Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[GGGG]

Fear?  Hardly.  How can you make marriage legal for one group and not another?  Pretty simple question, no one seems to ever be able to answer it for me.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, some people want to change it to allow for gays to marriage.  Well if you do that, why shouldn't you allow it to be changed in other ways to bring in other views on marriage?  Why are only SOME other forms ok and not all?  Sounds awfully intolerant that only ONE additional way should be accepted.

All you have to do is make marriage legal between two consenting adults.  There is nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.  The arguments that you then have to allow group marriage, marriage with kids and animals, etc. etc. is a red herring.

As for policies, etc, I think you greatly undervalue what someone in that position can do.  If the position was simply to herd cats, then why on earth are we worried about scholarship, background, research, publishing acumen, etc, in these candidates?  Simple, because it's a bit more than "herding cats" and you know it.

Actually, the vast majority of what any dean does is administrative in nature.  Scholarship, etc. is important because professors want to have someone who is a legitimate scholar runiing the college.  I mean, what about the President of the University?  They have to be a tenured professor as well, and they hardly do anything academic any longer.

The fact is she is well qualified and the nature of her research is keeping her out of the position.

Let me also add, that at the school I work for, I have no idea what the academic backgroud is of three of the five deans at the school.  I know the backgroud of one because he's a good friend of mine...and know the background of another because I interviewed her as part of the search process.  It honestly isn't very important once they get into the job.

[4everwarriors]

Don't get me wrong Ari, I could not care less what someone does in the bedroom.  It's private, people should be able to do what they want as long as they are consenting adults.

What bothers me the hypocrisy from the "tolerance" bunch.  In their view, you are intolerant if you are unwilling to accept change in tradition, etc.  What is hilarious about this is that this same group of tolerance preachers have NO TOLERANCE toward those that don't want those changes.  As if their beliefs, their thoughts don't count.  These people must despise the Amish, the Quakers, etc....and certainly anyone that believes change for the sake of change may not be the right choice.

You see, tolerance is a one way street which is hypocritical as hell.

Always thought it was weird that a priest taught the theology course, "Christian Marriage."

[Hards Alumni]

All you have to do is make marriage legal between two consenting adults.  There is nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.  The arguments that you then have to allow group marriage, marriage with kids and animals, etc. etc. is a red herring.


Actually, the vast majority of what any dean does is administrative in nature.  Scholarship, etc. is important because professors want to have someone who is a legitimate scholar runiing the college.  I mean, what about the President of the University?  They have to be a tenured professor as well, and they hardly do anything academic any longer.

The fact is she is well qualified and the nature of her research is keeping her out of the position.

Let me also add, that at the school I work for, I have no idea what the academic backgroud is of three of the five deans at the school.  I know the backgroud of one because he's a good friend of mine...and know the background of another because I interviewed her as part of the search process.  It honestly isn't very important once they get into the job.

This.

[Henry Sugar]

Somewhat related to this whole thread.  I am very, very interested to see what transpires with the hiring of the next University President.

I am totally filled with confidence.

[MUMBA]

I really don’t mean to start a holy war w/ Chicos, but there are elements of his last two posts that beg for a closer read and as much scrutiny as an extended lunch hour will allow.  Just know that I offer my comments (in red below) in the most constructive and respectful way possible. 

“Fear?  Hardly.  How can you make marriage legal for one group and not another?  Pretty simple question, no one seems to ever be able to answer it for me.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, some people want to change it to allow for gays to marriage.  Well if you do that, why shouldn't you allow it to be changed in other ways to bring in other views on marriage?  Why are only SOME other forms ok and not all?  Sounds awfully intolerant that only ONE additional way should be accepted.  [Slippery slope fallacy?  Does legalization of gay marriage automatically mean I can marry my dog?  Let’s not forget that restraint is possible.  The premise that one thing automatically leads to another is false]  [Red Herring fallacy? This thread has had its share of tangents, but it is primarily about rescinding a dean’s offer, not the merits of gay marriage.]

So sorry Sultan, fear isn't it at all.  It's the hypocrisy in it all that bothers me.  [Slippery Slope arguments are a favorite tactic of fear mongers.  Regardless of how you intended it, the logic can double as an appeal to fear.  So forgive Sultan if he jumped to a conclusion you did not intend.] 

