MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Ari Gold on May 06, 2010, 08:48:36 PM
-
Marquette really shot themselves in the face here. They chose to withdraw a offer to candidate for the position because of a bunch of her writings and publications.
Feel free to read any of these sources
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/arts-science-dean-search-fiasco.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/93012094.html?page=2#comments
http://mugrack.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/has-any-member-of-the-marquette-administration-heard-of-the-google/
Apparently there was some protesting on campus about it today. Some shenanigans ensued in an event tonight. MU kinda f'd it up here. You'd think they knew what the google was and how to use it.
-
Did they ask her to spend a year in prep school?
-
Did they ask her to spend a year in prep school?
haha. does that void the LOI?
-
I feel slightly embarrassed, yet if this teacher does what she says she is going to do I think it is unneccessary to the degree she is taking it.
I don't mind protests and whatnot, but using her position at the dinner to further her cause is not right, IMO.
-
I feel slightly embarrassed, yet if this teacher does what she says she is going to do I think it is unneccessary to the degree she is taking it.
I don't mind protests and whatnot, but using her position at the dinner to further her cause is not right, IMO.
What position are you referring to?
-
I feel slightly embarrassed, yet if this teacher does what she says she is going to do I think it is unneccessary to the degree she is taking it.
I don't mind protests and whatnot, but using her position at the dinner to further her cause is not right, IMO.
Wine 'em, dine 'em, sixty-nine 'em.
-
Lavender is for lesbians
-
Ultimately, I think the University made the right call. The search process was inexcusably poor. The fact that Fr. Wild intervened speaks volumes about it. He usually leaves things to the administrators and bureaucrats, and rarely pulls rank on them.
Brigid O'Brien and company must be cursing the Arts and Sciences search committee right now. What a mess.
-
Ultimately, I think the University made the right call. The search process was inexcusably poor. The fact that Fr. Wild intervened speaks volumes about it. He usually leaves things to the administrators and bureaucrats, and rarely pulls rank on them.
Brigid O'Brien and company must be cursing the Arts and Sciences search committee right now. What a mess.
+1
-
What has our society come to when people are offered prestigious positions at Catholic insititutions based on sexual fetishes? Seriously, are you kidding me? Where are her qualifications discussed? It's just about her sexual orientation?
Perhaps somebody could explain to me why what somebody does in order to ejaculate, not only falls under the phrase "diversity" but makes them somehow qualified to run the school of Arts & Sciences? Because a woman enjoys having sex with other women...that somehow makes them a respected voice? If I like to have sex with women just out on parole, does that make me a respected voice on criminal rehabilitation?
And this other Poly Sci professor? What a great example of absolute and complete separation from reality! She's protesting the fact that the people who enable the university to build buildings and keep their lights on are asking that the instituion named after the founder the Jesuit faith not have a lesbian dean? The outrage!!
-
MU most definately did the right thing. I don't have a problem with a lesbian professor, but the quality of her research looks to be incredibly poor. And I'm not just talking about the subject matter in question.
The dean of a liberal arts college is always one of the more difficult positions on a college campus. Unlike a pre-professional school like business or engineering, the dean has to deal with a bunch of departments that aren't really all that related and don't have the singular drive to keep their ciriculum relevant to industry. The faculty can generally be a pain in the ass too. You have to have a pretty well qualified academic to keep them in line.
You can blame the search committee all you want, but the Provost has the ultimate decision and the President would have had to sign off on it. Sometimes smart administrators do dumb things.
-
Incidentally, for all your no-brains who are sure to attempt to argue with me about my "narrow mindedness," etc. ask yourselves what is happening in the Catholic Church right now. Ask yourselves about the former president of Loyola Academy in suburban Chicago getting ousted from the church THIS WEEK because of inappropriate relationships with boys at the school. Ask yourselves what the church's teaching is about this kind of thing.
You are entitled to believe what you want about people's sexual orientation and acceptance, but the fact is Marquette University is not entitled. We are a Cathlic university and we'd do well to act like one...gay and/or lesbian teachers be damned!!
-
I'm embarrassed that they didn't do their research on this lady prior to offering her the position. Who says that her
orientation had anything to do with it, was it stated somewhere in the article or is it an assumption?
-
Incidentally, for all your no-brains who are sure to attempt to argue with me about my "narrow mindedness," etc. ask yourselves what is happening in the Catholic Church right now. Ask yourselves about the former president of Loyola Academy in suburban Chicago getting ousted from the church THIS WEEK because of inappropriate relationships with boys at the school. Ask yourselves what the church's teaching is about this kind of thing.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things you know.
-
Thanks!!
Pedophilia? The ex-Loyola president was charged with having an inappropriate relationship with and 18 year old. Since that wasn't "pedophilia" is that OK with you?
And I don't care what their ages are, if you think the students at Marquette University are "adults," you've got another thing coming. These are the most impressionable times in a young person's life. If you're espousing the Catholic faith, there are better people to be running the A&S Department.
As I said, you're more than welcome to accept this kind of thing personally. Marquette University, as a Catholic institution is supposed to be about something a little bit bigger than the homosexual lobby of Wisconsin.
-
Thanks!!
Pedophilia? The ex-Loyola president was charged with having an inappropriate relationship with and 18 year old. Since that wasn't "pedophilia" is that OK with you?
Well...you are the one that said "inappropriate relationship with boys." Excuse me for actually assuming that you meant "boys." And no, it still isn't OK even though they are considered adults.
One of my major problems with the clergy sexual-abuse scandal is that people mix up homosexuality and pedophilia. That is where I thought you were heading with this.
-
Well...you are the one that said "inappropriate relationship with boys." Excuse me for actually assuming that you meant "boys." And no, it still isn't OK even though they are considered adults.
One of my major problems with the clergy sexual-abuse scandal is that people mix up homosexuality and pedophilia. That is where I thought you were heading with this.
Actually, pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. Ephebophiles are attracted to adolescents - most of the abusive clergy fall into this category.
-
Actually, pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent boys and girls. Ephebophiles are attracted to adolescents - most of the abusive clergy fall into this category.
4never is a fatnuglyophile. ;D also is a hairylegnmustaceonabulldoglookinwomanophile.
-
Senior now at MU. Rumor around campus is that there were higher powers (not fr wild) at work. i.e. old, powerful donors.... For what its worth...
-
Higher power?
I think the only power higher than Fr. Wild is Trevor Mbakwe.
-
Wild video on the topic: http://marquette.edu/omc/newscenter/05062010.php
-
It's to be expected that Liberal Arts hires are the most incongruent on a catholic campus so long as that school wants to at least put up appearances that some shred of church doctrine still play a role in their mission.
Fr. Wild doesn't want to offend faculty because he needs to be open to the liberal loonies who predominate academia and the academic prestige your university aspires for. He also needs the old money.
He walks a tightrope.
-
It amazes me to see the "open-minded" idiots on campus who think this is 100% about her being a lesbian. Marquette has the right to choose to hire whoever they want based on whatever they want, and it's pretty clear to me that this professor had absolutely no basis to be the dean of a college, regardless of what her sexual preferences are. It was a mistake to ever give her the damn job offer in the first place, and now we have protesters who are trying to paint her as a genius who was perfect for the position, when it's pretty clear she was not.
-
Is she the best candidate? The only question that matters. Take her sexuality out of the equation. It neither gives her extra points or eliminates her, IMO. I have had too many friends come out of the closet, worked with enough people who were openly gay and even had a closeted gay roommate, to ever care again how somebody else achieves their orgasm with another consenting adult. So, if she is qualified and the best candidate for the job, give her the job. If there is another candidate who is better qualified, give them the job.
-
Is she the best candidate? The only question that matters. Take her sexuality out of the equation. It neither gives her extra points or eliminates her, IMO. I have had too many friends come out of the closet, worked with enough people who were openly gay and even had a closeted gay roommate, to ever care again how somebody else achieves their orgasm with another consenting adult. So, if she is qualified and the best candidate for the job, give her the job. If there is another candidate who is better qualified, give them the job.
+1
-
If there is another candidate who is better qualified, give them the job.
Considering how long A&S has been without a dean, I don't think there is anyone else.
At least they got this screwup out of their system now, instead of during the presidential search.
-
What was wrong with the acting Dean. She seemed to be well liked and if the fix was in for a woman to cap the "100 years of women at Marquette" wouldn't she have made a much better choice? Plus not much drama in a Chemistry professor.
Wild made the right decision as this person would have been way to big a lightning rod. Pay her off move on and fire the the goof admins that thought this was a good idea, though accountability in MU administration would be a rather unique occurance.
-
Is she the best candidate? The only question that matters. Take her sexuality out of the equation. It neither gives her extra points or eliminates her, IMO. I have had too many friends come out of the closet, worked with enough people who were openly gay and even had a closeted gay roommate, to ever care again how somebody else achieves their orgasm with another consenting adult. So, if she is qualified and the best candidate for the job, give her the job. If there is another candidate who is better qualified, give them the job.
I have no problem with taking her sexual orientation out of the equation as long as she does the same thing. Too often when achieving a position that provides a soap box, the gay agenda is broadcast.
-
Is she the best candidate? The only question that matters. Take her sexuality out of the equation. It neither gives her extra points or eliminates her, IMO. I have had too many friends come out of the closet, worked with enough people who were openly gay and even had a closeted gay roommate, to ever care again how somebody else achieves their orgasm with another consenting adult. So, if she is qualified and the best candidate for the job, give her the job. If there is another candidate who is better qualified, give them the job.
Nope. MU is a private catholic institution. You are obviously free to disagree with the catholic church's position, but I think what some 'Catholics' fail to realize is that they don't really get to choose what parts of the religion you go along with with and what parts you don't. You are either Catholic or you aren't. There is no such think as a pro-gay marriage Catholic, or a pro-choice catholic, etc. I have no problem with one's sexuality. Its a really a non-issue for me, but I also don't have to sacrifice elements of my core beliefs to accommodate them. Just as they are not required to do so for me, and I have no problem with what MU is doing here. If it was a public or non-catholic school I would agree with you, but its not.
-
I have no problem with taking her sexual orientation out of the equation as long as she does the same thing. Too often when achieving a position that provides a soap box, the gay agenda is broadcast.
What exactly is the 'gay adgenda'?
Just wondering? Is it equal treatment?
THOSE BASTARDS!
-
Naivin, look around at the empty pews on Sunday and you will find that many have already left the church for various and sundry reasons. Of the ones who are still in the pews, not many follow every single dictum of the church perfectly. I recognize I am an imperfect catholic as I am far less judgemental of human frailties than some readings of the official church position calls me to be. So, I stand by my statement and I will see you in church.
-
Cottingham should have handled the search.
-
What exactly is the 'gay adgenda'?
Just wondering? Is it equal treatment?
THOSE BASTARDS!
Who cares exactly what the agenda is...is her position as a College Dean the place to promote it? The agenda itself is irrelevant. If MU is for some reason not allowed to take it into consideration, then neither is anyone else.
-
Cottingham should have handled the search.
I know you're being sarcastic but Cottingham is a very competent man. We could do much worse than him picking our members of the university given guidelines and the time to research. In fact we probably do.
-
What I don't quite get is this from the JS article:
.. faculty members forwarded two candidates to Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild and Provost John Pauly. In their recommendation, committee members warned Wild and Pauly not to pick O'Brien if the university was not willing to support her if her sexual orientation or if her scholarship were criticized, Franzoi said.
There's been a lot of chat about the search not being up to snuff. Seems like they forwarded two candidates to Wild and Pauly. I assume both (or at least Wild) had to sign off .. as the article states, they had been warned "not to pick .. if .. not willing to support her if her sexual orientation.."
It's not like they didn't know who she was. If this article is correct, and Fr. Wild did receive two candidates, and a warning about one of them, and approved .. then rescinded that approval .. the blame lies completely on Fr. Wild.
-
Who cares exactly what the agenda is...is her position as a College Dean the place to promote it? The agenda itself is irrelevant. If MU is for some reason not allowed to take it into consideration, then neither is anyone else.
I wasn't aware that she would be given a podium to promote her feelings about being gay.
Was that in her job description?
Nope? Okay then, carry on.
-
What I don't quite get is this from the JS article:
If this article is correct, and Fr. Wild did receive two candidates, and a warning about one of them, and approved .. then rescinded that approval .. the blame lies completely on Fr. Wild.
Considering the source, both the paper it appeared in, as well as the individual who made the comment...I guess I am a bit skeptical as to the accuracy of that account.
-
I wondered about that, too, Hilltopper. If two acceptable names were forwarded, but a warning was attached to this candidate accurately predicting this uproar if the situation was handled less than perfectly, then the higher ups who made this decision and then abandoned it should take the hit. It looks like it was Fr. Wild, but he is a lame duck anyway.
-
My father in law is a history professor and was on the search committee. To suggest that the committee didn't do sufficient research on the candidates is false. Both Wild and Pauly had everything they needed on both candidates, both met and interviewed O'Brien and liked her.
Wild then just recently called them together to go off on them for recommending someone so against the universities teachings. The blame lies completely on Father Wild and I'm guessing it was pressure from donors that led to his change of heart. She was 100% qualified and not hired because she is an open lesbian. That is simply not right.
-
Navin, the Catholic church also asserts that anyone who knows of the Catholic church and christian faith but does not convert is going to hell. Does that mean that MU can't hire anyone who is Jewish, Islam, Hindu, etc?
-
She was 100% qualified and not hired because she is an open lesbian. That is simply not right.
This is where I could not disagree with you more. Her CV is incredibly mediocre.
It's not like she was a lesbian biologist who has solely written on biology. Her published works range from blatant gay activism to something you'd see in Cosmo. She had a complete lack of administrative experience. This isn't hiring a professor, this is the dean of the largest college in the University.
-
Nope. MU is a private catholic institution. You are obviously free to disagree with the catholic church's position, but I think what some 'Catholics' fail to realize is that they don't really get to choose what parts of the religion you go along with with and what parts you don't. You are either Catholic or you aren't. There is no such think as a pro-gay marriage Catholic, or a pro-choice catholic, etc. I have no problem with one's sexuality. Its a really a non-issue for me, but I also don't have to sacrifice elements of my core beliefs to accommodate them. Just as they are not required to do so for me, and I have no problem with what MU is doing here. If it was a public or non-catholic school I would agree with you, but its not.
Marquette's own non-discrimination policy includes non-discrimination for "sexual orientation." Obviously MU doesn't have a problem hiring openly gay professors and administrators. They have done so in the past.
http://www.marquette.edu/tools/non-discrimination.shtml
-
Navin, the Catholic church also asserts that anyone who knows of the Catholic church and christian faith but does not convert is going to hell. Does that mean that MU can't hire anyone who is Jewish, Islam, Hindu, etc?
In what universe does the Catholic Church teach this?
-
Nope. MU is a private catholic institution. You are obviously free to disagree with the catholic church's position, but I think what some 'Catholics' fail to realize is that they don't really get to choose what parts of the religion you go along with with and what parts you don't. You are either Catholic or you aren't. There is no such think as a pro-gay marriage Catholic, or a pro-choice catholic, etc. I have no problem with one's sexuality. Its a really a non-issue for me, but I also don't have to sacrifice elements of my core beliefs to accommodate them. Just as they are not required to do so for me, and I have no problem with what MU is doing here. If it was a public or non-catholic school I would agree with you, but its not.
+1000000
They should have locked the thread after this post because nothing more needed to be said.
-
Except that their published policy, in writing, states exactly the opposite.
oops?
The world has enough bigots.
What ever happened to teaching the ways and values that Jesus Christ taught, and not the ways of some moron in a white hat and his buddies?
-
This is where I could not disagree with you more. Her CV is incredibly mediocre.
It's not like she was a lesbian biologist who has solely written on biology. Her published works range from blatant gay activism to something you'd see in Cosmo. She had a complete lack of administrative experience. This isn't hiring a professor, this is the dean of the largest college in the University.
I actually haven't read her CV and am just going off of what I was told by someone involved in the process.
I wonder though if she was so woefully under qualified why she was offered in the first place?
-
4never is a fatnuglyophile. ;D also is a hairylegnmustaceonabulldoglookinwomanophile.
funniest post of the year
-
My father in law is a history professor and was on the search committee. To suggest that the committee didn't do sufficient research on the candidates is false. Both Wild and Pauly had everything they needed on both candidates, both met and interviewed O'Brien and liked her.
Wild then just recently called them together to go off on them for recommending someone so against the universities teachings. The blame lies completely on Father Wild and I'm guessing it was pressure from donors that led to his change of heart. She was 100% qualified and not hired because she is an open lesbian. That is simply not right.
To be fair, we have plenty of lesbian faculty (see e.g., Nancy Snow). Her offer was rescinded because of her scholarship. In theory, if it was a straight, white, man who wrote the same things, his offer would have been rescinded as well.
-
Catholics can't pick and choose which parts to agree with. Really? Well, then raise your hand if you've never had premarital sex, used birth control, and/or had sex for means other than procreation. I think we pick and choose all the time.....
-
I wonder though if she was so woefully under qualified why she was offered in the first place?
I'd bet it was because she is a lesbian, and it was a stab at creating more "diversity."
As was said earlier, this decision was not about how she has an orgasm. But her published works, including a couple of them, were in direct conflict with the church. MU has shown in the past that it is alright with that from professors (see Maguire, Daniel) but we're talking about a Dean. They still have some obligations as a Catholic school.
-
Except that their published policy, in writing, states exactly the opposite.
oops?
The world has enough bigots.
What ever happened to teaching the ways and values that Jesus Christ taught, and not the ways of some moron in a white hat and his buddies?
The Pope is a moron in a white hat and the college of Cardinals are "his buddies" in bigotry? That's an even handed, non judgemental stance. Almost sounds like bigotry.
-
In what universe does the Catholic Church teach this?
extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No salvation outside the church.
I had a theo prof at MU tell me Ganhi was in fact in hell because of this.
-
extra ecclesiam nulla salus. No salvation outside the church.
I had a theo prof at MU tell me Ganhi was in fact in hell because of this.
1. One priest saying something doesn't make it the Church's official position even if he says it in Latin.
2. Who the hell is Ganhi?
-
2. Who the hell is Ganhi?
A big-time power forward recruit who refused to play for Marquette (or any other Catholic university) back in '63. But back then it wasn't a guards game.
-
Groove is right. Ganhi was big time. So was Gandhi
-
My wife is a professor at Marquette and is very close to this search, and she has stated, that this is in fact a donor issue. There is no debate among the search committee that research was done and Father Wild signed off on the decision. A donor threatened to with hold money due to her hire and Father Wild decided to rescind the offer with no input from the search committee. Although apparently last night at the Pere Marquette Awards Fr. Wild did state he feels the teachings of the Catholic Church and Pope are wrong when it comes to homosexuality, and that the current stance comes from a misinterpretation of the Bible. There is also concern that Marquette has opened itself up to a lawsuit because it's own non-discrimination policy clearly states that sexual orientation will not be used in determining a candidates qualifications. I'm not a legal expert, but know people in the law school who have stated this could come back to bite them.
For those of you criticizing Dr. O'Brien's CV, have you actually read her books and articles, or does the fact that "Queer" and "Sex" enter the names a lot make you feel that the articles aren't of academic quality? I ask this honestly, because while the titles are attention grabbing, having not read the articles I feel unable to judge their merits, but trust the search committee in doing their job on this front, unless someone can prove otherwise.
-
I actually haven't read her CV and am just going off of what I was told by someone involved in the process.
I wonder though if she was so woefully under qualified why she was offered in the first place?
Then clearly you aren't able to make a logical decision in this matter. You're free to fly off the handle and make an ass of yourself
Here is her CV
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
Anyone want to explain how professors in the A&S would be able to respect their dean when her writings include: We’re Here, We’re Queer, Let’s Go to IKEA, Desexualizing Prison Rape, Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities and Phone Sex, Fantasy and Disembodiment (just to name a few)
CLEARLY you're misinformed about the search committee. This woman was in no way qualified to be dean. Had anyone on the committee decided to vet her (like using F-ING Google), she would have never made it to an offer
-
The big question everyone seems to be ignoring is whether or not this means MU is laying the groundwork to drop the women's basketball program.
(Seriously, how had no one made that comment yet?)
-
Then clearly you aren't able to make a logical decision in this matter. You're free to fly off the handle and make an ass of yourself
Here is her CV
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
Anyone want to explain how professors in the A&S would be able to respect their dean when her writings include: We’re Here, We’re Queer, Let’s Go to IKEA, Desexualizing Prison Rape, Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities and Phone Sex, Fantasy and Disembodiment (just to name a few)
So you don't think this constitutes "scholarship," even though another Jesuit university promoted her twice and granted her tenure???
Excuse me for not taking your opinion seriously.
-
So you don't think this constitutes "scholarship," even though another Jesuit university promoted her twice and granted her tenure???
Excuse me for not taking your opinion seriously.
Excuse me for not taking "We're here, we're queer, Let's go to Ikea" seriously. Just because she was promoted doesn't mean her writing was any good.
