Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality

Champaign, Ill., Jul 9, 2010 / 06:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor for teaching in a class on Catholicism that homosexual acts violate natural moral law.

Dr. Kenneth Howell was informed that he could no longer teach in the university's department of religion. The decision came after a student complained that Howell's statements were “hate speech.”

In response to his firing, Howell wrote a letter to friends explaining the events surrounding his dismissal.
Howell said in the letter, which was obtained by CNA, that he first came to teach at the St. John's Catholic Newman Center in 1998. At the time, courses on the Catholic faith were taught through the Newman Center, he explained, but in 2000, an agreement was made with the University of Illinois' department of religion, and he became an adjunct professor in the department and taught classes on Catholicism.

“Since the Fall of 2001, I have been regularly teaching two courses in the department of religion,” Howell explained. One of the classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.

“Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts,” he explained.
Howell said he taught the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”

To show how homosexual behavior would be considered under competing moral systems, Howell sent an e-mail to the students contrasting utilitarianism with natural moral law. “I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would,” Howell said. “This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”

A complaint about Howell's statement was sent in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The e-mail was sent by a student who was not in Howell's class, but said he was writing on behalf of a friend who was in the class and wished to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell's statements on homosexuality, calling them “hate speech.”

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," said the e-mail, according to The News-Gazette. "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 that at the end of the semester, he was called into Robert McKim's office and told that he would no longer be permitted to teach for the department. Howell objected that to dismiss him for teaching the Catholic position in a class on Catholicism was a violation of academic freedom and first amendment rights. “This made no difference,” he said. “After that conversation and a couple of emails, Professor McKim insisted that this decision to dismiss me stood firm.”

According to the local paper The News-Gazette, Howell said he has had students disagree with him in the past, but never in such a manner.

"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," he 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."

The News-Gazette reported that Howell also said he was open with students about his own beliefs as a practicing Catholic. "It's not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it's pertinent to the subject," he said.

Later, Howell said, Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, the current Director of the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, informed him that the Center would not be able to continue employing him since there was no longer any teaching for him to do.

“I suggested that we work together to have courses on Catholicism taught at the Newman Center that could be accredited by a Catholic university and that could be transferred into the University of Illinois for credit,” Howell said. “In this way, the students whom we had been called to serve could continue to be instructed in the Catholic Faith.”

However, Monsignor Ketcham said that he had no interest in such a plan, according to Howell.
Howell is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to seek legal redress.

David French, senior counsel for the ADF said in a written statement, "A university cannot censor professors' speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech 'offensive.' Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus."

While I disagree on Howell's stance, I don't feel that his statements rise to the level of "hate speech". Here, in Canada, there are laws against hate speech, and essentially the litmus test is if someone advocates or promotes violence against a group of people, ethnic group, religious sect, etc. Howell did not do that. He was stating an opinion, and I feel that's protected speech -- not a hate crime, even if what he said was distasteful. I think that the religious undertones of this issue are not pertinent either. If I were to state in a blog, or a street corner, that I hate homosexuals, or blacks, or Jews, it would be the same thing -- providing I did not advocate violence against any of these groups. He was stating an opinion, however repugnant to some, but he's legally entitled to do so. In a democracy we must sometimes tolerate those whom we disagree with.

Saying homosexuality is immoral isn't hate speech, but he ought to have kept his views to himself. He is there to teach facts, not to indoctrinate children with his superstitions about what will happen is a man puts his penis into a male anus. The difference for me is the inclusion of the word "moral". Homosexuality is unnatural, but he has no right to pass moral judgement on people who are homosexual.

If he were a "liberal" enforcing homosexuality as natural and normal, there would be outrage from the right wing.

Some would argue, though, that it cause others to commit violence... which is a weak argument since those that hate (KKK types) are going to hate no matter what anyone says.

But you are correct, if it incites violence, then it's a different story. People take hate speech too far in some instances. IMO, there should no such "laws" since we have laws on the books. Which brings me to the point that if someone kills a guy for no reason, he gets X amount of years in prison. If he kills that same guy because he's gay, he gets a stiffer sentence. By that logic, if a gay man kills someone because he hates straights, then should he get a hate crime sentence?

Questions to ponder.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:If he were a "liberal" enforcing homosexuality as natural and normal, there would be outrage from the right wing.

So, it goes to show that depending on what side of the fence one is on, it's an outrage.

TexasBlue wrote:Some would argue, though, that it cause others to commit violence... which is a weak argument since those that hate (KKK types) are going to hate no matter what anyone says.

I think it is a good argument. When you attempt to convince a group of people that a certain group are bad, immoral, wicked, evil... whatever, then you dehumanise them.

TexasBlue wrote:But you are correct, if it incites violence, then it's a different story.

Incitement to violence doesn't need to be overt to be incitement to violence. Gentle persuasion can often be just as dangerous. Many Muslim extremists get sucked in through gentle words and apparently reasonable argument. Only later when the claws are in do they feed the heavy stuff.

For a perfect example of this, can I recommend the documentary "Jesus Camp".

TexasBlue wrote:By that logic, if a gay man kills someone because he hates straights, then should he get a hate crime sentence.

Yes he should.

TexasBlue wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:If he were a "liberal" enforcing homosexuality as natural and normal, there would be outrage from the right wing.

So, it goes to show that depending on what side of the fence one is on, it's an outrage.

No, it goes to show that political sides are often blind to it when it is their side doing it and quick to complain when it is the other side.

Human nature is to hate. We've seen it over 100s of years. We see it today. The Balkans are a good example. People were kept in check by ol' Tito back in the day. Saddam kept the hate in check to a point.. everyone hated the Kurds. But the Sunni's and Shiites were kept on a leash.

My point is, gov't can control hate but people are going to hate regardless.

Another point is one i've made before. I don't like gov't telling me that i can't say something even if it's repugnant to 99% of the people around me. I look at the KKK type and others like them as pure loons that can't be reasoned with. Some people are going to hate blacks no matter what.

But i do understand where you're coming from.... and noted.

No but if you are a teacher then you have a duty of care to the people entrusted into your classroom. Teachers are authority figures and as such they ought to have better standards than that.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No but if you are a teacher then you have a duty of care to the people entrusted into your classroom. Teachers are authority figures and as such they ought to have better standards than that.

Huh?

He's saying that teachers shouldn't let their nature of hate run free in the class room and give his personal opinions to his students. He's there to present facts and to let students come to their own conclusion.