Students and faculty alike participated in the forum, which addressed concerns of academic freedom in a Catholic university setting
By Sarah Jorgensen
Calls for the resignation of University of San Diego President Dr. Mary Lyons and questions about administrative authority and academic freedom have reached a fever pitch among students and faculty. Tonight’s “Authority and Academic Freedom in Catholic Universities” forum in Warren Auditorium featured speakers from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, sociology, and theology, to contextualize and analyze the recent events surrounding Dr. Lyons’ decision to rescind an invitation to British theologian Dr. Tina Beattie.
Dr. Beattie was to speak at the university on a fellowship from the Center for Catholic Thought and Culture (CCTC) this week, but Dr. Lyons rescinded that invitation in a letter to Dr. Beattie last week. The decision, allegedly made without the input of the CCTC, has sparked debate among students, faculty, alumni, and others, and has led to an on-campus protest this past Tuesday and coverage from national media outlets, including the Washington Post and ABC News.
The nearly full auditorium, with a balanced mix of faculty and students, listened attentively to the panel members, which included Director of the CCTC Dr. Gerard Mannion, Associate Professor of Sociology Dr. Tom Reifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of Gender Studies Dr. Lori Watson, and Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies Dr. Mary Doak. The panel was moderated by Chair of the Philosophy Department and Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Mary Grier.
The panel began with a statement from Dr. Beattie read by Dr. Reifer. In the statement, Dr. Beattie explained that she felt it would be inappropriate to be directly involved in the forum due to her rescinded invitation, but stated that “dissent has a long and noble history” in the study of theology, and that this exchange of ideas should be embraced.
The following panel speakers echoed this sentiment. Dr. Doak spoke about the critical engagement that occurs within theology as an academic study, and Dr. Mannion also emphasized this point. ““Call dissent for what it is; don’t use it in pejorative terms,” he said.
Concerns were raised about the role of the administration in academic freedom and pursuits. “If anyone tells me that these events have nothing to do with academic freedom, I will laugh or cry,” Dr. Mannion said.
The concerns extended, too, to potential alumni and donor pressure that the panelists thought may have been at the root of this decision. Conservative donors have threatened to rescind funding from the university in the past based on similar events.
Dr. Watson noted that alumni and donor uproar, especially those represented by the unofficial group Alumni for a Catholic USD, has often been linked to events or speakers in support of same sex marriage and other issues of homosexuality, although Dr. Beattie was not scheduled to discuss homosexuality in her talks. “I fear that religion is being used as a shield for bigotry,” Dr. Watson said.
Dr. Lyons has explicitly denied that donor pressure was a part of her decision, noting instead in her original letter to Dr. Beattie that “[Dr. Beattie’s views were not] consistent with the intentions of those who have financially supported the Center.”
It was also revealed that Dr. Lyons sent a letter to the faculty late this afternoon in response to a letter sent by the Academic Assembly, a gathering of all tenured and junior professors of the College of Arts and Sciences, to her earlier this week. In the letter, Dr. Lyons wrote that Dr. Beattie was “not invited to the university by one of our academic departments,” whose visit, therefore, was not protected by academic freedom policy. Dr. Mannion rebutted this point in the forum. “The fact that the CCTC is an academic unit has been underlined time and time again,” he said.
In light of today’s response from Dr. Lyons, which Dr. Reifer called “the most egregious attack on academic freedom in the name of academic freedom that I have ever seen,” Dr. Reifer revealed that the Academic Assembly will be reconvening on Tuesday. He stated that he believed a vote of no confidence would occur – a measure that indicates complete disagreement between the faculty and the president. “It is my belief that no president can survive a vote of no confidence,” Dr. Reifer said, indicating a call for Dr. Lyons to resign.
Voting is also occurring within Associated Students (AS). AS President Morgan Schwanke and AS Vice President Yasi Mahallaty stated during the forum that the AS Senate’s meeting today produced a unanimous vote to create a resolution regarding academic freedom at an emergency meeting next Thursday, Nov. 15 at 12:15 PM in Solomon Hall. “I encourage you, the students, to come to the next Senate meeting with your voices,” Schwanke said.
Dr. Reifer also spoke about other consequences of Dr. Lyons’ decision, including the resignation of Mike Davis, renowned writer and political activist, from his position as Knapp Chair of Liberal Arts in solidarity with Dr. Beattie’s rescinded invitation.
Dr. Doak spoke about how the dis-invitation of a visiting scholar is rare in academia and how the university was becoming known for a pattern of such events in past years, including the rescinded invitation of Dr. Rosemary Ruther to act as the Monsignor John R. Portman Chair in Roman Catholic Theology in 2009. A new academic freedom policy arose out of that event. Dr. Grier also spoke about a letter from the American Association of University Professors, a 47,000 member organization, that was written to Dr. Lyons last week in light of this trend.