-
Anyone want to explain how professors in the A&S would be able to respect their dean when her writings include: We’re Here, We’re Queer, Let’s Go to IKEA, Desexualizing Prison Rape, Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities and Phone Sex, Fantasy and Disembodiment (just to name a few)
CLEARLY you're misinformed about the search committee. This woman was in no way qualified to be dean. Had anyone on the committee decided to vet her (like using F-ING Google), she would have never made it to an offer
Why wouldn't a professor be able to respect a dean because of these titles? For instance, "Desexualizing Prison Rape" is something that would cause a lack of respect? Rape is considered an act of power and examining how that power exists in a prison setting is, while maybe not your cup of tea, a worthwhile exploration. As someone who has read a number of CVs, I would hesitate to call this one lacking. In your argument, it seems that the titles of the work determine their worth.
-
This is where I could not disagree with you more. Her CV is incredibly mediocre.
It's not like she was a lesbian biologist who has solely written on biology. Her published works range from blatant gay activism to something you'd see in Cosmo. She had a complete lack of administrative experience. This isn't hiring a professor, this is the dean of the largest college in the University.
What exactly makes her CV "incredibly mediocre"?
Instead of regurgitating Dr. McAdams' position, I actually took the time to read through her CV and didn't find it particularly weak. She's published, she's edited, she's been a keynote speaker, she has been a Journal referee, she's the president of her regional organization, and she is a chair and director of different administrative committees.
But honestly, I have no idea what the key themes or discussion points are in the context of the Sociology world. Nor do I know what the key journals are, or the important Association meetings in sociology. Frankly, I doubt anyone here does either.
The areas of her study are clearly documented throughout her CV in her articles, books, and lectures. None of it should have been a surprise to anyone. Both the quality level of her scholarship and the content of her scholarship should have been well understood before offering the position.
-
Then clearly you aren't able to make a logical decision in this matter. You're free to fly off the handle and make an ass of yourself
Here is her CV
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
Anyone want to explain how professors in the A&S would be able to respect their dean when her writings include: We’re Here, We’re Queer, Let’s Go to IKEA, Desexualizing Prison Rape, Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities and Phone Sex, Fantasy and Disembodiment (just to name a few)
CLEARLY you're misinformed about the search committee. This woman was in no way qualified to be dean. Had anyone on the committee decided to vet her (like using F-ING Google), she would have never made it to an offer
So basically, you are saying that published articles, if they are controversial, make her unqualified.
just checking.
-
So you don't think this constitutes "scholarship," even though another Jesuit university promoted her twice and granted her tenure???
Excuse me for not taking your opinion seriously.
Not only did she get a full professorship at another Jesuit university, it was Seattle University which requires a statement of faith and is considered (by faculty) significantly more conservative than Marquette, and yet they determined her to be qualified for full professor, and (apparently) gave her glowing recommendations for the position of dean. Excuse me for not taking "We're here, we're queer, Let's go to Ikea" seriously. Just because she was promoted doesn't mean her writing was any good.
So have you read this piece to determine it's academic quality, or are you just basing it on your own personal opinions of the title? Honest question here.
-
Excuse me for not taking "We're here, we're queer, Let's go to Ikea" seriously. Just because she was promoted doesn't mean her writing was any good.
The entire reason professors get promoted is due to the quality of their scholarship. Sorry that the title doesn't thrill you.
-
Excuse me for not taking "We're here, we're queer, Let's go to Ikea" seriously. Just because she was promoted doesn't mean her writing was any good.
I always knew it was gay to shop at IKEA...
/obligatory'd
-
Professor Gold, does reading her CV from 2007 and making assumptions about her abilities based on some provocative titles make me an expert? Now that I have read it am i granted your permission to comment?
By your standards the entire search committee made up of faculty from the very university from which you hold a degree is completely incompetant? People that actually took the time to read her work rather than judge the titles.
-
Just because she was promoted doesn't mean her writing was any good.
Wait, what? Why do you think they promoted her?
-
Then clearly you aren't able to make a logical decision in this matter. You're free to fly off the handle and make an ass of yourself
Here is her CV
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
Anyone want to explain how professors in the A&S would be able to respect their dean when her writings include: We’re Here, We’re Queer, Let’s Go to IKEA, Desexualizing Prison Rape, Wrestling the Angel of Contradiction: Queer Christian Identities and Phone Sex, Fantasy and Disembodiment (just to name a few)
CLEARLY you're misinformed about the search committee. This woman was in no way qualified to be dean. Had anyone on the committee decided to vet her (like using F-ING Google), she would have never made it to an offer
A few things...
First, the CV you linked is more than three years old; I strongly suspect that the MU search committee had a newer CV. Second, whoever said she had a complete lack of administrative experience was incorrect; she's been a department chair for eight years. I don't work in academia, so I don't know if that is typical for a newly-minted dean, but it's certainly not a complete lack of experience. Third, it's foolish to attempt to judge the quality of someone's scholarship by the title of an article. Her particular area of study is not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to say that her scholarship is sub par because I don't like the titles of her articles. Similarly, I'm not going to say her scholarship is sub par because I don't agree with her views.
I know very little about this woman. If her teachings/positions/scholarship is contrary to the Catholic Church's teachings, then I think she probably should not have been offered the job. But as someone who focuses his professional life on employment and discrimination issues, I will be very interested to see how this works out.
-
I am not embarrassed in the least the MU pulled the offer.
I am embarrassed that she even made it to the end and was offered the position in the first place. That is where the real shame in this story comes from.
-
I am not embarrassed in the least the MU pulled the offer.
I am embarrassed that she even made it to the end and was offered the position in the first place. That is where the real shame in this story comes from.
why is that exactly?
-
While I happen to disagree with Catholic teaching on homosexuality, I don't have a problem with a Catholic University hiring according to that teaching. Hiring her, than backing away is what is wrong. This was a total FU on Fr. Wild's part. If he wasn't willing to back this hire 150% he should not have made the hire. He was warned about that.
Remember, this is a University that changed a mascot with no pressure to do so, to bow to the Altar of political correctness, but then treats a real person with so little regard.
WWJD: if she was truly qualified, he would have hired her. While I would be driven nuts by the A&S faculty, and their political leanings, I am sure they would not have forwarded an unqualified candidate.
-
Lemme address all these in one:
Have I read the CV? more than you'd assume and more than just her titles. I have read some of them that I had access to via Google Reader and Google Scholar. Now, I don't totally object to her writings if she was going to be hired as Phil/Sociology professor. Thorough analysis of phone sex is Not my cup of tea, or however you want to say it But MU was going to select this person as the Dean of the Largest College. I echo MUFan. And I still struggle to believe that some professors in the college would be able to accept/respect a dean with that CV.
Her writings that were very much against the Catholic Church's teachings and advocated gay marriage should have disqualified her much earlier in the search (regardless of personal opinions)
-
Father Wild has a responsibility to provide solid leadership of the University. It is clear that this hire will be a distraction at the very least and a major headache for the alumni relations. He has to operate in the real world where this will cause problems in fundraising, and public relation problems. This was not vetted properly at all. Marquette will be better served in total by the next candidate in line even if she is the 1A candidate of the 1 and 1A choice.
-
Another angle to consider on this-
Would there have been more uproar had she been officially hired, and all this information came to light?
I haven't figured that one out yet.
-
why is that exactly?
She is not even close to being qualified to lead a Catholic Jesuit Institution's largest college. She should have applied to UW or UWM if she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom. No room for it at MU
-
Another angle to consider on this-
Would there have been more uproar had she been officially hired, and all this information came to light?
I haven't figured that one out yet.
Great question MUFAN12
I think there would be more uproar if she was officially hired and then this came out. At least MU can say they caught it in time and didn't allow this person to be employed, although they were scary close.
-
She is not even close to being qualified to lead a Catholic Jesuit Institution's largest college. She should have applied to UW or UWM if she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom. No room for it at MU
I'll admit that I have no idea what the CV of a qualified dean would look like. I've never hired a dean or been involved in hiring a dean. I'm absolutely not saying that you're wrong...I have no idea. What would the CV of a qualified candidate look like?
-
Another angle to consider on this-
Would there have been more uproar had she been officially hired, and all this information came to light?
I haven't figured that one out yet.
What information 'came to light?' It was all right there on her CV. If by 'come to light' you mean 'read her work', I contend that that should have been done prior to extending a job offer.
-
What information 'came to light?' It was all right there on her CV. If by 'come to light' you mean 'read her work', I contend that that should have been done prior to extending a job offer.
I'm aware of that. But it seems no one outside the search committee knew her or her work. That certainly would have come out after the hiring.
-
She is not even close to being qualified to lead a Catholic Jesuit Institution's largest college. She should have applied to UW or UWM if she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom. No room for it at MU
Why isn't she qualified, exactly?
I don't believe she ever said that she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom, did she?
-
I'm aware of that. But it seems no one outside the search committee knew her or her work. That certainly would have come out after the hiring.
I believe there are several links on this page that prove that her CV was public material. Anyone who cared about following the candidates and the hiring process were free to check them out.
-
I'm aware of that. But it seems no one outside the search committee knew her or her work. That certainly would have come out after the hiring.
Except the president of the university...
-
I believe there are several links on this page that prove that her CV was public material. Anyone who cared about following the candidates and the hiring process were free to check them out.
I guess I'm not seeing what your argument is.... or if you're just being argumentative.
I don't think the question I asked was out of bounds at all.
-
She is not even close to being qualified to lead a Catholic Jesuit Institution's largest college. She should have applied to UW or UWM if she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom. No room for it at MU
How many gay and lesbians do you think are on as faculty at Marquette? I will promise you the faculty has much more say on advancing the so called "gay agenda" than a dean does. Look, either way you look at this Marquette screwed up. Either they ignored their own non-discrimination policy and didn't hire a lesbian because of her sexual orientation, or the administration approved a candidate they didn't vet. There is no positive spin on this for Marquette.
Lemme address all these in one:
Have I read the CV? more than you'd assume and more than just her titles. I have read some of them that I had access to via Google Reader and Google Scholar. Now, I don't totally object to her writings if she was going to be hired as Phil/Sociology professor. Thorough analysis of phone sex is Not my cup of tea, or however you want to say it But MU was going to select this person as the Dean of the Largest College. I echo MUFan. And I still struggle to believe that some professors in the college would be able to accept/respect a dean with that CV.
Her writings that were very much against the Catholic Church's teachings and advocated gay marriage should have disqualified her much earlier in the search (regardless of personal opinions)
Other than a few crotchety tenured professors (who are beyond any control of the dean regardless) I think after the outpouring of support shown by faculty yesterday, the dean who Marquette actually hires in this process will have a lot less respect than Dr. O'Brien would have among the younger tenured and non-tenured faculty. Let's just say faculty isn't impressed when administration overrides them, especially when the administration first signs off on a decision, then changes their mind and dumps the blame on faculty. The next dean is going to have a heck of a hill to climb.
-
Precisely. MU messed up big-time. If the rumors are true that Fr. Wild caved to the threat of a big donor, it makes MU look bad. If this all happened despite the warning of the vetting committe that it WOULD happen unless handled perfectly, it makes MU look bad. If MU was hiring her simpy BECAUSE she is a lesbian, it makes MU look bad. If MU is now rescinding for the same reason despite it's own stated practices.....you get the idea. Back to my original statement. If she is the best candidate, hire her. If she isn't, either hire the other guy or restart the process. There are no easy, graceful exits at this point.
-
I guess I'm not seeing what your argument is.... or if you're just being argumentative.
I don't think the question I asked was out of bounds at all.
I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just wondering what you mean by saying that this would have 'come to light.' That she was a lesbian? That she wrote some pieces about being a lesbian? That was pretty apparent from her CV, which was already in the light. If all you mean is that the public would have been upset that MU hired a lesbian as a dean, than as Toodles said, the Arts and Sciences faculty has gay and lesbian members already. I doubt it would have been a big deal at all. The problem with this whole thing is that they offered her a job, and then rescinded it, and as people have said, any of the possible explanations do not cast MU in a very good light.
-
Regardless of what you think of the titles or subject matter, her articles were published in peer reviewed journals. Competitive journal have acceptance rates of say 10%-20%. It's a rigorous process that involves blind reviews, revisions, re-submissions, and rejections (more often than not). I don't have the academic credentials or experience to evaluate her work objectively, but I am a reasonable person. I think its fair to assume that her publications went through an intellectual gauntlet before seeing print.
-
Let's just say faculty isn't impressed when administration overrides them, especially when the administration first signs off on a decision, then changes their mind and dumps the blame on faculty.
Why would the administration care if the faculty is impressed? And isn't the administration in charge here? There is no overriding of the faculty. I can't imagine standing up in a room full of people and attempting to shame or embarrass my boss into doing something like Snow did to Wild (even if Wild did screw up the process by hiring and then rescinding).
-
I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just wondering what you mean by saying that this would have 'come to light.'
Fair enough. I'll ask you this, how many people knew about her, or her work 24 hours ago? That info was always out there, but until something happened (in this case the rescinded offer) there was no reason to look into it for many of us.
Basically, it took an event to make people look/read into her background further. My question is, what if that event had been the announcement of her hiring, instead of the rescinded offer? How, if at all, would the reactions have been different?
-
Fair enough. I'll ask you this, how many people knew about her, or her work 24 hours ago? That info was always out there, but until something happened (in this case the rescinded offer) there was no reason to look into it for many of us.
Basically, it took an event to make people look/read into her background further. My question is, what if that event had been the announcement of her hiring, instead of the rescinded offer? How, if at all, would the reactions have been different?
Well, considering the vast majority of the posts on this thread are concerned with the improper offer/rescinding, I doubt the attention would have even approached these levels. No doubt Prof. McAdams would have been in a tizzy about it, but I don't think we'd be talking about it here for 4 pages and counting...
I think most of the research people are putting into her work now has to do with the fact that the university cited it for their reasons for rescinding the job offer. If they had never rescinded the offer, I doubt very much we'd be looking at it. That's my opinion.
-
For years, I have had the notion that Marquette has structural problems with making big decisions. Avenue Commons, the Nickname, and then the Nickname (again), the Provost before last, and the Buzz hiring process.
Hooray Confirmation Bias.
-
Father Wild had full visibility to (a) her publishing record, and (b) the heat that would come along with the hire. As mentioned in a previous post, he was advised not to proceed unless he had the strength, courage, and conviction to stand by the decision to make the hire. This is consistent with my conversations with people close to the University. So it's not as if some 'skeletons from the closet' came into view for the first time after the offer was made.
So if he had full view of the facts...what pattern of events transpired causing the offer to be rescinded? Who applied the pressure to rescind? It must have been intense for Fr. Wild to do a 180.
People left the dinner last night scratching their heads.
-
Why would the administration care if the faculty is impressed? And isn't the administration in charge here? There is no overriding of the faculty. I can't imagine standing up in a room full of people and attempting to shame or embarrass my boss into doing something like Snow did to Wild (even if Wild did screw up the process by hiring and then rescinding).
Because, quite frankly, the faculty don't see administration as their boss, especially tenured professors. Ask almost any professor and they view themselves as having more of a symbiotic relationship with a university, as opposed to an employer, employee relationship. The general feel is, they can't exist without the university, but the university can't exist without them. Do you really think John McAdams would get away with his blog, and the constant ripping on administration if universities had a traditional boss/employee hierarchy found in most of the business world? Same goes for Dr. Macguire and his views on the Catholic Church and it's positions. Also, make no mistake, this is the administration overriding a decision they charged the search committee (largely made up of faculty) with, for reasons not agreeable to the search committee. As to why the university should care. Well if they hope to bring it top notch instructors and retain current talent, having a dean respected by faculty is very important.
-
For years, I have had the notion that Marquette has structural problems with making big decisions. Avenue Commons, the Nickname, and then the Nickname (again), the Provost before last, and the Buzz hiring process.
Hooray Confirmation Bias.
I was thinking the same thing, Sugar.
Although .. perhaps their decision was the right one, but didn't factor in something that just wouldn't, or shouldn't come up, namely, a rich donor appears and throws-down.
They may have done 49 things right here.
If the "big donor theory" is correct .. clearly THAT is the most disturbing feature of this story.
-
Why would the administration care if the faculty is impressed? And isn't the administration in charge here? There is no overriding of the faculty. I can't imagine standing up in a room full of people and attempting to shame or embarrass my boss into doing something like Snow did to Wild (even if Wild did screw up the process by hiring and then rescinding).
Let's clarify a few things about Nancy and Father Wild.
1st, Nancy has won teaching awards, earned research grants, and has advanced the University's research profile with her publications. She could lock up a high profile job at another University tomorrow, but she's dedicated to her Alma Mater. Marquette grads are going into a complex world where they'll work and live alongside people of different races, religions, and sexual orientations. It's best for cradle catholics like me to have our comfort zones pushed in the safety of a classroom. In that respect, Nancy has served Marquette extraordinarily well.
2nd, Fr Wild was the Chaplain of Nancy's dorm when she was a freshman in 1978. They have known one another for a long time, and there is mutual respect. Both Nancy and Fr Wild acknowledged that in their speeches last night.
3rd, Nancy engaged Fr Wild in an dialogue prior the dinner last night, but there was not a satisfactory answer as to why the University made an about-face. There were no sneak attacks last night.
4th, In the absence of a satisfactory answer, Nancy is left to believe that the offer was rescinded on the basis of sexual oreintation. In her own words, "that cuts to the bone." If someone were to insinuate that I was morally corrupt or defective, I'd have a heard time being as calm as she was last night.
-
Let's clarify a few things about Nancy and Father Wild.
1st, Nancy has won teaching awards, earned research grants, and has advanced the University's research profile with her publications. She could lock up a high profile job at another University tomorrow, but she's dedicated to her Alma Mater. Marquette grads are going into a complex world where they'll work and live alongside people of different races, religions, and sexual orientations. It's best for cradle catholics like me to have our comfort zones pushed in the safety of a classroom. In that respect, Nancy has served Marquette extraordinarily well.
2nd, Fr Wild was the Chaplain of Nancy's dorm when she was a freshman in 1978. They have known one another for a long time, and there is mutual respect. Both Nancy and Fr Wild acknowledged that in their speeches last night.
3rd, Nancy engaged Fr Wild in an dialogue prior the dinner last night, but there was not a satisfactory answer as to why the University made an about-face. There were no sneak attacks last night.
4th, In the absence of a satisfactory answer, Nancy is left to believe that the offer was rescinded on the basis of sexual oreintation. In her own words, "that cuts to the bone." If someone were to insinuate that I was morally corrupt or defective, I'd have a heard time being as calm as she was last night.
I honestly don't think the relationship between Snow and Wild is relevant. Going public (through faculty emails, releases to news media, satements made during the dinner) in an attempt attempt to pressure and embarrass Wild was out of line in my opinion.
And if Snow is as well-respected as you claim she is, if she has a problem with how MU is run she should take one of those other jobs.
You wouldn't expect a predominantly black university to hire a professor who is a KKK member. You wouldn't expect a Lutheran university to hire a professor who openly speaks negatively of Martin Luther. Why should you expect a Catholic university to hire a woman who promotes activities that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching?
-
Did they ask her to spend a year in prep school?
This was the greatest thing to come out of this thread, and subsequently the entire situation
-
I honestly don't think the relationship between Snow and Wild is relevant. Going public (through faculty emails, releases to news media, satements made during the dinner) in an attempt attempt to pressure and embarrass Wild was out of line in my opinion.
And if Snow is as well-respected as you claim she is, if she has a problem with how MU is run she should take one of those other jobs.
You wouldn't expect a predominantly black university to hire a professor who is a KKK member. You wouldn't expect a Lutheran university to hire a professor who openly speaks negatively of Martin Luther. Why should you expect a Catholic university to hire a woman who promotes activities that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching?
I was waiting for the hyperbole to show up in this discussion.
Do you really believe your examples are even remotely analogous?
-
I honestly don't think the relationship between Snow and Wild is relevant. Going public (through faculty emails, releases to news media, satements made during the dinner) in an attempt attempt to pressure and embarrass Wild was out of line in my opinion.
And if Snow is as well-respected as you claim she is, if she has a problem with how MU is run she should take one of those other jobs.
You wouldn't expect a predominantly black university to hire a professor who is a KKK member. You wouldn't expect a Lutheran university to hire a professor who openly speaks negatively of Martin Luther. Why should you expect a Catholic university to hire a woman who promotes activities that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching?
If MU only hired people who promotes activities that are totally consistent with Catholic teaching, then only priests would be professors. Good luck finding any professors for the University if we are to do this kind of job search. This notion is utterly ridiculous if you consider Marquette as a legitimate institution of higher learning, and not just a theology school.
Are you comparing virulent racism to being a lesbian? I'd say one of those things ought to be considered in the hiring process (at any University), and the other should not, especially given the University's anti-discrimination policy, but hey, maybe that's just me.....
Just to flip the coin, Professor McAdams, who has a position similar to yours on this issue, is strongly in favor of the death penalty. Under your conception, I suppose the administration would have to fire him. Catholic teaching disagrees with him...
-
I was waiting for the hyperbole to show up in this discussion.
Do you really believe your examples are even remotely analogous?
Hyperbole or simile?
