Arts & Sciences Dean Search Delayed a Year

From an e-mail sent out to Arts and Sciences faculty by Marquette President Scott Pilarz:

The conversations with so many of you and my own conviction about the centrality of this college to the future of Marquette University have helped me to conclude that it is in the best interests of the college — and the university — to have Father Phil Rossi continue as interim dean through the 2012-2013 academic year. I am grateful to Father Rossi both for his past service and for his continuing leadership, and I have pledged my support to him as he continues to help the college move forward. Fr. Rossi’s leadership and the continued involvement of the Arts and Sciences chairs will be critical in our discernment and planning for a new dean.

I have asked Provost John Pauly to work with the college during the next eight months to identify the challenges and opportunities facing the college and what we should be looking for in a new dean. I intend to be part of that process as well, recognizing the importance of this hire. It is then my intent to launch a national search in fall 2012. This decision will be announced to the campus community in this afternoon’s News Briefs.

I want to thank you for the support I am confident you will continue to give Father Rossi and to urge you to be actively involved as we assess the future of the college. Thank you.

Scott Pilarz, S.J.

In the spring of 2010, the search to fill this dean position turned into a monumental fiasco when an outspoken lesbian was offered the job, and then the offer was rescinded when the nature of the things she has written (anti-marriage, discussion of sex toys) became known.

Pilarz apparently decided this entire issue is a hot potato, and that he needs to get his ducks in line before tackles it.

But what sort of ducks does he want to get in line? Among the numerous politically correct faculty and administrators at Marquette, hiring a gay or lesbian dean would be a dandy idea, and especially a way of making amends to the campus gay lobby. Make no mistake, most administrators at Marquette (at least those on the academic side, in Student Affairs and in Mission and Identity) are strong promoters of the gay agenda.

Pilarz himself, judging from the “inclusion initiative” he put in place at Scranton seems to be rather politically correct. But our guess is that he will not want to reopen the issue of a lesbian (or gay) dean.

One thing is sure: when the search takes place, all candidates will received vastly more scrutiny than they have been subjected to in the past.

Wisconsin Arts Board Restores Funding for Marquette’s Haggerty Museum

We have discussed how the Wisconsin Arts Board, in an act of smug and self-righteous intolerance, refused to fund Marquette’s Haggerty Museum because Marquette refused to hire an outspoken lesbian as Arts & Sciences Dean.

This was back in May.

This morning, the Board decided to provide the funding that was deferred back in May. This according to an e-mail from George Tzougros, Executive Director of the Arts Board.

It’s good that the Arts Board backed down, but the threat of the loss of state funding continues to be an ongoing threat to any institution that challenges the politically correct sensibilities of the Board, or of any similar government entity.

Wisconsin Arts Board Withholds Funding for Marquette’s Haggerty Museum: The Inside Story

We have blogged about the decision of the Wisconsin Arts Board to defer funding for the Haggerty Museum here at Marquette. The reason? The fact that Marquette refused to hire a woman named Jodi O’Brien as Arts and Sciences Dean.

O’Brien is not only an “out” lesbian, her writings are sharply at odds with Catholic teaching about homosexuality, marriage (which she does not like) and the need to “queer” Christianity.

The Board objected, and decided to defer funding for the Haggerty, pending a decision at a meeting in the fall.

We now have the audio of that meeting. It can be heard via an embedded player (below) or downloaded by clicking on this link and doing “save target as.”

Gay Board Member Leads the Charge

An entire list of grant awards was on the verge of being approved when Paul Meinke, a member from Green Bay, spoke up, saying “I have a question. I have a concern about one of the recipients. . . one of the recipients receiving an award.” And further: “That’s with Marquette University Haggerty Museum.”

Meinke continued: “In view of what’s going on currently, I’m not comfortable with state dollars being sent there. And I don’t know how to address that.”

In explanation, he said, “It’s . . . it’s a very strange situation. The university sent out a contract to an individual, and then rescinded the contract. . . . Some were saying that it’s because she’s a lesbian, but I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it goes back to some of her writings that she’s written twenty years ago that are in conflict with the interests of the Catholic Church.”

Meinke, who is an “out” gay male, pointed out that faculty and students have objected to the decision, and continued: “I disagree with it based on two reasons, one because it’s a GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] issue, and two because . . . we’re not, you can’t tell. It’s so easy to hide that.”

Meinke then continues (rather incoherently) “and two, if the religious institution wants to jump into education when do they start indoctrination versus education . . and [some unintelligible words] state dollars . . . I think they made a mistake and I don’t think they deserve to be recognized with state dollars.”

It’s ironic that Meinke mentions “indoctrination,” since there is vigorous indoctrination about homosexuality going on at Marquette: pro-homosexuality indoctrination.

At this point the Executive Director of the Arts Board, George Tzougros, spoke up and offered a caveat.

The only thing I would say is I understand that concern for the overall institution, but I think in the case of the Haggerty they would be the very people that would be defending and promoting the very issues we are trying to support by that action. . . . Haggerty would be the one institution on the campus that would . . . .

Meinke then jumped in with “I said then let Haggerty do it, but not with our money.”

Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton then spoke up to ask “have they made a final decision?”

Meinke gave a non-responsive reply “I’ve read that the Archbishop in Milwaukee is actually the one who blabbed it to them.”

Lawton then continues “. . . but in terms of our relationship if we want to discuss this further between state funding and what has an appearance right now of discrimination . . . that we may want to wait while this is in process. . . . I don’t know if this is final . . . is anybody aware?”

At this point, Tzougros says “they have rescinded the letter but there is a lot of process ongoing. . . my comfort level would be in holding it and acting . . . if you as a board said ‘I’m not going to give it until I see the resolution of this process’ I’m good with that. I would hate to see you say ‘absolutely not’ because there is no coming back from that because the money would have to be distributed elsewhere.”

Then Lawton claimed “it’s a hiring of a dean, they don’t want a news story that goes on the air,” to which Board member Jerry Kember replied “they may try to sidestep . . . may sidestep the issue, the real issue.” Replied Lawton: “and that’s why I think we could flag it for our next meeting, and it would allow all of us to examine it more carefully and to examine the implications.”

Meinke then jumps in with “you realize she would be coming from a school with equivalent religious base . . . she’s already working at a school that is exactly like Marquette, and I just don’t understand.” Aside from the fact that she is not a dean at Seattle, Meinke seems oblivious to the fact that some “Catholic” universities take their Christian mission more seriously than others.

After a little parliamentary wrangling, Lawton invites a motion to remove Marquette from the current list of grantees, and to take it up in September. Tzougros then jumps in to insist that Marquette has a right to know why it is not getting funded. There is agreement on this.

A Dissenting Voice – That Quickly Backs Down

At this point Jerry Kember speaks up saying “I’m struggling with this a little bit in that I totally agree with Paul, but I also . . . I’m not sure it’s our place to make some sort of political stand here.” He is quickly silenced by Lawton saying “it’s discriminatory . . . .” Kember then folds saying “well, OK.”

Helen Klebesadel then chimes in with “I think it’s our place. . . I think it’s viewpoint discrimination, but I think it’s unresolved.”

