Marquette Theology Professor Critiques University’s Gender Regime

From First Things, Marquette Theology Professor Mickey L. Mattox on the “gender regime” of this supposedly Catholic university:

Working in my Marquette office one afternoon in the spring of 2010, I heard unusual sounds coming from the normally quiet lawns outside my window. I was surprised to see a modest assembly of students and professors preparing to march in protest. Against what? Minutes later, an email arrived informing me that the university’s then-president, Robert Wild, S.J., had voided a contract extended to Jodi O’Brien to join us as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Though the contract had already been signed, Fr. Wild—perhaps under external pressure—decided that O’Brien, a partnered lesbian whose research included queer studies, was not an appropriate choice to represent our mission and identity.

Although an ordinary person with a passing knowledge of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church would think such a decision obvious, the department chairs in the college soon gathered and voted almost unanimously to censure Wild’s decision. The press, meanwhile, demanded an explanation. On the ­defensive, the university allegedly paid a considerable sum in order to break the contract. Officials were soon exercising themselves to demonstrate their concern for equitable treatment of gays and lesbians. The university would initiate projects, courses, conferences, and the like to explore issues of sex and gender! The clear implication was that change would come, though slowly. Marquette would get with the sexual-liberation program so that something like the O’Brien affair would never happen again.

And that, indeed, is what has happened.

Since 2010, the campaign for sexual diversity at Marquette has advanced rapidly. Last year, the university announced the expansion of the former Gender and Sexuality Resource Center (established in the wake of the O’Brien dustup) into two new initiatives: a Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies and an LGBTQ Resource Center. How much funding has been increased has not been disclosed. We also now have an Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, which offers faculty and staff awards for excellence in, yes, “diversity and inclusion.” Again, how much this will cost hasn’t been revealed. We do know, however, that funds have been promised to support the development of new courses that advance the cause. A faculty fellows program in diversity is also in the works.

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are vague and uncertain terms that can mean almost anything. Here at Marquette they have become code for challenging Catholic sexual morality and pushing forward a gender ideology that denies that human beings were created as male and female in the image of God. Attempting to ­instill communal meaning through the new quest for diversity, Marquette news releases breathlessly announce that the struggle for civil rights begun by Martin Luther King Jr. is now being fulfilled here by the campaign for the inclusion of sexual minorities.

. . .

Meanwhile, recent announcements from university leaders indicate that they are increasingly comfortable affirming LGBTQ ideology. Their language remains cautious about explicitly endorsing revisionist accounts of sexuality and the human person. It is nevertheless clear that Marquette’s leaders do not share the grave concerns about LGBTQ ­theory expressed by the United States ­Conference of Catholic Bishops and other representatives of the Church’s magisterium.

Senior officials endorse LGBTQ programs without qualification, casting doubt on their readiness to affirm Church teaching. In fact, the level of enthusiasm for LGBTQ causes casts doubt on their willingness to tolerate anyone who thinks otherwise.

Imagine, for example, a new freshman who has recently completed an invigorating course on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body in her parish. After orientation week at Marquette, will she feel free to express her newfound understanding of the nuptial meaning of the body? Or will she fear that her words will be treated as exclusionary and hateful?

I’m afraid the questions answer themselves. The problem with the new inclusion, of course, is that it’s not inclusive, nor can it be. It is simply a new way of defining sexual morality that masquerades as a bureaucratic, therapeutic project of “inclusion.” At Marquette, it’s clear that this project seeks to displace traditional Catholic accounts of sexual morality.

By all means read the entire essay.

Aside from the bureaucratic motives of University officials, one might think that the new gender regime is just the result of “tolerance.” Why be unkind to people who are gay or lesbian, or transgender, or even gender queer?

The problem with this is that tolerance is a two way street. Gays and lesbians, for example, have a right not to be demeaned or derided. But they don’t have a right to demand affirmation of their sexual activity from anybody else. Such a demand is itself intolerant.

In a genuinely Catholic university, gays and lesbians should hear Church teaching about sexuality taught. It should be taught respectfully, and nobody has to agree with it, but wanting it censored is intolerant.