-
I was waiting for the hyperbole to show up in this discussion.
Do you really believe your examples are even remotely analogous?
Yes, I do. Please tell me why they aren't.
The point is that other similar situations would not be on the front page of the local newspaper and leading the 10pm local news. If Concordia University refused to hire a professor that openly spoke negatively of Martin Luther would anyone care? Why is it different when a Catholic school attempts to enforce its teachings?
-
If MU only hired people who promotes activities that are totally consistent with Catholic teaching, then only priests would be professors. Good luck finding any professors for the University if we are to do this kind of job search. This notion is utterly ridiculous if you consider Marquette as a legitimate institution of higher learning, and not just a theology school.
Are you comparing virulent racism to being a lesbian? I'd say one of those things ought to be considered in the hiring process (at any University), and the other should not, especially given the University's anti-discrimination policy, but hey, maybe that's just me.....
Just to flip the coin, Professor McAdams, who has a position similar to yours on this issue, is strongly in favor of the death penalty. Under your conception, I suppose the administration would have to fire him. Catholic teaching disagrees with him...
I'm obviously not comparing racism to being a lesbian, just comparing a group enforcing its beliefs.
And I don't claim that MU has been consistent with its hiring or promotion decisions, just that it should not be ripped when it actually tries to do something consistent with Catholic teaching.
-
I was thinking the same thing, Sugar.
Although .. perhaps their decision was the right one, but didn't factor in something that just wouldn't, or shouldn't come up, namely, a rich donor appears and throws-down.
They may have done 49 things right here.
If the "big donor theory" is correct .. clearly THAT is the most disturbing feature of this story.
I have a very, very hard time believing the donor theory. MU has done, and tolerated a bunch of things that would have pissed off conservative Catholic donors.
What appears more and more likely is intervention from the Archdiocese.
-
I have a very, very hard time believing the donor theory. MU has done, and tolerated a bunch of things that would have pissed off conservative Catholic donors.
What appears more and more likely is intervention from the Archdiocese.
MU has also done, and tolerated a bunch of things that would have pissed off the archdiocese.
-
Why would the administration care if the faculty is impressed? And isn't the administration in charge here? There is no overriding of the faculty. I can't imagine standing up in a room full of people and attempting to shame or embarrass my boss into doing something like Snow did to Wild (even if Wild did screw up the process by hiring and then rescinding).
First of all, a search committee generally makes recommendations to the Provost. No doubt that the Provost (with the consent of the President) makes the ultimate decision.
Second, stop thinking of the faculty / administration relationship as similar to the normal employee / supervisor relationship. It isn't. Universities started out as partnerships of intellectuals who came together to educate. Everything has evolved from that model. Open debate is not only accepted, it is often encouraged, because of the nature of the organization. Faculty can make life very difficult for administration if they want.
-
MU has also done, and tolerated a bunch of things that would have pissed off the archdiocese.
True. But we don't know how a new archbishop views the dynamic between MU and the Archdiocese. Weakland and Dolan were very lassiez faire with MU.
I just don't see the donor thing holding a ton of water. Unless it was a "name on a building" donor, the administration's decisions have tended to not show much regard for donors.
-
Yes, I do. Please tell me why they aren't.
The point is that other similar situations would not be on the front page of the local newspaper and leading the 10pm local news. If Concordia University refused to hire a professor that openly spoke negatively of Martin Luther would anyone care? Why is it different when a Catholic school attempts to enforce its teachings?
You wouldn't expect a predominantly black university to hire a professor who is a KKK member.
around 95% of people would agree that this would not be okay.
You wouldn't expect a Lutheran university to hire a professor who openly speaks negatively of Martin Luther.
Why not? I think you underestimate Lutheran's commitment to free speech *snicker*
Why should you expect a Catholic university to hire a woman who promotes activities that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching?
Are you really arguing that 95% of people (I realize it is my made up number, but it is reasonable) would be against hiring a homosexual as Dean of A&S? I can tell you, no, otherwise we all probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Additionally, Marquette has faculty who are openly gay. Making a homosexual Dean of A&S changes what, exactly? This is a completley rediculous argument. Who cares if she 'promotes' (you probably shouldn't have used this word) homosexuality. Do you HONESTLY think that by promoting homosexuality that people will become homosexuals? If so, Lord help you.
It isn't as if she will stand in Gesu and hypnotize everyone into turning homosexual.
What is it you are so afraid of, exactly?
-
I just don't see the donor thing holding a ton of water. Unless it was a "name on a building" donor, the administration's decisions have tended to not show much regard for donors.
When I heard the donor rumor, my first thought was that it must have been someone with a lot of clout. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
-
She is not even close to being qualified to lead a Catholic Jesuit Institution's largest college. She should have applied to UW or UWM if she wanted to bring gay and lesbian teachings to the classroom. No room for it at MU
You do realize that she worked for a Catholic Jesuit institution throughout her career, and was in fact promoted multiple times?
And the other question I have for the "not at a Catholic university" crowd is....what do you fear? Is your faith in your beliefs so weak that you can't have someone challenge them? What kind of education would it be if they just gave you the party line on every issue? Having a professor stand up in a classroom and say "I believe in gay marriage and here's why..." is a *strength* of a university...not a weakness.
What I appreciated about my education at MU is that some professors challenged me. They taught me how to think...they didn't just fill my head.
-
I was waiting for the hyperbole to show up in this discussion.
Do you really believe your examples are even remotely analogous?
+1.
My thoughts exactly.
-
You do realize that she worked for a Catholic Jesuit institution throughout her career, and was in fact promoted multiple times?
And the other question I have for the "not at a Catholic university" crowd is....what do you fear? Is your faith in your beliefs so weak that you can't have someone challenge them? What kind of education would it be if they just gave you the party line on every issue? Having a professor stand up in a classroom and say "I believe in gay marriage and here's why..." is a *strength* of a university...not a weakness.
What I appreciated about my education at MU is that some professors challenged me. They taught me how to think...they didn't just fill my head.
so spot on. exactly what I was trying to get at.
-
Additionally, Marquette has faculty who are openly gay. Making a homosexual Dean of A&S changes what, exactly?
Interesting points within each of these sentences. Yes, there are gay faculty and staff at MU. But couldn't that also mean that it wasn't the fact that she was a lesbian, but rather other factors that caused this decision?
As I wrote before, it's not about having a homosexual dean. I'll use the biology example again. If she were a lesbian biologist, who was published on biology, it wouldn't be an issue. It's about what she has published, and certain pieces where she has espoused views in direct conflict with church teaching.
As much as some may disagree, MU still has responsibilites to uphold as a Catholic school. There are certain things you just can't do. Such as naming someone dean of your largest college, who has spent a large part of their career at odds with church teaching.
To me, if you subsituted Dan Maguire for Jodi O'Brien, I'd have the same issues. It's not about gender. It's not about sexuality. It's about their published works being in direct conflict with the church.
It isn't as if she will stand in Gesu and hypnotize everyone into turning homosexual.
What is it you are so afraid of, exactly?
I was waiting for the first homophobia allegations. Always the old, reliable fallback, right?
-
You do realize that she worked for a Catholic Jesuit institution throughout her career, and was in fact promoted multiple times?
And the other question I have for the "not at a Catholic university" crowd is....what do you fear? Is your faith in your beliefs so weak that you can't have someone challenge them? What kind of education would it be if they just gave you the party line on every issue? Having a professor stand up in a classroom and say "I believe in gay marriage and here's why..." is a *strength* of a university...not a weakness.
What I appreciated about my education at MU is that some professors challenged me. They taught me how to think...they didn't just fill my head.
I disagree vehemently with most of Dan Maguire's ideas. I'm glad (sort of) that Marquette keeps him around. College kids need to hear both sides.
(this wasn't a retort to the previous poster. Dan Maguire is the poster child for teaching against the Church).
-
And the other question I have for the "not at a Catholic university" crowd is....what do you fear? Is your faith in your beliefs so weak that you can't have someone challenge them? What kind of education would it be if they just gave you the party line on every issue? Having a professor stand up in a classroom and say "I believe in gay marriage and here's why..." is a *strength* of a university...not a weakness.
It isn't really a question of a difference of opinion (although I would suggest there are very few classes where that type of evangelizing, regardless of the subject matter is really appropriate), it has to do with Catholic Doctrine, which contrary to what many 'Catholics' like to believe is not optional. Catholics have choices, but its not to choose which part of the religion you agree with or not, it is the choice to be Catholic or not.
For the record, the more I see of this, put me in the camp that says this had as much to do with her lack of qualification, as it does her sexual orientation/activism.
-
I disagree vehemently with most of Dan Maguire's ideas. I'm glad (sort of) that Marquette keeps him around. College kids need to hear both sides.
(this wasn't a retort to the previous poster. Dan Maguire is the poster child for teaching against the Church).
Agree, everyone needs to hear both sides. More importantly, everyone needs to actually listen to and consider both sides.
-
As much as some may disagree, MU still has responsibilites to uphold as a Catholic school. There are certain things you just can't do. Such as naming someone dean of your largest college, who has spent a large part of their career at odds with church teaching.
[/quote]
Funny, because that is exactly what they were about to do before they pulled a 180. Now, do you really think they found some 'smoking gun' in her research and only then decided to pull the plug? I doubt it... they knew exactly what they were getting, and never should have made an offer that they weren't willing to go through with. The people who researched her, I'm sure, alerted the administration to her 'radical' publications. Somehow, it only became a problem this late in the process.
-
I was waiting for the first homophobia allegations. Always the old, reliable fallback, right?
Agreed. Very weak.
-
The people who researched her, I'm sure, alerted the administration to her 'radical' publications. Somehow, it only became a problem this late in the process.
So what are you suggesting, that they should have gone ahead with a bad idea because they realized it was a bad idea late in the process?
-
It isn't really a question of a difference of opinion (although I would suggest there are very few classes where that type of evangelizing, regardless of the subject matter is really appropriate), it has to do with Catholic Doctrine, which contrary to what many 'Catholics' like to believe is not optional. Catholics have choices, but its not to choose which part of the religion you agree with or not, it is the choice to be Catholic or not.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. That only teachings consistent with Catholic Doctrine should be taught at MU? That anyone who doesn't live by that doctrine shouldn't be able to teach or work at MU?
-
they knew exactly what they were getting, and never should have made an offer that they weren't willing to go through with.
We agree on this.
Ultimately, I agree with MU on not hiring her. I also think they massively botched this whole thing. Almost a Gold-level botching.
Maybe Anne Zizzo can do some PR spin for them?
-
Interesting points within each of these sentences. Yes, there are gay faculty and staff at MU. But couldn't that also mean that it wasn't the fact that she was a lesbian, but rather other factors that caused this decision?
As I wrote before, it's not about having a homosexual dean. I'll use the biology example again. If she were a lesbian biologist, who was published on biology, it wouldn't be an issue. It's about what she has published, and certain pieces where she has espoused views in direct conflict with church teaching.
As much as some may disagree, MU still has responsibilites to uphold as a Catholic school. There are certain things you just can't do. Such as naming someone dean of your largest college, who has spent a large part of their career at odds with church teaching.
To me, if you subsituted Dan Maguire for Jodi O'Brien, I'd have the same issues. It's not about gender. It's not about sexuality. It's about their published works being in direct conflict with the church.
I was waiting for the first homophobia allegations. Always the old, reliable fallback, right?
I never accused you of anything. I just don't understand why it matters that she has published works regarding homosexuality. You fail to explain anything except that MU has to uphold responsibilites as a Catholic school. I don't see how the two are related. Are you insinuating that squelching free thought is a Catholic school value that MU needs to uphold as its responsibility, or are you proposing that MU's responsibilty as a Catholic school requires them to not allow homosexuals to become Dean of a college?
Why exactly is the demarkation line drawn at:
Faculty = okay
Dean = not okay
I would argue that simply by publishing pro homosexual literature does not mean she has spent a large part of her career at odds with church teaching. Has she openly stated that the church is wrong? Has she published an article that summarizes that she is even at odds with church teaching? I don't believe so. I do not see what her published works have anything to do with her ability to be Dean of Arts and Science. So what exactly is everyone so afraid of?
Understand me now? I was never implying any sort of homophobia on your part, please get over yourself.
-
Additionally, Marquette has faculty who are openly gay. Making a homosexual Dean of A&S changes what, exactly? This is a completley rediculous argument. Who cares if she 'promotes' (you probably shouldn't have used this word) homosexuality. Do you HONESTLY think that by promoting homosexuality that people will become homosexuals? If so, Lord help you.
What's wrong with saying "promotes"? I don't think anything turns people into homosexuals, but nice attempt at a straw man.
It isn't as if she will stand in Gesu and hypnotize everyone into turning homosexual.
What is it you are so afraid of, exactly?
Now you are being rediculous.
-
Simply answer how she will promote homosexuality by becoming Dean of A&S.
-
I never accused you of anything. I just don't understand why it matters that she has published works regarding homosexuality. You fail to explain anything except that MU has to uphold responsibilites as a Catholic school. I don't see how the two are related. Are you insinuating that squelching free thought is a Catholic school value that MU needs to uphold as its responsibility, or are you proposing that MU's responsibilty as a Catholic school requires them to not allow homosexuals to become Dean of a college?
Why exactly is the demarkation line drawn at:
Faculty = okay
Dean = not okay
I would argue that simply by publishing pro homosexual literature does not mean she has spent a large part of her career at odds with church teaching. Has she openly stated that the church is wrong? Has she published an article that summarizes that she is even at odds with church teaching? I don't believe so. I do not see what her published works have anything to do with her ability to be Dean of Arts and Science. So what exactly is everyone so afraid of?
Understand me now? I was never implying any sort of homophobia on your part, please get over yourself.
No one is afraid of anything. Why do you keep asking that? The arguments I read are that MU has the right to enforce the teachings of the church that it was founded on. Maybe you don't understand how religion works. Religions have a set of rules (beliefs, codes, whatever) that you are supposed to live by. If you don't adhere to those rules, what's the point? It works the same for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, etc.
And you seriously need to stop with the straw men and red herrring arguments. Squelching free thought is not a Catholic value and no one thinks O'Brien is going to stand in Gesu and hypnotize people into turning gay. You make it hard for people to take you seriously . . .
-
Simply answer how she will promote homosexuality by becoming Dean of A&S.
Openly discussing and publishing articles portraying homosexual sex in a positive manner is promoting homosexuality. I didn't think it was that confusing . . .
-
No one is afraid of anything. Why do you keep asking that? The arguments I read are that MU has the right to enforce the teachings of the church that it was founded on. Maybe you don't understand how religion works. Religions have a set of rules (beliefs, codes, whatever) that you are supposed to live by. If you don't adhere to those rules, what's the point? It works the same for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, etc.
Marquette is a *university* first - where different ideas are discussed and debated. It's not an extention of your parish's CCD class.
-
So what are you suggesting, that they should have gone ahead with a bad idea because they realized it was a bad idea late in the process?
I'm suggesting that none of this makes any sense. With hiring as important as this, she was heavily scrutinized and highly researched. You're telling me that they confident enough with her one day to offer her the freaking Dean-ship, and the next day realize that she is unqualified? That they found new publications proving she is against Catholic teaching? Please, they already knew she was against the letter of Catholic teachings, and were prepared to hire. What exactly changed their minds?
You also seem pretty confident that this would be a bad hire. Echoing the other people here, I'd like an explanation of why hiring a lesbian dean who has written about her lesbian experience, which (gasp) has probably been at odds with the Church would be a bad hire? Or at least so bad that is was okay one day, but not okay the next?
-
Simply answer how she will promote homosexuality by becoming Dean of A&S.
By giving her that position, couldn't it be said that Marquette is endorsing her positions and previous work? Isn't that a large part of why you hire someone, based on their work history? Just a thought.
It's not about the promotion of homosexuality. It's about what MU appears to be promoting.
And I know you weren't accusing me of anything. I was just pointing out how weak it was. But I'll get over myself anyway.
-
That anyone who doesn't live by that doctrine shouldn't be able to teach or work at MU?
Nope, but I believe it is perfectly reasonable for MU to conclude that such a person who not only doesn't live by catholic doctrine, but seemingly goes rather aggressively in the other direction may not be appropriate for a position as and administrator, and Dean of the largest college within the University.
-
Just an FYI- McAdams looks deeper into her scholarly background, and compares a bit to the other two candidates. Take it for what it's worth.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/rejected-lesbian-dean-candidate_07.html
-
By giving her that position, couldn't it be said that Marquette is endorsing her positions and previous work? Isn't that a large part of why you hire someone, based on their work history? Just a thought.
No you would hire someone based on their ability to formulate an argument and intelligently support their position. If people only hired who they agreed with half of our faculty would not be employed.
-
By giving her that position, couldn't it be said that Marquette is endorsing her positions and previous work? Isn't that why you hire someone, based on their work history? Just a thought.
And I know you weren't accusing me of anything. I was just pointing out how weak it was. But I'll get over myself anyway.
Lots of professors at Marquette are at odds with Catholic teaching: other gays and lesbians, proponents of stem cell research, and proponents of the death penalty alike. Does that mean the University as a Catholic entity endorses their positions? No, it means they are committed to being a decent educational institution with varying positions on important topics.
-
Echoing the other people here, I'd like an explanation of why hiring a lesbian dean who has written about her lesbian experience, which (gasp) has probably been at odds with the Church would be a bad hire?
Well, I guess you said it all right there... You don't consider the Catholic aspect of this situation important. That's your choice, but some people do. MU is a Catholic institution, and whether you or others care about that or not, it isn't going to change, and it is going to be a consideration in everything they do. If you don't like it, tough. Its not your decision.
-
Deans and professors are two completely different entities. LA and shiloh, you are completely meshing the two together.
If they hired her as a sociology professor no one would have batted an eye.
-
No one is afraid of anything. Why do you keep asking that? The arguments I read are that MU has the right to enforce the teachings of the church that it was founded on. Maybe you don't understand how religion works. Religions have a set of rules (beliefs, codes, whatever) that you are supposed to live by. If you don't adhere to those rules, what's the point? It works the same for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, etc.
And you seriously need to stop with the straw men and red herrring arguments. Squelching free thought is not a Catholic value and no one thinks O'Brien is going to stand in Gesu and hypnotize people into turning gay. You make it hard for people to take you seriously . . .
I was making a point using hyperbole. I apologize if I am making it too difficult to understand. But, If you would simply answer the questions, then I wouldn't need to theorize what you are thinking. But rather than answering the question, you pull the 'straw man' and 'red herring' card, and fail to address the questions.
1. What do published works regarding homosexuality have to do with her ability to do her job as Dean of A&S?
2. Why does it matter that she has published works regarding homosexuality?
3. Do the published works directly state her opposition to Catholic doctorine?
I fully understand religion. Do you understand the difference between church, religion and education?
-
Marquette is a *university* first - where different ideas are discussed and debated. It's not an extention of your parish's CCD class.
Actually Marquette is a Catholic university. Note which word comes first. From the MU website:
http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml
(http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml)
And just because it is a Catholic university doesn't mean ideas can't be discussed and debated. It's the endorsement and promotion that becomes a problem . . .
-
Just an FYI- McAdams looks deeper into her scholarly background, and compares a bit to the other two candidates. Take it for what it's worth.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/rejected-lesbian-dean-candidate_07.html
McAdams hits on some very good points but really undermines his arguments with his snarky comments. For instance, this is a valid argument:
"Oh, she has published a lot of articles. But none is in a top-level or even a mid-level sociology journal. She has authored and coauthored a lot of books, but all but one are simply edited volumes where she and a coauthor put together essays collected from other scholars."
However, he undermines it with this kind of stuff:
"We have downloaded and put online three articles of hers, pretty much at random. (We lack the stomach to extensively examine this kind of literature.)"
He needs to simply state his case and let the facts do the talking. His comments frankly make him come off as, at best, disrespectful.
-
Actually Marquette is a Catholic university. Note which word comes first. From the MU website:
http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml
(http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml)
And just because it is a Catholic university doesn't mean ideas can't be discussed and debated. It's the endorsement and promotion that becomes a problem . . .
Because "University Catholic" is gramatically incorrect.
And hiring a deal that's a lesbian isn't promoting anything.
-
Exactly MUfan so shouldn't we be looking at her history as chair of her department and her getting promoted at a consitent rate throughout her career? If you disagree with her points as a professor what does that have to do with her ability to be an administrator?
-
Actually Marquette is a Catholic university. Note which word comes first. From the MU website:
http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml
(http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml)
And just because it is a Catholic university doesn't mean ideas can't be discussed and debated. It's the endorsement and promotion that becomes a problem . . .
Who exactly should debate them? Everyone from one side of the argument?
I still don't see how she would be harmful as a Dean, but not harmful as a member of the faculty.
Because she is more of a public figure? This is a serious question.
-
Exactly MUfan so shouldn't we be looking at her history as chair of her department and her getting promoted at a consitent rate throughout her career? If you disagree with her points as a professor what does that have to do with her ability to be an administrator?
That's great she was a department chair and has been promoted. You can't look at that stuff and gloss over the rest, though.