Klebesadel appears not to recognize that “expressive organizations” have a right to “viewpoint discrimination” (that’s what being an expressive organization means).

Kember, in a final futile attempt to be sensible repeats the point that Tzougros made earlier, asking “who are we hurting? Are we hurting Marquette as a whole, or are we hurting the museum?” But Kember is quickly silenced, as Lawton says “we’re not hurting anybody,” and “it allows them to understand how this impacts their image and the messaging that counts. . . . ”

Later in the meeting, Meinke and Lawton return to their idea that the O’Brien decision is bad public relations. Meinke says of the controversy that “it does not paint a very nice stroke for the school or for the city of Milwaukee.” Lawton smugly adds “for the state, I think, for the state.”

Apparently, Lawton and Meinke care most about how the decision plays among secular liberals like themselves, rather than among loyal Catholics.

The motion to defer the grant to the Haggerty passes unanimously.

Summarizing

So a gay member of a liberal/left leaning Arts Board chose to make an issue of Marquette’s failure to hire a lesbian dean. By his own admission, he had no evidence that she was rejected because she was a lesbian. But he and the rest of the Board had suspicions.

(In fact, Fr. Wild knew O’Brien was a lesbian when he made her the offer, and only rescinded it when the nature of her writings became known.)

A couple of other Board members offered some caveats, but were overruled and silenced. The Board, claiming that this might be discrimination against a lesbian, decided to defer the grant to “send a message” to Marquette. It was, quite simply, an exercise in bullying.

And the claim of illegal discrimination looked for all the world like a cover for the fact that Board members don’t like Catholic views on homosexuality.

Both Meinke and Lawton were unavailable for comment.

Marquette’s Response

Our response to something like this would be to sue immediately, since Marquette has always maintained the right to “hire for mission,” and that includes the right to reject job applicants who outspokenly oppose Church teaching.

Marquette fully recognizes academic freedom, meaning that faculty (but not necessarily administrators like deans) have the right to reach whatever conclusions they want and publish and teach those conclusions, regardless of Church doctrine.

But Marquette is in fact playing it cool.

We talked to Wally Mason, Director of the Museum, and he told us that he had heard nothing further about the Arts Board decision. “We know nothing at this point” he told us.

Mason was a little perturbed that the letter announcing the deferral was released to the media before it was sent to the Haggerty. The Haggerty did know the letter was coming, since a supporter of the museum is on the Arts Board (but was not at the meeting).

But what is Marquette’s response? According to Mason:

We at the University decided in consultation with the Provost to not explore it any further with the thinking, I guess, that they made their point by this decision and maybe that’s all they wanted to do was make their point of stating this and I guess we’re optimistic that they’ll reinstate the funding in September.

In other words: no push back, but no groveling either.

Hopefully, Mason is correct and the funding will be approved. We can’t be sure, however. This could certainly end up as another of the cases (extremely common these days) in which the gay lobby (and liberal allies) persecutes those Christians who disagree with their orthodoxy.

Jodi O’Brien Affair: Undergraduates Loyal to Catholic Teaching Silenced

We found the comments responding to an essay by Matt Wion more cogent than the essay itself. Wion is far short of being a knee-jerk liberal, although he shows flashes of intolerance (calling an essay of our former colleague Chris Wolfe “vile”).

But the most poignant comment came from an undergraduate, and it shows the true nature of intolerance at Marquette.

Hi Matt,

As a senior at Marquette who is admittedly a part of that “traditional Catholic” block, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your post as a breath of fresh air! It’s nice to know that there are people who disagree with my view point who do not throw my intellect in the garbage and call me a bigot. If people are curious why this issue hasn’t been discussed in such a way on campus before now, perhaps de facto silencing of the opposing view point would be a good place to start. What student in their right mind would counter protest these fellow students? Who would post what they actually think as their facebook status? The answer is sadly very few, because to do so is to be labeled as an anti-gay bigot, a student in lock-step with McAdams, and a blind follower of an “intolerant” religion, even if that religion speaks to the very core of who they are. So sometimes it’s better to just fade into the background than to stick up for what you think. And to think, this kind of fear of, are we allowed to call it discrimination?, is prevalent and unchecked at an institution of higher learning. How sad.

But the problem with all of this is, and in my mind the saddest part about this, is these conversations will never take place in the current campus atmosphere. It can’t, when fear of labels silences the traditional Catholic voice and when groups of students who suggest they are speaking on behalf of all students, declare that the time for listening is over. Nothing could be more destructive towards building a campus that embraces Catholicism, the LGBT community, and the value of all the various beliefs of all members of our community.

This, of course, underlines the utter hypocrisy of those who invoke “tolerance” in wanting to hire a lesbian dean.

They are not, in fact, tolerant at all. They are utter bigots when faced with opinions at odds with their politically correct orthodoxy.

And this, indeed, is the real threat to academic freedom at Marquette.

The issue is not whether it’s possible to espouse views at odds with Catholic teaching.

The issue is whether it’s possible to espouse views in support of Catholic teaching.

Another Voice on Jodi O’Brien From the Philosophy Department

A comment, appended to an essay by Matt Wion, is one of the more cogent things we have seen on the Jodi O’Brien fiasco, in which a rogue Search Committee almost got an outspoken lesbian candidate hired as Arts & Sciences Dean at Marquette.

I would add two points to your fine analysis.

1) The question of what is core to Catholic theology is one that Catholics need to decide. I, you, and Dr. O’Brien really need to stay out of it. Suppose that, internally, the Church decides that traditional teachings concerning family are stable and central to Catholic ethics. Suppose that we find such teachings ethically reprehensible. Then we should leave the university. A parallel situation: for a while the Mormon church had a racist theology. Were I on the job market then, I would not be able to teach at Brigham Young in good conscience. But why should a Jew be the one to say what is authentic LDS teaching?

2) I think that if MU had offered the position to a gay activist arguing for his position from within the Catholic intellectual tradition -- someone like Mark Jordan -- this would have been a courageous move, and I’d be out there with the protesters if the appointment were rescinded. But MU has been moving away from being grounded in this tradition (one I honor and learn from). The O’Brien appointment was double pronged stick in both of the eyes of MU’s Catholic identity -- its historical intellectual tradition, and Catholic teachings. Her scholarship represents that of nontheistic mainstream scholarship in the humanities -- where values are human creations, grounded neither in nature nor the Divine. And it takes her places where she attacks teachings apparently central to the church -- such as the natural basis of the family. Her appointment as dean was the reductio ad absurdum of the idea that scholarship at MU should be indistinguishable from that at secular universities. The most public face of Arts and Sciences would have been one whose scholarship encourages Catholics to invent their own sexual identity and accept fluid family arrangements for children.

I suggest that MU find a wealthy donor to allow it to offer her an endowed chair for a couple hundred thousand a year, and then find a traditional Catholic intellectual as dean. Such a move could bring everyone together and heal the damage.

Owen Goldin
Dept. of Philosophy

Of course, we don’t think that O’Brien deserves any sort of endowed chair. Indeed, her scholarship would not even merit tenure at Marquette -- although some politically correct department like Sociology would probably give that to her.

