Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[shiloh26]

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 People who are choosing to take the manufactured outrage route and automatically conclude that the offer was rescinded because she's gay, are going to say yes.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.

Navin, please see MUBurrow's post.  The only thing that was elucidated between the time they offered her the position and the time they revoked was the increasingly apparent reaction by the church and donators.  Do you think that they realized after they extended the offer, "Oh wait, we forgot to evaluate her fitness as fitting with out Catholic identity!" or "We forgot to read all of her scholarly work and evaluate her qualifications!"  No, they had fully evaluated her and deemed her, while certainly not in line with Catholic teaching, as an acceptable candidate anyway.  To rely on that reason in retrospect as an excuse is a bastardization of the purpose of the statement in the first place.  

In short, its not that they can't change their mind.  It's that they changed their mind for utterly embarrassing reasons.  If you think that something in her scholarship or fitness really came to light between the offer and the revocation, then I suppose there will be no convincing you.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

You are 100% correct. You don't have to "evolve" into anything. I agree with that.

But, if you re-read my post (reply to Chico's) he's not arguing against same sex unions, but rather the idea that it's called "Marriage".

My point is that "Marriage" doesn't necessary HAVE to mean between a man and a woman because words often evolve over time.

I'm not going to argue if people should/shouldn't be able to get married, I'm just saying that I don't think you can oppose it simply because of the word "marriage".

*for the record, I'm talking politically and legally, not in a religious sense.

[Hards Alumni]

Navin, please see MUBurrow's post.  The only thing that was elucidated between the time they offered her the position and the time they revoked was the increasingly apparent reaction by the church and donators.  Do you think that they realized after they extended the offer, "Oh wait, we forgot to evaluate her fitness as fitting with out Catholic identity!" or "We forgot to read all of her scholarly work and evaluate her qualifications!"  No, they had fully evaluated her and deemed her, while certainly not in line with Catholic teaching, as an acceptable candidate anyway.  To rely on that reason in retrospect as an excuse is a bastardization of the purpose of the statement in the first place.  

In short, its not that they can't change their mind.  It's that they changed their mind for utterly embarrassing reasons.  If you think that something in her scholarship or fitness really came to light between the offer and the revocation, then I suppose there will be no convincing you.  

exactly.

I wonder how you can believe the stuff you are writing, Navin, when it basically flys in the face of everything that has been reported.

[NavinRJohnson]

In short, its not that they can't change their mind.  It's that they changed their mind for utterly embarrassing reasons.  If you think that something in her scholarship or fitness really came to light between the offer and the revocation, then I suppose there will be no convincing you.  

That's where you are wrong. What seemingly came to light was rejection of the hire by members of both the Catholic Church and the Marquette community. Whether you agree with them or not, those are also constituents/stakeholders in this issue, and Fr. Wilde took the feedback and made the decision he made. Had she been hired and introduced, what would the backlash have been? I assure you the decision that was made, is supported by a significantly larger percentage of the Marquette community than her hiring would have been.

Remember what happened the last time a small group of individuals at Marquette convinced themselves something was a good idea, and made a high profile decision behind closed doors without getting any outside feedback...



I'll bet they wished they could have gone back and pulled the plug on that one before rolling it out, don't you?

[NavinRJohnson]

You are 100% correct. You don't have to "evolve" into anything. I agree with that.

Nor does Chico's (or my, or anyone else's) definition of the word. Its really the same argument.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Nor does Chico's (or my, or anyone else's) definition of the word. Its really the same argument.

Hmm... I think it's different.

Chico's, feel free to correct me, but it seems like you have no problem with 2 gay people getting together, having a civil union and reaping the benefits of that union.

The "problem" comes into play when people attach the word "marriage" to this type of union.

So, realistically, you aren't against "gay marriage" per se (the act of 2 gay people forming a union), but rather the term "marriage" being used to describe this union.

My point is, words often evolve, so getting caught up in semantics because "marriage = man + woman" seems like a needless objection.

(in my best redneck voice)I'm ok with (insert race) man and woman becoming a permanent couple, I just don't think they should use the term marriage. Marriage = white man and white woman!

[Ari Gold]

Wow fashion was so bizarre in 2005

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FM362G0&show_article=1

[🏀]

Wow fashion was so bizarre in 2005

It's too bad they didn't have a shirt with a witty comment on it.

[Henry Sugar]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FM362G0&show_article=1

What?  The pope is against abortion and same-sex marriage? 

If only someone would have known that before embarking on a three year search for a new Dean, offering a candidate with a different opinion the position, and then having them accept it.