But by hiring her as a dean, on a certain level that's an endorsement of her scholarly work. A good chunk of that work goes against a central teaching of the church. That's the precedent that MU (or someone intimately tied to MU) didn't want to set.
-
That's great she was a department chair and has been promoted. You can't look at that stuff and gloss over the rest, though.
But by hiring her as a dean, on a certain level that's an endorsement of her scholarly work. A good chunk of that work goes against a central teaching of the church. That's the precedent that MU (or someone intimately tied to MU) didn't want to set.
I still don't understand how hiring her as a dean is an endorsement of her scholarly work but that hiring her as a professor wouldn't be such an endorsement? Or less of an endorsement? The whole point is that the University is always hiring people who are against central teachings of the church. All MU professors and deans represent the University. Is it just 'too much' to hire her as dean, but it wouldn't be as a professor?
-
I still don't understand how hiring her as a dean is an endorsement of her scholarly work but that hiring her as a professor wouldn't be such an endorsement? Or less of an endorsement?
A much, much less public endorsement.
-
Sounds like another classic example of hiring not the best candidate, but hiring to make some kind of impression or to make them feel better about themselves.
Her sexual orientation should not be a reason NOT to hire someone. Yet, at the same time, her orientation should not be the reason TO hire her either. Is she the best candidate or not? Forget all the other nonsense. Diversity has such a limited definition for some people. It seems to be defined by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender....when diversity should be based on life experience, thought process, etc.
Hire the best damn candidate.
-
I was making a point using hyperbole. I apologize if I am making it too difficult to understand. But, If you would simply answer the questions, then I wouldn't need to theorize what you are thinking. But rather than answering the question, you pull the 'straw man' and 'red herring' card, and fail to address the questions.
1. What do published works regarding homosexuality have to do with her ability to do her job as Dean of A&S? They don't at a secular university. At a Catholic university it interferes with providing a Catholic, Jesuit education, which is the mission of the university.
2. Why does it matter that she has published works regarding homosexuality? It demonstrates that her beliefs are not consistent with Catholic teaching and that she has no intention of providing a Catholic education to the students
3. Do the published works directly state her opposition to Catholic doctorine? I highly doubt they directly state "I oppose the Catholic doctrine." The ideas she is promoting and supporting are in opposition to Catholic doctrine.
I fully understand religion. Do you understand the difference between church, religion and education? I do. You apparently don't understand the concept or purpose of a religious education or Catholic school.
-
What exactly is the 'gay adgenda'?
Just wondering? Is it equal treatment?
THOSE BASTARDS!
Define equal treatment?
-
Who exactly should debate them? Everyone from one side of the argument? You can debate a point of view without condoning or endorsing it.
I still don't see how she would be harmful as a Dean, but not harmful as a member of the faculty. Who is making that distinction? Not me.
Because she is more of a public figure? This is a serious question.
-
My father in law is a history professor and was on the search committee. To suggest that the committee didn't do sufficient research on the candidates is false. Both Wild and Pauly had everything they needed on both candidates, both met and interviewed O'Brien and liked her.
Wild then just recently called them together to go off on them for recommending someone so against the universities teachings. The blame lies completely on Father Wild and I'm guessing it was pressure from donors that led to his change of heart. She was 100% qualified and not hired because she is an open lesbian. That is simply not right.
How is she 100% qualified?
-
A much, much less public endorsement.
I don't think you meant to say that... certainly, as a Catholic institution, MU doesn't 'endorse' the positions of any professors or deans or students or janitors that are contrary to the Catholic teaching. If you're saying its a question of degree, then you're saying that in hiring, MU endorses the positions of deviant professors, but not of deviant deans... which simply makes no sense.
But of course, that is exactly my point, there is no 'endorsement' issue, the fact is that the University hires people all the time who are contrary to the Church. Which is why this decision makes no sense.
-
Because "University Catholic" is gramatically incorrect.
And hiring a deal that's a lesbian isn't promoting anything.
You obviously didn't read the website, it's more than just grammar . . .
-
Sounds like another classic example of hiring not the best candidate, but hiring to make some kind of impression or to make them feel better about themselves.
Her sexual orientation should not be a reason NOT to hire someone. Yet, at the same time, her orientation should not be the reason TO hire her either. Is she the best candidate or not? Forget all the other nonsense. Diversity has such a limited definition for some people. It seems to be defined by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender....when diversity should be based on life experience, thought process, etc.
Hire the best damn candidate.
I agree. Dean Howard Eisenberg (Dean of MU Law School until he died too young) I believe to have been the best Dean MU has ever seen. He was, of course, very Jewish.
I suspect that in the current debate, however, your suggestion that her orientation "should not be the reason TO hire her" was violated.
-
How is she 100% qualified?
Progressively responsible work experience, well published, extensive network of references, experience in a catholic jesuit university.
How isn't she qualified?
-
I still don't see how she would be harmful as a Dean, but not harmful as a member of the faculty.
Because she is more of a public figure? This is a serious question.
Could Fr. DiUlio have done as much damage as he did as a member of the faculty?
-
I couldn't agree more, Chicos.
-
A few more considerations related to the role of Catholic higher education…
- As a previous poster mentioned, let's not confuse the role of a Humanities Department at a Catholic University with Catechism class or CCD. I hope that the students coming to Marquette have intellectual curiosity and embrace the rigor and occasional discomfort that comes with expanding one’s boundaries. Otherwise they’d be better served memorizing facts at trade school.
- Marquette recognizes the need for healthy debate and dialogue, which is why they actively recruit scholars (administrators, faculty, and student body) with diverse backgrounds. Creating a “Catholic Bubble” isn’t going to help graduates work across difference when they encounter difficult issues in the real world. Marquette allows students to grapple with issues (like gay marriage for example) in the safety of a classroom. That’s how we test the convictions we developed in Catechism class or CCD.
- Lastly, let’s be clear that professors in the Humanities don’t lecture “here’s my version of the facts”, or tell people what to think, or promote their views. They might offer a contraversial reading for critique and analysis, and the best arguments and well articulated logic prevails.
-
PC thinking is driving everything these days. Had she been a Conservative member of the gay community, she would not have been considered.
-
Obviously they'll never come out and say it directly. But I think MU might want to redo their equal opportunity employer, cause they seemingly just ignored it.
-
PC thinking is driving everything these days. Had she been a Conservative member of the gay community, she would not have been considered.
Fixed. There is only room for 1 or 2 of those. But you can never have enough Socialists, Liberals, Communists, Lesbians etc
As for all those that are arguing whats wrong with her academic qualifications. It has a lot to do with administrators and deans not being afforded the academic freedom that professors do. McAdams explains it rather clearly http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/charlie_sykes_podcast/93120834.html?video=pop&t=a the whole thing starts at about 20:45
-
I think what may have happened is that (typical of Academia) the silos were not communicating and when the selection was announced the people running advancement screamed "How could this happen" and the decision makers (Provost, Wild, etc) said damn never thought about how that would impact fundraising, parental support and relations, etc. My guess is it was not a lone donor but a slew of negative reaction. Lets face it not everyone is as "enlightened and open-minded" and a significant portion of the alumni and parents first reaction to hearing the titles of the "research and publications" from the new dean was negative. Lets face it some parents are forking out $20,000 extra to sheild their kids from the perceived leftist leanings of the big state schools (whether you beleive that to be accurate or not).
Father Wild then weighed this and decided that she wasn't worth fighting a battle over. One that he could not win either way.
-
Lazer, to take you point a step further, consider the University's statement on Human Dignity and Diversity...
"As a Catholic, Jesuit university, Marquette recognizes and cherishes the dignity of each individual regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, disability or social class. Precisely because Catholicism at its best seeks to be inclusive, we are open to all who share our mission and seek the truth about God and the world. Through our admissions and employment policies and practices, our curricular and co-curricular offerings, and our welcoming and caring campus environment, Marquette seeks to become a more diverse and inclusive academic community dedicated to the promotion of justice.
Our commitment to a diverse university community helps us to achieve excellence by promoting a culture of learning, appreciation and understanding. Each member of the Marquette community is charged to treat everyone with care and respect, and to value and treasure differences. This call to action is integral to the tradition which we share."
http://www.marquette.edu/about/diversity.shtml
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Marquette should hire administrators that show blatant disregard for the school's Catholic and Jesuit identity.
In fact, the University's hiring process is heavy on Mission & Identity. Faculty candidates are routinely asked to reconcile their research interests and teaching methods to the mission statement. Compatability is scrutinized. I find it very hard to believe that that an offer was extended without the candidate clearing the mission and identity hurdles.
-
Marquette is a *university* first - where different ideas are discussed and debated. It's not an extention of your parish's CCD class.
And if the candidate was a stellar academic scholar but believed that a man should be able to have 10 wives. Why shouldn't a polygamist get the same treatment in marriage as a gay person?
And thus, the pandora box opens wider and wider.
I thought that society historically put a value on marriage that had a number of practical benefits of stability, the berthing of children, etc. The church saw those same values. Now, with the imploring to open up marriage to other exceptions, exactly what exceptions are ok and why not all of them? Why are we to make an exception for gay marriage and not polygamy?
I only ask the question because it just seems a logic next step. There are traditions, institutions, etc that society has setup for a reason. Some are good, some are bad. Those that are bad, eventually get changed. Some that are good, have also been changed and brought upon unintended circumstances as a result.
-
Progressively responsible work experience, well published, extensive network of references, experience in a catholic jesuit university.
How isn't she qualified?
One of the criteria was to be "progressively responsible"....please define this term (sounds like it's right out of a Saul Alinsky training manual). Progressively responsible, I love it. I'll have to remember that one. What you define as progressive, many people define as outrageous or even immoral.
Well published? From what I understand, that is not the case.
Extensive references - yes, but so do many other candidates.
-
Why would someone's sexual orientation even be mentioned? much less be a criteria for consideration. Get someone whose credentials bring honor and reputation to the University. Someone with Intellectual Dynamism whose accomplishments and goals bring distinction to an institution. Otherwise its feel good time for the "progressives" while chattering over cocktails. Not the kind who would rub elbows at the Avalanche.
-
From the UW-madison board
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=193&f=2570&t=5926873
-
Why is it so difficult for some to believe the "Big Donor" theory? MU is a school with a pitifully undersized endowment. And in this economy every sheckle counts.
Besides, we've all witnessed first hand the confirmation of Buzz by the King of Scratch himself, Dick Strong.
Speaking of basketball. Have we ever had a gay coach? Just axin'.
-
One of the criteria was to be "progressively responsible"....please define this term (sounds like it's right out of a Saul Alinsky training manual). Progressively responsible, I love it. I'll have to remember that one. What you define as progressive, many people define as outrageous or even immoral.
You are reading way too much into it. Progressively responsible means that you have a career path where you garner more responsibility over time. (ie, professor, department chair, assistant dean, dean...)
-
And if the candidate was a stellar academic scholar but believed that a man should be able to have 10 wives. Why shouldn't a polygamist get the same treatment in marriage as a gay person?
Uh...because it's illegal?
-
I think what may have happened is that (typical of Academia) the silos were not communicating and when the selection was announced the people running advancement screamed "How could this happen" and the decision makers (Provost, Wild, etc) said damn never thought about how that would impact fundraising, parental support and relations, etc. My guess is it was not a lone donor but a slew of negative reaction. Lets face it not everyone is as "enlightened and open-minded" and a significant portion of the alumni and parents first reaction to hearing the titles of the "research and publications" from the new dean was negative. Lets face it some parents are forking out $20,000 extra to sheild their kids from the perceived leftist leanings of the big state schools (whether you beleive that to be accurate or not).
Father Wild then weighed this and decided that she wasn't worth fighting a battle over. One that he could not win either way.
As someone who works in advancement, I would find it shameful if advancement "screamed" over any academic hire.
-
Why would someone's sexual orientation even be mentioned? much less be a criteria for consideration. Get someone whose credentials bring honor and reputation to the University. Someone with Intellectual Dynamism whose accomplishments and goals bring distinction to an institution. Otherwise its feel good time for the "progressives" while chattering over cocktails. Not the kind who would rub elbows at the Avalanche.
[/b]
While I don't see myself rubbing elbows with what some might call the "Georgetown liberals," to be fair I'm pretty sure I wasn't rubbing elbows with Harvard elitists like John McAdams and his cake-eater worshipers either.
-
Gotta love what this has progressed to. Chicos went from rational to political adgenda in 3 posts! Who needs rationale and logic when here-say and soothsaying are available?
the simple fact of the matter is that Catholocism is due for a social update. To continue on its current path eliminates it of clergy by 2050. Time to evolve or go extinct. I don't intend to belittle tradition or throw conservativsm to the side. To do so would be the ultimate mistake. But to not expect MU or the church to change with the times is rather unrealistic.
-
Actually the simple fact of the matter is that it is MU's decision to hire or not hire whoever they so choose. Did they handle it poorly? Yes.
-
My father in law is a history professor and was on the search committee. To suggest that the committee didn't do sufficient research on the candidates is false. Both Wild and Pauly had everything they needed on both candidates, both met and interviewed O'Brien and liked her.
Wild then just recently called them together to go off on them for recommending someone so against the universities teachings. The blame lies completely on Father Wild and I'm guessing it was pressure from donors that led to his change of heart. She was 100% qualified and not hired because she is an open lesbian. That is simply not right.
the search committee must have missed these minor details-here is a link to dr. o'brien's curriculum vitae-now one has to ask yourself-if they had access to this, which i would hope so, how in the heck does one make the short list?? maybe if you write for womens swank-this is absolutely an embarrassment to all involved >:(
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
-
the search committee must have missed these minor details-here is a link to dr. o'brien's curriculum vitae-now one has to ask yourself-if they had access to this, which i would hope so, how in the heck does one make the short list?? maybe if you write for womens swank-this is absolutely an embarrassment to all involved >:(
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/affiliate/obrienj_CV.pdf
So I take it you've read each of those articles and books, and determined their academic merit based on the content and not the titles correct?
-
come on toodles-you've got to be kidding me-gasp-reasonable people can figure out from the titles of those-ahem-scholarly writings what you may find in them-capice?? if i write a book titled how i found love staring at mens hairy bums...umm-first off-what do you think it's gonna be about?? second, i don't think it's a real resume enhancer. next-i don't believe there will much academic merit here for even main stream thinkers. if you want to learn about lesbos, go to a public university! this is MARQUETTE ! we know this crap is out there-let it stay out there or go to get it yourself. we are not here to main stream this life style. no i'm not a homophobe. i have a cousin who is gay and a great dude but he doesn't shove it in my face. if dr. o'brien were a conservative lesbo, do you think she would have been considered? i'll answer that for you-NO-so much for diversity of thought. a conservative wouldn't feel the need to examine the sexual positions of transgenders and how to propagate internet sex-yeah, that'll earn you the big $$-maybe in san francisco, but they are a dime a bakers dozen out there-we're talking real world here baby
-
come on toodles-you've got to be kidding me-gasp-reasonable people can figure out from the titles of those-ahem-scholarly writings what you may find in them-capice?? if i write a book titled how i found love staring at mens hairy bums...umm-first off-what do you think it's gonna be about?? second, i don't think it's a real resume enhancer. next-i don't believe there will much academic merit here for even main stream thinkers. if you want to learn about lesbos, go to a public university! this is MARQUETTE ! we know this crap is out there-let it stay out there or go to get it yourself. we are not here to main stream this life style. no i'm not a homophobe. i have a cousin who is gay and a great dude but he doesn't shove it in my face. if dr. o'brien were a conservative lesbo, do you think she would have been considered? i'll answer that for you-NO-so much for diversity of thought. a conservative wouldn't feel the need to examine the sexual positions of transgenders and how to propagate internet sex-yeah, that'll earn you the big $$-maybe in san francisco, but they are a dime a bakers dozen out there-we're talking real world here baby
I thought you had to be at least 12 to get an account on MUScoop.
-
Wow. Just, wow.
-
come on toodles-you've got to be kidding me-gasp-reasonable people can figure out from the titles of those-ahem-scholarly writings what you may find in them-capice?? if i write a book titled how i found love staring at mens hairy bums...umm-first off-what do you think it's gonna be about?? second, i don't think it's a real resume enhancer. next-i don't believe there will much academic merit here for even main stream thinkers. if you want to learn about lesbos, go to a public university! this is MARQUETTE ! we know this crap is out there-let it stay out there or go to get it yourself. we are not here to main stream this life style. no i'm not a homophobe. i have a cousin who is gay and a great dude but he doesn't shove it in my face. if dr. o'brien were a conservative lesbo, do you think she would have been considered? i'll answer that for you-NO-so much for diversity of thought. a conservative wouldn't feel the need to examine the sexual positions of transgenders and how to propagate internet sex-yeah, that'll earn you the big $$-maybe in san francisco, but they are a dime a bakers dozen out there-we're talking real world here baby
So in other words, no. Good to know.
-
Wow. Just, wow.
+1. That was an abomination for so many different reasons.
-
Uh...because it's illegal?
And gay marriage isn't legal either, right?
-
Gotta love what this has progressed to. Chicos went from rational to political adgenda in 3 posts! Who needs rationale and logic when here-say and soothsaying are available?
the simple fact of the matter is that Catholocism is due for a social update. To continue on its current path eliminates it of clergy by 2050. Time to evolve or go extinct. I don't intend to belittle tradition or throw conservativsm to the side. To do so would be the ultimate mistake. But to not expect MU or the church to change with the times is rather unrealistic.
I always find that kind of funny. When we don't like what the church says, it's the church's fault, not us as the flock. So it's the church that needs to change, not us.
Always an interesting take to be sure.
-
You are reading way too much into it. Progressively responsible means that you have a career path where you garner more responsibility over time. (ie, professor, department chair, assistant dean, dean...)
You are right, I applied a different filter based on that poster....thought he/she was implying a progressively responsible agenda. My fault.
-
Speaking of basketball. Have we ever had a gay coach? Just axin'.
I've been told Terri Mitchell swings the other way...and seeing her in public w/ another woman doesn't make me question it.
or were you just talking about mens bball coaches?
-
"Listening Sessions" scheduled by admin for students and faculty.
Looks like they will be Tuesday at 5:30
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/93174084.html
Also of note in the article, "A university spokeswoman had scheduled an interview between President Father Robert A. Wild and a Journal Sentinel reporter and editorial writer Friday, but later canceled the meeting, saying this was now a legal situation."
-
And gay marriage isn't legal either, right?
Uhh.....
In Wisconsin, gay marriage is banned constitutionally. In Washington it is illegal via a state statue. 41 states have a constitutional ban or a state statue that prohibits gay marriage. Only 5 states allow it. 4 states have no specific law.
Uhh......
-
So I take it you've read each of those articles and books, and determined their academic merit based on the content and not the titles correct?
ok toodles-you are on the search committee-go ahead and read(i'll wait for cribs notes) some of her drivel and get back to me. let me know if she/he is worthy of the dean position at our great academic institution(concerns me somewhat now) i just thought i was saving you some time. i am an alum,have two kids presently enrolled. one about to graduate and one with some years to go. i have donated a lot of money to this school that i am having trouble recognising. i may have to think long and hard about leaving my second son there and they may just be saving me a lot more money in the future with any more boneheaded decisons like this. my son just may beg me to leave there and go him to madison-at least you know what to expect there. we need fr. wild to hurry up and leave before his scorched earth policy at this school gets any worse. maybe go and live in his fairy-tale world and write books with this o'brien person. hopefully the next president has a set
-
If you look at her publications it's almost solely in regard to sexuality. She could be the sex studies dean.
There's not much diversity in her scholarship.
-
ok toodles-you are on the search committee-go ahead and read(i'll wait for cribs notes) some of her drivel and get back to me. let me know if she/he is worthy of the dean position at our great academic institution(concerns me somewhat now) i just thought i was saving you some time. i am an alum,have two kids presently enrolled. one about to graduate and one with some years to go. i have donated a lot of money to this school that i am having trouble recognising. i may have to think long and hard about leaving my second son there and they may just be saving me a lot more money in the future with any more boneheaded decisons like this. my son just may beg me to leave there and go him to madison-at least you know what to expect there. we need fr. wild to hurry up and leave before his scorched earth policy at this school gets any worse. maybe go and live in his fairy-tale world and write books with this o'brien person. hopefully the next president has a set
I would recommend Liberty University for your son, there you know exactly what kind of education he will be getting. I too am an alum, and want the university to grow stronger, while maintaining it's statement of human dignity. I don't plan on reading her work, because I know what academic writing is like and who it's audience is supposed to be and I have no way of rating it's merits. I have serious doubts that you have those skills as well.
-
If you look at her publications it's almost solely in regard to sexuality. She could be the sex studies dean.
There's not much diversity in her scholarship.
This is the thing that was curious to me. As a student right now, I'm sitting back and soaking in the entire thing before making a judgment on what's going on.
I'll admit defeat by having never been part of a dean search before, but to me, I would think you would want to find someone with at least a moderate breadth of research.
Let's assume for a moment that their reason for rescinding the offer had everything to do with the fact that the entire scope of her research followed a single line, whether or not it had to do with sexuality. I would still think that would qualify as a mistake. It's just that, given this set of circumstances, no one will ever buy the academic excuse, whether it's true or not. We've seen that in the scathing articles and uproar from quick-to-jump-the-gun student protests.