But the temptation to try to buy off the campus gay lobby with more “programs” and courses on “human sexuality” (taught from a pro-gay perspective) will be great. Indeed, Fr. Wild has suggested he would do just that.

Such would be foolish indeed. When you have won a battle at substantial cost, you don’t turn around and surrender.

Wall Street Journal on L’Affaire O’Brien

An e-mail correspondent brought this to our attention because it quotes us (but not as much as we would like).

Titled “Another Catholic University Fails a Litmus Test,” the litmus test referenced to is the requirement that any Catholic university renounce Church teaching (if not explicitly, then implicitly and clearly) whenever it conflicts with the politically correct orthodoxy.

One of the comments: “In reality the protesting faculty are little more than willful children having a tantrum in a sandbox belonging to others.”

Marquette, Arts & Science Dean Candidate Settle

From an e-mail sent to all faculty (and probably a lot of other people too):

Dear Colleagues:

I want to share with you the news that the university and Dr. Jodi O’Brien have reached a mutually acceptable resolution regarding my decision to rescind the contract with Dr. O’Brien to be dean of the Helen Way Klingler College of Arts and Sciences.

In reaching this resolution, we have apologized to Dr. O’Brien for the way in which this was handled and for the upset and unwanted attention that we have caused to this outstanding teacher and scholar. We have also extended our gratitude for the graciousness with which she has addressed the situation these past six weeks.

Now, to you, I also express my regret for the shortcomings and the ways in which this has hurt our Marquette community. Although I stand by my decision, which was made in the context of Marquette’s commitment to its mission and identity, the withdrawal of the contract clearly raised anxiety, even anguish, among our faculty, staff and students – and beyond our campus, too. While the Search Committee performed its work exactly as it was asked to do, there followed lapses in communication in the university’s procedures. In hindsight, I certainly wish I had asked more questions earlier in the process and worked harder to achieve clarity in my own discussions of the offer. I am sorry that we did not handle things differently, and I assure you that, together with some of your academic colleagues, we are reviewing the procedures for leadership searches and will make improvements.

There has been much speculation – and many accusations – about what this decision involved. It is true that I heard from many individuals, both those supporting and those opposing the appointment. My conversation with Archbishop Listecki, for example, was like the others: he gave me his thoughts, and at no point did he attempt to tell me what to do. As his own statement correctly pointed out, Marquette is an autonomous institution. No donor, big or small, caused me to make my decision. The decision, as it should be, was ultimately mine alone. I fully recognize that others could reasonably reach a different conclusion, but I needed to act according to both my own conscience and my judgment, based on 14 years as president and my own background as a Jesuit and theologian.

Throughout my tenure as president, I have vigorously defended the academic freedom of various faculty members – in the face of statements from bishops, in support of the breadth of intellectual inquiry that makes a university strong, and in making promotion and tenure decisions. And I will continue to do so. I certainly respect the rights of our faculty to pursue any research in their own fields of expertise, including scholarly investigation of gender, sexuality and identity.

While the events of the past few weeks have raised questions about Marquette’s commitment to the LGBT community on campus, sexual orientation was not a factor in my decision. I remain firmly and fully committed to and supportive of the university’s efforts to improve faculty and student diversity. Throughout my administration, and with my active support, openly gay faculty and staff have been hired and received promotions and tenure based on academic merit and accomplishments. I want every student, every employee, to be able to proudly declare that this is their Marquette. To that end, we will continue to meet with students, faculty and staff, both individually and through recognized groups, to elicit feedback and ideas on how we can best achieve that climate.

This is just one element of the community discernment in which we will engage in the year ahead. I am saddened by the divisiveness this decision has caused, and, as I enter my final year as your president, a priority focus will be continuing dialogue and reflection, among faculty, staff and students, about our Catholic, Jesuit identity and the important principles of academic freedom, shared governance and the needs of our LGBT community. I expect us to explore these topics through the research, teaching and service projects that are a part of university life, in ways that include, but certainly are not limited to, faculty summer research, faculty-student team research projects, conferences and speakers, course development, and student service-learning projects, particularly in the areas of gender and sexuality and Catholicity in higher education. I welcome, indeed encourage, your ideas.

In the months ahead there will be much opportunity for continued reflection, in the spirit of St. Ignatius. And I will be asking God’s blessings on our Marquette family and His guidance as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Bob Wild, S.J.

State Government Bullies Target Marquette Over Dean Search Fiasco

A press release from the office of Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton.

MADISON - Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton, in her capacity as chair of the Wisconsin Arts Board, sent the following letter today to Marquette University’s Haggerty Museum of Art Director Wally Mason:

At its May 14, 2010 meeting, the Wisconsin Arts Board voted unanimously to defer action on the Haggerty Museum’s application for a fiscal year 2011 Creation and Presentation grant until our meeting September 11, 2010.

The Wisconsin Arts Board members expressed unanimous concern that serious questions suggesting discriminatory hiring practices at Marquette University had been recently raised in the press and remained unresolved. Board members asked for more time to investigate and ensure that any grant approved was consistent with our mission as the state agency which “nurtures creativity, cultivates expression, promotes the arts, supports the arts in education, stimulates community and economic development and serves as a resource for people of every culture and heritage.” Our clearly stated values include “freedom of expression” and “respect and appreciation for all cultures and people.”

We welcome any materials you believe may be instructive as the Wisconsin Arts Board studies the situation and weighs their decision. I will inform you of that decision immediately following the September meeting.

Of course, private individuals have the right to support or not support a private institution, depending on their beliefs. But this is government action, discriminating against Marquette for protecting its (supposed) religious identity.

Now this raises an interesting question for those politically correct people who think it an outrage that people outside Marquette (including the local Archbishop) intervened in a hiring decision made by Marquette, insisting that a lesbian dean candidate whose writings flatly opposed Catholic teaching on sexuality was inappropriate.

Supposedly, “academic freedom” requires that Marquette not be responsive to any outside forces.

So what are these people going to say now that state government is trying to intervene in the affairs of Marquette, in effect punishing the University for a hiring decision they dislike?

We know the answer to that. Those folks will be citing this as a reason Marquette needs to get on the politically correct side of the issue and forget Church teaching.

Another irony: the Board invokes “respect and appreciation for all cultures and people,” and then shows it is willing to trample on people who adhere to a Catholic view of sexuality.

It seems that just as “diversity” only involves the espousal of ideas and values congenial to politically correct people, “respect and appreciation for all cultures and people” only includes “cultures and people” that liberals happen to agree with.

If the Board turns down the Haggerty grant, Marquette should sue for religious discrimination. It’s doubtful Marquette will do this, however. The Administration (and Fr. Wild) let a rogue search committee pick a dean candidate radically at odds with the Catholic nature of the University, and then embraced the search committee decision.

Then, when opposition in the local Catholic community emerged, it rescinded the job offer.

So even when Marquette happens to be making the correct decision, it does it for craven reasons.

So we doubt the Administration will have the guts to treat this use of government power to bully Marquette as the outrage it is.

