slope.” Why shouldn’t public universities follow in the footsteps of the Lord’s University? Why should public schools be the only place for true academic freedom? Just because they are publicly funded?

This is well off topic, which I would take to email with pleasure if it disrupts the discussion.

You are aware of the history of tenure, right? Not just the ‘history’ of Beck, Savage and Limbaugh and their collective jerimand against public school teachers?

As a counterweight to the power of politicians? To protect scholars who publish controversial research?

Tenure in primary and secondary education was a 40 year fight, People were, are and will be murdered for trying to form unions.

Tenure protects scholars to research ‘useless’ areas of knowledge, like fruit flies. Which just happen to share 60% of their genome with humans and can run through thousands of generations in a reasonable amount of time. (That is a Sarah Palin allusion, for the those who get their news from a single source)

Do you have a policy alternative for protecting those who publish controversial research?

How about the basics, a science teacher teaching evolution in a town where the school board opposes it. If someone objects, should that teacher have a hearing and be fired only if he/she crosses certain pre defined lines, or should the board be able to fire the teacher with no warning?

I would submit that public universities and public schools in states that allow collective bargaining have gone far beyond using tenure to protect their employees from unfair personnel practices. For example, there are public school teachers in many of our schools that are not getting the job done and are not being held accountable by their school’s administration because their tenure and/or their union’s collective bargaining agreement makes it incredibly difficult to take any personnel action of any significance against them.

I believe there is already enough federal and state policy and case law to protect employee rights in public institutions. These measures are more than sufficient to protect public teachers in right to work states like Virginia, which does not allow collective bargaining but still has strongly worded laws, policies, & regulations that protect against unfair personnel practices.

Brett,
Err… Beck and Savage? What does that have to do with it? I’m talking principles and you go right into ad hominem character attacks about to people I’ve come across on AM radio 6 years ago while driving through the desert and board out of my mind.

As a principle you don’t have a right to be employed indefinitely simply based on a series of past behavior or contributions to your employment, especially when the public is footing the bill.

The people who pay taxes live and die by their performance and the performance of their employer. A teacher should be no different. Now if you’re complaining about combining teaching and researching, that’s something different and I haven’t considered it too closely.

But generally, I think very few people should have anything resembling tenure. And even in those few cases, such as the Supreme Court, why not ten-year (teehee) or twenty-year?

Oh, and if the good professor is worried about “homosexual acts which are injurious to [the mysterious] their health” then he should be cheering loudly for lesbian sex as is is the least dangerous of all.

So, Prof doesn’t know subject he’s teaching.
Prof. assumes (his brand of ) Catholic ways are the only ways and everyone else is going to hell.
Prof is an adjunct and can be fired for no particular reason at all.

Where’s the story again?

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html

The full text of the email for those so interested.

I should hope you are willing to address the “slippery slope” angle, as it is you who took it, naming this piece “Slippery Slope?” Do you have any other such incidents to share as an example of the ground underneath us shifting so that we begin sliding down the path to hell? Or is it the one example here?

Secondly is it really mainstream LDS/Catholic/Baptist/Muslim views that homosexuals are an aberration to natural life? Or is it not actually a fringe thought? I mean, it’s not a topic really addressed in the Bible. You get snippets of thought on the matter, but nothing authoritative. You get assumptions, supposition and cultural beliefs.

I don’t see a slippery slope. I see a pattern found also in private institutions where the institution releases those who veer off the general view of the institution. It’s not a slippery slope. It’s established standard operating procedure.

Admittedly I’m jumping in without having looked at this particular issue very closely, but public universities, and religion departments in particular, should teach about religion, and should not teach religion. The University of Alabama’s Department of Religion sums this up quite well: http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/introduction.html There’s even a paragraph on the First Amendment.

bbell,
FWIW, I don’t see a slippery slope anywhere here. I see a nonrenewal of an adjunct’s teaching contract that might be suspect. Basically, if he’s adjunct, he doesn’t have tenure, and his teaching is presumably contracted on a year-to-year (or semester-to-semester) basis.