Still, it begs the question, HOW did she get so far in this search given the reaction that should have been easily foreseen? I think the situation plays out differently if she has dabbled in research in most areas represented in our arts and sciences college, with a more complete expertise in a number of areas maybe including, but not limited to, sexuality.
The fact that she is a lesbian, despite it being a hot button issue on the church, shouldn't affect the search if she proves as an academic that she won't let it become a problem and clash with the identity of our university.
But when your research library looks like this: http://www.seattleu.edu/artsci/women/default.aspx?id=2708
...exactly what else does she have to draw upon? Her entire post-graduate academic work promotes homosexuality and her view of it. I'm sure she's quite an intelligent woman, but the search committee should have seen the writing on the wall long before we got to this point.
-
If you look at her publications it's almost solely in regard to sexuality. She could be the sex studies dean.
There's not much diversity in her scholarship.
Here's a link to the other finalist's page: http://history.binghamton.edu/faculty/brown.htm , I guess he could have only been Dean of the French Revolution. What could Marquette have been thinking, such a narrow research focus.
-
bravo to moonboots-very well said-while her sexual preference doesn't really matter to me as long as it's not the essence of the person's teachings. it seems as though she sees everything through a prism of sexuality-mainly lesbian sexuality and it would be difficult to ascertain that she would not project this belief system throughout her leadership as a dean here. you know the saying-if all i had was a hammer...everything looks like a nail. moonboots-as a student you probably have the best post i have read here-thank you-to my friend toodles-no need to worry about me, but i do believe mu could learn a little from liberty college and standing for some principles and sticking to them rather than testing the waters beyond the boundaries of basic catholicism and pushing the envelope-then you become madison.
-
This is the thing that was curious to me. As a student right now, I'm sitting back and soaking in the entire thing before making a judgment on what's going on.
I'll admit defeat by having never been part of a dean search before, but to me, I would think you would want to find someone with at least a moderate breadth of research.
Let's assume for a moment that their reason for rescinding the offer had everything to do with the fact that the entire scope of her research followed a single line, whether or not it had to do with sexuality. I would still think that would qualify as a mistake. It's just that, given this set of circumstances, no one will ever buy the academic excuse, whether it's true or not. We've seen that in the scathing articles and uproar from quick-to-jump-the-gun student protests.
Still, it begs the question, HOW did she get so far in this search given the reaction that should have been easily foreseen? I think the situation plays out differently if she has dabbled in research in most areas represented in our arts and sciences college, with a more complete expertise in a number of areas maybe including, but not limited to, sexuality.
The fact that she is a lesbian, despite it being a hot button issue on the church, shouldn't affect the search if she proves as an academic that she won't let it become a problem and clash with the identity of our university.
But when your research library looks like this: http://www.seattleu.edu/artsci/women/default.aspx?id=2708
...exactly what else does she have to draw upon? Her entire post-graduate academic work promotes homosexuality and her view of it. I'm sure she's quite an intelligent woman, but the search committee should have seen the writing on the wall long before we got to this point.
Did you happen to look at the other finalist? He never leaves the French Revolution. Academics don't have a breadth of research. Every single one of your professors currently has a focus that is quite narrow. Again, here is the link to the other finalist's page at Binghamton University: http://history.binghamton.edu/faculty/brown.htm. Does his research show a breadth of research interests? Would you be as opposed to him becoming a dean because of the narrow focus of his research?
-
The search committee knew her work, and that she was a lesbian.
Fr. Wild, upon offering her the deanship, knew her work, and knew she was a lesbian.
Clearly, the search committee, and Fr. Wild knew who they were hiring at the time of the hiring. This proves they were NOT homophobic, anti-gay, anti-lesbian in their hiring decision. Took a lot of courage to do that from all parties, knowing the controversy it would stir. Unfortunately, they (Fr. Wild) didn't have enough chips to stand by his decision and lost the pot.
The only thing in doubt is what happened from the moment of the job offer, to the moment of rescinding the job offer.
It's pretty clear that an external force tipped the balance, Marquette wasn't 100% committed to defending their new dean, and capitulated to the external force.
-
bravo to moonboots-very well said-while her sexual preference doesn't really matter to me as long as it's not the essence of the person's teachings. it seems as though she sees everything through a prism of sexuality-mainly lesbian sexuality and it would be difficult to ascertain that she would not project this belief system throughout her leadership as a dean here. you know the saying-if all i had was a hammer...everything looks like a nail. moonboots-as a student you probably have the best post i have read here-thank you-to my friend toodles-no need to worry about me, but i do believe mu could learn a little from liberty college and standing for some principles and sticking to them rather than testing the waters beyond the boundaries of basic catholicism and pushing the envelope-then you become madison.
Yeah, we should be just like Liberty... maybe we should start up our own "Creation Studies" program, replace those heathens over in Biology.
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=9821
Unlike Liberty, Marquette is committed to actually educating its students by providing an academically diverse campus and faculty rather than confirming what they already believed for their whole lives.
I'm just interested, since you are so opposed to having homosexuals teaching classes that involve discussions about sexuality because it is 'beyond the boundaries of basic Catholicism", do you also oppose our having Jewish professors on campus, teaching classes about Jewish theology? Buddhists and Taoists teaching Eastern Philosophy and theology? What exactly do you think MU classrooms should look like? I mean, should we just meld the entire A&S college into a big "Aquinas" class?
-
It's pretty clear that an external force tipped the balance, Marquette wasn't 100% committed to defending their new dean, and capitulated to the external force.
That is precisely what I'm hearing, only it's odd that those doing the sharing don't know who that external force is.
-
The fact that what defined her was her sexuality and not her academic accomplishments raises a flag for me. Who cares what they do in private,including drinking some outrageous concoctions-described on another thread. I'm late to this discussion but ,if MU backed down from pressure, the case for her must not have been that strong. I want to see people that raise the status of the school not confirm a PC bent.
-
Did you happen to look at the other finalist? He never leaves the French Revolution. Academics don't have a breadth of research. Every single one of your professors currently has a focus that is quite narrow. Again, here is the link to the other finalist's page at Binghamton University: http://history.binghamton.edu/faculty/brown.htm. Does his research show a breadth of research interests? Would you be as opposed to him becoming a dean because of the narrow focus of his research?
I admitted early in my post that I was unfamiliar with how Dean searches work, and what exactly we would or should be looking for. I wouldn't be opposed to him becoming the Dean OR her becoming the Dean, but they can't do the search in a vacuum without weighing the necessary implications of what reactions a hire may cause. Influential people within the university (read: donors, tenured professors, etc.) likely would never draw issue with the French Revolution. They may or may not draw issue with homosexuality, given the religious culture of the institution. That's where the "good fit for the university" thing comes in. Granted, she was in a position of power at a Jesuit university in Seattle, and it never caused issue there.
It just seems to me that the search committee may not have crossed their t's and dotted their i's with regards to how people may react to the hire.
Allow me to flip your "French Revolution" question back at you for a moment. Assume they hired him, then rescinded the offer for the same reasons they used to rescind the offer from Ms. O'Brien. Does anyone blink an eye? Does it make national news? Of course not, because he's a heterosexual male. Ms. O'Brien is a very intelligent woman, and I'm sure she knows, given her field of study and its open connection to her sexual preference, that she's a lightning rod for strong reactions in one direction or the other. Marquette had to know this too, and if they were going to give her the job, they should have a) been fully supportive of her undertaking this position and b ) be ready to take on any and all critics that have a connection to the university.
Let me reiterate, I have no problem with Jodi O'Brien. And I have no problem with anyone Marquette hires, so long as they're qualified, passionate about the position, and willing to help build and promote what the school's mission statement stands for. In fact, I had an openly lesbian sociology professor earlier in my undergrad time here, and the class and content (some relating to sexuality in society) was very interesting. Diversity in that case definitely added to the value of the class.
But the search committee seems to have bit off more than they could chew with this fiasco, and maybe that means taking the search in that direction in the first place was a poor idea if they were never 100% committed.
-
Uhh.....
In Wisconsin, gay marriage is banned constitutionally. In Washington it is illegal via a state statue. 41 states have a constitutional ban or a state statue that prohibits gay marriage. Only 5 states allow it. 4 states have no specific law.
Uhh......
Correct, gay marriage isn't legal either. That's why I didn't understand the guy's point that polygamy is illegal....so is gay marriage. Seems to wipe out his argument.
-
Here's a link to the other finalist's page: http://history.binghamton.edu/faculty/brown.htm , I guess he could have only been Dean of the French Revolution. What could Marquette have been thinking, such a narrow research focus.
Marquette is famous of late making searches with few candidates or none at all.
-
Marquette is famous of late making searches with few candidates or none at all.
boom! roasted!
-
Gay marriage is not illegal in Wisconsin, it is impossible to get. There is no crime, or punishment for gay people who get married in Wisconsin, because it is not recognized as an institution.
Polegamy (sp?), on the other hand is in fact illegal. A person can marry multiple people (of the opposite sex), and iof caught can face legal consequences.
-
So I just heard some relatively solid information about the outside forces surrounding this mess. There was apparently a meeting Friday with department chairs from around the university and the pressure to rescind appears to have come from Milwaukee's Arch Bishop. I know I'm new to posting on this board, and no one has any reason to trust me, but I figured anyone wanted to trust me, this is the information I have been told.
Allow me to flip your "French Revolution" question back at you for a moment. Assume they hired him, then rescinded the offer for the same reasons they used to rescind the offer from Ms. O'Brien. Does anyone blink an eye? Does it make national news? Of course not, because he's a heterosexual male. Ms. O'Brien is a very intelligent woman, and I'm sure she knows, given her field of study and its open connection to her sexual preference, that she's a lightning rod for strong reactions in one direction or the other. Marquette had to know this too, and if they were going to give her the job, they should have a) been fully supportive of her undertaking this position and b ) be ready to take on any and all critics that have a connection to the university.
Let me reiterate, I have no problem with Jodi O'Brien. And I have no problem with anyone Marquette hires, so long as they're qualified, passionate about the position, and willing to help build and promote what the school's mission statement stands for. In fact, I had an openly lesbian sociology professor earlier in my undergrad time here, and the class and content (some relating to sexuality in society) was very interesting. Diversity in that case definitely added to the value of the class.
But the search committee seems to have bit off more than they could chew with this fiasco, and maybe that means taking the search in that direction in the first place was a poor idea if they were never 100% committed.
The search committee did cross all their t's and dot all their i's. They then went to Father Wild, and told him "Here are our recommendations, we like one better, but she is gay and has some racy publications out, if that's a problem, we like this other guy too." Father Wild then approved the search committee's decision, approved an offer and then ordered the offer to be rescinded. Trust me when I tell you the search committee would re-offer this position to Dr. O'Brien tomorrow if they had the opportunity, they are 100% committed.
As to the rest of your post. If a white male were offered and rescinded an offer because the university disagreed with his particular positions, would it make national news? Yes. Here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091302226.html (somewhat different because of nature of who the dean was, I admit, but to rescind the offer to a dean is nearly unheard of).
But your flip of the question is irrelevant, because the French Revolution isn't controversial, the real flip would be, if a conservative white male academic had an offer rescinded from Northwestern because the candidate's anti-gay marriage views were contrary to the liking of the school, would there be outrage? Keep in mind, he has the job offer, and is looking for houses somewhere around Chicago.
-
Yeah, we should be just like Liberty... maybe we should start up our own "Creation Studies" program, replace those heathens over in Biology.
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/index.cfm?PID=9821
Unlike Liberty, Marquette is committed to actually educating its students by providing an academically diverse campus and faculty rather than confirming what they already believed for their whole lives.
I'm just interested, since you are so opposed to having homosexuals teaching classes that involve discussions about sexuality because it is 'beyond the boundaries of basic Catholicism", do you also oppose our having Jewish professors on campus, teaching classes about Jewish theology? Buddhists and Taoists teaching Eastern Philosophy and theology? What exactly do you think MU classrooms should look like? I mean, should we just meld the entire A&S college into a big "Aquinas" class?
whoa, dude-are you equating studies on methods of masturbation and physical relationships between transgender and lesbian to maximize their pleasure outlets to religious studies?? mu would be best to check your transcrips and find a better fit for your needs because i hope mu doesn't have what you are looking for in life-sheesh-God help us all :o
-
So I just heard some relatively solid information about the outside forces surrounding this mess. There was apparently a meeting Friday with department chairs from around the university and the pressure to rescind appears to have come from Milwaukee's Arch Bishop. I know I'm new to posting on this board, and no one has any reason to trust me, but I figured anyone wanted to trust me, this is the information I have been told.
I have a question because I honestly don't know this. What kind of pull does the Archbishop have over MU? Is there any real power there, or is more "I can make your life hell" type stuff?
-
I have a question because I honestly don't know this. What kind of pull does the Archbishop have over MU? Is there any real power there, or is more "I can make your life hell" type stuff?
I won't lie, that was my first question too, and the answer wasn't clear other than "I can make your life hell." It sounds like there may be some funding that comes from them as well, but that I was less clear on.
ETA: Complete and total speculation on my part here, but the Archbishop could have said he would recommend parishioners not donate to Marquette based on Dr. O'Brien and her position within the university. Couple that with any funding the archdiocese gives and I'd imagine it may make a noticeable dent in Marquette's donations at a time when they are recovering nicely from the .
-
I don't think the archdiocese gives them any money. And if the archbishop told parishoners not to donate, I would double my donation tomorrow. I doubt I would be the only one.
-
As a priest, would Father Wild and others be jeopardizing their standing in the church if they went against the archbishop and went ahead with the hiring? That's what i would think with the archbishop having pull.
-
The search committee did cross all their t's and dot all their i's. They then went to Father Wild, and told him "Here are our recommendations, we like one better, but she is gay and has some racy publications out, if that's a problem, we like this other guy too." Father Wild then approved the search committee's decision, approved an offer and then ordered the offer to be rescinded. Trust me when I tell you the search committee would re-offer this position to Dr. O'Brien tomorrow if they had the opportunity, they are 100% committed.
As to the rest of your post. If a white male were offered and rescinded an offer because the university disagreed with his particular positions, would it make national news? Yes. Here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091302226.html (somewhat different because of nature of who the dean was, I admit, but to rescind the offer to a dean is nearly unheard of).
But your flip of the question is irrelevant, because the French Revolution isn't controversial, the real flip would be, if a conservative white male academic had an offer rescinded from Northwestern because the candidate's anti-gay marriage views were contrary to the liking of the school, would there be outrage? Keep in mind, he has the job offer, and is looking for houses somewhere around Chicago.
That's sort of how I meant the question, to imply that the French Revolution would not spark controversy. It's a safe hire. Safe isn't necessarily right, but if you go with the risky hire you better be prepared to dig your heals in when the onslaught comes. Not doing so was not only unfair to O'Brien but made them look wishy washy. If they knew they could be strong armed out of this, she never should have made it as far as she did in the race.
-
Gay marriage is not illegal in Wisconsin, it is impossible to get. There is no crime, or punishment for gay people who get married in Wisconsin, because it is not recognized as an institution.
Polegamy (sp?), on the other hand is in fact illegal. A person can marry multiple people (of the opposite sex), and iof caught can face legal consequences.
Marriage is a legal contract and because gays cannot marry, they cannot form a LEGAL bond. There is no LEGAL contract. Polygamy is also NOT LEGAL.
That was my point. You're looking at it from a criminal perspective. I'm looking at it from a legal contract. Neither options are legal.
-
whoa, dude-are you equating studies on methods of masturbation and physical relationships between transgender and lesbian to maximize their pleasure outlets to religious studies?? mu would be best to check your transcrips and find a better fit for your needs because i hope mu doesn't have what you are looking for in life-sheesh-God help us all :o
Please wyzgy, don't get yourself all hot and bothered :-* . You say you are against the hire because it is beyond basic Catholic teaching, but you are pretty selective about which anti-catholic teachings are ok at MU and which ones are not. You've obviously confirmed that you have no principled way of looking at these issues.
-
Please wyzgy, don't get yourself all hot and bothered :-* . You say you are against the hire because it is beyond basic Catholic teaching, but you are pretty selective about which anti-catholic teachings are ok at MU and which ones are not. You've obviously confirmed that you have no principled way of looking at these issues.
shiloh, you've been sipping a little of grandpa's cough medicine are ya-what part of homosexual and religious studies don't you understand? i was just showing you there is no relationship between the two. furthermore, i don't believe mu students would be missing out on any diversity of curriculum by not presenting opportunities to take classes on the most preferred positions enjoyed by two transgendered lesbians with three previously married, but discovered late in life to be homos. you can go to san francisco and walk down the street and see that for free or go to univ. of seattle i guess. personally, i'd rather have don't ask, don't tell. coach mitchel ..., but i haven't heard, seen and i don't ask-therefore, i don't care what she does when the blinds get pulled down as long as it's legal. you want principled-homosexuality is a SIN in the eyes of the catholic church and whether you want to believe it or not-people do take that seriously-sultan said he would double his donation to make up for the arch bishops possible involvement here-. well you better triple it cause i might be about saving myself a tax deduction here, it'll have to go some where else-it's called voting with your wallet-what's taking fr. wild so long to pack his bags-i'd call him the jim doyle of univ. presidents. nothing like leaving one last stink bomb on your way out-how about a courtesy flush please
ya know how to tell a macho lesbian from a more femine type....she/he kick-starts her play toy bwahahahahahhahah chuckle chuckle hee hee
-
you want principled-homosexuality is a SIN in the eyes of the catholic church and whether you want to believe it or not-people do take that seriously-
Super, and its also a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church to refuse Jesus Christ as your savior... soooo, why the Jewish and Buddhist professors who actually teach on that subject matter, and not a gay dean who is just an administrator? You have no principled way to distinguish them, and you've proven so once again.
-
Guys - just a reminder, we've done pretty well keeping the conversation elevated, minus a few slips. Please keep the language and slang solidly out of the grey zone.
-
As a priest, would Father Wild and others be jeopardizing their standing in the church if they went against the archbishop and went ahead with the hiring? That's what i would think with the archbishop having pull.
Pretty sure that the Jesuits report to their superiors in the Jesuit hierarchy. The Wisconsin Province oversees the MU Jesuits.
-
9 pages and no one has asked the most important question:
Rosie O'Donnell lesbian or lipstick lesbian? 8-)
-
9 pages and no one has asked the most important question:
Rosie O'Donnell lesbian or lipstick lesbian? 8-)
new +1
this is even better than the prep school question...
-
a few more considerations...
- Marquette did dot their i's and cross their t's. O'Brien was first a candidate in 2008. She was again a candidate when they re-opened the search in 2009. The University had full visibility to her research interests. After all the extensive search, she was the clear leader.
- The archdiocese, Rome, donors, parents, etc may not have direct influence on the decision, but a combination of their influences (?) seems to have added up. How else can the about face be explained?
- Without any more than rumors about donors ad diocese pressure to explain the about face, the decision to rescind has the appearance of discrimination of the surface. That decimates the spirit of students, faculty, and alum who are gay (as well as their advocates).
- Interesting to note that this year marks the 100 year anniversary of women at Marquette. The University President at the time openly defied diocese orders when admitting women. He was reassigned to a Jesuit University in Ohio where he promptly defied orders again and admitted women there too. It took a lot of courage to stand up to pressure then as it does now.
- For all the posts about strict adherence to Catholic teachings, it's interesting to note that Father Wild acknowledged his own disagreement the Church's interpretations during his speech at the Pere Marquette dinner.
- I agree with the mod's comment. Let's keep snarky comments to a minimum.
-
a few more considerations...
- Marquette did dot their i's and cross their t's. O'Brien was first a candidate in 2008. She was again a candidate when they re-opened the search in 2009. The University had full visibility to her research interests. After all the extensive search, she was the clear leader.
- The archdiocese, Rome, donors, parents, etc may not have direct influence on the decision, but a combination of their influences (?) seems to have added up. How else can the about face be explained?
- Without any more than rumors about donors ad diocese pressure to explain the about face, the decision to rescind has the appearance of discrimination of the surface. That decimates the spirit of students, faculty, and alum who are gay (as well as their advocates).
- Interesting to note that this year marks the 100 year anniversary of women at Marquette. The University President at the time openly defied diocese orders when admitting women. He was reassigned to a Jesuit University in Ohio where he promptly defied orders again and admitted women there too. It took a lot of courage to stand up to pressure then as it does now.
- For all the posts about strict adherence to Catholic teachings, it's interesting to note that Father Wild acknowledged his own disagreement the Church's interpretations during his speech at the Pere Marquette dinner.
- I agree with the mod's comment. Let's keep snarky comments to a minimum.
That's wonderful that Father Wild noted his own disagreements, but that doesn't really matter in the end. He's not the Pope, he's also not setting religious dogma. We are an institution of higher learning with Academic freedoms, but we are first and foremost a Catholic institution. One has an expectation as a prospective student, alum, etc, that a Catholic institution at its core will follow Catholic teachings. It's one thing to have Dan Mcguire running around saying abortion is just grand and the life of an unborn baby is worthless. It's quite another to put someone in a very serious leadership position with the potential to influence, set policy, etc, on subjects that are also completely opposite of Catholic teachings.
