Gay Profs at Notre Dame Speak Out About “Invisible Discrimination.”

Three homosexual professors at the University of Notre Dame are reportedly saying the Catholic university isn’t doing enough to be inclusive to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) community. Recently, the University announced it would not add sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination clause despite pressure from some student groups and faculty.

In protest of that decision, three homosexual professors spoke out in the student newspaper, saying among other things that Notre Dame treats them like “second class citizens” and that other LGBTQ professors have left the university and some students didn’t enroll because of it, despite the administration’s promise to take other steps to help LGBTQ individuals feel more included on campus, according to a report from the student newspaper.

Susan Cannon Harris, an English and Irish Studies Professor, is quoted saying she has not made any effort to conceal her sexuality. She reportedly said she feels safe coming out to students on the first day of each semester and received tenure from the university in 2004.

But Cannon Harris said the absence of sexual orientation from the nondiscrimination clause has a psychological effect on LGBTQ faculty. The Observer reports:

For example, when coming up for tenure, professors typically ask themselves whether they have done enough research or met the standard in the classroom.

“I, because of Notre Dame’s special situation, also had to ask the question, is all of that going to matter? Are they going to deny me tenure just because I’m a lesbian?” she said. “Even though I mostly didn’t think that they would, it was in the back of my mind. And that is very destructive.”

Since Cannon Harris received tenure in 2004, she has had to worry a bit less. She now feels safe telling her students she is a lesbian on the first.........

For the same reason Sandra Fluke went to Georgetown:

TO DISRUPT THE SCHOOL!

These people just cannot live and let live — they have to follow the Alinsky/Cloward Piven model: disrupt and overwhelm whatever society they place themselves in.

And, they INTENTIONALLY place themselves to do the most harm to civil society.

Oneday, perhaps, we’ll take positive action to shut the disruptors up — until we grow a set of testicles and gain the courage to face them down, expect to see more and more of this type of “anti polite society” disruption.

Homosexual Professors at Notre Dame Ignorantly Speak Out About “Invisible Discrimination.”

One would think such learned professors who were not born with teaching positions at Notre Dame, but rather, CHOSE employment there, would at least attempt to do some research regarding just who they chose to work for.

Additionally, one would think that choosing an employer would at least require as much consideration as choosing a sex partner or choosing what sexual activity to engage in would -regardless, the fallacy of any "born that way" arguments?

What these homosexually disordered academics falsely claim as "Invisible Discrimination" is actually "Legitimate Discrimination" and comprises but a portion of a very publicly proclaimed and published body of Catholic teaching on the subject of those dealing with those who suffer from the homosexual disorder.

Yes Professors, there is discrimination -legitimate discrimination (Read #11 below and take note that it is not invisible)! The Catholic Church teaches it plainly (it is visible to ALL except those who choose to be blinded by an attraction to intrinsically disordered sexual activity):

Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

II. Applications
10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

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.