Like MCQ said, U of I seems to have been dumb in the way they went about this–if he’s at-will, his contract can clearly not renew his contract for no reason or for a good reason. The only thing they can’t is for a bad reason; this may have been a bad reason, but I both don’t know enough about the situation and don’t know employment law well enough to comment intelligently.

So because he holds an opinion you don’t agree with, he has no rights to express that opinion and can be silenced for it. You only like rights for those who agree with you?

Lon, as I have said up-thread, he can think and believe and say anything he pleases, but if he is going to be a professor he needs to be able to express those sentiments in a way that won’t insult his audience.

Well you can send your kids to school to be shamed and insulted, I’ll send mine to schools where the teachers are smart enough to navigate public discourse.

“But MCQ, he’s not being non-renewed for being black or Mormon. He isn’t getting renewed because he did something stupid.”

Being Mormon is considered to be stupid by a fair segment of the population, ESO. Do you really want to take that position? Whose standards of “stupidity” are our public universities going to enforce?

ESO, come on. You’ve got to see that university instruction at a public school cannot possibly take place under the threat of a non-offensiveness clause. I understand why private institutions like BYU feel as though they can and should enforce certain restraints on speech, but public institutions really can’t. A lot of things are offensive to someone.

I had a professor that said the word “motherf***er” frequently in class. He was offensive as can be, but he was also one of the best professors I ever had. I’m so glad that someone didn’t decide to be offended on my behalf and fire him to protect my sensitive ears.

So because he holds an opinion you don’t agree with, he has no rights to express that opinion and can be silenced for it. You only like rights for those who agree with you?

I’ll jump in here, but let me first say 1) I’m speaking of this issue in general terms without a lot of knowledge of the U of I case, and 2) The link in comment 41 is a good summary of what it means to teach religion in a public institution.

Classroom instruction in religious studies departments are meant to equip students with the skills necessary to effectively describe the beliefs and practices of various individuals or groups of people. Classroom instruction is not about assessing the rightness or wrongness of these beliefs. The issue is, of course, more complex than this, so for more discussion on this issue see our post: http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/06/the-danger-of-the-bracket/

If someone teaching a class on Catholicism describes an unpopular position of Catholics, then this shouldn’t be an issue. On the other hand if someone teaching a class on Catholicism advocates a particular Catholic position, then this should be an issue; regardless of how well liked or disliked this position is. The line between advocacy and description is not always clear (and ‘description’ itself may also be a kind of ideological position); but someone who is an adjunct should strive to make sure s/he sides with description.

There are numerous other avenues a professor can advocate his or her position on a particular issue, but the classroom, in most cases, should not be one of them.

It’s not clear to me that the professor crossed the line from description to advocacy here, but in any case, there is absolutely no evidence of any other “issues” with this professor that I’m aware of.

Dan, public vs. private means everything in cases like this. Private universities have no state funding and can do whatever they want. Public universities are funded by the state, so any action they take to silence speech is action by the state, which implicates the first amendment. Under the first amendment the state cannot take a position that restrains the content of speech, though it can make time place and manner restrictions.

That’s interesting advice annegb. What’s the story behind that? Were you just offering some free advice to your fellow students via the school newspaper?

The importance of academic freedom cannot rest solely on the shoulders of whether or not an institution receives public funds.

MCQ–I agree that there is no evidence of other issues, all I am saying is that, in my experience, employers will defend borderline behavior of employees they consider valuable and use borderline behavior as a last straw to get rid of employees they don’t necessarily want.

I imagine it is mighty hard to prove wrongful termination one way or the other when dealing with non-renewal of a contract. Maybe the guy was a jerk to his colleagues. Maybe he skipped his office hours. Maybe they aren’t offering that course next semester. Maybe someone else can teach it next time around, etc etc. Maybe they just don’t have the money for him. As a contract worker, isn’t there the understanding that your contract may not be needed after it’s expiration?

Academic Freedom and the First Amendment are two different things.