For example, the National Catholic Register reported that at Marquette:

At least one theology faculty member teaching about Genesis in his classroom received a [harassment] complaint, after a student who had two fathers objected to the classroom presentation of the Church’s teaching of marriage.

It’s clear who was intolerant here.

Inclusion for Only Some

Of course, for the inclusion crowd, challenging the faith of Catholic students is fine. Late last semester, one member of a group of Concerned Catholics reported “a student who told him of a professor who has made slurs against the Church e.g. mocking the idea of Mary’s virginity etc. in class.”

Actual mocking should be out of bounds at Marquette, although dissent from Catholic teaching is protected by academic freedom. But if a majority of the faculty overtly dissent from Catholic teaching, Marquette should cease calling itself Catholic.

Likewise, saying things to which black students might take exception is forbidden, but berating white students about their “white privilege” is just fine. So is bashing white males.

Thus the use of words like “tolerance” and “inclusion” by the campus left is downright Orwellian. Genuine tolerance would mean tolerating Catholic views on sexuality (and indeed criticism of such views). Genuine tolerance would require that gays have no more right to demand affirmation of their sexual activity than Republicans have to demand that all Democrats convert to Republican political views.

Genuine “inclusion” would demand acceptance of the idea that Marquette has a right to be genuinely Catholic, just as this or that private liberal arts college has a right to be secular.

It is, in fact, the campus left that is most intolerant and exclusionary.

Backing Away from the Brink: Marquette Will Not Suspend the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship

[Originally posted 8/5/11, 10:14 a.m. Updated and moved to the top.]

It was an obvious outrage: two administrators in Marquette’s Office of Student Affairs (Ian Jamieson and Erin Lazzar) ruled that the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship would be suspended on the campus for a year because they dismissed an officer of the organization who “came out” as homosexual, said he was involved in a homosexual affair which he would continue, and rejected Christian teaching about homosexuality.

The decision was appealed to Dean of Students Stephanie Quade who just this morning (Friday, August 5) reversed the ruling and lifted the suspension.

The group will be on probation for a year for violating a narrow clause of their constitution specifying the procedures for dismissing an officer. The organization will also have to submit to a review of their constitution. It is unclear, at the moment, what changes (if any) might be required in that document.

It appears, however, that Marquette has conceded the right of a campus Christian organization to hold officers to Christian standards of sexual conduct.

The Intervarsity Christian Fellowship mobilized a campaign among alumni to write Marquette in support of the organization. Quade acknowledged receiving a large number of e-mails, but maintained that they had no role in her decision to reverse the suspension.

Still an Outrage

In spite of this about face on the part of Student Affairs, it is still an outrage that a Christian student organization should be threatened with suspension for merely insisting that officers in the organization must maintain Christian standards of conduct.

Not only did two Student Affairs bureaucrats rule against the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a staffer with the Campus Ministry (Steve Blaha) according to a source close to the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship encouraged the gay student to make the complaint.

Neither Ian Jamieson nor Erin Lazzar nor Steve Blaha would comment on the situation. Jamieson e-mailed the Marquette Warrior stating that:

I have no comment to provide. I understand you’ve been in contact with Dr. Stephanie Quade who would be the best person to address specific questions about conduct cases or hearing processes.

Quade provided only a terse and evasive statement, as follows:

As you know, there was a student conduct case involving IVCF and an initial finding that was amended upon appeal. The group was found responsible for violating published policies and action was taken.

This action dealt with adherence to university policies and procedures governing student organizations, in this case the need to follow the procedures set forth in the organization’s constitution.

This, of course, entirely evades the fact that the result of the first adjudication was that the organization was guilty of discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and given a stiff punishment (a years suspension).

We responded to Quade asking her to confirm that the initial decision (by Erin Lazzar and Ian Jamieson) involved a charge of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She has not responded.

Erin Lazzar failed to respond to a voice mail request for an interview, and Blaha declined to comment on the grounds of student confidentiality.

Marquette did issue an official statement on the issue. Kate Venne provided us with a copy:

Marquette University has placed the campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on probation for one year. The probation results from a finding that the chapter violated its own policies and procedures in dealing with a complaint.

