Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[LON]

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

Wonder how long the comments section will be open this time...

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

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

I've waded out of this debate quite a bit, but I think there's a general misconstrual of what Marquette's non-discrimination policy actually says.  A lot of people are focused exclusively on the first part.  Not trying to flame, but just wanted to make sure people are talking in correct terms about what the policy actually says.

Non-discrimination Policy
Marquette University does not discriminate in any manner contrary to law or justice on the basis of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability, veteran's status or national origin in its educational programs or activities, including employment and admissions.

At the same time, Marquette cherishes its right and duty to seek and retain personnel who will make a positive contribution to its religious character, goals, and mission in order to enhance the Jesuit, Catholic tradition.

http://www.marquette.edu/tools/non-discrimination.shtml

[Hards Alumni]

I've waded out of this debate quite a bit, but I think there's a general misconstrual of what Marquette's non-discrimination policy actually says.  A lot of people are focused exclusively on the first part.  Not trying to flame, but just wanted to make sure people are talking in correct terms about what the policy actually says.

Non-discrimination Policy
Marquette University does not discriminate in any manner contrary to law or justice on the basis of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability, veteran's status or national origin in its educational programs or activities, including employment and admissions.

At the same time, Marquette cherishes its right and duty to seek and retain personnel who will make a positive contribution to its religious character, goals, and mission in order to enhance the Jesuit, Catholic tradition.

http://www.marquette.edu/tools/non-discrimination.shtml

I understand, and I don't think you are flaming or anything.  I just happen to think that it is pointless to put in the non-discrimination policy and then just ignore it. 

[Ari Gold]

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

Wonder how long the comments section will be open this time...

Applause to MUFan12 for predicting this one. Credit must be given where due.

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

It'll never make it as far as an actually lawsuit. MU will "settle" on an "undisclosed agreement" and it will be swept away. No way would O'brien's scholarship and career actually be able to survive a trial. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hartmann sent a March 3 letter to the chair of the search committee that said the gender studies professor "pursues subject matter that seems destined to actually create dichotomies and cause tensions (if not contradictions) with Marquette's Catholic mission and identity."


"My greatest fear, as a priest, alum, and as president of a high school which sends dozens of new students to (Marquette) each fall, is that the important decision to be made in this moment will instead dichotomize university from Church and reason from faith," Hartmann wrote.

That's the money shot for me.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

That is not true, civil unions have rights in many states that are on par with marriage rights.  I'm 100% behind full civil unions with the same benefits that a married couple gets.  But I'm not for granting marriage rights to someone in which marriage was clearly meant to be between a man and a woman.

Now, if you let males (as individuals) get into college sororities and live there, then I might change my mind.     Afterall, that would be to expand his individual rights.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

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).

We can play this game forever.  Answer the simple question for me, why it is fair or just to provide marriage rights to two gay men or two lesbian women and not extend those SAME rights of marriage to someone that wishes to marry 3 men (or 2 men and 1 woman)?  Why are you arbitrarily cutting it off?  Why is this about individual rights, but only SOME individuals?  Are their rights not equally violated as gays and lesbians? 

I don't know why this simple question of fundamental fairness and individual rights is not answered.

Please, do.  Thanks

[GGGG]

That is not true, civil unions have rights in many states that are on par with marriage rights.  I'm 100% behind full civil unions with the same benefits that a married couple gets.  But I'm not for granting marriage rights to someone in which marriage was clearly meant to be between a man and a woman.

Well then you are just talking semantics.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that "civil unions," both hetero and homosexual, should be sanctioned by the state...and marriage should be sanctioned by the church and can be restricted however they wish.

[reinko]

That is not true, civil unions have rights in many states that are on par with marriage rights.  I'm 100% behind full civil unions with the same benefits that a married couple gets.  But I'm not for granting marriage rights to someone in which marriage was clearly meant to be between a man and a woman.

If by many states, you mean 8, then so be it.    

And to be clear, there are over 1,000 federal rights that recognized married couples receive that no kind of state civil union can offer. 

So Chicos, consensus here:  federally recognized civil unions, receiving ALL the benefits that married couples receive.  Cool?

[NavinRJohnson]

That's the money shot for me.  

You are absolutely right. As I alluded to earlier on in this thread, she not only doesn't subscribe to the conventions of the Catholic Church, she seemingly tries to attack them. That's a big reason the offer was (rightly) rescinded. The homosexuality thing itself is a convenient excuse people are choosing to be outraged about.