Academic Freedom For “Anti-Gay” Views? Not With the Obama Administration

From Metro Weekly:

Jonathan I. Katz, a professor of astrophysics at Washington University in St. Louis, “will no longer be involved in the [Energy] Department’s efforts” at addressing the oil spill continuing to spread in the Gulf of Mexico, a department spokesperson relayed on Monday night, May 17.

The news came after what that department employee, Stephanie Mueller, termed “controversial writings” – which included a “defense of homophobia” – spread out over the Web on Monday, writings of which she said the department was unaware when it sought his assistance.

On May 12, Energy Secretary Steven Chu “assembled a group of top scientific experts from inside and outside of government to join in today’s discussions in Houston about possible solutions,” according to a department news release. Katz was one of five outside scientists noted in the release. Bloomberg News reported about the group of scientists on May 14, reporting Chu “signaled his lack of confidence in the industry experts trying to control BP Plc’s leaking oil well by hand-picking a team of scientists with reputations for creative problem solving.”

Once news of the team spread, some of Katz’s writings were discovered at his university website, including one titled, “In Defense of Homophobia.” In the essay, dated May 13, 1999, he wrote about the “rationalist” and the religious person’s views of homosexuality.

“The religious believer may see the hand of God, but both he and the rationalist must see a fact of Nature. The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts. Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet,” Katz wrote. “It may be possible to get away with it for a while, and a few misguided souls may get a thrill out of doing so, but sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things.”

More than 10 years later, Energy Department spokesperson Stephanie Mueller was announcing on Monday night – less than a week after being described as “our best scientific minds” by Chu – that “[s]ome of Professor Katz’s controversial writings have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.”

Writing that Chu “has spoken with dozens of scientists and engineers as part of his work to help find solutions to stop the oil spill,” she referenced the writings and stated, “Professor Katz will no longer be involved in the Department’s efforts.”

In response to an inquiry from Metro Weekly about whether Chu or the Energy Department was aware of Katz’s additional writings before he was selected to help with the oil spill, Mueller responded, “No, the Secretary was not aware and disagrees with them. The Department wasn’t aware either.”

So . . . Katz was appointed to a scientific panel, but when his “controversial writings” were discovered it was determined they “have become a distraction from the critical work of addressing the oil spill.” He was then canned.

Does this remind anybody of anything that has recently happened at Marquette?

Do any of the people who have been prating about “academic freedom” and “nondiscrimination” mind this one little bit?

No, they are doubtless quite happy about it.

Of course, it’s quite reasonable to argue that presenting a public image consistent with the Catholic mission of Marquette is a “bona fide occupational qualification” for a dean here.

But the only qualification for the oil spill panel was the scientific acumen to get the spill stopped.

But then, one could argue that, under the Obama administration, placating interest groups that are part of his base is a “bona fide occupational qualification.” This is politics, after all.

But that is a bit hard to swallow for a panel that is supposed to be all about science.

Further, if Obama has a right to placate the gay lobby on a scientific panel, a Republican president has an equal right to placate conservative Christians with appointments — even appointments to scientific panels.

And Marquette certainly has a right to placate conservative Catholics that are part of its core constituency, especially given that Marquette is a private university with a right — both legal and moral — to protect its Catholic identity.

Cases like this reveal the fact that rhetoric about “academic freedom” and “diversity” and “non-discrimination” coming from liberal and leftist faculty are meaningless blather.

By “academic freedom” they mean freedom for views they agree with; by “diversity” they mean more hires of people who share their political ideology; by “non-discrimination” they mean protection of politically correct victim groups.

Discrimination against whites, males, and straights is not merely something they practice, it’s something they loudly defend.

Hat Tip: Charlie Sykes

O’Brien Not First Gay Scholar Offered Arts & Sciences Deanship

From the Journal-Sentinel:

Jodi O’Brien isn’t the only Seattle University scholar studying gay and lesbian issues who had been offered a top-tier job at Marquette University.

Isiaah Crawford, Seattle University’s provost, was offered the job of dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 2001. It’s the same position that Marquette officials offered to O’Brien but later rescinded.

“Close to a decade ago, an offer was presented to me by Marquette University to become a member of their academic leadership team,” Crawford said in a statement to the Journal Sentinel. “I declined the opportunity because of personal and professional commitments in Chicago.” At the time, Crawford was a psychology professor at Loyola University Chicago.

Crawford declined through a school spokeswoman to comment beyond the statement.

Marquette announced May 6 that it was rescinding a job offer to O’Brien, a lesbian scholar, because of concerns relating to Marquette’s “Catholic mission and identity” and their incompatibility with some of O’Brien’s scholarly writings. The university said the decision to pull the job had nothing to do with O’Brien’s sexual orientation. Some members of the search committee that recommended O’Brien said they believed her sexual orientation played a role in the reversal.

Crawford, who also is openly gay, described O’Brien as “valued member of our university community” in a statement last week.

In response to an e-mailed question, O’Brien said Crawford has been very helpful since Marquette’s decision to pull the job offer. She said the two did talk about the fact that Crawford was offered the Marquette deanship several years ago.

As with O’Brien, some of Crawford’s scholarship at Loyola concerned the Catholic Church’s teaching about homosexuality. He and a colleague co-authored a paper, published in 2001, arguing there’s “nothing inherently pathological or disordered” about gays and lesbians and that the church should base any pastoral outreach on that argument.

In 1998, he co-authored a paper examining psychosocial and legal perspectives on gay and lesbian parenting.

He won an award in 2001 from the American Psychological Association, given to scholars who have disseminated science and scholarship on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.

Crawford was appointed provost of Seattle University in July 2008. He was a tenured psychology professor at Loyola when he received the Marquette offer, according to an online biography. He served as Loyola’s Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences from 2003 to 2008.

Asked to comment on the job offer to Crawford, Marquette spokeswoman Mary Pat Pfeil said in a statement: “Each personnel decision is made individually, based on a candidate’s record. . . . In no case does the university discriminate on the basis of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, disability or social class.”

Marquette held final exams last week, but the debate continues among those who remain on campus. A group of student critics of the decision on O’Brien called Wednesday for several professional and political organizations to censure Marquette. Earlier this week, a group gathered on Marquette’s campus in support of the decision.

It’s clear from this that the level of scrutiny applied to all external dean candidates (and Provost candidates, when that issue comes up) needs to be ratcheted up. Had Crawford taken the job the reaction might or might not have been the same as with Jodi O’Brien, but Marquette clearly needs to face these controversies earlier in the process, rather than later.

And if Marquette doesn’t want an Arts & Sciences Dean whose highly public positions are contrary to the Catholic mission, it should appoint a Selection Committee not inclined to flout Church teaching.

Or (probably better still) hire internally, promoting somebody who is a known quantity.

Yet Another Faculty Manifesto — This One in Support of Lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean Candidate

It seems like a lot of faculty members want to express their opinions on the recent dean search fiasco in which candidate Jodi O’Brien had her job offer rescinded because a number of her published writings were flatly at odds with the Catholic mission of the university.

Whatever one thinks of Catholic identity, it’s been a huge fiasco.