Dr. Lyons claimed in a letter to Dr. Beattie on Oct. 27 that her beliefs “dissent publicly” from official Church teachings. This claim stemmed from a letter that Dr. Beattie had signed in August with 27 other U.K. theologians that supported an open dialogue regarding the possibility of Catholics’ support of civil unions for homosexual couples. Dr. Lyons has indicated that she has no plans to reconsider her decision. “I hope that we can move forward constructively and focus on the important work before us on behalf of our students,” Dr. Lyons wrote in the letter released to faculty today.
Good for you Dr. Lyons! We support you!
It saddens me that Dr. Lyons has not been more transparent with her decision to rescind the invitation to Tina Beattie. Despite the faculty’s urging before and after this was made public, Dr. Lyons has refused to take into consideration the consequences that her actions hold for the school as a whole. Now we are being made a public scandal, and in some circles, a public mockery.
Further, I have to disagree with Dr. Lyons. Tina Beattie did not dissent from official Church teaching. Though the Catholic Church has, in it’s wisdom, been changed in the past by “dissenters,” Dr. Beattie is not guilty of what Dr. Lyons accuses. Her stance on allowing civil union of homosexual couples speaks to the laity to follow deeper and higher hierarchical Church laws: to follow one’s own conscience, and to consider how our actions express our obligation as Catholics to protect human rights and dignity.
Finally, I will express my sincere wish that this discussion continue, without the influence of those who wish to silence it, for the sake of the Church, for, as John Stuart Mills wrote, “However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” The Catholic Church concerns itself with truth, those who follow and respect it should be listening to these opinions and calls for consideration, not stifling them.
I stand behind the decision of Dr. Lyons. Dr. Beattie did not, in this case, disent in an academic setting among other theologians where appropriate discussion can take place among academic equals. She chose to make a statement in a very public way by signing a letter in a paper addressed to those who do not have the philosophical or theological underpinning to understand her statement in the context of consistant Catholic thought and tradition. Perhaps this was a bad decision on her part, but bad decisions have consequences. She was scheduled to lecture at the Center for Catholic Thought and Culture not the philosophy department or the sociology department etc. Would the math or accounting department welcome as a fellow someone who publicly signed a letter stating that 3+3=8?
As the parent of a very disillusioned freshman due to Lyons stance, we are considering a transfer to a university that sticks to its mission statement and does not use it merely as a marketing tool. Very disappointing state of affairs at USD.
USD Mission Statement:
The University of San Diego is a Roman Catholic institution committed to advancing academic excellence, expanding liberal and professional knowledge, creating a diverse and inclusive community, and preparing leaders dedicated to ethical conduct and compassionate service.
Approved by the Board of Trustees on February 22, 2004
I would offer that they stuck to the first part of that statement “Roman Catholic institution”. I assume that part of the reason your child chose to go there was the moral, ethical, and religious values that the University was founded on.
We are Roman Catholic and were attracted to USD’s mission statement of “…expanding liberal and professional knowledge, creating a diverse and inclusive community….” If this is not what the University is promoting, then don’t put it in the Mission Statement. It’s false advertising, Roman Catholic or not.
When I think on the scandal which Dr. Lyons has enacted upon our university, I am gravely saddened and disappointed in the decisions which were made on my behalf, and without my consent. However, in the wake of Tina Beattie’s rescinded invitation, I find myself feeling surprisingly thankful. A great injustice has transpired on this campus, and it threatens both the university’s purported protection of academic freedom, and the integrity of the university’s standing within the circles of education. Issues of transparency and intellectual freedom abound, and with each passing day our president risks full faculty and student upheaval due to a lack of sincere and mature correspondence. But all this is known, these struggles are being sung by the campus at large. So I find myself being thankful, not because of what has transpired, but for the response of the student body and faculty. Our teachers have stood up and shown that they support and value the core beliefs of the university and the heart of intellectual discourse, and I cannot thank them enough for their tireless work and bravery. And my fellow students have shown that they are not willing to be complacent on matters which threaten their growth as learners and investigators. To this end I must extend my sincerest thanks to, appreciation of, and admiration for Sarah Jorgensen, the author of this article. Not only is she working tirelessly to provide well articulated and researched information to a rapt and attentive campus, but she is doing so with a quality of construction and journalistic integrity which is to be lauded and applauded by our campus as a whole. The students and faculty should be appreciative of the girth of information provided and checked by the author, and the administration should reward her level headed restraint and respect of the journalistic craft. Her work is vital to the lasting integrity of healthy and measured discourse on this campus, as well as the image of this university going forward. It is for this tireless work, at the heart of an embarrassing and distressing crisis, for which I am thankful.