[MUBurrow]

So I arrived late on the scene here, but I have actually read every single post here before posting.
   First, it is important to remember the role of a dean.  It seems that many here conflate the responsibilities of a dean to be that of an elevated professor while others see it as a solely administrative position.  The truth is that while a deanship is a bit of both, its primary function is as a public actor, relating to donors and the media as a representative of the university.  This is why MU acknowledged its desire for a thoughtfully progressive dean, in line with the Jesuits inherently liberal perspectives on Catholic teachings.  Jesuits are well known to be the most academic and liberal of Catholic orders, and are characterized by their pushing the limits of tradition while staying true to Catholic catechism.
   While I applaud MU's desire to push the limits, I also count myself amongst those who would not have initially chosen O'Brien.  As one of a Dean's primary responsibilities is in her relationship to donors, the complications arising from her hire with individuals outside the University (donors, archbishops, or otherwise) should not only have been foreseen, but are essentially the essence of the job description.         While I am normally extremely hesitant to encourage acquiescence to financial or other outside influences in the University context, the Dean is the exception to this rule.  Her role is primarily financially driven, and her position as a representative is to bridge the gap between academia (and all the necessary freedoms/controversies that come with it) to the social pressures of everyday life.  Given the trouble demarcating space between progressive/liberal and O'Brien's admittedly transparently homosexual record, I recognize the difficulty the search committee likely had in finding a committee that fits this admittedly vague criteria.  However avoiding O'Brien's selection avoids direct commentary of the University upon the homosexual community, allowing MU to applaud the gains in scholarship of its homosexual supportive professors, and to continue to grow and develop as a place that both fosters scholarship, openness, and debate of homosexuality (and its possible tension with the church) in that properly academic context.
  However once, for whatever reason, O'Brien was selected, the opportunity for MU to take such a position had passed.  At this point, I switch positions and feel that Fr. Wild and the rest of the Marquette community had no choice but to defend and move forward with their selection.  Of course I do not mean "no choice" as a literal phrase, as they obviously could do as they pleased as a private university, etc.  The only new information that came to light after O'Brien's selection was peoples' response to her.  The reservation to act like a 5 year old in the candy aisle with buyer's remorse has remarkable consequences and implicit judgments upon a vast number of types of people.  Not only was the selection and subsequent revocation imprudent, but it was unprofessional and immature.  Nowhere else would individuals in such high and public positions be allowed to act so incompetently, PARTICULARLY when that incompetence bears implicit judgments upon entire communities of people, many of whom are engaged in scholarship at the University itself.  To then turn around and hide behind church doctrine, and when that doesn't work, to coalesce that doctrine in the person of the archibishop while Wild himself asserts his disagreement with church doctrine is cowardice and shortsighted.  If MU had stood by their decision, they likely would have lost boosters and been the focal point of religion-in-academia firestorm.  However at least they would not have to admit they had chosen outside influence over academic freedom, administrative decision making, as well as the ability to chart the university's course of integrating homosexuality within their academic position on church doctrine.  The johnny-come-lately approach to citing the philosophical problem of a publicly academic homosexual dean at MU as opposed to the practical one of boosters that don't support a publicly academic homosexual dean at MU is disrespectful towards those who thoughtfully and conservatively seek to promote conservative positions in preservation of MU's Catholic mission.  To use that mission as an out on behalf of preserving boosters and Catholic image (not Catholic identity) is much more disrespectful to that mission than even the affirmation of O'Brien would have been.

[Hards Alumni]

well said. 

[NavinRJohnson]

This notion that "academic freedom" is somehow relevant is nonsense. This was a question about hiring a Dean. Had an existing professor been fired because of what they were teaching, it would have some merit. That is not what happened here. MU can choose to hire or not hire whomever they want based on what they expect from that person.

I also get a laugh out of people who say that because the decision was made initially, that they had no choice but to stick with it. Just because the realization that they were about to make a bad decision happened at the 11th hour, doesn't make it any less of a bad decision.  Using that logic, Marquette would today be called the Gold, and people who had decided to commit suicide, but couldn't quite bring themselves to pull the trigger when the time came, would be dead. Sometimes it takes things seeing the light of day, or additional insights before the the full impact/result of something is realized.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well then you are just talking semantics.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that "civil unions," both hetero and homosexual, should be sanctioned by the state...and marriage should be sanctioned by the church and can be restricted however they wish.

No semantics at all.  Words have meanings.  Marriage = man + woman.  If you want similar rights under a different definition, I'm all for it, but marriage isn't it.  You are trying to unbundle marriage as civil AND religious entity. 

[Henry Sugar]

I also get a laugh out of people who say that because the decision was made initially, that they had no choice but to stick with it. Just because the realization that they had extended an offer which had already been accepted were about to make a bad decision happened at the 11th hour, doesn't make it any less of a bad decision.  makes it shameful conduct by Marquette that damages the reputation of our Alma Mater.

fixed for you. 

Also, plus one to MUBurrow

[Hards Alumni]

No semantics at all.  Words have meanings.  Marriage = man + woman.  If you want similar rights under a different definition, I'm all for it, but marriage isn't it.  You are trying to unbundle marriage as civil AND religious entity. 