Now we have (this circulated for several days without our getting our hands on it) the Chair of the Psychology Department, one of the more politically correct departments on campus, weighing in with a letter to members of the Academic Senate. We will insert out comments, but the entire unedited text of the statement is included.

From: Nielson, Kristy
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 10:04 AM
To: [distribution list deleted]
Subject: A message to my Senate colleagues

Dear Senate Colleagues,

I write to you in what I consider to be the darkest hour of my time at Marquette. I came here 14 years ago starting on the same day that Father Wild began his role as President of Marquette. I respect him and I have learned from him; hopefully I have helped him learn too, at least a little about shared governance. However, today, I find that I must speak out against the actions that he has taken regarding the Arts and Sciences dean search. It is a decision that will have very lasting negative effects on the faculty, staff and students of Marquette, as well as for shared governance here. For the Senate, I see no alternative than a vote of censure of Fr. Wild to object to the actions and process that have been undertaken in this matter. I do not suggest this lightly. But in our role as leaders in the university and as representatives for our fellow faculty, we must firmly object to the failure of leadership that allowed the events to unfold in this manner. As we are reminded in all matters of shared governance, Fr. Wild has the final word and responsibility. Thus, we must hold him responsible.

Fr. Wild has been clear in multiple statements that he rescinded the offer to Dr. O’Brien because scholarly writings by her caused him to doubt whether she could effectively represent the College on matters of “Catholic identity.” The two topics repeatedly mentioned about such writings regarded challenges to ideas about marriage and family definitions, and sexuality or sexual behavior discussed in a way that “could be interpreted as autobiographical.” These are issues that are relevant to vetting a candidate in the early stages, but not to withdrawing an offer after it is made. This candidate has been under consideration for the position since the initial onset of the search for this deanship. These works have been available the entire time. The Search Committee asked all of the relevant questions about whether there would be any issues with her candidacy early in the process and noted in their summation that she would have to have the necessary support at the top to be effective if she were chosen.

In fact, we don’t know whether they gave Fr. Wild a full account of the parts of her writings that would later prove to be so controversial.

They did not dodge the sensitivity of her area of scholarship. After this final report and until the rescinding of the offer, it is clear that neither the Search Committee, the Chairs of the College, the Senate or any other faculty body was involved in any way in the process. If there were doubts or issues to resolve, none of the appropriate faculty stakeholders were involved. Obviously, other stakeholders were involved given the late reversal of the decision, but not those of us who clearly identified as having a role.

It is clear that the decision to hire O’Brien was kept secret until it leaked out to local Catholics who could be expected to oppose it. But would making it public have helped O’Brien? While her supporters could have mobilized earlier, so could her critics.

This looks for all the world like an attempt to foist a dean flatly at odds with the Catholic mission on the University, in the hopes that by the time opposition arose the issue would be moot.

This debacle will certainly cost Marquette considerably in financial terms, as well as in reputation, research, and in recruiting, retaining and placing students and faculty. Indeed, such effects can already be observed. Colleagues whose scholarship directly involves work with lesbians have experienced cancellations from participants on the grounds that they will no longer involve themselves in any work affiliated with Marquette.

In other words, they have decided to boycott Marquette. They have a right to do that, but maybe they should be more tolerant of a Catholic university that acts Catholic.

Students have been voicing their sadness that these events reinforce the non-inclusivity of our institution. Graduate students’ external placements are threatened because inclusiveness in training programs is an important factor considered in the competition for such placements.

Of course, nothing in the decision not to hire O’Brien prevents the Psychology Department from training students to counsel lesbians. If outside agencies hold the decision against Marquette, they are engaged in discrimination on the basis of religion, and should be held accountable for that.

Junior faculty have already exhibited great alarm about what they can and cannot pursue in scholarship. While Fr. Wild maintains that we have academic freedom to pursue any line of scholarship, he also maintains that our leaders are to be held to a higher standard. This means that anyone who might eventually seek a position of leadership must know early in his or her career that scholarship not fitting with Catholic ideology is quite dangerous. (You might note that Dr. O’Brien wrote most of the “concerning” pieces as an Assistant Professor). That speaks pretty loudly about the reality of academic freedom at Marquette.

This, quite simply, is complete nonsense. Faculty can do all kinds of things that make them ineligible to hold a Dean’s position. The people who make this argument would be the first to want to veto as dean a psychologist who felt that black people are innately inferior in intelligence to white people. They would quickly mobilize against a candidate who opposed feminism, and felt that patriarchy is inevitable.

The truth is that any dean candidate whose political positions create huge controversy that would overshadow his or her academic duties is ineligible. Faculty have a right to be controversial (as Marquette’s toleration of Dan Maguire shows). Deans don’t have that right.

Indeed, we have heard that certain possible dean candidates are not really well-qualified because they cannot “work a room,” meaning glad-hand potential contributors effectively.

And certainly, anybody who chooses to have a blog that airs the dirty laundry of Marquette bureaucrats can never be an administrator, since the person is not a “team player” willing to conceal information that the Administration might want concealed.

Anybody who does that can be assumed to have no aspirations whatsoever to an administrative role!

Financially, there are many donors who would be encouraged by this decision. Perhaps they are even the largest donors. But there are also many, many alumni and MU-affiliates who are equally discouraged and will decide that Marquette will never receive their donations. The great irony is that those most closely affiliated with the College of Arts and Sciences likely represent the highest proportion of those who will be discouraged, just at the time when we seek to extend better reach to our alumni as donors. In that event, the damage will be felt for a long time to come.

This is an interesting argument, since O’Brien’s supporters have suspected (out loud) that Marquette made the decision at least partly to placate big-bucks donors. This has been seen as equivalent to Marquette selling its soul for filthy lucre.

But it seems to be OK if Marquette placates liberal alumni! Indeed, one such implicit but clear offer of money if Marquette is sufficiently “gay friendly” has been made.

So it seems that Marquette selling its soul is OK, just so long as the right people are buying!

This process also makes a mockery of our diversity statement. We all look to our leaders as models of our society; whether or not they want to be, they are role models. If our leaders must pass litmus tests, so must the rest of us. We cannot achieve a culture that respects diversity of thought and being if we cannot allow it in our leaders.

See above. Politically correct people are the last people who actually respect diversity of thought.

In this centennial year of co-education at Marquette, we need to be reminded of the courage it took to reject outdated ideas and loud opposition at the time to pursue progress and openness. This is nothing different. As a scholar, Dr. O’Brien has evaluated issues from a perspective that is not traditional and can cause discomfort. But that is the path of progress. When once educating women along with men seemed outrageous, at least most of us cannot fathom that today. It is through the examination and free discussion of such issues that we progress — an approach fitting with Jesuit ideals.

The problem here is that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says there is anything wrong with coeducation. Further, it wasn’t in fact that controversial having been the norm in public colleges and universities during the late 19th century.