If only this timely information were available before this all started, then this entire mess could have been avoided.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hmm... I think it's different.

Chico's, feel free to correct me, but it seems like you have no problem with 2 gay people getting together, having a civil union and reaping the benefits of that union.

The "problem" comes into play when people attach the word "marriage" to this type of union.

So, realistically, you aren't against "gay marriage" per se (the act of 2 gay people forming a union), but rather the term "marriage" being used to describe this union.

My point is, words often evolve, so getting caught up in semantics because "marriage = man + woman" seems like a needless objection.

(in my best redneck voice)I'm ok with (insert race) man and woman becoming a permanent couple, I just don't think they should use the term marriage. Marriage = white man and white woman!

It's not just about "words" changing meaning.  I have no problem with civil unions and the rights that come with it.  Marriage is a higher level to me.  It is the bonding of a man and a woman meant for social, religious, etc stability.  To change the definition of marriage to make it whatever the hell we want, changes fundamentally what marriage is.

So yes, I'm fine with civil unions and the rights that come with.  I am not fine with changing the fundamental meaning of a word that is tied directly into religious, societal, historical, etc.  They CANNOT be unbundled in my opinion without totally changing the very definition of what marriage means.

This is why I have asked time and time again (with no answer) why, if the definition changes, would it not change to encompass what every other group wants to change it to?  In essence, the argument is that the current form is discrimination.  But the irony is that the replacement form, then, it still discrimination but with one group fewer disenfranchised.  I find the argument only to add one group into the equation to be flawed...considerably.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For the record, as I indicated earlier, I've had many a conversation with friends and family members that are gay\lesbian.  I've had bosses that were gay, employees that were gay, friends, family, etc.  We get along very well.  I've never let it get in the way of promoting people, recommending folks, etc, etc.  What someone does in their private life or in their social sphere is not of importance to me as long as it's legal and not harming anyone.

But on this one issue, my religious beliefs, my anthropological understandings, my belief in trying to keep any type of stability in this world ( a world that rewards out of wedlock children, single parenting, divorce on a whim, on demand abortion, etc)....let's just say that many of the "advancements" in the last 25 to 30 years seem to have done nothing but harm society in greater ways than anyone imagined.  I applaud those that are trying to keep the family unit together.

[LON]

It's too bad they didn't have a shirt with a witty comment on it.

2 for 2 in different threads, on your game today.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What?  The pope is against abortion and same-sex marriage? 

If only someone would have known that before embarking on a three year search for a new Dean, offering a candidate with a different opinion the position, and then having them accept it.

If only this timely information were available before this all started, then this entire mess could have been avoided.

He's the head of my religion.  I take his words seriously.  I don't always agree with him.  God gave us all free will.  I admit there are some things I don't agree with him on, but most areas I do.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It's not just about "words" changing meaning.  I have no problem with civil unions and the rights that come with it.  Marriage is a higher level to me.  It is the bonding of a man and a woman meant for social, religious, etc stability.  To change the definition of marriage to make it whatever the hell we want, changes fundamentally what marriage is.

So yes, I'm fine with civil unions and the rights that come with.  I am not fine with changing the fundamental meaning of a word that is tied directly into religious, societal, historical, etc.  They CANNOT be unbundled in my opinion without totally changing the very definition of what marriage means.

This is why I have asked time and time again (with no answer) why, if the definition changes, would it not change to encompass what every other group wants to change it to?  In essence, the argument is that the current form is discrimination.  But the irony is that the replacement form, then, it still discrimination but with one group fewer disenfranchised.  I find the argument only to add one group into the equation to be flawed...considerably.

Fair. I disagree, but I see where you are coming from.

As far as your last point, this is where I think the "free market" will sort of determine the direction. In other words, there is significant demand for same sex marriage, and in our lifetime(s) its probably going to become legal.

Why won't it become legal for a man to marry a chair? Well, the general public won't want that and/or allow for that. There won't be a significant demand, and therefore it won't change.

If there becomes millions and millions of people out there who want to have 3 way marriages, well, then maybe it will evolve once again, but I doubt that.

I'm pretty sure it used to be illegal for a african american man to marry a white woman in some states. Now it's legal everywhere. I don't think that it's ruined the moral fabric of American like I'm sure some (ignorant) people predicted.

[mu-rara]

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.

This.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fair. I disagree, but I see where you are coming from.

As far as your last point, this is where I think the "free market" will sort of determine the direction. In other words, there is significant demand for same sex marriage, and in our lifetime(s) its probably going to become legal.