This failure and the lack of clear communication regarding why action was taken caused significant personal hurt and resulted in allegations of discrimination.

No student conduct decision is final until the time in which to file an appeal has passed or an appeal is filed and decided. All students and student organizations have a right to appeal in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Student Conduct Code.

Marquette expects all student organizations to adhere to the university’s Statement on Human Dignity which “recognizes and cherishes the dignity of each individual regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, disability or social class.” We want all students to be successful both academically and personally, and we are working with various groups on campus to ensure an inclusive and supportive institutional environment of all students, faculty and staff.

This evasive and disingenuous statement stresses the one procedural infraction of which the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship was guilty (lack of due process in bouncing the sexually active gay officer) and entirely evades the fact that the original finding was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But the blather about “allegations of discrimination” and “inclusive environment” is an implicit admission that this is exactly what happened.

Conclusion

Marquette, in other words, acted like the politically correct institution it has become, siding with a sexually-active gay student who somehow thought he had a right to be an officer in the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and in effect revoking the right of Christian student organizations to insist on Christian standards of conduct from their officers.

Pressure, including a letter writing campaign among the Intervarsity’s alumni and the outing of the action by radio host Mark Belling caused the university to back off. Now, of course, they won’t honestly admit a blunder.

Marquette Intervarsity Christian Fellowship Threatened With Suspension for Failure to Accept Sexually Active Homosexual Officer

[Updated and Moved to the Top]

It was Mark Belling who first reported this at the very end of his show today, and we’ve been able to confirm some (but not all) of the details.

Apparently, an officer of the Marquette Intervarsity Christian Fellowship came “out of the closet” as gay. He made it quite clear that he disagreed with the organization’s interpretation of Christian teaching about homosexuality (which happens to be essentially identical to Catholic teaching about homosexuality).

He admitted to having a homosexual affair with another male, and made it clear that he did not intend to break it off. He was dismissed as an officer.

He complained to Student Affairs at Marquette, apparently claiming he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

Belling reported that the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship has been suspended at Marquette on the basis of this complaint. According to Vice President for Student Affairs Chris Miller, this isn’t quite accurate. In fact, there was (within the past week) an adjudication of the issue, which upheld the complain of discrimination.

But the organization has not been suspended yet, since they have a right to appeal. The next step in the appeal process will be the Dean of Students, Stephanie Quade, who could, in theory at least, overturn the result of the adjudication.

Miller insisted on going on the record with some comments highly favorable to the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, calling them a “stellar student organization,” and a “great aspect” of student life at Marquette. He commended the interest that the organization’s alumni continue to take in the university.

Miller’s comments may signal that the Office of Student Affairs is willing to back down on this, but given Marquette’s recent record of caving in to each and every demand made by the campus gay lobby, one can’t be sure of that.

It’s clear that Marquette is not willing to stand up for Catholic teaching about homosexuality. The issue here is: are they even willing to tolerate it?

[Update 5:43 p.m. Thursday]

We just got this via e-mail from Stephanie Quade:

There was a student conduct hearing involving IVCF last week, the group appealed the outcome.

As I am the appellate officer in this matter, I cannot really comment on any of the specifics of the case while it is still pending, as I am sure you understand.

Hoping to have the appeal done by the end of the week.

We assume “end of the week” means tomorrow.

The original hearing was held by Student Affairs bureaucrats -- this being the summer, no students or faculty were involved.

Quade insists that her decision will be “final.”

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. We assume that the organization was charged with discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. But as we understand it, the problem wasn’t “orientation” but an actual homosexual affair, and the student’s outspoken rejection of Christian teaching about homosexuality.

So an interesting question is how this student differs from Jodi O’Brien, who had an offer to be Arts & Sciences Dean withdrawn because of her outspoken support for lesbianism.

Rape vs. Political Incorrectness on Homosexuality

Another interesting aspect of this is that the Office of Student Affairs, and specifically Stephanie Quade have created a lot of bad publicity for Marquette with their lackadaisical treatment of rape on campus.

So are they now going to get really tough on a Christian organization that insists its officers conform to Christian teachings on sexuality?