Regardless of your personal opinion on the candidacy of Dr. Jodi O’Brien as the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and regardless of your opinion on her scholarly work or her ability to represent Catholic identity at Marquette, as a Senator, it’s hard for me to believe that any of you would not support a strong vote of censure on Fr. Wild for how this situation was handled. This is where we find out if we do or do not have the courage to fight for shared governance. All of these events are attributable to the manner in which this decision was made — had it been decided early that Dr. O’Brien was not the best person to lead our College for “Catholic identity” reasons, I would have been disappointed and perhaps angry, but not surprised at Marquette. But to handle it in this manner is far more injurious to all parties and is poor leadership. More, given the supposed role of the Senate to “evaluate and endorse” administrative decisions with academic impact, yet the lack of role of any of the faculty bodies in the reversal of the decision, shared governance is in doubt at Marquette. Meetings and listening sessions only after the fact are fitting examples of the perpetuation of secrecy and top-down control of all meaningful aspects of our institution. It is our responsibility to assure that shared governance is a reality, not just a convenient fiction that can be pointed to when it is convenient.

Sincerely,

Kristy Nielson
Professor and Chair, Psychology
Former Chair, University Academic Senate

There can be no doubt that the process misfired terribly. And this has implications for the process as we move forward to find a dean.

The search process that led to the hiring of Michael McKinney as dean was likewise as fiasco, although not one so embarrassing as this. After three external candidates bombed, McKinney (who had served as interim dean) was chosen. A known quantity with years of service to Marquette and widely respected good judgment, he was a much better dean than Marquette had any right to have, given the incompetent selection process.

Is something like this the right course now?

The Decay of Marquette’s Catholic Identity: Dean Search Brought the Reality Home

From Marquette theologian Mark Johnson, and essay that explains the debacle that was the blundered deanship search that led to Jodi O’Brien (a lesbian whose opinions are sharply at odds with Catholic teaching) being offered the job.

It wasn’t, Johnson explains, a fluke of events that descended on Marquette suddenly and without warning. Rather, it was the culmination of trends going back decades.

As Catholics became more part of mainstream America—more assimilating themselves to it, perhaps, than changing it—their practices and thinking became more like it, too. As the upper-echelons of American intellectual life—the universities—gained influence in public discourse, their application of their spoken and unspoken principles had greater effect. Catholic universities, too, increasingly staffed by faculty trained elsewhere, began to speak with the dialect of secular or non-Catholic religious universities. And Catholic theologians and philosophers were eager to abandon tired scholasticism and think in new ways, which generally required them to leave the Catholic university scene and be trained elsewhere—it didn’t help that official Catholic teaching labored to sustain unpopular, if traditional, teachings, such as the indissolubility of marriage, opposition to abortion, and the primacy of children in marriage with its attendant doctrine of the integrity of the sex act. So the result was that, with the singular and important exception of Catholic social doctrine (read in terms of the distribution of wealth, perhaps, where that teaching resonates well with those who have socialist or statist leanings), much distinctively Catholic teaching, even in Catholic colleges and universities, was either disputed outright or politely just dropped.

And futher:

. . . the notion of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation evolved to mean “not different in moral legitimacy,” with the result that the variety of sexual orientations that people have are thought to be like the unobjectionable variations of eye-color; we don’t fault or praise someone for the color of their eyes, and neither should we fault or praise someone for living in accord with their sexual orientation.

Seen against this backdrop, what is so notable about the Jodi O’Brien case is not that in originally offering to her the Deanship the University was making new and brave intellectual commitments that launched it into a leadership role for the rest of contemporary American academe. Quite the contrary. Because homosexual orientation, activity, and scholarship is now so normalized in the Academy and indeed in the culture, the pursuing, interviewing and hiring of a scholar-advocate of homosexuality for an academic position, even a visible upper-administration position, is a daily occurrence. Marquette did not lead, it followed. In this sense, the original decision was so usual as to be boring: a duly appointed committee of a Catholic, Jesuit university, searching for a Dean for its College of Arts and Sciences, submits for consideration to the Provost and President a scholar in sociology whose writings entertain as liberating a wide-range of LGBT behaviors, support homosexual marriage—if there has to be marriage at all; the candidate isn’t sure—with the Provost and then the President considering then approving that submission.

We are not so sure the original decision was “boring.”

The hiring had all the earmarks of an enterprise in which certain faculty and administrators thought themselves doing something bold for “diversity,” which has now become a word that, in true Orwellian fashion, means that everybody must think the same and no dissent is allowed.

Still, says Johnson, the corruption (he doesn’t use that precise word) has proceeded so far that “people are surprised that some people were surprised” that anybody could object to the hiring of an outspoken lesbian and advocate of what the Church views as sinful behavior as a (necessarily) high-profile representative of the institution.

Johnson promises two more essays on this issue. We will most certainly watch for them on his blog.

Dean Search Fiasco: Demonstration in Support Catholic Identity

The demonstration that we blogged about Saturday came off today, in front of Gesu Church.

It was orderly and sedate, actually. The small crowd was heavy on staff and administrators, but included one family of four (with a Marquette mom) who drove an hour to participate.

They numbered 17 people at the peak (near 12:15). Not a huge number, but probably more grown-ups than have taken part in any of the pro-Jodi O’Brien demonstrations, which have overwhelmingly consisted of students.

Students, of course, have largely left town (the semester is over) and faculty are under the gun to get grades in (tomorrow noon is the deadline).

The gathering broke up promptly at 12:15 p.m.

As we have said before this, combined with several manifestos from various faculty members, may not show a “silent majority” opposed to Jodi O’Brien being Arts & Science Dean, but it does show considerable resistance.

It’s also the case that a fair number of people who think she should not be Dean were also disturbed at the way Marquette first offered her the job and then rescended the offer. Marketing Professor Gene Lacniak is one of them.

What all sides can agree on is that the Marquette administration performed very badly.

Dean Search Fiasco: More Push-Back From Faculty Supporting Catholic Mission

While the most assertive voices among Marquette faculty have been supportive of the appointment of outspoken lesbian Jodi O’Brien to be Dean of Arts & Sciences, some significant opposition has arisen.

While the Academic Senate seemed to support her when it voted to condemn the decision to rescind her offer, doubtless a substantial number of those senators would not have selected her in the first place. as Marketing Professor Gene Lacniak admitted was the case with him.

It’s also the case that the Academic Senate doesn’t necessarily represent the attitudes of all faculty.

Still, it would be premature to say that statements like those of Bob Ashmore, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy or Associate Professor Javier A. Ibáñez-Noé represent a “silent majority” of faculty.

But add in statements like the one below, coming from two Theology faculty, and it becomes obvious that there is considerable faculty resistance to O’Brien.

Our purpose is to invite discussion on the hiring decision regarding Dr. O’Brien from the perspective of Catholic mission and identity.

In recent days there has been much consternation at Marquette University over rescinding the offer of the deanship of the Klingler College of Arts and Sciences to Dr. Jodi O’Brien of Seattle University. At a procedural level, there is little that is defensible in making an offer and then withdrawing it (though, of course, if pre-hiring decisions were mistaken, the university should not necessarily be prevented from rectifying those mistakes before it has made any contractual commitments). For many faculty members, it remains a mystery how things proceeded from the search committee’s forwarding of names to the provost, to what took place between him and the president of the university and others in making a final decision and extending an offer. Protests have been registered over these procedures, including the unfair treatment of Dr. O’Brien in the matter.