-
That's wonderful that Father Wild noted his own disagreements, but that doesn't really matter in the end. He's not the Pope, he's also not setting religious dogma. We are an institution of higher learning with Academic freedoms, but we are first and foremost a Catholic institution. One has an expectation as a prospective student, alum, etc, that a Catholic institution at its core will follow Catholic teachings. It's one thing to have Dan Mcguire running around saying abortion is just grand and the life of an unborn baby is worthless. It's quite another to put someone in a very serious leadership position with the potential to influence, set policy, etc, on subjects that are also completely opposite of Catholic teachings.
chico-you are the MAN !! 5-stars smiley face thumbs up, a throw down in their face dog that was takin it yard !! now watch out for the tsunami of liberal beat down
-
Let me clarify. Fr Wild is a Catholic in a position of power and influence (far more more power and influence than a dean). He stands up in front of faculty and says that the church's teachings are deeply flawed. Point is - there's dissent on Church teachings at his level too.
-
That's wonderful that Father Wild noted his own disagreements, but that doesn't really matter in the end. He's not the Pope, he's also not setting religious dogma. We are an institution of higher learning with Academic freedoms, but we are first and foremost a Catholic institution. One has an expectation as a prospective student, alum, etc, that a Catholic institution at its core will follow Catholic teachings. It's one thing to have Dan Mcguire running around saying abortion is just grand and the life of an unborn baby is worthless. It's quite another to put someone in a very serious leadership position with the potential to influence, set policy, etc, on subjects that are also completely opposite of Catholic teachings.
Chicos...what is a dean going to do that "sets policy...on subjects that are completely opposite of Catholic teachings?" I mean, Fr. Wild basically said that he has a problem with the Vatican's position, and you aren't calling for his removal. Unlike a pre-professional college, an Arts & Science dean basically herds cats, works on general cirriculum issues, etc. She would have been in no position to have any influence in any sort of Catholic teaching.
Between this and your "if you allow homosexual marriage, we're gonna have to allow polygamy," your position seems to be entirely based on fear.
-
9 pages and no one has asked the most important question:
Rosie O'Donnell lesbian or lipstick lesbian? 8-)
You can ask the same question tomorrow about the POTUS SCOTUS nomination. I swear it's Michael Myers on a drinking binge.
-
Chicos...what is a dean going to do that "sets policy...on subjects that are completely opposite of Catholic teachings?" I mean, Fr. Wild basically said that he has a problem with the Vatican's position, and you aren't calling for his removal. Unlike a pre-professional college, an Arts & Science dean basically herds cats, works on general cirriculum issues, etc. She would have been in no position to have any influence in any sort of Catholic teaching.
Between this and your "if you allow homosexual marriage, we're gonna have to allow polygamy," your position seems to be entirely based on fear.
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.
So sorry Sultan, fear isn't it at all. It's the hypocrisy in it all that bothers me.
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.
-
You can ask the same question tomorrow about the POTUS SCOTUS nomination. I swear it's Michael Myers on a drinking binge.
(http://photos.upi.com/story/t/bd6290e3e603a4bb90e9a7563ed188c7/US-Supreme-Court-Storm-clouds-hang-over-Stevens-successor.jpg)
edit: we do not need that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)"
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/93533724.html
Update: Apparently, the outside pressure was from the archbishop.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You're right. MU will be fine sans $$$$ lost in the lawsuit.
-
No matter your stance, this is just...embarrassing.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/93533724.html
Wonder how long the comments section will be open this time...
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D Afterall, that would be to expand his individual rights.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
well said.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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? ;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
(http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/mu/img/may05/students504.jpg)
I'll bet they wished they could have gone back and pulled the plug on that one before rolling it out, don't you?
-
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.
-
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!
-
(http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/mu/img/may05/students504.jpg)
Wow fashion was so bizarre in 2005
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's too bad they didn't have a shirt with a witty comment on it.
Damnit man!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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.
-
Dr. Christopher Wolfe....where are you, I need you right now. ;D
Here: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/93322834.html
-
"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.
-
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. ;D
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.
-
"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.
-
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. ;D
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.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'
- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488
It means a little more than that... Dr. Wolfe is a phenomenal teacher and outstanding Constitutional scholar, (I know first hand) but he's been the be-all-end-all of most MU students' Constitutional knowledge, and he delivers it all through his very particular scholarly lens (which is fine, but it is what it is). 99% of the Constitution is derived from general clauses, from the whole notion of judicial review on up to Citizen's United.
I didn't mean to hijack the thread on Constitutional Law issues... just had to respond to the invocation of Wolfe.
-
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'm not talking about the church at all. I'm talking about the US Government.
The catholic church has it's own views, and I'm not challenging those.
But, I have several gay friends/couples, and it would be very tough for me to look them in the eye and say "you can have a civil union, but the US government should never use the term "marriage" for what you have."
I know that you're scared of the polygamists... but I don't think I can withhold rights from gay people because I'm scared of the polygamists.
Also, I don't think this is that big of a deal. Marriage can legally be for 2 people. Doesn't matter the race or sex. Seems shockingly simple, no?
-
No
-
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'
- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488
It means a little more than that... Dr. Wolfe is a phenomenal teacher and outstanding Constitutional scholar, (I know first hand) but he's been the be-all-end-all of most MU students' Constitutional knowledge, and he delivers it all through his very particular scholarly lens (which is fine, but it is what it is). 99% of the Constitution is derived from general clauses, from the whole notion of judicial review on up to Citizen's United.
I didn't mean to hijack the thread on Constitutional Law issues... just had to respond to the invocation of Wolfe.
Dr. Wolfe, my advisor and professor, was most certainly not my only exposure on this topic.
I thought Rhenquist did a wonderful job of destroying this a few years ago.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm
A great book to read is "The Myth of Separation Between Church and State" and also "Church and State: What the founders meant"
I have yet to read "Jefferson and Madison on the Separation of Church and State", but it's on my list.
-
I'm not talking about the church at all. I'm talking about the US Government.
The catholic church has it's own views, and I'm not challenging those.
But, I have several gay friends/couples, and it would be very tough for me to look them in the eye and say "you can have a civil union, but the US government should never use the term "marriage" for what you have."
I know that you're scared of the polygamists... but I don't think I can withhold rights from gay people because I'm scared of the polygamists.
Also, I don't think this is that big of a deal. Marriage can legally be for 2 people. Doesn't matter the race or sex. Seems shockingly simple, no?
I'm scared of the polygamists? LOL. Not at all. I'm simply asking why the hypocrisy of extending marriage to one group that wants the institution changed and not another group who also wants it changed.
And no, it's not shockingly simple to change an institution that has deep societal and religious roots and simply change it because 30% of the population thinks it would be grand.
-
I'm scared of the polygamists? LOL. Not at all. I'm simply asking why the hypocrisy of extending marriage to one group that wants the institution changed and not another group who also wants it changed.
And no, it's not shockingly simple to change an institution that has deep societal and religious roots and simply change it because 30% of the population thinks it would be grand.
The hypocrisy is what you are scared of? Changing the institution?
I bet people used that same argument to try and keep interracial marriage illegal.
"If you let blacks and whites get married, where does it stop???" (again, in my best ignorant redneck impression).
Progress is scary, and I definitely understand what you are saying, I just don't think the risk is that great (thus our disagreement).
Also, just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about state. Each church is going to have their own views on homosexuality. I'm cool with that.
I'm just not sure I want my government telling gay people that "You can't be married. You can have a "civil union", but "marriage" is only for straight people"
Just seems crazy to me.
-
The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all. It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild. In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University. This was a no win choice. By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents. And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this.
IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.
-
The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all. It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild. In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University. This was a no win choice. By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents. And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this.
IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.
Why, because she is gay and writes gay articles, but is otherwise qualified?
-
The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all. It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild. In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University. This was a no win choice. By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents. And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this.
IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.
Source?
-
I hope this doesn't get the thread locked. This thread has strayed, but the discussion has followed a logical progression.
I have been proud to represent the Catholic Church as a Parish Council Chair and Catechist. As a parent, I've sent kids through Catholic elementary school and high school. Here is what I don't understand. The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?
The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue. They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet. They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else: To live in peace with the rest of the world.
If the Church does not address this issue (and they probably won't), The Ecumenical Catholic Communion may just take the place of the Roman Catholic Church in America.
-
I hope this doesn't get the thread locked. This thread has strayed, but the discussion has followed a logical progression.
I have been proud to represent the Catholic Church as a Parish Council Chair and Catechist. As a parent, I've sent kids through Catholic elementary school and high school. Here is what I don't understand. The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?
The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue. They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet. They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else: To live in peace with the rest of the world.
If the Church does not address this issue (and they probably won't), The Ecumenical Catholic Communion may just take the place of the Roman Catholic Church in America.
Well said. I know it is hard, but the church needs to move towards acceptance. Saying that homosexuality is a sin won't stop people from being homosexual.
-
Why, because she is gay and writes gay articles, but is otherwise qualified?
No because you do not choose a lightning rod when there are alternatives (and there were). I am not commenting on the appropriateness of the subject matter of her research, who she is as a person, or what she does in her bedroom. Most Catholics have experience with how slow the Church (and its constituent followers) and realize that a portion of the Church is not ready for this high profile position to be filled with a person who will be controversial. Like it or not Marquette is a Catholic University and most of the constituency is Catholic.
My comment was more about the decision-making process. Why alienate a portion of your constituency when it was not necessary.
-
Source?
Are you being intentionally obtuse or did you mean to use teal?
-
The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?
The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue. They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet. They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else: To live in peace with the rest of the world.
First of all, two wrongs don't make a right. Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church. Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.
I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching. I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.
And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?
-
First of all, two wrongs don't make a right. Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church. Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.
I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching. I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.
And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?
I'm not sure what planet you live on, man. Gay and lesbian people have not always been welcome in the church... not even close.
Honestly, what sort of information do you have that says a significant percentage of the 'next generation' is completely in step with the Church teaching? I have read tings that by the mid 21st century there will be hundreds of Catholic priests... Let that sink in for a moment. While there will always be people from the next generation who will be in step with the Church teaching; to call it a significant percentage is misleading.
I believe living in peace with the rest of the world is implying that they want to be treated equally, not judged for their actions.
-
I'm not sure what planet you live on, man. Gay and lesbian people have not always been welcome in the church... not even close.
Honestly, what sort of information do you have that says a significant percentage of the 'next generation' is completely in step with the Church teaching? I have read tings that by the mid 21st century there will be hundreds of Catholic priests... Let that sink in for a moment. While there will always be people from the next generation who will be in step with the Church teaching; to call it a significant percentage is misleading.
I believe living in peace with the rest of the world is implying that they want to be treated equally, not judged for their actions.
What sort of information do you have that says the next generation isn't in step? I can say that I know many younger people that don't have a problem with the Church's teaching.
And the planet I live on is one where people actually know what they are talking about. If you care to actually look it up, gay and lesbian people are accepted in the Church. Gay and lesbian sex, just like pre-marital sex, is not accepted. It's the actions and behavior that is not accepted, not the individual.
-
First of all, two wrongs don't make a right. Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church. Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.
I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching. I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.
And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?
My high school years were the "if you wear yellow on Thursday, you're gay" days. Real enlightened stuff, and close to 100% of us believed that. Even if 50% of today's high school and college kids do not believe in the Church's current teaching, that is a huge amount of fallen away Catholics for the future.
There are many gay people who grew up loving the Catholic faith who feel they have no home. Jesus had not one thing to say against gay people. You would think if this was such a grievous sin, Jesus might have mentioned it.
Jesus welcomed all. He didn't say "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".
-
Jesus welcomed all. He didn't say "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".
You and I disagree about a lot of stuff... but on this we agree 100%.
-
What sort of information do you have that says the next generation isn't in step? I can say that I know many younger people that don't have a problem with the Church's teaching.
And the planet I live on is one where people actually know what they are talking about. If you care to actually look it up, gay and lesbian people are accepted in the Church. Gay and lesbian sex, just like pre-marital sex, is not accepted. It's the actions and behavior that is not accepted, not the individual.
If homosexuality were a choice, then the stricture against homosexual sex would be valid. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would choose a life of condemnation by most of the populous? Homosexual people are God's creatures and even if the Church doesn't accept them, God does.
To think that the Catholic Church is welcoming to homosexual people is a joke.
-
You and I disagree about a lot of stuff... but on this we agree 100%.
I knew we would come together on some topic. I'm not sure we disagree about a lot of stuff, just our former coach. Thankfully, this is a more substantive topic to agree on.
-
There are many gay people who grew up loving the Catholic faith who feel they have no home. Jesus had not one thing to say against gay people. You would think if this was such a grievous sin, Jesus might have mentioned it.
Jesus welcomed all. He didn't say "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".
Homosexuality is addressed in the bible. Being explicitly addressed in the bible doesn't mean it isn't important, though. I don't believe abortion is mentioned in the bible but it's hard to find people that would argue that abortion is not a sin.
I think people are having trouble understanding the distinction between accepting the person and accepting the person's actions. Jesus welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes but he didn't condone the tax collectors or the prostitutes behavior. Jesus welcomes homosexuals but doesn't condone homosexual sex.
-
If homosexuality were a choice, then the stricture against homosexual sex would be valid. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who would choose a life of condemnation by most of the populous? Homosexual people are God's creatures and even if the Church doesn't accept them, God does.
To think that the Catholic Church is welcoming to homosexual people is a joke.
No one saying homosexuality is a choice. Engaging in homosexual sex (like any kind of sex) is a choice.
Homosexuality is not a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin. It's not a difficult distinction.
According to your logic, unmarried heterosexual people are not welcome in the Church because the Church doesn't condone heterosexual sex outside of marriage.
Once more, the official teaching of the Church is that homosexual people always have been and always will be welcome into the Church.
-
Homosexuality is addressed in the bible. Being explicitly addressed in the bible doesn't mean it isn't important, though. I don't believe abortion is mentioned in the bible but it's hard to find people that would argue that abortion is not a sin.
I think people are having trouble understanding the distinction between accepting the person and accepting the person's actions. Jesus welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes but he didn't condone the tax collectors or the prostitutes behavior. Jesus welcomes homosexuals but doesn't condone homosexual sex.
Prostitution and extorting tax payments were (and are) a choice.
Where does Jesus mention that he does not condone Homosexual sex?
-
Prostitution and extorting tax payments were (and are) a choice.
Where does Jesus mention that he does not condone Homosexual sex?
Are you saying that if Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn something it isn't wrong?
-
Are you saying that if Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn something it isn't wrong?
I am saying that if it was as greivous a sin as the Church claims, he might have mentioned it.
-
Homosexuality is not a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin. It's not a difficult distinction.
I think the distinction is more difficult than some of us may realize. As Fr. Wild said at the Pere Marquette dinner, gays and lesbians are God's creation. And God doesn't make junk (my words, not Fr. Wild's, but you see the point).
So how can you extract an element of their humanity (sexuality) and compartmentalize it? How is God's creation not wholly good? Tough question. I don't know the answer, and my Catholic education was woeful w/ respect to thoughtful conversation on this sort of thing.
Which brings me back to my parting take of the day...a specialist in Gender Studies and Sexuality would have helped me grapple with this difficult question in the safety of the classroom.
Have a good weekend. Go Brewers.
-
I think the distinction is more difficult than some of us may realize. As Fr. Wild said at the Pere Marquette dinner, gays and lesbians are God's creation. And God doesn't make junk (my words, not Fr. Wild's, but you see the point).
That's cute and plays well with some folks, but I've always wondered then, was Hitler not a creation of God? How about Ghengis Khan? Or Idi Amin ? Pol Pot? John Wayne Gasey? Dahmer? Etc, etc.
We are all creatures of God in my opinion, but free will comes into play and that creates junk. Now, I'm sure you're next statement is going to be, gays don't choose to be gay, it's not a choice. And for most people, I would agree, gays and lesbians (as well as heterosexuals, bisexuals) do not choose their sexuality. This is why I support civil unions. But that begs the question again, do polygamists choose how they are?
-
The hypocrisy is what you are scared of? Changing the institution?
I bet people used that same argument to try and keep interracial marriage illegal.
"If you let blacks and whites get married, where does it stop???" (again, in my best ignorant redneck impression).
Progress is scary, and I definitely understand what you are saying, I just don't think the risk is that great (thus our disagreement).
Also, just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about state. Each church is going to have their own views on homosexuality. I'm cool with that.
I'm just not sure I want my government telling gay people that "You can't be married. You can have a "civil union", but "marriage" is only for straight people"
Just seems crazy to me.
Our gov't says things like this all the time, so why would this be any different. Why, as a married citizen do I get hit with the marriage penalty in taxation...that's not fair. There are examples all over the place.
And please, don't go there with marriage between blacks and whites, such a canard. It's still male and female and capable of naturally producing children. Those arguments existed due to racial prejudice.
I come back to the discussion I had with a few friends of mine that were pushing Gay marriage in California, working for that campaign (which lost, again, out here on the last ballot). I told them I would support the legalization if they "went all in", meaning that polygamists can get married to as many people as they want. They flat out told me they couldn't go for this because it was too controversial, and, here's the great part...that wasn't real marriage. So here we have a group not liking the current definition of marriage but wanting to put more boundaries on marriage again. Sorry, but it made me more than chuckle.
The biggest irony in all with the election in California, African Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly shot it down. Whites, in fact, voted in favor for gay marriage by a percent or two.
I'm sure at some point it will become legal, but they hypocrisy of it bothers me.
-
If by many states, you mean 8, then so be it. ;)
Source?
-
Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
CA, NV, OR, WA, and NJ give similar rights to civil unions to marriage and if if you add in IA, MA, VT, NH, and CT (who allow gay marriage) that that makes 10 states where the gays can have some kind of union with equal or near equal rights.
Interesting read on gay marriage and it's impact on the divorce rates at least here in 3rd circle of hell according to conservatives Massachusetts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html
(And yes consider the source the huffington blah blah just read it...)
-
The reason I ask is there are other sources that claim many more than 8 states so I was curious what criteria they were using.
-
That's cute and plays well with some folks, but I've always wondered then, was Hitler not a creation of God? How about Ghengis Khan? Or Idi Amin ? Pol Pot? John Wayne Gasey? Dahmer? Etc, etc.
We are all creatures of God in my opinion, but free will comes into play and that creates junk. Now, I'm sure you're next statement is going to be, gays don't choose to be gay, it's not a choice. And for most people, I would agree, gays and lesbians (as well as heterosexuals, bisexuals) do not choose their sexuality. This is why I support civil unions. But that begs the question again, do polygamists choose how they are?
I'm interested in seeing where this logic train is going, and I'm not saying that in a conceded way. You do feel that sexuality is not a choice. Doesn't it seem that polygamy is a choice? How many people have a realization that it is part of their sexual identity to marry many or that they share their spouse with many others? I just think you are making a false correlation... there is a real distinction, based on choice, there that you might be missing out on.
If this is right, then it would stand to reason that, right now, most states impermissibly discriminate based on sexuality, something that one cannot choose by refusing to extend marriage rights, but do permissibly discriminate on something that is a choice, entering into multiple such unions, whether hetero or homosexual. Again, I have trouble believing that it is someone's inherent sexuality that they must marry multiple people.
Do you support civil unions for polygamists? I'm asking an honest question, and I'm sorry if you addressed that earlier somewhere in the thread.
-
Actually, I said for MOST people sexuality isn't a choice, I do not believe that is the case for everyone, but certainly the vast vast majority.
I'm a Catholic. As a Catholic, we believe that the Pope and other religious leaders are here to guide us. We believe the Holy Spirit fills them and provides a guiding hand. These are not perfect people, they make mistakes, some of them tragic (child abuse). But they have also steered their flock in the right direction for centuries (and yes, I can give an entire dissertation on the corruption and immoral actions of the Catholic church throughout it's history, I get it).
Yesterday, my little daughter made her first Holy Communion. I was listening to the priest (there were actually 4 of them, including Father Matt who looks like Jesus, it's incredible, and married Kobe Bryant....so you can have fun with that one) as he was talking about receiving the body and blood of Christ. He told all the second graders that they are now walking tabernacles of Christ. A cute image that the kids really attached themselves to. He also spoke of how the religious are filled with the Holy Spirit as a guiding force.
In my mind, if we are to believe that the Pope and the religious are filled with the Holy Spirit and are guiding us in this fashion, and FORCEFULLY at that, then it's something we should take very seriously in our evaluation as Catholics. I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with. It's pretty sad.
-
So Fr. Matt, is an Arab, because Jesus wasn't a white dude who looked like a lead singer of an indy band from Seattle from early 90's. ;)
-
So Fr. Matt, is an Arab, because Jesus wasn't a white dude who looked like a lead singer of an indy band from Seattle from early 90's. ;)
For the record, I believe Jesus was likely a nice olive color. ;) I'm glad my church portrays him in human form as someone likely to be from the Middle East.