So what you are saying is that you are hung up on the word?

mmmm okay.  If that is all then I have no problem.  If we just called it a civil union, but gave homosexuals all of the rights and benefits of married people I'd be fine with it... but of course, I don't speak for homosexuals, so it may not be okay with them.

The next question I have is, would 3 people be allowed to have a civil union together?  

[Chili]

No semantics at all.  Words have meanings.  Marriage = man + woman.  If you want similar rights under a different definition, I'm all for it, but marriage isn't it.  You are trying to unbundle marriage as civil AND religious entity. 

Here is the definition of marriage:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

You can't pick and choose which definitions you want to have and what you don't.

[NavinRJohnson]

fixed for you. 

Also, plus one to MUBurrow

Shameful? What about it is shameful? They deemed that extending the offer was a mistake, and thus hiring her would be a mistake, but I guess you're suggesting that not hiring someone they deemed inappropriate/not qualified for the job even though an offer had already been extended is a bigger mistake, and  'shameful.' Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. Again, using your logic, nobody could ever be fired. After all, they were hired in the first place, so realizing that a mistake was made down the road and choosing to make a change would be shameful. I guess MU better reach out to Mike Deane and offer him his job back. Yes, it is the same thing. Based on his history, they decided that he was not the nest man for the job, just as in this case, they made the determination that she was not the best woman for the job. The mistake was making the offer, not rescinding it, and they corrected their mistake.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

No semantics at all.  Words have meanings.  Marriage = man + woman.  If you want similar rights under a different definition, I'm all for it, but marriage isn't it.  You are trying to unbundle marriage as civil AND religious entity. 

I hate to threadjack... buttttt...

Warriors = Native Americans (or so we have been told).

Marriage in 2010 = man + woman

Marriage in 1800 = White man + White Woman.

Gay = Happy

Words do have meaning, but there also is evolution.

[NavinRJohnson]

I hate to threadjack... buttttt...

As far reaching as this thread has been, I'm not sure that's possible in this case.

Words do have meaning, but there also is evolution.

According to who's standard?

[reinko]

According to who's standard?

How about according to history chief.  Definitions and people's outlook evolve over time, that sir is a fact.  Unless you think black people are 3/5ths the person white people are, homosexuals should be put in institutions, women should be stoned if they cheat on their husbands...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

As far reaching as this thread has been, I'm not sure that's possible in this case.


According to who's standard?

Common sense test:

If you had a pleasant evening last night, proudly proclaim to somebody that you had "A very exciting and gay night last night".

It doesn't mean what it used to. 

[Hards Alumni]

Shameful? What about it is shameful? They deemed that extending the offer was a mistake, and thus hiring her would be a mistake, but I guess you're suggesting that not hiring someone they deemed inappropriate/not qualified for the job even though an offer had already been extended is a bigger mistake, and  'shameful.' Sorry, but that's just plain stupid. Again, using your logic, nobody could ever be fired. After all, they were hired in the first place, so realizing that a mistake was made down the road and choosing to make a change would be shameful. I guess MU better reach out to Mike Deane and offer him his job back. Yes, it is the same thing. Based on his history, they decided that he was not the nest man for the job, just as in this case, they made the determination that she was not the best woman for the job. The mistake was making the offer, not rescinding it, and they corrected their mistake.

It is shameful because we extended a job offer to a qualified candidate, and then rescinded that offer based on a reason different from her qualifications.  It makes the entire university look foolish, and as a result, we are ashamed.

duh.

[NavinRJohnson]

How about according to history chief.  Definitions and people's outlook evolve over time, that sir is a fact.  Unless you think black people are 3/5ths the person white people are, homosexuals should be put in institutions, women should be stoned if they cheat on their husbands...

The strawman argument pops up yet again in this thread. Of course I don't believe any of those things (except maybe stoning cheating wives. That may have some merit). But, that doesn't mean that because some people argue in favor of gay marriage, or three way marriages, abortion, or anything else, that I or anybody else have to go along with it, or that such 'evolved outlooks' necessarily become societal norms.

[NavinRJohnson]

It is shameful because we extended a job offer to a qualified candidate, and then rescinded that offer based on a reason different from her qualifications.  It makes the entire university look foolish, and as a result, we are ashamed.

Well, yet again, that's the big question, isn't it, was she actually qualified? Under what/who's standard? People who are choosing to take the manufactured outrage route and automatically conclude that the offer was rescinded because she's gay, are going to say yes. Others will say no, based not so much on her sexual orientation, but more on her apparent lack of strong scholarly track record, and perhaps more so on what appears to be an out and out attack on Catholic conventions, which is absolutely fair game when it comes to a persons ability to be hired to be a Dean at a Catholic University.

It makes the entire university look foolish, and as a result, we are ashamed.

Who's we? A mistake was made, to be sure (offering the job), but I (as a member of the MU community) don't look foolish, nor am I ashamed that they chose to correct their mistake.