However, other substantial issues have also been raised. One letter circulated refers to “more fundamental concerns about our institutional commitment to diversity, inclusion, and academic freedom.” Many feel that the decision by Fr. Wild and Provost Pauly to rescind the offer violated these principles. Apart from the procedural issues involved and affirming these principles, we believe even more is at stake for Marquette University.

We defend the stated reasons in the Wild/Pauly letter that the primary concern for rescinding the offer had to do with Catholic mission and identity. Since this is not a regular faculty hire (where “hiring for mission” must also be taken into consideration) but a significant public leadership position at the university, it is important that the candidate be able to represent that identity and support it before constituencies on and off campus, as it is well spelled out in our official mission and identity statements, and more significantly, not oppose it in action or scholarship. There is little to dispute that Dr. O’Brien’s advocacy of “queer Christianity” (her nomenclature in her article “Seeking Normal? Considering Same-Sex Marriage”) and LGBT cultural strategies vis-à-vis the family, same-sex marriage and alternative partnering (not to mention her analysis and apparent promotion of cyberspace promiscuity-- see her article “Changing the Subject”) cannot be squared with Catholic teaching on this very public issue, which is so controverted in our society, and in Christian churches—witness its divisive effects in nearly every mainline Protestant denomination. As these viewpoints are integral to her scholarly vocation why should a Catholic university invite her to lead its “flagship college” which cultivates the arts and sciences, when from the perspective of Catholic vision and Christian humanism such advocacy undermines human flourishing?*

No doubt, many (faculty and students alike) will disagree with this Catholic vision or say that they take exception to this particular manifestation of it as it concerns theological and philosophical conceptions of the human person, of human sexuality, and of the moral life. Even many Catholics (some Jesuits included) do not accept this teaching. Nevertheless, it is not a foregone conclusion that in the interests of preserving Catholic identity -- an issue that we agree should remain dialogical -- the university somehow violates principles of the academy if it does not offer major governance positions to candidates who oppose aspects of that same identity. After all, Catholic universities exist “From the Heart of the Church,” the English title of Pope John Paul II’s 1990 Apostolic Constitution on Catholic universities, Ex corde ecclesiae. This applies not just to theology departments and campus ministries, but to all units of the university because they are at the service of truth and of Catholic intellectual life. Marquette University does state under the rubric of faith that:

As a Catholic university, we are committed to the unfettered pursuit of truth under the mutually illuminating powers of human intelligence and Christian faith. Our Catholic identity is expressed in our choices of curricula, our sponsorship of programs and activities devoted to the cultivation of our religious character, our ecumenical outlook, and our support of Catholic beliefs and values.

It is true that not all faculty members at Marquette University see themselves as agents of Catholic intellectual life, and the dialogical nature of a university invites critical discussion and disagreements over a vast array of issues with other Christians, adherents of other religious traditions, and all people of good will who can support the mission of Marquette University. Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine how Dr. O’Brien’s scholarly project is consistent with “Catholic beliefs and values.” Therefore, while we regret the procedural debacle and any injustice done to Dr. O’Brien, we are grateful that in the hiring process for an Arts and Sciences dean, Catholic mission and identity became a deciding factor.

Ralph Del Colle
Associate Professor of Theology

Mark Johnson
Associate Professor of Theology

*The Catholic position on homosexuality was succinctly stated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their 2006 statement Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care which (quoting a Vatican document) says the following:

“Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.”

Nobody, and certainly not Del Colle and Johnson, defends the absurd process that resulted in the offer of the job to O’Brien, and then the rescinding of the offer when word got out that O’Brien was a very controversial person indeed.

But we need to know exactly what process led to an offer to a person so controversial. It’s obvious that she was pretty much the pet of some in the Administration and then of the Selection Committee long before the offer was made.

Dean Search Fiasco: Demonstration in Support of Fr. Wild

From Paco Nava, a Marquette student and president of the Marquette chapter of the Intercollegate Studies Institute:

Notice of a demonstration to support Fr. Wild, and uphold the Catholic mission of the University.

The demonstration, a “public silent prayer gathering,” will be at noon Monday in front of Gesu Church.

The debate over Jodi O’Brien, candidate for Arts & Sciences Dean, is not mentioned in the flyer, but that’s clearly the point.

This is not just an ISI project. We’re aware of support in other quarters of the University.

Still, we would be surprised if there is a large turnout, since students will be gone (and besides, many have been cowed by the treat of being called a “homophobe” at any sign of opposition to the gay agenda).

But a fair number of people may wish to come “out of the closet” as people who want Marquette to be Catholic, and not politically correct.

Dean Search Fiasco: The View From the Left

We’ve blogged a lot on the recent fiasco at Marquette, in which the woman who had been selected as the new Arts & Sciences Dean had her office rescinded.

Two other online sources that have been paying a lot of attention should be mentioned.

One is MUProtestMay6, which is not a blog, but just a lot of tweets from a Twitter account. But you’ll find there a pretty complete listing of press coverage of the affair, especially coverage supportive of O’Brien.

The other is a blog from Marquette feminist students called The Word Warrior. The writing is in fact less shrill and more nuanced than one would expect from feminists, although solidly in the feminist, pro-GLBT mould.

Arts & Science Dean Search Fiasco: Another Philosopher Supports Catholic Mission

The most visible and raucous people in the debate over the lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien have been on O’Brien’s side -- most especially Philosophy Professor Nancy Snow with her bullhorn.

But now there is some serious pushback. The following is from Bob Ashmore, long-time Marquette faculty member and now Professor Emeritus.

May 13, 2010

Dear Fr. Wild,

Nancy Snow’s calling for your resignation was the last straw that has prompted me to speak out. As a ringleader who gleefully tells the public in newspapers and on TV that “we move ahead with our protests,” after rejecting the Academic Senate’s actions as inadequate, Snow should be understood regarding the real agenda.

While rallying support of gullible faculty, administrators and students under the colors of academic freedom, diversity, and gay rights, the really serious purpose is to move MU away from core values that define its Jesuit and Catholic character. Persons who are theologically atheists and philosophically moral relativists sense growing strength.

Is it too strong to suggest that MU is reaping what it has sown? There are faculty (many of them silent) who believe that encouraging the likes of Snow has made the university vulnerable to what is now occurring. I experienced great sadness at your annual dinner for faculty last Thursday, when a platform was created for Snow, from which she smeared the administration, while you embraced her and lauded her as one of Marquette’s finest. In fact, if she and those similarly minded prevailed, MU would become unrecognizable for the values that it trumpets when recruiting students for $30,000 tuition payments.

May I remind those to whom this letter is addressed what has been my commitment to Marquette? I came in 1969, became full professor, served as director of the Graduate Program in Philosophy, served as Director of the Center for Ethics Studies, received the Faculty Award for Teaching Excellence, and obtained two institutional grants from NEH that funded successive summer institutes over six years. Against this background, I lament what has happened to my department and to the university.