As for policies, etc, I think you greatly undervalue what someone in that position can do.  If the position was simply to herd cats, then why on earth are we worried about scholarship, background, research, publishing acumen, etc, in these candidates?  Simple, because it's a bit more than "herding cats" and you know it. [AGREED. Dean’s have influence in the hiring/promotion process, which is precisely why the rescinded offer is so egregious.  The Junior faculty were dealt a conflicted message – “push the boundaries of knowledge…just stay within the boundaries.’’]

“Don't get me wrong Ari, I could not care less what someone does in the bedroom.  It's private, people should be able to do what they want as long as they are consenting adults.  [AGREED…but if I extend your logic…how can we justify rescinding an offer to a dean?]

What bothers me the hypocrisy from the "tolerance" bunch.  In their view you are intolerant if you are unwilling to accept change in tradition, etc.  [Straw Man?  Who is this “tolerance bunch?” You’ve attributed the “tolerance bunch” some pretty weak positions.  Can the “tolerance bunch” please step forward and clarify?]   What is hilarious about this is that this same group of tolerance preachers have NO TOLERANCE toward those that don't want those changes.  [I am intolerant of traditions that are unjust and discriminatory.  Does this make me a “tolerance preacher?”  I think it just makes me a reasonable person.]   .  As if their beliefs, their thoughts don't count.  These people must despise the Amish, the Quakers, etc....and certainly anyone that believes change for the sake of change may not be the right choice.  [Are you suggesting that civil rights for homosexuals is ‘Change for the sake of change?’  I think your gay and lesbian friends, family members, coworkers, neighbors, etc see it as more of a justice issue.]

You see, tolerance is a one way street which is hypocritical as hell.”

My parting comment…I don't mean to harp on Chico's last 2 posts. The sentiments seem to be shared by other posters as well.  It seems like there is an appeal to tradition imbedded in these posts --- ie older ideas are better or hold more truth by virtue of their age.  We can’t determine the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.  Appeals to the authority of the Church have similar limitations. 

If Catholic University’s cut-off constructive dialogue/research, students won’t have a safe place to test their own convictions.  My Jesuit education tested my convictions, and I came through the process with a far more mature understanding of my faith as I would have otherwise.  I think that’s what a transformative education is capable of.

[Toodles1980]

Since this is on facebook I will post this letter, and say this sums up my feelings on this matter to a T. It also may explain why an intervention by the archbishop may have been effective. Also, while all on this board are Marquette basketball fans, the reality is many of us went to Marquette for it's academic stature and respect. Anything that harms that reputation should be of concern to all of us. Agree with the decision or not, this is a black eye for Marquette, be it because they are incompetent or homophobic, neither sets well with me. 

"Colleagues,

The events of the past week are a grave and serious matter to all of us because they reflect on Marquette University's national reputation as an academic institution--specifically, whether we are open to the diversity of leadership, opinions and ideas that the "sifting and winnowing for the truth" in all serious universities demands. The fallout from the withdrawal of a formal offer of the A&S deanship to Dr. O'Brien (notably, a full professor and department chair at a companion Jesuit, Catholic university!) will greatly influence Marquette's ability to recruit and retain faculty (especially women), will diminish our intellectual standing in the eyes of other institutions of higher education and, depending on how Dr. O'Brien decides to proceed, possibly result in censure (again) for Marquette from the AAUP.

For starters, let me say the following, for purposes of complete disclosure. If I had been Provost, and two "acceptable" dean candidate names had been forwarded to me (as reported in this instance), after reviewing the record, I might not have selected Dr. O'Brien. It would NOT have been because her research is somehow contrary to Catholic Church teachings or unsuitable methodologically, but rather, given all the daunting fiscal challenges that Marquette already faces, her writings could prove to be an avoidable distraction to completing other important tasks as dean. That said, after a full review cycle by Marquette University, including (presumptively) the required dossier analysis about what candidate O'Brien contributes to the Catholic, Jesuit nature of our university, an offer of employment as A&S dean was made to her--supported by the search committee and Provost. According to Dr Snow, O'Brien in fact accepted that offer.

Now, some specifics, all of which imply deeply troubling questions for our university. To these, senior faculty should press for answers. Meaningful involvement in university governance, a faculty responsibility, requires no less at this defining moment.

