Posted on 07/10/2010 6:31:46 AM PDT by NYer
I sincerely hope this is taken to court. He SHOULD easily win the case.
Yes, that's true.
It’s odd that we immediately recognize this, but the instructor didn’t. Perhaps he’s not well qualified in the subject.
Ick! (Which was my point exactly)
They got it because they are an "oppressed" minority.
In modern Newspeak, that means they are actually "aristos" whom us peons must be careful NOT to offend, because a single "lettre de cachet" from one of them is enough to get you a long stretch in the Bastille. And that is the answer to your second question.
He has suffered retribution for being associated with the Name of Jesus. He should, as the book of James said, "count it all joy." He can get another job teaching at a university that actually values the truth.
That would require professors of the Right to receive tenure, which they rarely do at most universities.
[The moral depravity in this nation has reached such a low point]
And this is the just ~top of the Roller Coaster ride.
Read Romans 1:25+
When a society embraces un-godliness, bad things happen as the due penalty for its perversions.
>>It doesn’t even promote moderate good for its chosen few!
No Logic and Reason among the insane.
http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
Is it 1933 yet?
That would require professors of the Right to receive tenure, which they rarely do at most universities.
When the Newman Center yielded their purpose to the State school, they lost. “Render unto Caeser the things that are Caeser’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s.” God’s church should never grant the State authority over His Word or the Church’s mission.
Don’t be so pessimistic. The pushback alrady began, with Prof. Cary Nelson, a senior (retired) English professor, presumably a secular person, who understands the free speech, academic freedom implications. Alan Kors’s FIRE group and the Alliance Defense Fund etc. have a very solid case here.
The head of the religion department is a goof. Obviously a long-running disagreement existed and he chose to use this to get rid of someone he disliked. It’s true that lecturers are hired on a semester-to-semester basis. It’s also true that those who supervise them (and that’s part of my own job at a university) need to be aware of legal ramifications. This department head was a fool.
I think there may be enough secular academics who might sign on on this one to make it go somewhere.
And before you say, sure, that only proves the Catholic Church is feckless, think it over. If the Church can gain the support of secular people on this issue, which is so often portrayed as a purely religious/blind faith issue, it would be a great gain.
So instead of giving up on it, why not spend an hour in prayer for the success of the legal challenge. It could produce a great victory. Or it might not. But who are you to know the future?
Very good observation on the removal of the word "moral" from the complaint. Of course, in the writer's worldview the "natural laws of man" mean anything and everything; whatever each person wants it to be. The Dictatorship of Relativism.
Correct. In the colloquial sense of “fired” it is a form of firing, since the dept. head was clear that the reason was supposed hate speech, implying that had he not written the email, he might well have been re-contracted. And they’d been re-contracting Howell for many years.
And someone else will get his contract. If I as supervisor were to say to a black instructor, we’re not going to give you a new contract this fall, even though we’ve given you one semester by semester for many years, because you are black, and then go ahead and hire a white instructor, I’d be in deep deep doo-doo, even though legally, I have no obligation to give him a new contract at the beginning of any semester.
Yes, the university had no legal obligation to give him a new contract but having stated the reasons for not doing so, reasons clearly unjust and anti-first-Amendment etc., there’s a legal case.
But yes, you are right to point out that he was not terminated from an ongoing contract but refused a new contract.
“I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY
TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN”
—Thomas Jefferson
God’s Church is built within the temple, with in the heart, of every Individual who utilizes their mind, which the Almighty hath created free, to embrase His Truthful desire to reconcile us to Him... instead of using it to pretend that He is dead and we are Him.
Yes, but the way they exclude conservatives from receiving tenure is by saying (1) “their scholarship, publications, are second-rate”—because, as we (they) all know, conservatives are ignorant and uncritical and unscholarly or (2) they are hard to get along with, disagreeable, biased people whom the students won’t like.
I too am conservative and managed to get tenure, although it was easier because it was a Catholic university. To do it I had to smile a lot and demonstrate that even where I disagreed I was the sort of person “you can talk to, unlike those other (conservatives) whom you can’t talk to” which meant that I had to rein in my conservatism, often bite my tongue and not say what I was tempted to say.
And I had a raft of publications in top venues that they could not dismiss as second rate.
After I got tenure, I became a disagreeable curmudgeon with EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMLLLLLLLLY conservative views, one of THOSE PEOPLE whom you can’t talk to. Several of my colleagues have since said that they wish they hadn’t voted for my tenuring. Makes a fella feel welcome.
I don’t think I was dishonest about my views—I just expressed them carefully, moderately, usually framing them as questions rather than assertions. They knew I was sort of conservative but thought I was a “safe” version of that disease. But they were wrong. I’m a virulent plague of conservativism.
Because from a Catholic perspective utilitarian arguments are not very helpful, indeed, are downright troublesome—consequentialism. While one can make utilitarian arguments for a lot of things—e.g., against contraception, given the demonstrable negative effects after 40 years, Catholic teaching does not use them except in a very subordinate role. Because other people make consequentialist arguments in favor of contraception, so if the Catholic opposition based itself solely or primarily on utilitarian arguments, they’d simply be doing what the dissident pro-contraception people do.
Professor Howell knows this very well. He can make a utilitarian argument, yes. But he chooses not to because the natural law argument is stronger.
Yes, the university had no legal obligation to give him a new contract but having stated the reasons for not doing so, reasons clearly unjust and anti-first-Amendment etc., there’s a legal case.
>>the “natural laws of man” mean anything and everything
“Praised be he who permits the forbidden”
—Tsvi Sabbatai, Apostate Jew and False Messiah, circa 1666
“God is dead, therefore we are as Gods”
—Freddy Nietzsche, circa 1880
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”
—Aliester Crowley, founder of modern Satanism, circa 1905
“Go ahead, eat it...what does God know anyhow”
—Satan, Eden.
What are the natural consequences for a mammal who is unable to correctly identify a member of its own species - with whom it can create viable offspring?
What are the natural consequences for a society... which “normalizes” the behavior of individuals who can not correctly identify a member of its own species - with whom it create viable offspring?
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.