-
.
-
Our gov't says things like this all the time, so why would this be any different. Why, as a married citizen do I get hit with the marriage penalty in taxation...that's not fair. There are examples all over the place.
And please, don't go there with marriage between blacks and whites, such a canard. It's still male and female and capable of naturally producing children. Those arguments existed due to racial prejudice.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I feel like it's a very apt comparison. Not that long ago, a lot of people in this country thought black people were less that human. They didn't think they were capable of things white people were capable of. They were refereed to as animals. FLASH FORWARD: While the gay population is enjoying more freedom than ever, let's not pretend that's its not a persecuted group. Prejudice, fear, and ignorance have kept people from accepting that being gay isn't an "illness". My point is this: 60 years ago, we had separate drinking fountains for black people, and thought that was ok. 60 years from now, we'll probably look at anti-gay marriage legislation and think WTF?!
I come back to the discussion I had with a few friends of mine that were pushing Gay marriage in California, working for that campaign (which lost, again, out here on the last ballot). I told them I would support the legalization if they "went all in", meaning that polygamists can get married to as many people as they want. They flat out told me they couldn't go for this because it was too controversial, and, here's the great part...that wasn't real marriage. So here we have a group not liking the current definition of marriage but wanting to put more boundaries on marriage again. Sorry, but it made me more than chuckle.
Again with the polygamists? I'll bring up the point that I brought up before: There is not a large demand or need to legalize polygamy. The US population and the "free market" should be able to guide the evolution of legislation. Speed limits are higher now than they used to be. The drinking age has been standardized. Woman can vote. These are legislative issues that have evolved over time. When they made the drinking age 21, did people freak out in fear they would make it 30? When they allowed woman to vote, were people fearful that the next legislation would allow dogs to vote? When the smoking ban went into effect in major cities, did people fear that all of the bars would close? Don't let your fear of the unknown cloud what is the proper evolution of legal "marriage".
The biggest irony in all with the election in California, African Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly shot it down. Whites, in fact, voted in favor for gay marriage by a percent or two.
I'm sure at some point it will become legal, but they hypocrisy of it bothers me.
I hear ya, but I have a hard time telling my gay friends they are hypocrites because they don't support polygamy. The 2 things aren't really the same to me (or them, especially), nor do I think that it's the same to the rest of America. AND if there is some large polygamist movement and demand 25 years from now, well, then I'll have to examine the issue. I can't justify holding back gay marriage because some dude will want 5 wives. It's just not the same thing to me.
Oh, and as a practicing Catholic, I realize what the church says about being gay. I'm strictly talking US legislation, not about the Catholic church. The church probably needs to evolve as well, but I have to be honest and say that I'm torn on that issue. I love the church, but it's tough for me to be apart of an organization that isn't the most tolerant.
-
I read some of Jodi O'Brien's writing over the weekend. This by no means makes me an expert on her writing. I don't even feel comfortable commenting on her scholarship. I do think that she is asking questions that Catholics should not be afraid of.
She is no more controversial than Dan Maguire. In fact, Dr. Maguire is much more in the face of Catholics, yet he has a platform provided by Marquette.
-
She is no more controversial than Dan Maguire.
I agree with your statement but Maguire isn't hired as a Dean and I believe that the position hired into matters. For example, the Dean includes work with donors, it is an option with a Prof. I can appreciate Marquette's concerns with O'Brien as Dean but would be disappointed if Marquette wouldn't hire O'Brien as a Prof. (Besides, with a name like Maguire, we have to keep him)
-
I agree with your statement but Maguire isn't hired as a Dean and I believe that the position hired into matters. For example, the Dean includes work with donors, it is an option with a Prof. I can appreciate Marquette's concerns with O'Brien as Dean but would be disappointed if Marquette wouldn't hire O'Brien as a Prof. (Besides, with a name like Maguire, we have to keep him)
Again, I am not sure what MU is afraid of. O'Brien is asking challenging questions, no doubt. They are questions that today's high school and college kids are asking. I teach high school religion at a local parish, and I know that many of these kids disagree with current church teaching. They have grown up with aunts, uncles and friends that are gay, and see nothing wrong with being gay. If they are not answered with thought and logic, these future leaders of the Catholic Church will be gone anyway.
In their minds, Catholic teaching is: Gay = evil and yucky, with no thought or reason. (Different than the norm is not reason)
-
I found this link today, and thought it would fit in this thread more than anything else. Here is the Database of Publicly Accused Priests in the United States.
Simply, it's staggering.
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html
-
I graduated from Marquette in 1970. Believe it or not, one of the debates de jour was whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness. The scientific community at the time (American Psychiatric Association, World Health Organization, etc.) concluded that it was. Clearly an example of a wildly inaccurate "scientific consensus" being forged out of the politics and mores of the day. (Sound familiar? -different debate for a different day)
Forty years later the view that seemed obvious to me and most of my peers - that a person's general sexual preference (hetro or homo) was neither a choice nor an illness from which one could be "cured" - is widely accepted by all but the most backward of cultures.
Given that, the optimum outcome is the legalization of gay marriage. As a (mostly) conservative who believes in the societal worth of our institutions, I believe inclusion is best course. If families provide a stability that our culture so desperately needs, excluding gays from the rights and responsibilities of marriage seems counterproductive.
I understand that many are conflicted on this issue due to their Catholicism. But the church is stuck in a bit of a time warp as regards sexuality. The genie is already out of the bottle for most of us on the "sex only for procreation" and the birth control front (among others). If thinking this way makes me a bad or "cafeteria catholic" I plead guilty.
-
I found this link today, and thought it would fit in this thread more than anything else. Here is the Database of Publicly Accused Priests in the United States.
Simply, it's staggering.
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html
It is staggering . . . but why it is relevant?
-
I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with. It's pretty sad.
Are 'devout' Catholics 100% on board with the Church's view on just war? The death penalty? Rights of workers? Rights of immigrants? Or the American Conference of Bishop's writings on Poverty & Race? Or their call for the federal government to adequately fund a national health insurance program?
Are the Cafeteria Catholics you describe moral relativists that ride the fence and lack a backbone?
Is there a third camp perhaps? Catholics with reasonable and conscientious objections to specific rules made by fallible human beings who seem to lean heavily on tradition, authority, and the bronze age philosophy of St. Aquinas?
is there a fourth camp? Faculty and students who seek to grapple with the questions of moral knowledge at a Catholic institution dedicated to higher learning?
Again, there is a lot more complexity to our world than the false dichotomy of 'devout catholic' OR 'cafeteria catholic'.
Again, I am not sure what MU is afraid of. O'Brien is asking challenging questions, no doubt. They are questions that today's high school and college kids are asking.
Marquette wasn't afraid of anything O'brien had to say or the influence she would have. I think the University extended the offer b/c she would give support to those faculty and students who sought to grapple with the difficult questions raised in this thread. It seems that the only thing Fr. Wild was 'afraid' of was people yanking support from the university (notably financial support). That's what is so mind-boggling about the decision. Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.
-
It seems that the only thing Fr. Wild was 'afraid' of was people yanking support from the university (notably financial support). That's what is so mind-boggling about the decision. Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.
I suspect this is true, and part of me is discouraged.
BUT... as a student of a private high school and college, I understand the practical need of large donations to keep the school(s) operating.
Private education is expensive, and on some level the school has to cater/pander to who is cutting the checks, which in this case probably exist on the more conservative side.
I don't want it to be this way, but MU doesn't exist in a vacuum, and lets face it, some University decisions are made based upon $$.
-
MUMBA,
Of course you are correctly addressing the reality (Fr. Wild caves to the conservative cabal) while I was addressing Marquette's stated objection (O'Brien will cause MU mission to go off track).
Don't underestimate Listiecki and Hartmann's influence. The Archdiocese is on a homosexual witch hunt.
-
I suspect this is true, and part of me is discouraged.
BUT... as a student of a private high school and college, I understand the practical need of large donations to keep the school(s) operating.
As someone who solicits and secures large donations for a university for a living, I can tell you that you have to be really careful about this though. If you start letting donors make decisions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a academically rigorous institution, you are in trouble. And I'm not even talking about this issue per se...but any issue.
The goal with any donor is to make sure they are thanked for their support, and that you listen to them when they have issues, but if you start making these types of decisions because of them, you may as well resign because you aren't running things any longer.
-
As someone who solicits and secures large donations for a university for a living, I can tell you that you have to be really careful about this though. If you start letting donors make decisions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a academically rigorous institution, you are in trouble. And I'm not even talking about this issue per se...but any issue.
The goal with any donor is to make sure they are thanked for their support, and that you listen to them when they have issues, but if you start making these types of decisions because of them, you may as well resign because you aren't running things any longer.
Absolutely agree. You can't let the rich inmates run the asylum (to mix metaphors).
I just know that there are a lot of decisions made with $$ in mind. On some issues, the school has to take a stand, on others they go along with what will keep bringing in the $$.
It's the beauty and curse of private education. In a vacuum, MU would obviously make all of these decisions internally with some input from the Board of Trustees. However, in real life, we all know there are some powerful players who definitely have some input based upon their financial and/or political contributions to the school.
It happens.
-
I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with. It's pretty sad.
What a dismissive way to mention controversial topics. People struggle with these issues and grapple with their consciences in dealing with these issues. Who in the world has ever argued that abortion is "cool" or gay marriage "rocks"? People may not believe that divorce is "no big deal," but they may accept it as a necessity if someone they know has been hurt mentally or physically or, heaven forbid, the love has been lost. The worst thing anybody can do, and this is only my opinion, is to walk lockstep with any institution simply because of tradition or what the hierarchy believes.
-
It is staggering . . . but why it is relevant?
All the random topics in this 14 page thread, including a surfing priest, and you choose to call out mine as the one off topic?
-
All the random topics in this 14 page thread, including a surfing priest, and you choose to call out mine as the one off topic?
I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.
The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children? Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.
-
I'm totally in favor of people who have hurt nobody and have a lot to offer, regardless of orientation!!
-
I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.
The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children? Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.
pretty much. thanks.
I think critically regarding the institution of the Catholic Church and their dogma when that same institution of the Catholic Church has a fundamental issue with molesting children and then covering it up.
Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings. And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married. As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.
-
I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.
The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children? Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.
The reason I disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, etc is because I think they're wrong. Had the bishops handled the clergy's sex abuse scandals perfectly, I would still feel that way. So would you and so would Sugar.
-
pretty much. thanks.
I think critically regarding the institution of the Catholic Church and their dogma when that same institution of the Catholic Church has a fundamental issue with molesting children and then covering it up.
Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings. And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married. As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.
Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.
-
Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.
True, but the topic isn't completely unrelated.
-
Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings. And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married. As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.
Do you REALLY understand the Church's position on homosexuality? Do you understand the depth and breadth of the position? How it is fundamentally connected to many other teachings and principles? It's more than just "we don't like gays." It's tied in to human nature, natural law, integrity, the procreative and unifying aspects of sexuality, etc. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is infinitely more complicated than "but they love each other."
-
Do you REALLY understand the Church's position on homosexuality? Do you understand the depth and breadth of the position? How it is fundamentally connected to many other teachings and principles? It's more than just "we don't like gays." It's tied in to human nature, natural law, integrity, the procreative and unifying aspects of sexuality, etc. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is infinitely more complicated than "but they love each other."
It really isn't that complicated. No, really, it isn't.
-
It really isn't that complicated. No, really, it isn't.
Well, there are volumes of articles by some of the world's top theologians debating and discussing this topic. Hell, just Google the Catechism and read that. Justification for the Church's position is connected to its general teachings on human dignity and human sexuality, which helps form the foundation for some of its teachings on marriage, premarital sex, birth control, abortion, masturbation, pornography, etc. Read some of that work and come back and tell me that the Church's position is simple or superficial.
-
I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.
-
Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.
Take out the word "authoritatively" and I'll agree with you. Or better yet, they have every right to speak with authority. But the fact that they have been so fundamentally wrong on dealing with pedophiles, it makes it hard for people to think they somehow have an insight into God's position on this issue.
-
Take out the word "authoritatively" and I'll agree with you. Or better yet, they have every right to speak with authority. But the fact that they have been so fundamentally wrong on dealing with pedophiles, it makes it hard for people to think they somehow have an insight into God's position on this issue.
Had they been fundamentally right on dealing with pedophiles would you then accept their position on homosexualiy, gay marriage, etc.? Anyone whose view on these subjects is based even a little on priestly abuse and cover up is totally missing the point.
-
Had they been fundamentally right on dealing with pedophiles would you then accept their position on homosexualiy, gay marriage, etc.? Anyone whose view on these subjects is based even a little on priestly abuse and cover up is totally missing the point.
I wouldn't. But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.
-
I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.
Funny on so many different levels.
-
I wouldn't. But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.
I'm pretty sure all religious leaders (priests, ministers, rabbis) as well as their congregations believe they are speaking authoritatively, do they all "have issues"?
-
True, but the topic isn't completely unrelated.
That's true, in many other ways too. Not hard to figure out really.
-
I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.
Yes, a priest presiding over a wedding ceremony, to marry them. Or in this case, a robot. :D
http://www.yourtango.com/201070466/couple-married-robot-japan
Lenny is really good at definitions, he can probably help you with this one.
Though after seeing the latest photo shoot with Kobe, I have sincere doubts.
http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/05/kobe-white-hot.html
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0134802f972f970c-800wi)
-
I read some of Jodi O'Brien's writing over the weekend. This by no means makes me an expert on her writing. I don't even feel comfortable commenting on her scholarship. I do think that she is asking questions that Catholics should not be afraid of.
She is no more controversial than Dan Maguire. In fact, Dr. Maguire is much more in the face of Catholics, yet he has a platform provided by Marquette.
Yes, as a professor, not as a VP setting policy. Thus, the difference. Quite frankly, many Catholics would love to see Maguire on his ass.
-
What a dismissive way to mention controversial topics. People struggle with these issues and grapple with their consciences in dealing with these issues. Who in the world has ever argued that abortion is "cool" or gay marriage "rocks"?
You been around teens lately?
-
I wouldn't. But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.
And here I thought that was one of the core beliefs of Catholicism.
Papal Infallibility
I realize this is rarely used, and has not been for this particular issue, but what you are saying by your comments is that Papal Infallibility does not exist. Am I reading you incorrectly? If you do believe in Papal Infallibility and such a statement in the future comes from the Pope on this topic, then what?
I've read through your comments, Lenny's and others and I realize all of you view this differently, as if you are enlightened and not caught up in the time warp that the Catholic Church is. What begs the question for me is whether or not you are open to potentially being wrong on this, or is it your way and nothing else?
-
Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.
No, it seems that he capitulated to people that follow Catholic teachings, including the latest and most current directives of the Pontiff, the head of the Catholic Church. What a wild and crazy idea, for a Catholic university to follow Catholic teachings. What in the hell will they think of next.
-
Oh, and as a practicing Catholic, I realize what the church says about being gay. I'm strictly talking US legislation, not about the Catholic church. The church probably needs to evolve as well, but I have to be honest and say that I'm torn on that issue. I love the church, but it's tough for me to be apart of an organization that isn't the most tolerant.
Out of curiosity, at what point will the tolerance meter be filled? Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail?
-
You been around teens lately?
Yes, I work with teens and young adults. What does that have to do with people grappling with difficult issues?
-
Out of curiosity, at what point will the tolerance meter be filled? Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail?
It's a fair question, and in all honesty, I don't really know. It's a bit of a moving target for me.
I love the Catholic church, and I understand the tradition and why the church isn't a progressive organization. In fact, I'm glad that it's not. It's comforting to know that the Church is willing to dig in and stick to its guns and not fall to the political winds.
BUTTTT... Throughout history, there are also examples of church teachings and dogma being manipulated to fit political needs, so I can't give the church THAT much credit in this area.
As far as the church's view/tolerance of homosexuality, it's just hard for me to rectify that it's "ok" or at least passively accepted that a lot of Catholic men and women are participating in premarital sex and/or living together before they are married, and there is no real consequence. But, somehow engaging in homosexuality is seen as a mortal sin by the same parishioners and some clergy members.
Is being gay the same as premarital cohabitation/sex? No. BUT, it's hard for me to rectify that engaging in homosexuality is somehow a mortal sin, but living with my girlfriend before we are married is usually just shrugged off as "par for the (modern) course". Why is one really worse than the other? Is there a "sin scoreboard" that I'm not aware of? How many Hail Marys for being gay?
We can say that the church is technically still against premarital relations, but we also know that they aren't THAT against it. I've been to numerous weddings where the couple lived together before they were married and some even had children. They were proudly (and properly) married in the Catholic church.
I don't think that means that the Catholic church should start performing gay weddings, but like I said, it's just hard for me to understand sometimes.
I'm by no means bashing the church or proposing radical changes. I just struggle with the church's stance on this issue.
How can the church be more tolerant? What should the policies be? etc. etc.
I honestly have no idea, and that's part of my internal struggle/search.
-
And here I thought that was one of the core beliefs of Catholicism.
Papal Infallibility
I realize this is rarely used, and has not been for this particular issue, but what you are saying by your comments is that Papal Infallibility does not exist. Am I reading you incorrectly? If you do believe in Papal Infallibility and such a statement in the future comes from the Pope on this topic, then what?
I've read through your comments, Lenny's and others and I realize all of you view this differently, as if you are enlightened and not caught up in the time warp that the Catholic Church is. What begs the question for me is whether or not you are open to potentially being wrong on this, or is it your way and nothing else?
If the pope is infallable why has he apologized for mistakes?
just sayin'
-
If the pope is infallable why has he apologized for mistakes?
just sayin'
Not every aspect of what the pope says or does is infallible. The pope only speaks infallably on certain subjects, such as doctrine.
Again, it might be a good idea to know a little something about what you are attempting to criticize . . .
-
If the pope is infallable why has he apologized for mistakes?
just sayin'
According to catholic doctrine the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair). This rarely happens, and only on matters of faith and morals. I assume you knew that and were making a joke. If not, either the powers that be don't teach basic catholic doctrine anymore or you weren't payin' attention.
just sayin'
-
According to catholic doctrine the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair). This rarely happens, and only on matters of faith and morals. I assume you knew that and were making a joke. If not, either the powers that be don't teach basic catholic doctrine anymore or you weren't payin' attention.
just sayin'
lol of course it was tongue in cheek, should have used the teal :-/
-
Yes, I work with teens and young adults. What does that have to do with people grappling with difficult issues?
You made the statement that who talks about abortion, etc this way. People are WAY WAY WAY too casual about abortion, divorce, etc these days. Abortion, for some, is merely a birth control device now which is beyond sick. Sure, for most it's still a decision they agonize through, but because we've made it so easy, taken down all barriers, the attitudes have changed. "Just go get an abortion".
Too many easy ways out, especially among younger people these days. Very troubling.
-
You made the statement that who talks about abortion, etc this way. People are WAY WAY WAY too casual about abortion, divorce, etc these days. Abortion, for some, is merely a birth control device now which is beyond sick. Sure, for most it's still a decision they agonize through, but because we've made it so easy, taken down all barriers, the attitudes have changed. "Just go get an abortion".
Too many easy ways out, especially among younger people these days. Very troubling.
To be honest, it's hard to follow the logic. Are "People WAY WAY WAY" to casual about these issues? Which people? Young people? All people? Non-Catholics? Most people I encounter would never say "just go get an abortion," they would agonize over it. Most people I know who have gotten divorced haven't done so without troubling over it. I can't speak for "People."
-
To be honest, it's hard to follow the logic. Are "People WAY WAY WAY" to casual about these issues? Which people? Young people? All people? Non-Catholics? Most people I encounter would never say "just go get an abortion," they would agonize over it. Most people I know who have gotten divorced haven't done so without troubling over it. I can't speak for "People."
Just more people, apparently... more people than... before.
-
You made the statement that who talks about abortion, etc this way. People are WAY WAY WAY too casual about abortion, divorce, etc these days. Abortion, for some, is merely a birth control device now which is beyond sick. Sure, for most it's still a decision they agonize through, but because we've made it so easy, taken down all barriers, the attitudes have changed. "Just go get an abortion".
Too many easy ways out, especially among younger people these days. Very troubling.
You would think they way you talk abortions would be at an all-time high?
Actually the # has been declining steadily from 1.4 million in 1990, to about 800,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm
Edit: The divorce rate is falling too, lowest it has been since 1970. In 2005, 3.5 per 1,000, once again steadily declining since the height of 4.1 in late 1980's.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
-
You made the statement that who talks about abortion, etc this way. People are WAY WAY WAY too casual about abortion, divorce, etc these days. Abortion, for some, is merely a birth control device now which is beyond sick. Sure, for most it's still a decision they agonize through, but because we've made it so easy, taken down all barriers, the attitudes have changed. "Just go get an abortion".
Too many easy ways out, especially among younger people these days. Very troubling.
Chicos, We are not talking about Abortion or Divorce. I agree with you 100%. Abortion is murder, and it has become the birth control of last resort. The Catholic Church is the only institution standing between us and all out infanticide.