Why won't it become legal for a man to marry a chair? Well, the general public won't want that and/or allow for that. There won't be a significant demand, and therefore it won't change.

If there becomes millions and millions of people out there who want to have 3 way marriages, well, then maybe it will evolve once again, but I doubt that.

I'm pretty sure it used to be illegal for a african american man to marry a white woman in some states. Now it's legal everywhere. I don't think that it's ruined the moral fabric of American like I'm sure some (ignorant) people predicted.

You may be right, but that's where I am deeply troubled.  What you're essentially saying is the church and others should give in on this issue because more people want it.  Not because it's right (maybe it is or maybe it isn't), but because the demand is there.

The example I gave, was not of a man marrying a dog or a chair, it was having multiple spouses.  That is something that exists today in parts of the world and has existed in our country at times.  It's a REAL situation, not an absurd one.  There is some demand.  Why are we not making that legal also?

I'll tell you why, it's simple because I've had these conversations with folks pushing gay marriage who absolutely DO NOT want that to happen.  They think it's too radical and if it's lumped together with their movement, they think it will kill it.

So in the irony of ironies, it's not really about fairness in that case or relieving discrimination, at least not in full.  It's about doing whatever possible to get it passed and approved in the court of public opinion and if that means additional groups that want to marry are not included...TOO BAD.  I find that more than ironic and plenty hypocritical.

[Ari Gold]

It's too bad they didn't have a shirt with a witty comment on it.

Damnit man!

[shiloh26]

That's where you are wrong. What seemingly came to light was rejection of the hire by members of both the Catholic Church and the Marquette community. Whether you agree with them or not, those are also constituents/stakeholders in this issue, and Fr. Wilde took the feedback and made the decision he made. Had she been hired and introduced, what would the backlash have been? I assure you the decision that was made, is supported by a significantly larger percentage of the Marquette community than her hiring would have been.

And those are all perfectly legitimate reasons why they probably shouldn't have extended the offer to her in the first place.  As I've been saying from the very beginning of my time on this thread (save for a few tangents to address peripheral issues), and as many have been saying from the beginning of this thread, the issue is that the offer was revoked for no good reason.  They knew everything they needed to know about her at the time they extended the offer.  They had everything they needed to make a fair assessment.  If they honestly hadn't thought about the possible reaction from the larger MU community or the Church for hiring a lesbian dean with touchy-subject scholarship, then their ineptitude is truly unimaginable.  In the words of the eloquent Dennis Green, she was who they thought she was. 

You say that the administration shouldn't have to stand beside a bad choice simply because they made a bad choice.  What I am saying is that they made that choice once they extended the offer.  They researched this woman for 2 years.  They did their due diligence, thought out the possible consequences, and made the offer.  Then they bust out the "we are a Catholic Institution" card the day after?  What, we weren't yesterday?  It's a mockery of both sides of the University hiring statement. 

[shiloh26]

You may be right, but that's where I am deeply troubled.  What you're essentially saying is the church and others should give in on this issue because more people want it.  Not because it's right (maybe it is or maybe it isn't), but because the demand is there.

The example I gave, was not of a man marrying a dog or a chair, it was having multiple spouses.  That is something that exists today in parts of the world and has existed in our country at times.  It's a REAL situation, not an absurd one.  There is some demand.  Why are we not making that legal also?

I'll tell you why, it's simple because I've had these conversations with folks pushing gay marriage who absolutely DO NOT want that to happen.  They think it's too radical and if it's lumped together with their movement, they think it will kill it.

So in the irony of ironies, it's not really about fairness in that case or relieving discrimination, at least not in full.  It's about doing whatever possible to get it passed and approved in the court of public opinion and if that means additional groups that want to marry are not included...TOO BAD.  I find that more than ironic and plenty hypocritical.

I think what we have here is a good ol' tyranny of the majority v. majority rule conflict (See: Plato on democracy-the Federalist Papers-the Civil War).  The good thing about this one is our founding fathers, in their wisdom, decided to separate out church and state.  They gave us an out on this one.  We shouldn't have to determine the religious side of 'gay marriage' for the purposes of extending the important property and other civil rights to gay couples. 

Two gay, two heterosexual, two asexual human beings who decide to hold themselves out to the world as mutually dependent upon each other (the way that a traditional man-woman heterosexual relationship does), then I don't see why they should be denied vested property rights in mutually owned property upon death or dissolution. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think what we have here is a good ol' tyranny of the majority v. majority rule conflict (See: Plato on democracy-the Federalist Papers-the Civil War).  The good thing about this one is our founding fathers, in their wisdom, decided to separate out church and state.  They gave us an out on this one.  We shouldn't have to determine the religious side of 'gay marriage' for the purposes of extending the important property and other civil rights to gay couples. 