The "objectionable" excerpts of Dr. O'Brien's scholarship, drawn from on-line postings by gay females and conducted by her as a sociologist involved in scholarly gender studies, include explicit vignettes of lesbian sex, that no doubt some readers would find offensive or off-putting. At one point in those writings, Dr. O'Brien implies empathy with such practices, but that clearly ought NOT be a problem, given that our Marquette University diversity statement explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The more potent objection may lie in Ms. O'Brien exploring areas of sexuality that do not reflect well on our "Catholic identity", a term used in the University press release on this matter and, perhaps, also utilized as a synonym for Christian "family values”. This is not the place for a detailed tangent directed to those gentle (Alumni?) souls offended by Dr. O'Brien's quotations, but it is worth noting that that the God of the Old Testament, at one time, calls on his followers to murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who are to be taken and forcibly raped; at other times that same God seems to allow for slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave, child abuse and bashing babies against rocks.

The point is, exactly what are the "family values" of Judeo-Christian religiosity that cannot be intellectually discussed and debated within the confines of a university?

In a letter to A&S faculty, Prof. Nancy Snow of the Philosophy Department states that Provost John Pauly favors this appointment. Does he now NOT support it? Was the Provost told to change his mind or resign OR did he quietly acquiesce? Did he protest on behalf of faculty prerogatives at all? It seems to me that Dr. Pauly also owes the university faculty a clear explanation concerning precisely where the objections to this appointment originated since I would assume that his name, and perhaps Rev. Wild's as well, were on the appointment offer.

In the University news release on this matter, the administration also states that the work of the search committee unfolded "without as much due diligence as was warranted.” Yet members of the A&S dean search committee have consistently and forcefully maintained that the nature of Dr. O'Brien's scholarship was precisely laid out for all to discern. This "blame the search committee" strategy, disturbing in itself as an independent event, seems now to have been abandoned.

Is the post facto "veto" to Dr. O'Brien originating from "big" donors or influential trustees? Dr. Snow has implied this could be the source of the reversal. If so, who exactly are these individuals and what is the nature of their objection? If it is to Dr. O'Brien's sexual orientation, they seem to advocate Marquette violating Wisconsin law as well as its own HR policy. If the university takes such advice fearing a reduction in donations, that speaks devastatingly to the motivations and moral courage of our upper administration.

Or, are these events based on an intervention from Bishop Listecki? Fr. Wild reportedly hinted at this in a recent meeting with A&S department chairs. A strict reading of Ex Corde Ecclesiae (The Vatican document on the Catholicity of universities) would put decisions that affect the Catholic nature of the university under the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. But universities with firm moral grounding have regularly resisted such interference, with Notre Dame, refusing to rescind their campus speaking invitation to President Obama (despite his pro-choice policy), being a recent example. Indeed, in the past 60 days, Marquette itself has reiterated the academic freedom of theologian Dan McGuire, who calls for the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI for his alleged role in the decades long cover-up of pedophilic priests. Should the O'Brien reversal flow from the local prelate, does the Archbishop Listecki now have veto power over future academic appointments at Marquette University OR is this just another blame deflecting ploy by administration? Faculty should press the question.

And finally, how did all this come about at the eleventh hour? Who exactly convinced Rev. Wild to become suddenly engaged and, what precisely was the nature of those overt persuaders' objections and/or veiled contingencies? The Journal-Sentinel reports that Marquette University canceled a scheduled interview on this matter because this situation had now become a legal issue. One hopes Marquette's strategy of last resort is not to pay off Dr. O'Brien for her future silence on this matter, while hoping another round of campus "listening sessions" will mollify the faculty before they disperse for the summer. While I do not begrudge Prof. O'Brien some compensation from this shameful matter, Marquette faculty members need only surf on-line comments and Twitter postings about these events to ascertain how much perceptual damage to our university reputation has been done by this magnificent ineptitude.

It is often said, but with varying levels of belief depending who says it, that "the university is its faculty.” Any current internet search (see recent articles in the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education) will reveal that our university standing has been palpably damaged around the country by this clumsy and unfortunate set of events. The faculty of Marquette deserves a detailed response concerning how our leadership intends to go about rectifying the damage to our most precious possession--our university integrity.

Gene Laczniak


(Professor Lacniak is a Professor of Marketing and former Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs at Marquette.)"

[Henry Sugar]

Anything that harms that reputation should be of concern to all of us. Agree with the decision or not, this is a black eye for Marquette, be it because they are incompetent or homophobic, neither sets well with me. 

Bottom line'd - our beloved Alma Mater has acted in such a way that makes our degrees a little less valuable.

Thanks for sharing the letter. 

Also, I didn't know that this was getting covered in the NYTimes and the Chronicle of Higher Education.  <sigh>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/education/07marquette.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Marquette-U-Professors/65451/

Stephen L. Franzoi, a professor of psychology who was also on the committee, disputed that characterization of the panel's work. He told the Journal Sentinel that the committee had advised senior administrators not to choose Ms. O'Brien if the university was not willing to support her, if her sexual orientation or her scholarship became targets of criticism. "To say now that we were not careful enough is ludicrous," he said. "They should have been prepared to defend their choice."