Now, back to the topic of this thread. Much has been learned about Homosexuality since Biblical Times. At that time, There was no concept that it was not a choice. It was observed as deviant behavior, for the enjoyment of the participant. We all know that is not the case. We learned this through research and learning. Maybe Dr. O'Brien would add to that understanding.
-
And here I thought that was one of the core beliefs of Catholicism.
Papal Infallibility
I realize this is rarely used, and has not been for this particular issue, but what you are saying by your comments is that Papal Infallibility does not exist. Am I reading you incorrectly? If you do believe in Papal Infallibility and such a statement in the future comes from the Pope on this topic, then what?
I do not believe in Papal Infallibility. but again, I'm not Catholic. I think that notion was established to preserve power and control in a young church because there obviously isn't a Biblical basis for it.
Tell me, why would God estrust faith and doctrine related issues to a group of people who wouldn't step up to protect young children when they needed it the most? I mean, it's a nice racket...when we make mistakes it's because we're not infallible, but when we are telling others how they need to live, we are.
-
Chicos, We are not talking about Abortion or Divorce. I agree with you 100%. Abortion is murder, and it has become the birth control of last resort. The Catholic Church is the only institution standing between us and all out infanticide.
Oh good lord....exaggerate much? I'll also point out that you misused the term infanticide.
-
You made the statement that who talks about abortion, etc this way. People are WAY WAY WAY too casual about abortion, divorce, etc these days. Abortion, for some, is merely a birth control device now which is beyond sick. Sure, for most it's still a decision they agonize through, but because we've made it so easy, taken down all barriers, the attitudes have changed. "Just go get an abortion".
Too many easy ways out, especially among younger people these days. Very troubling.
Do *you* work with young adults? Because to be honest, I think they are much more "with it" as a group than I ever was at that age. They've been a little more coddled and spoiled than my generation, but honestly that's because they have a much more open relationship with their parents than I did. I mean, I talk to my teenage kids much more openly and honestly than I did with my parents....and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.
-
Oh good lord....exaggerate much? I'll also point out that you misused the term infanticide.
Maybe it was slightly hyperbolic>
Name another institution that takes as strong a stand against abortion as the Church.
Infanticide is where we are going. We can't even get politicians to eliminate the most gruesome late term abortions.
Please, I was responding to Chicos. Let's not let this thread go too far astray.
-
Maybe it was slightly hyperbolic>
Name another institution that takes as strong a stand against abortion as the Church.
Infanticide is where we are going. We can't even get politicains to eliminate the most gruesome late term abortions.
Please, I was responding to Chicos. Let's not let this thread go too far astray.
There are less abortions now than there were 30 years ago despite it being legal everywhere....there are many organizations and inviduals who can take credit for that...including both the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood.
-
There are less abortions now than there were 30 years ago despite it being legal everywhere....there are many organizations and inviduals who can take credit for that...including both the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood.
I wish I could ignore this, but I can't:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD??? They provide abortions for their livelihood.
-
I wish I could ignore this, but I can't:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD??? They depend on providing abortions for their livelihood.
They also provide information and free contraceptives so a lot of the unplanned pregnancies never come into being.
His point (I think) is that the Catholic Church attacks the problem from one angle (abstinence), and Planned Parenthood attacks it from another (encouraging the use of contraceptives, and providing free contraceptives). Thus, both can take credit for the decrease in abortions.
-
They also provide information and free contraceptives so a lot of the unplanned pregnancies never come into being.
His point (I think) is that the Catholic Church attacks the problem from one angle (abstinence), and Planned Parenthood attacks it from another (encouraging the use of contraceptives, and providing free contraceptives). Thus, both can take credit for the decrease in abortions.
Yes, that is exactly my point. Without PP providing free contraceptives, the amount of abortions would skyrocket. And if they didn't provide abortions, someone else would.
-
If the pope is infallable why has he apologized for mistakes?
just sayin'
Because it's only been used about a dozen times. There have been no apologies after infallibility has been invoked.
This is why I framed my statement accordingly. If the Pope comes out with an infallible statement about gays and marriage, as Catholics we believe this is word without error, directly from the Holy Spirit. If that were to happen, what would you Catholics do?
-
To be honest, it's hard to follow the logic. Are "People WAY WAY WAY" to casual about these issues? Which people? Young people? All people? Non-Catholics? Most people I encounter would never say "just go get an abortion," they would agonize over it. Most people I know who have gotten divorced haven't done so without troubling over it. I can't speak for "People."
You're right, you can't speak for people...how about for statistics.
Here are a few illustrative examples that might help frame it for you.
Repeat abortions have been rising steadily for almost two decades. That "agonizing" decision isn't quite so agonizing when it becomes more and more routine. More than half of abortions the last few years are to women who had one or more previously. It has become birth control for these women. We've made it too casual, too easy.
In the UK, repeat abortions rose to nearly 70% in 2008. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1127083/Repeat-abortions-teenage-girls-risen-70.html
A study done in 2006 by David Popenoe, Director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, shows views of divorce among teens and 20 year olds is less bothersome. They have seen their parents go through divorce and view divorces in a different light then generations earlier who held divorce as a last possible event in a marriage. Remember the old saying, "the family that prays together stays together". Well, that was an adage that was held widely and practiced widely in this country and other parts of the world for decades. It's not anymore and the we've seen the fallout as a result.
Divorce rates increased by more than double in the 1970's, as people were less committed to staying married and working through their issues. By 1981, divorces had tripled from 1962. Who was doing this the most...the YOUNGER people of this country. One sociologist at Stanford University calculated that while men and women in their twenties comprised only about 20 percent of the population, they contributed 60 percent of the growth in the divorce rate in the 1960s and early 1970s. (Landon Jones, Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980), 215.
I could go on, but you get the idea. We have given "people", typically young, immature, people the easy way out on relationships, sex, pregnancy, relationships in general, etc. It has caused untold harm on the family unit as well as the very moral fabric a society needs when placing value on the family, children, etc.
-
I do not believe in Papal Infallibility. but again, I'm not Catholic. I think that notion was established to preserve power and control in a young church because there obviously isn't a Biblical basis for it.
Tell me, why would God estrust faith and doctrine related issues to a group of people who wouldn't step up to protect young children when they needed it the most? I mean, it's a nice racket...when we make mistakes it's because we're not infallible, but when we are telling others how they need to live, we are.
Because you're confusing a GROUP for individuals. Papal infallibility has only been used about a dozen times, don't confuse that usage by one person as the same as the actions (or inactions in this case) by a group of people that are totally different. Because Barry Bonds used Steroids, does that mean all the Giants did?
-
There are less abortions now than there were 30 years ago despite it being legal everywhere....there are many organizations and inviduals who can take credit for that...including both the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood.
That all depends on who is counting and what you are counting. Is the morning after pill considered abortion in your mind? A lot of people say it is, yet it's not counted as an abortion yet in reality, that medication is destroying a fertilized egg. The CDC as well as Guttmacher Institute do not count that as abortion.
So yes, in counting one way, abortions are down, but are they? All depends how you count and what you count.
The Conference of US Catholic Bishops also has some significant trouble with some of your conclusions
http://usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet0207.shtml
-
I could go on, but you get the idea. We have given "people", typically young, immature, people the easy way out on relationships, sex, pregnancy, relationships in general, etc. It has caused untold harm on the family unit as well as the very moral fabric a society needs when placing value on the family, children, etc.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The fact that repeat abortions go up does not mean that individuals do not grapple with the decision (maybe those individuals who have repeat abortions do not, but who's to say they would have if laws were more stringent.....that's all conjecture on either of our parts). As for divorce, just because marriages stayed together decades ago doesn't mean that that was a good thing. In fact, many abusive marriages, loveless marriages, dysfunctional marriages, etc. remained intact because of societal and religious pressures. That, from my perspective, is not beneficial to children and/or families. I think we just see the world from different perspectives.
-
That all depends on who is counting and what you are counting. Is the morning after pill considered abortion in your mind? A lot of people say it is, yet it's not counted as an abortion yet in reality, that medication is destroying a fertilized egg. The CDC as well as Guttmacher Institute do not count that as abortion.
So yes, in counting one way, abortions are down, but are they? All depends how you count and what you count.
The Conference of US Catholic Bishops also has some significant trouble with some of your conclusions
http://usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contrafactsheet0207.shtml
The morning after pill is not any more an abortion than taking regular birth control.
Also, Chicos, the second (or even day) people have sex doesn't mean the baby will be concieved that day. Sperm cells can live in a female for up to 3 days.
-
The morning after pill is not any more an abortion than taking regular birth control.
Also, Chicos, the second (or even day) people have sex doesn't mean the baby will be concieved that day. Sperm cells can live in a female for up to 3 days.
Actually, the morning-after pill is very different and can terminate a pregnancy (otherwise known as an abortion) by preventing implantation.
-
Actually, the morning-after pill is very different and can terminate a pregnancy (otherwise known as an abortion) by preventing implantation.
I'm just going to stop now before we get in an argument about when life starts etc. I hope you can manage to do the same.
-
Actually, the morning-after pill is very different and can terminate a pregnancy (otherwise known as an abortion) by preventing implantation.
The morning after pill is not very different... its just a larger dose of estrogen that is in normal birth control, to prevent implantation of a descended egg if it is fertilized. I know that isn't what you were probably getting at, just take it for what it is... I didn't know what it was until my girlfriend told me and I thought other people might not know what it is either.
-
I'm just going to stop now before we get in an argument about when life starts etc. I hope you can manage to do the same.
The time that life begins isn't really debatable anymore. When "pregnancy" starts might be a little different. But that is a discussion that goes outside the scope of the thread . . .
-
Well that wasn't really 'staying away'
oh well.
-
The morning after pill is not any more an abortion than taking regular birth control.
Also, Chicos, the second (or even day) people have sex doesn't mean the baby will be concieved that day. Sperm cells can live in a female for up to 3 days.
Your opinion and not shared by everyone because it depends what drug we're talking about. For example, RU486, the original morning after pill is also known as "the Abortion pill"
RU486, the French "morning after pill" contains mifepristone and misoprostol. In case you don't know, mifepristone is an Abortifacient, in other words, it's job is to induce an abortion. Misoprostol, on the other hand, is used to induce labor or flush out the system so to speak.
Some morning after pills do not contain mifepristone, but more likely something like progestin and estrogen or even levonorgesteral (sp?).
So it really depends on what drug we're talking about as not all morning after pills are the same.
And yes, I agree with you that pregnancies can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse. Of course, the morning after pill can also be taken after that first morning as well.
-
Your opinion and not shared by everyone because it depends what drug we're talking about. For example, RU486, the original morning after pill is also known as "the Abortion pill"
RU486, the French "morning after pill" contains mifepristone and misoprostol. In case you don't know, mifepristone is an Abortifacient, in other words, it's job is to induce an abortion. Misoprostol, on the other hand, is used to induce labor or flush out the system so to speak.
Some morning after pills do not contain mifepristone, but more likely something like progestin and estrogen or even levonorgesteral (sp?).
So it really depends on what drug we're talking about as not all morning after pills are the same.
And yes, I agree with you that pregnancies can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse. Of course, the morning after pill can also be taken after that first morning as well.
You may call that the morning after pill, but that is not really what people are talking about when they say 'morning after' pill.
typically they are talking about emergency contraception... typically an 'overload' of progestin is used.
RU486 isn't REALLY the morning after pill... it is an Abortifacient. It is used to terminate rather than prevent implantation.
I'm sorry if you disagree, but the medical community would agree with me here...
-
I think both were covered. It depends which pill you're talking about, but RU486 is one of the "morning after" pills, but not the ONLY "morning after" pill.
-
I think both were covered. It depends which pill you're talking about, but RU486 is one of the "morning after" pills, but not the ONLY "morning after" pill.
isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure
-
isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure
No. It was initially banned in the 1980s, but approved in 2000 by the FDA and is legal in all 50 states. It's not a normal prescription drug, in that it can't be distributed by a pharmacy, it has to come directly from a physician.
-
No. It was initially banned in the 1980s, but approved in 2000 by the FDA and is legal in all 50 states. It's not a normal prescription drug, in that it can't be distributed by a pharmacy, it has to come directly from a physician.
Yeah I thought I remembered it being allowed, and I seriously doubted Chicos would even bring it up if it was banned... But then that makes you wonder how often it is actually used to terminate a pregnancy.
My guess is not often considering the alternatives.
-
Yeah I thought I remembered it being allowed, and I seriously doubted Chicos would even bring it up if it was banned... But then that makes you wonder how often it is actually used to terminate a pregnancy.
My guess is not often considering the alternatives.
As of 2005, it was approximately 10%, but data was only available from 40 states as 10 chose not to report to the CDC.\
-
This whole thing is out of control. If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it. It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified? How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation? Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job?
-
This whole thing is out of control. If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it. It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified? How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation? Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job?
The job offer was recinded due to the subject of her research. Why do you believe she isn't qualified?
-
One of the articles posted at the beginning of this thread states that many believed she wasn't qualified and the university hired her as a means of being more "diverse".
-
The job offer was recinded due to the subject of her research. Why do you believe she isn't qualified?
Here it is: http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/arts-science-dean-search-fiasco.html
-
Here it is: http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2010/05/arts-science-dean-search-fiasco.html
OK...this doesn't really say anything outside of the fact that McAdams (who loves tossing stones at the MU administration whenever possible) doesn't like the quality and/or subject matter of her research.
Considering there were plenty of other MU faculty members that felt that her research was just fine, and the fact that she was promoted twice by a fellow Jesuit institution, it seems clear that at best there isn't consensus behind his views.
-
There is no true answer as to why they chose to rescind...many people were involved with the hire so who's to say what each person's motives were? I think people point the finger at Wild because he vetoed the hire but that doesn't necessarily mean he WANTED to. I hate politics...
-
This whole thing is out of control. If she wasn't gay, no one would think a thing of it. It's like every time something doesn't go the way of a minority people get pissed and blame it on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Can't the woman not get the job because, as it appears, she isn't really qualified? How does everyone KNOW it was because of her sexual orientation? Didn't they already know her sexual orientation prior to offering her the job?
I wont put the onus on anyone to sift through 17 pages of what is primarily a typed yelling match amidst confusing tangents, but you should read what was said. Not even the administration is saying that she didn't get the job because she wasn't qualified. They knew her sexual orientation AND her credentials well before extending an offer. Nor is anyone so bluntly stating that she didn't get the job because she is lesbian. It's easy for the "this is just PC" crowd play up the minority-card angle because there aren't a whole lot of white dudes out there engaged in the same scholarship as Dr. O'Brien was. If there was one such dude out there who had written about the same stuff, perhaps something similar would have happened if he were extended the offer.
Here's the crux of my side of the argument. When the University rescinds an offer for a deanship that has been vacant for 2 years, its a pretty serious move. When they come out the next day and offer what I feel are less-than-compelling reasons (in this situation, because it feels like a blatant cop-out) based on how her writings conflict with the University's Catholic Identity, (writings which they also had scrutinized before extending the offer) it looks a lot like they are revoking, on an important level, because she is gay and has written about it.
Others do not agree with me, and I understand and do understand and respect some of the arguments levied on the other side. I don't respect the "lets all just scream PC" arguments.
-
OK...this doesn't really say anything outside of the fact that McAdams (who loves tossing stones at the MU administration whenever possible) doesn't like the quality and/or subject matter of her research.
Considering there were plenty of other MU faculty members that felt that her research was just fine, and the fact that she was promoted twice by a fellow Jesuit institution, it seems clear that at best there isn't consensus behind his views.
I got a good laugh out of Nancy Snow's comments. Talk about orchestrated. Asking for a round of applause when she says certain things in her speech. Give me a break.
-
isnt it banned in the USA?? im asking cuz im not sure
BMA is correct. In 2000 it began to be sold. The first Bush administration scuttled it, but Clinton got it through before he left office. Plenty of interesting stories about this that you can find and why it was pushed so hard in 1996, for whom and the reasons why. I'll leave it at that.
Many details here on the usage of RU 486 in this country
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5713.pdf
Medicinal abortion, like RU486, has been increasingly used in abortions since 2000. Only 1% in 2000, but 10% by 2005. I'd have to think it's probably somewhere between 14% and 17% now in 2010.
-
A full page ad. Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it). I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html
-
I saw the full page ad today .. pretty embarrassing on many levels. Excellent job at making the situation worse.
-
I saw the full page ad today .. pretty embarrassing on many levels. Excellent job at making the situation worse.
I'd love to see it, any PDFs of it out there?
-
Here you go.
And .. correct me if I'm wrong, but 95% of the signatories are from the College of A&S. One wonders, what of the other colleges, Business, Engineering, etc? Were those profs not asked, or are they simply not as .. enthusiastic as to sign their names?
-
A full page ad. Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it). I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html
Agree 100%. My uncle summed it up well when we were watching a news report. I think Fr. Wild was talking in front of a bunch of people opposed to his decision, can't remember the exact event but they interviewed a person or two that was totally against what happened and then they ended the story. My uncle was like, "well why can't they interview someone that supports him as well." It makes me sick that they paint the picture of Fr. Wild vs every person connected with Marquette. I agree with Father Wild not hiring this person, but I am shocked at how badly they butchered the process. I don't really see any people with a viewpoint getting interviewed, or at least shown on TV.
-
Here you go.
And .. correct me if I'm wrong, but 95% of the signatories are from the College of A&S. One wonders, what of the other colleges, Business, Engineering, etc? Were those profs not asked, or are they simply not as .. enthusiastic as to sign their names?
The position in question was for Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences.
-
A full page ad. Apparently the JS felt no need to interview facult or students that support the university in their decision (i.e., the ones not "suffering" by it). I AM SHOCKED by this omission by the local media in Milwaukee.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/94731139.html
The story was the condemnation by the faculty senate and the advertisement. If the supporters of the decision took out an ad, maybe they'd be interviewed too.
The Milwaukee local media, as all local media these days, are lazy.
Let me also add that the ad was stupid. This story is over...she's not coming here. Time to move on and learn from this incident.
-
The position in question was for Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Everyone was asked. Most outside of A&S chose not to participate.
-
The story was the condemnation by the faculty senate and the advertisement. If the supporters of the decision took out an ad, maybe they'd be interviewed too.
The Milwaukee local media, as all local media these days, are lazy.
Let me also add that the ad was stupid. This story is over...she's not coming here. Time to move on and learn from this incident.
While I agree with you SoSW, this is how Marquette wins these battles. I've been connected with Marquette for 32 years now. This is how they always operate. Stonewall, and it will all go away.
-
While I agree with you SoSW, this is how Marquette wins these battles. I've been connected with Marquette for 32 years now. This is how they always operate. Stonewall, and it will all go away.
That's how every organization works. Weather the PR nightmare and move on. Ultimately the people in charge of the University get to make the decisions. They have made their decision...and either people who are on the other side either accept it and move on, or they boycott all things Marquette - such as not send their kids to school there, stop donating and stop watching MU basketball.
We all know that this isn't going to happen.
-
That's how every organization works. Weather the PR nightmare and move on. Ultimately the people in charge of the University get to make the decisions. They have made their decision...and either people who are on the other side either accept it and move on, or they boycott all things Marquette - such as not send their kids to school there, stop donating and stop watching MU basketball.
We all know that this isn't going to happen.
I agree with you in general. There are more examples, recently, of popular sentiment changing the decisions of large institutions. The Church and MU remain unmovable.
-
Outside of academia's ivory tower, I surmise a majority of MU alums back the decision not to allow a woman, whose main writings and academic work goes against a prominent Catholic teaching, in the supervision of a college and it may even increase their support of the school.
My belief could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.
-
Outside of academia's ivory tower, I surmise a majority of MU alums back the decision not to allow a woman, whose main writings and academic work goes against a prominent Catholic teaching, in the supervision of a college and it may even increase their support of the school.
My belief could be wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.
I think you are correct. There is actually a debate on the LinkdIn MU Alumni Group, which I steadfastly refuse to participate in, that is frankly downright embarrassing. "There is no place for a lesbian on Marquette's campus." I mean...really? Do these people not realize that there have been open lesbians on the faculty at MU for years?
UPDATE: It looks like the majority of that discussion has been removed by the group's owner....Marquette University. Mostly the "radicals" on either side of the issue
-
Yeah, I don't agree with that and probably majority opinion doesn't agree with that stance or MU would be struggling for donations.
But to put someone who pushes the button on the topic of sexuality in charge of a department at a Catholic University would lead many to think MU is a Catholic University by name only. Because of the prominence of the issue.
-
A friend of mine said she'd canceled her Journal-Sentinel subscription over the faculty advertisement.
Does that make ANY sense to anyone? Anyone else confuse the message with the medium it's delivered on?
I mean, I wasn't a fan of the ad either, but it's not like the political message was to join the Hitler Youth .. no brainer for the JS to print it.
-
A friend of mine said she'd canceled her Journal-Sentinel subscription over the faculty advertisement.
Does that make ANY sense to anyone? Anyone else confuse the message with the medium it's delivered on?
I mean, I wasn't a fan of the ad either, but it's not like the political message was to join the Hitler Youth .. no brainer for the JS to print it.
It took her that long....I would have canceled it years ago for decidedly other reasons.