Two gay, two heterosexual, two asexual human beings who decide to hold themselves out to the world as mutually dependent upon each other (the way that a traditional man-woman heterosexual relationship does), then I don't see why they should be denied vested property rights in mutually owned property upon death or dissolution. 

Such a common and erroneous misconception.  Show me where the separation of church and state is found in the Constitution.  It's not, but feel free to look for it.  The First Amendment only says that the US would not make an official state church\religion.....would not endorse or approve such an entity. 

Dr. Christopher Wolfe....where are you, I need you right now.   

But you, too, have not addressed the rights of Polygamists or others that want changes to marriage.  Why are they getting denied these same rights you wish to bestow on others?  Why is it wrong for the Pope and society to decide but it's not wrong for another group to do the same thing for which they are blaming others?  It seems to me to be a totally hypocritical argument you make without addressing the bigger picture.


The tyranny of the majority is all well and good.  We hear that debate all the time.  For this Catholic kid, I'm going with what the Church has taught me on this issue.  I'm also going with that tyrannical majority, biology, anthropology, etc, etc..  If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong along with most of the world.  Wouldn't be the first time or the last.

[Ari Gold]

Dr. Christopher Wolfe....where are you, I need you right now.   

Here: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/93322834.html

[MUMBA]

"This is why I have asked time and time again (with no answer) why, if the definition changes, would it not change to encompass what every other group wants to change it to?"

No answer?  

I believe I addressed your line of thought on May 10, 2010, 12:34:07 PM when I explained that the legalization of gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the door is opened to anything and everything.  Society can exercise restraint and put the brakes on if/when individuals pursue their perceived right to marry 2+ people.  When the day comes where polygamists march on the Capitol, I suspect Society will examine the issue and conclude reasonably.  I trust that the basis for that decision won’t be rationalized based on the dominant ‘norm’ of society, but instead rationalized on the right/wrong of the polygamist model.  As Shiloh just pointed out, the law of majority has no place in matters of conscience.  I think the right/wrong of the polygamist argument will be self evident…should they ever decide to organize and March on Washington.  Let’s pick up this thread then.  If we’re not dead and buried by then, we can have a healthy discourse on the topic.

“In essence, the argument is that the current form is discrimination.  But the irony is that the replacement form, then, it still discrimination but with one group fewer disenfranchised.  I find the argument only to add one group into the equation to be flawed.”

I didn’t think you were that serious about this idea, but since it keeps coming up… I think I addressed your point on May 12, 2010, 09:22:15 AM when I tried to explain that you can’t over-simplify our world into “all” or “nothing” components.  The notion that there are only two alternatives available to us is a vast over-simplification of the world we live in.  We don’t have to choose between (1) a world with a narrowly defined definition of marriage that discriminates against some and (2) a world where the wheels are off and anything goes.  There’s plenty of space in between in which we can operate.  Will the model Society chooses disappoint some fraction of people?  Of course it will.  People with extreme views (polygamy advocates for example) will find themselves disappointed much of the time.

My parting thought of the night… lot’s of interesting questions raised over the last 24 hours --- Questions on the definition of marriage, the evolution of words over time, the role of marriage in society, morality issues.  As a simple accountant, I feel like I could use some help unwinding these complex topics.  I could use the help of say… a Sociologist with a specialization in gender studies.

Which brings this thread back to where it’s supposed to be: Catholic schools need people like Jodi O’Brien so that students can address these difficult questions in the safety of a classroom.  Fr. Wild recognized that when he made the offer, but just couldn’t stick with it.

[GGGG]

Such a common and erroneous misconception.  Show me where the separation of church and state is found in the Constitution.  It's not, but feel free to look for it.  The First Amendment only says that the US would not make an official state church\religion.....would not endorse or approve such an entity. 

Dr. Christopher Wolfe....where are you, I need you right now.   

If you think Dr. Wolfe taught you that, you didn't listen carefully enough....or I should say, you left what he taught you incomplete.

[GGGG]

"This is why I have asked time and time again (with no answer) why, if the definition changes, would it not change to encompass what every other group wants to change it to?"

No answer?  

I believe I addressed your line of thought on May 10, 2010, 12:34:07 PM when I explained that the legalization of gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the door is opened to anything and everything. “

Thanks.  I answered him too, but I guess since we don't agree with him, it doesn't count.