[Sir Lawrence]

More press this afternoon:

MU faculty senate takes up issue of rescinded job offer
By Sharif Durhams of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: May 10, 2010 2:00 p.m.
Marquette University faculty may consider a range of actions including censuring university President Father Robert A. Wild and calling for Wild's resignation Monday afternoon in response to the school's decision to pull a job offer from a lesbian candidate.
Marquette's Faculty Senate may also consider calling for Wild to re-offer the job of the dean of Marquette's College of Arts and Sciences to Seattle University professor Jodi O'Brien and to apologize to her.
When asked what options might be considered, Faculty Senate Chairman Edward Fallone, a professor in the law school, would only say that a wide variety of options had been floated over the weekend and it was unclear whether any of them would come up for a vote.
A vote of no confidence or a call for resignation by a university's faculty typically has no binding effect, but it can undermine the president's authority. Wild has already announced he planned to retire as Marquette's president next year after 15 years in the post.
A campaign to challenge the university's leader started last week after Marquette announced it was rescinding an offer to O'Brien to take the deanship. Marquette has said O'Brien's sexual orientation was not a factor in the decision to pull the job offer. Some of O'Brien's published works "relating to Catholic mission and identity" were the issue, according to a university spokeswoman.
Officials haven't provided more detail about what writings might have raised red flags. But Wild told members of the dean search committee last week that there was an article in which "sex positions" and "sex toys" were mentioned, and that the passage could be interpreted as autobiographical, said psychology professor Stephen Franzoi, who served on the committee. O'Brien's work includes a sociological study of vignettes on lesbian sex. Franzoi said members of the search committee reviewed the work again and did not believe the passages were autobiographical and that the article was a scholarly work.
Wild also told search committee members that some of O'Brien's writings on same-sex marriage weren't consistent with the church's teachings.
O'Brien is dean of the anthropology and sociology department at Seattle University, which, like Marquette, is a Jesuit school. She had already visited Milwaukee on a house-hunting trip and said last week that she was "stunned and disappointed" at the decision to withdraw the job offer.
Marquette academics have been scrutinizing O'Brien's work for more than two years. The university's College of Arts and Sciences has been searching for a dean since the previous dean stepped down in December 2007, and the university has conducted two searches. O'Brien had been previously recruited by a third party for the job during the first search and was placed on a short list of candidates, but she declined the job for family reasons, Franzoi said.
Recruitment reopened and the new selection committee approached O'Brien directly, asking her to reconsider her application, Franzoi said.

[GGGG]

I think it would do the Faculty Senate a world of good to drop it and leave it from here.  Fr. Wild has the authority to hire whomever he wants as the Dean.  He is under no obligation to hire her, and all this is going to do is make it difficult when it comes time to hire the next President.

[PBRme]

The Provost is the one who needs to go as I'm sure he was the one who had final say on reviewing the candidates and recommending to Wild. 

Of course has anyone ever been fired from MU? since Deane 

[GGGG]

Updated...apparently the Faculty Senate is not going to cesure Fr. Wild.

And I just remembered that I had Nancy Snow her first semester on campus for my Theory of Ethics class.

[wildbillsb]

Irony of ironies:

1910 - President of Marquette University, James J. McCabe SJ, stands up to incredible institutional /external pressures and admits women to my alma mater.

2010 (The Centennial Celebration of Women at Marquette!) - President Robert J. Wild SJ caves.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I really don’t mean to start a holy war w/ Chicos, but there are elements of his last two posts that beg for a closer read and as much scrutiny as an extended lunch hour will allow.  Just know that I offer my comments (in red below) in the most constructive and respectful way possible. 

“Fear?  Hardly.  How can you make marriage legal for one group and not another?  Pretty simple question, no one seems to ever be able to answer it for me.  Marriage is between a man and a woman, some people want to change it to allow for gays to marriage.  Well if you do that, why shouldn't you allow it to be changed in other ways to bring in other views on marriage?  Why are only SOME other forms ok and not all?  Sounds awfully intolerant that only ONE additional way should be accepted.  [Slippery slope fallacy?  Does legalization of gay marriage automatically mean I can marry my dog?  Let’s not forget that restraint is possible.  The premise that one thing automatically leads to another is false]  [Red Herring fallacy? This thread has had its share of tangents, but it is primarily about rescinding a dean’s offer, not the merits of gay marriage.]

