University Officials Act Like Kindergarteners

Just when I think academic idiocy, political correctness, and group-victimology can't get any sillier or more destructive to free thinking, they do. The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign has relieved a professor of his duties for teaching the Catholic view on homosexuality, in a course on Catholic teaching. Well--what can we expect from a University system which would hire Obama buddy William Ayers?

Dr. Kenneth Howell may or may not subscribe to the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and to his credit has never expressed his personal view on the matter. But he was paid by the university to teach about Catholic doctrine, and it would have been academically dishonest of him to lie about Catholic teaching on homosexuality. And an issue so much in front of the public certainly couldn't be ignored in a university course about Catholicism either. So without making judgments or expressing his approval or disapproval, the professor proceeded to state the doctrinal facts.

In an e-mail to all his students expanding on the theme, again expressing neither approval nor disapproval, Howell restated the Catholic position in response to a student question. One student apparently was asleep or listening to his I-Pod during the in-class lecture, so when he got the e-mail he was so stricken with horror, fear and loathing that he immediately reported the professor to school officials. Says this young budding academic genius: "Allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable." Hate speech my arse. I'm assuming he hasn't yet taken the uncensored course on Islam.

Howell wasn't even solely discussing, and therefore wasn't specifically emphasizing, the Catholic view. He had been asked to compare the utilitarian and natural moral law views on homosexuality as they relate to Catholic doctrine. That is a very intelligent question which calls for careful analysis and discussion, which Dr. Howell provided. But it may also have been a setup. Perhaps the ultrasensitive homosexuals and their supporters didn't have enough hard evidence against this horrible homophobe and simply wanted some kind of documentation. On the other hand, it could just be that a really stupid student missed the lecture and didn't know his tender lily soul had been attacked until he read the e-mail. Who knows? Who cares?

Ya know, when you sign up for a course on natural fertilizer, you should be prepared for someone to talk shit. And when you sign up for a course on Catholicism, you should be prepared to hear a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from those of your fellow liberals. You should also be prepared to accept the concept that giving the facts about a viewpoint is hardly the same thing as advocating that viewpoint. But try to explain that to college students who have heard only the left wing revisionist version of pretty much everything their entire lives.

Where Howell went wrong was in actually presenting an adult, intelligent, serious, and accurate description of one point of debate among the utilitarians and natural moral law advocates. But these students are used to nothing more complicated or intellectually challenging than professorial grunts such as "Marxism good, capitalism bad." Natural moral law, properly analyzed, says that morality must be a response to reality. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at reality. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons who are fitted for that final act."

That is not an expression of Howell's opinion (though outside the academic arena he may or may not agree with it). It is an entirely accurate description of natural moral law as announced by the Catholic Church. How refreshing to have a professor who can intelligently discuss an actual point of view held by millions (billions?) of people and most religious institutions in direct answer to a question posed without adding his own editorial comments on the truth or falsity of the position.

Catholic doctrine and natural moral law also posit that there must be a connection between sex and procreation. Is that my opinion? Is that Dr. Howell's opinion? What difference does it make in an academic setting? It's an accurate description of Catholic doctrine, the course is about Catholic doctrine, and the question posed was about Catholic doctrine. For once, we actually have a professor who simply gives an accurate answer rather than a predigested opinion of a subject that he may or may not agree with.

University president Michael Hogan responded to inquiries about the dismissal with the usual academic gobbledygook about academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. In other words, he did the exact opposite of what professor Howell did. He dodged the question and left nobody knowing more after his speechifying baloney than they did before it. He also paraphrased the UI Handbook, which says: "Academic freedom is essential to the functioning of a university. It applies to its teaching, research, and public service and involves both faculty and students."

Of course he neglected to mention that the professor who is now not allowed to teach anything at UI had received the plaudits of his students and an academic award from the faculty and administration for teaching exactly the same subject in exactly the same way just the previous semester. The most effusive words of praise for Howell had come from the entire faculty of the UI Department of Religion.

These tender reeds who can't survive the statement of facts without opinion should all be kicked out on their sensitive butts and the professor should be reinstated immediately with an open public apology from all the cowards and bullies involved in his dismissal. I'm not holding my breath for that. However, the Alliance Defense Fund has already sent a demand letter to the school demanding reinstatement for professor Howell no later than July 16 (yesterday, by the time of this publication) or face a lawsuit. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has also indicated an interest in the matter, but has made no formal statement or taken any action thus far.

I am alternately annoyed and infuriated by liberals who can't get it through their heads that there are actually people who don't hold the same point of view. But even that's not the issue here. Howell didn't state either his view or his opinion. He gave a yeoman's answer to a direct question about a subject that he was hired to teach openly, honestly and accurately. Try to get that out of a lefty professor. These nervous nellies who go to the university to have their own opinions validated are going to be the death of genuine university learning. University administrators who act on these complaints from silly students with heads full of Jell-O without even considering that a dismissal of a highly qualified professor could be seriously injurious to academic freedom and solid thought should be tossed out along with the students too weak to handle the truth.