Right; but I’m not sure the slippery slope argument you’re making hear doesn’t conflate the two.

As for the Missouri example, wow, that’s just horrible and perhaps more worthy of discussion than the OP.

I just threw it in with a letter I wrote after I worked in a bookstore and everybody had black backpacks. I wish I hadn’t said it now, I’m rather enbarrassed at my lack of class. It’s just a random irrational concern.

But I didn’t realize the newspaper had to be so careful. So I learned a tiny bit how a major learning institution works.

the question is, given that they are getting rid of him for the reason that they don’t like what he said, is that a violation of his constitutional rights? That’s what we’re talking about. How do you analyze that question?

Since his comments broach on advocacy, I would say ‘no’, none of his constitutional rights were violated. The University has an interest in distancing itself from advocating any particular religion, or even appearing to advocate any particular religion. I do think, however, that the case could be effectively made that principles of academic freedom have been violated. Whether he clearly advocated his religious beliefs as opposed to describing Catholic teaching, is not clear. At the institutional level a public university should distance itself from these kinds of situations. At the personal level, however, this is where something such as tenure comes into play. If this was a tenured faculty member he could more likely afford to challenge this boundary.

To restate (and perhaps clarify), it could be argued (rather persuasively) either way; but from an institutional perspective it makes sense to stay away from these kinds of shades of grey. This is, however, where something such as tenure comes into play (wow that rhymes). Someone tenured can examine, and play in, these shades of grey, often to the chagrin of the institution.

Here is the next step. I suspect either the University will back down or go to trial and lose.

http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/HvUIUC_Demand_letter.pdf

Tim, I would defend him regardless. You cannot have a first amendment right that protects only speech that you agree with. That is why the American Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Ill. Everyone found their message disgusting and repulsive and were appalled that they would go to Skokie of all places, to march. The case to stop them went all the way to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, they were allowed to march. That’s what the first amendment does, it protects even speech that we all hate, so that we all have the right to speak. It doesn’t make things easy and comfy for everyone, it just makes everyone free to speak.

Yet doesn’t the fact that he was these students’ teacher make a difference? This was a statement made as a representative of his university. Had he said such things in his own time to his own audience, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But he said them to students entrusted to him by the university, on the university’s dime.

I taught high school science for a couple of years. As a non-tenured public science teacher, I could have taught pseudo-science to my students, but I probably would’ve been fired over it. Yet that wouldn’t have been a violation of my First Amendment rights. I could have made disparaging comments about students or about their religion, their families, their sexual preferences, etc. in class, and probably would’ve been fired over it. Yet that wouldn’t have been a violation of my First Amendment rights.
At the end of the day, I could go home and say whatever I wanted to. I could blog about ridiculous pseudo-science. I could write blogs making fun of whatever religions I wanted to. I could exercise my First Amendment rights–as an individual, on my own time.

Had this professor stated the ideas in his email on his own time to his own audience, that would have been within his rights. Unfortunately, that’s not what he did.

“I fail to see why this is 100% a first amendment issue.”

That’s not what I said, is it?

Tim, my understanding of this is that he was teaching a class on catholicism and said that the catholic view on homosexuality was based on “natural law.” That’s not a statement of advocacy, necessarily, in my opinion. It’s a debatable point for certain, but it’s a view that one might express and make the subject of study in the context of a class on catholicism. Are we prepared to say that the state should be able to censor the points made the subject of study by a professor in a public university class? To me, that kind of speech is more important than a professor advocating positions on his own time to his own audience. We’re talking about a class at a public university here. Do we really want professors at public universities to be restricting their class content out of fear for their jobs. Do we just want to keep teaching in the mainstream and restrict everything else? Because that is the effect of what is happening here.

“I could exercise my First Amendment rights–as an individual, on my own time.”

Yes, you certainly could. And based on what you are saying, soon that will be the only place you will be able to exercise them. I’m appalled at the lack of outrage here. Are we so eager to just give up on freedom of expression at public universities? Doesn’t anyone see anything to fight for here?