So sorry Sultan, fear isn't it at all.  It's the hypocrisy in it all that bothers me.  [Slippery Slope arguments are a favorite tactic of fear mongers.  Regardless of how you intended it, the logic can double as an appeal to fear.  So forgive Sultan if he jumped to a conclusion you did not intend.] 

As for policies, etc, I think you greatly undervalue what someone in that position can do.  If the position was simply to herd cats, then why on earth are we worried about scholarship, background, research, publishing acumen, etc, in these candidates?  Simple, because it's a bit more than "herding cats" and you know it. [AGREED. Dean’s have influence in the hiring/promotion process, which is precisely why the rescinded offer is so egregious.  The Junior faculty were dealt a conflicted message – “push the boundaries of knowledge…just stay within the boundaries.’’]

“Don't get me wrong Ari, I could not care less what someone does in the bedroom.  It's private, people should be able to do what they want as long as they are consenting adults.  [AGREED…but if I extend your logic…how can we justify rescinding an offer to a dean?]

What bothers me the hypocrisy from the "tolerance" bunch.  In their view you are intolerant if you are unwilling to accept change in tradition, etc.  [Straw Man?  Who is this “tolerance bunch?” You’ve attributed the “tolerance bunch” some pretty weak positions.  Can the “tolerance bunch” please step forward and clarify?]   What is hilarious about this is that this same group of tolerance preachers have NO TOLERANCE toward those that don't want those changes.  [I am intolerant of traditions that are unjust and discriminatory.  Does this make me a “tolerance preacher?”  I think it just makes me a reasonable person.]   .  As if their beliefs, their thoughts don't count.  These people must despise the Amish, the Quakers, etc....and certainly anyone that believes change for the sake of change may not be the right choice.  [Are you suggesting that civil rights for homosexuals is ‘Change for the sake of change?’  I think your gay and lesbian friends, family members, coworkers, neighbors, etc see it as more of a justice issue.]

You see, tolerance is a one way street which is hypocritical as hell.”

My parting comment…I don't mean to harp on Chico's last 2 posts. The sentiments seem to be shared by other posters as well.  It seems like there is an appeal to tradition imbedded in these posts --- ie older ideas are better or hold more truth by virtue of their age.  We can’t determine the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.  Appeals to the authority of the Church have similar limitations. 

If Catholic University’s cut-off constructive dialogue/research, students won’t have a safe place to test their own convictions.  My Jesuit education tested my convictions, and I came through the process with a far more mature understanding of my faith as I would have otherwise.  I think that’s what a transformative education is capable of.

I'm happy to take this off line if you wish.  You and I just disagree on this subject.  I believe, like Obama, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Not any other pairing.  You are free to disagree.  The Pope, Catholic teachings, Islamic teachings, Jewish teachings, etc, etc also come to the same conclusion.

[wyzgy]

You can ask the same question tomorrow about the POTUS SCOTUS nomination.  I swear it's Michael Myers on a drinking binge.

nope-chas bono clone

[ChicosBailBonds]

All you have to do is make marriage legal between two consenting adults.  There is nothing intolerant about that whatsoever.  The arguments that you then have to allow group marriage, marriage with kids and animals, etc. etc. is a red herring.

How is that fair?  Why should it only be two?  Why are you intolerant of those people who want to marry many people?  Why don't their rights come into play?  Why only THIS exception?  How can you decide that two men marrying is more acceptable than 3 men marrying?  You may call it a slippery slope, I call it a simple question of fundamental fairness.  Otherwise, you're being just as discriminatory as what you accuse traditional marriage supporters of being.

Sorry, it's not a red herring.  There's a distinct reason why this is one institution that has been the chosen way by all major religions, all major societies, even those that are about as completely different in other ways while standing the test of time.  I have many gay and lesbian friends, I get the arguments, but they are not compelling in my opinion.

[tower912]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/93533724.html

Update:   Apparently, the outside pressure was from the archbishop. 

[GGGG]

How is that fair?  Why should it only be two?  Why are you intolerant of those people who want to marry many people?  Why don't their rights come into play?  Why only THIS exception?  How can you decide that two men marrying is more acceptable than 3 men marrying?  You may call it a slippery slope, I call it a simple question of fundamental fairness.  Otherwise, you're being just as discriminatory as what you accuse traditional marriage supporters of being.

The issue to me is one of *individual* rights.  Our society allows heterosexual couples to marry and reap all sorts of benefits from their union.  We do not allow the same for homosexual couples.  If I were running things, I would allow any adult couple who wishes to be civilly married, to get married and reap those benefits.  Our society doesn't allow for group marriage so no one's individual rights are being restricted by a discriminatory policy.

Now, I don't think my church should allow homosexual marriage because there is no Biblical basis for it.

[mu_hilltopper]

Boy .. reading today's JS article .. changes my mind.

I believed the "big donor theory" .. or at least the arch-bishop theory .. now it just seems like Wild did this all by himself -- offering, then rescinding the offer.

No one left to blame.  What a monumental lapse.

But one thing we know MU has experience with .. bad PR.    They'll be fine.   We're a few months from them releasing a presser explaining how a new record of applications has been set for next year.

[4everwarriors]

You're right. MU will be fine sans $$$$ lost in the lawsuit.

[LON]

No matter your stance, this is just...embarrassing.

[MUMBA]

I believe, like Obama, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Not any other pairing.  You are free to disagree.  The Pope, Catholic teachings, Islamic teachings, Jewish teachings, etc, etc also come to the same conclusion.

In the span of 4 sentences, you made 2 appeals to authority (Obama and the Pope) and appeals to 3 traditions (Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism).  So if I deconstruct the logic...

* 'Marriage is only between a man and a woman' is an idea that must be true simply because an authority figure says so. (as if authorities have never been wrong)

* 'Marriage is only between a man and a woman' is an idea that must be true simply because it has been around for a while.  (as if long held beliefs have never turned out to be wrong)

* 'Marriage is only between a man and a woman' is an idea that must be true simply because it is widely held.  (as if poblic sentiment has never been wrong)

When it comes to discourse, I am always open to persuasion.  It just takes a well reasoned insight to move me.

How is that fair?  Why should it only be two?  Why are you intolerant of those people who want to marry many people?  Why don't their rights come into play?  Why only THIS exception?  How can you decide that two men marrying is more acceptable than 3 men marrying?  You may call it a slippery slope, I call it a simple question of fundamental fairness.  Otherwise, you're being just as discriminatory as what you accuse traditional marriage supporters of being.

Apparently my slippery slope comment failed to get traction with you, so i'll try a different angle... so how about the false dilema fallacy?  It seems that you are offering two alternatives: (1) the moral absolutist: marriage is only between man and woman, and (2) the moral relativist: the wheels are off and anyone can marry anyone or anything.  

Do you think there might be suitable alternatives in between?  We'll never know unless we can probe those questions at institutions of higher learning...such as Marquette.  Which brings us back to the point of this thread: the decision to rescind the offer to the dean on the basis that she is inconsistent with the Catholic identity of the school (not gay marriage --- a red herring by definition).

[MUMBA]

Now, I don't think my church should allow homosexual marriage because there is no Biblical basis for it.

Sultan, your posts have more depth than most, and you've salvaged this thread when it was turning ugly.  To build on your last comment, please consider this...

I am not a biblical scholar by any means, but it seems that the Gospel had an awful lot to say about (1) Jesus challenging the orthodoxy of his day, and (b) Jesus looking out for the oppressed, the lepers, etc.

So who are the pharisees of our times?  Who are the lepers of our society?  

My parting comment for the day...The best takeaway I got from my Jesuit education was theology made simple: live life in the imitation of Christ.  So I try to calmly assert myself when the Church leans on its people with the weight of authority and tradition.  And I try to show some love to the modern day lepers who are pushed off to the margins of our society.  

[WellsstreetWanderer]

A lot of well thought out opinions, and as is suitable , conflicting ones. I think it boils down to what Marquette desires to be the face of the University. Someone who has written a description of her sex life isn't the face we need to put forward. I also think we should be looking for someone from an Institution people have actually heard of.

[GGGG]

A lot of well thought out opinions, and as is suitable , conflicting ones. I think it boils down to what Marquette desires to be the face of the University. Someone who has written a description of her sex life isn't the face we need to put forward. I also think we should be looking for someone from an Institution people have actually heard of.

Seattle University is an institution that people haven't heard of???

And I look forward to seeing your list of acceptable research topics for University administrators.  Should be interesting.

[Hards Alumni]

A lot of well thought out opinions, and as is suitable , conflicting ones. I think it boils down to what Marquette desires to be the face of the University. Someone who has written a description of her sex life isn't the face we need to put forward. I also think we should be looking for someone from an Institution people have actually heard of.

Additionally, Marquette is violating its own 'No Discrimination' policy.