“A tenured professor has no more “rights” then anyone else; but a tenured professor also does not have a contract to renew. A class offered by an adjunct is not worth the university’s trouble of defending in a situation that could be read different ways by different people. A university has fewer recourses to tenured faculty.”

First of all, it’s “than” not “then.” Further, no one is asking the university to defend anything, but perhaps free speech at a public university is something worthy of mounting a defense for. If that is “not worth the university’s trouble of defending” then nothing is. I guess our public universities are just all about commerce now. There was a time people found free speech to be worth dying for. Now it’s not even worth the price of a teaching contract. When your freedom of expression is gone, please remember that it was you who decided what it was worth.

MCQ,
The email is linked in the comments above. I recommend you go read it.

SmallAxe, I’m just focusing on the question that I consider the most important by far, which is the speech issue. Tenure is not relevant to that issue.

The establishment clause is not a real issue here because the school is not requiring the class; it is an elective. And as I said, I don’t see any evidence here that the professor is requiring the students to join catholicism or even sympathize with its views as part of the class. He stated a position regarding one view of catholic doctrine. He didn’t say that the students were even required to adopt that position. From what I can see, they were free to disagree with it. The only freedom I see being restricted here is the professor’s freedom to state certain views of catholic doctrine.

Sorry if you were bothered by my spelling correction. I see that problem a lot for some reason and it irritates me.

I’m just focusing on the question that I consider the most important by far, which is the speech issue. Tenure is not relevant to that issue.

My argument has been that you cannot separate out these issues. They are all a part of the same situation. There is no doubt that free speech is an issue here, but so are academic freedoms and the role of religion in a state institution.

The establishment clause is not a real issue here because the school is not requiring the class; it is an elective.

This isn’t true. Abington v. Schempp (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) has been used to ban any kind of sectarian advocacy at public schools (including universities), but to also open the way for the nonsectarian study of religion. It doesn’t matter if the class isn’t required.

And as I said, I don’t see any evidence here that the professor is requiring the students to join catholicism or even sympathize with its views as part of the class.

I just read the entire email, and I tend to agree with you; although he could have been a bit more careful. The last paragraph of his email, for instance, pushes in a direction of advocacy (although it’s not explicit).

I’ve always said that I haven’t looked at this situation very closely. If the school’s decision was based solely on this email then I would have to say that it’s most likely jumping the gun, and I would side with Howell.

“This isn’t true. Abington v. Schempp (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2708202356121821143&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) has been used to ban any kind of sectarian advocacy at public schools (including universities), but to also open the way for the nonsectarian study of religion. It doesn’t matter if the class isn’t required.”

Yes, it matters. As I said, I’m not sure there’s advocacy here, but an elective class at a university is a long way from bible readings for the whole school at the beginning of every day. Under this case, the university clearly cannot require this class, but in order to prove a violation of the establishment clause, it would have to be more than a class studying catholicism. As the case you cite says:

“it might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

The key word in that paragraph is “objectively.” I don’t think one can say that the email in question is strictly objective, but it is not advocating a particular religion either. It contains mostly an explanation of two ideas: utilitarianism and natural moral theory and applies them to sexuality. It has little to do with catholicism, but concludes with the idea that catholic views on morality are based on natural moral theory or, as the professor states it, “natural reality.” Saying that a particular moral view of sexuality is based on “natural reality” sounds like advocacy, but it appears to me that the professor is using “natural reality” to refer to natural moral theory. The two paragraphs prior to the concluding one begin with phrases that argue in favor of an objective reading of his statements: “If what I have said is true…” and “Natural Moral Theory says that…” Both of these phrases imply that he is giving objective instruction about a particular philosophy or moral view.

None of this is intended to imply that I agree with this professor’s logic. I think his tying together of catholic beliefs and “natural moral theory” is highly suspect. But from what we have access to, I don’t think he’s requiring the students to adopt that view, rather than explaining that such a view exists and what its principles are.