I have witnessed under two successive deans of Arts and Science the acceptance and encouragement of a turn in the Philosophy Department that has radically fractured what once was a congenial faculty with a sense of mission that fit with MU’s core values. On the broader front, there has been lessened concern about hiring faculty and administrators who are committed to Catholic or even Christian identity at Marquette. Political correctness is seen as trumping those concerns.

Are they wrong who see you as hoisted on your own petard? I trust that it is not too late for a recovery of the sense of identity that Marquette advertises, while many of its hiring and promotion decisions have undercut this. “Diversity” and “academic freedom” (which I support) are being used as slogans that turn heads and mask agenda that should jolt lovers of Marquette into choices that are being challenged today.

Sincerely,
Robert B. Ashmore
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy

Although there are some voices for Marquette’s Catholic mission in the Philosophy Department, the dominant faction seems to be secular and politically correct. If philosophy (with theology) is at the core of a Jesuit education, what is the point of having having this sort of Philosophy Department?

And why would Wild try to pander to and placate Nancy Snow?

Politically Correct Faculty Mobilize to Support Lesbian Arts & Sciences Dean Candidate

A series of e-mails that circulated among the more liberal and politically correct members of the faculty.

First, Nancy Snow urging a variety of actions to support lesbian Arts & Science Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien, who was chosen and then told that she could not be dean.

Dear Colleagues:

I’m appalled, but not surprised, that the Archdiocese and other outside influences were involved in this decision. I will tell you that Fr. Wild told me in no uncertain terms during our conversation on Tuesday, May 4, that Marquette has autonomy from the Archdiocese and that the decision to rescind the offer was his. Yet, the Archdiocese had considerable and in my view, inappropriate, influence. Fr. Wild has not yet told the truth about this. The admission came from the Archdiocese. The academic autonomy and integrity of our University have been compromised.

Here is the link to the photos from yesterday’s “listening” session. Please share the link to see the level of activity this controversy has generated. Marquette has never seen anything like this. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=212086&id=729450126&l=d5b199eeba

Next steps:

1. Faculty and student groups will be continuing protests during senior week and at commencement. Please join these if you can. We must stand up and stand together.

2. Concerned colleagues from Seattle join our protest. Among other efforts currently underway there, they are now exerting pressure on their Jesuit president to make a statement.

3. I attach a joint statement to be signed by concerned faculty of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences at Marquette and Seattle Universities. I ask supportive department chairs of the MU College of Arts and Sciences -- James South, Kristy Nielson, Krista Ratcliffe, and Jim Marten -- to make copies of this letter available in your department offices for faculty to sign, and to publicize this letter in your departments. I ask these chairs to intervene with other Arts and Sciences chairs to request their cooperation in gathering signatures. Similar actions will be taken at Seattle University. Let us get as many signatures as possible. We will purchase full page ads to have the letter published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Seattle Times, Chronicle of Higher Education, and, if possible, Chicago Tribune and New York Times. Please sign and urge your colleagues to sign as soon as possible. Let’s aim to have all signatures in by Tuesday of next week.

4. Colleagues here are trying to schedule a date and time for an open forum on this issue. Please stay tuned as plans solidify.

We must take back our College and our University. I fully support re-extending the offer to Dr. O’Brien, with an apology.

Best,

Nancy

Nancy E. Snow
Professor of Philosophy
“Be the change you seek in your world.” - Gandhi

The attached letter is as follows:

Statement from Concerned Members of Marquette University

Regarding the Rescinded Offer of Deanship to Dr. Jodi O’Brien (joined by concerned colleagues from Seattle University):

- We condemn the decision to rescind the offer made to Dr. Jodi O’Brien to serve as Dean of the Helen Way Klingler College of Arts and Sciences.

- We condemn the involvement of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and other outside influences in this decision. The academic autonomy and integrity of Marquette University was compromised in this decision-making process.

- We believe this action has caused significant harm to the reputation of Marquette University. It threatens our credibility and integrity as a university. It has caused suffering among students, alumni, staff, and faculty, and it will cost Marquette considerably in terms of community relationships, research, and recruiting and retaining students and faculty.

- We reject the public rationale offered for this action: examples of Dr. O’Brien’s scholarship disqualify her from being able to represent Marquette University in its Catholic mission and identity. We reject the idea that scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at universities or academic conferences can disqualify a faculty member from leadership at a Jesuit University.

- We strongly believe the decision puts academic freedom at risk at Marquette University. We reject an intellectual “litmus test” for our faculty, staff, and leaders in the administration. Indeed we find the very idea of such a “litmus test” to be contrary to the tradition of excellence, faith, service, and leadership advanced by American Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

- We believe that the rejection of Dr. O’Brien because of her scholarship examining the social institution of marriage and the fluidity of gender roles and sexuality exposes a culture of unease and suppression at Marquette University, a culture which frowns upon the frank intellectual discussion of human - and especially female - sexuality. This is particularly chilling and ironic as we celebrate the Centennial of Women at Marquette.

- We believe that this course of events undermines Marquette University’s faith commitment to both foster diversity and honor the human dignity of every individual regardless of culture, faith, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

- We pledge to work to restore the integrity of our university.

- We pledge to defend academic freedom for all of our faculty, and the spirit of academic freedom for all students, staff, administrators, and leadership. We will reject vigilantly the imposition of “litmus tests.”

- We pledge to confront directly the chilly climate on campus for scholarship and discussion concerning issues of gender and sexuality. We demand that these issues be allowed the broadest horizons for inquiry and debate. We cannot allow the intellectual discussion and academic investigation of human sexuality to be constrained by overly narrow understandings of Jesuit mission and Catholic identity.

- We pledge to honor Marquette University’s Statement on Human Dignity and Diversity. We must not only talk the talk of nondiscrimination and inclusiveness; our rhetoric must be matched by courageous action.

- We pledge to help our students make sense of what has transpired here. We desire for them to inherit a tradition of Excellence, Faith, Leadership, and Service that is inclusive, fosters moral courage, and supports the free and open inquiry necessary to attain the highest standards of scholarship.

- We hope to engage in conversations with all levels of university administration to ensure more transparent process for hiring in the future and to develop a more open environment generally.

- We note with chagrin that while the administration encouraged the university community to discuss the name change of our basketball team or a full year, less than two weeks after this egregious action, which strikes at the heart of our functioning as a university, we were told it is time for “healing” and “moving on.” We will not be silent until the integrity of our university is restored.

- We believe that the appropriate response to the current situation is for the offer of the Deanship of the College of Arts and Sciences to be extended again immediately to Dr. O’Brien with an apology. If this is not possible under Father Wild’s administration, Father Wild should immediately resign and his successor should offer Dr. O’Brien the Deanship.

This provoked a response from Psychology professor Ed St. Aubin.

St. Aubin: Do Something at Graduation

From: de St. Aubin, Ed
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:19 AM

Hello,

It may seem to some that offering Dr. O’Brien the position now is like inviting her to step in a hornet’s nest. I am convinced of quite the opposite. Imagine the welcome she would receive. Dean of A&S is a difficult job. I believe that if Dr. O’Brien were to come, there would be strong support on campus and it would create an alumni coalition of support that has gone relatively untapped to date. I am not sure that the current mode in the very large Advancement office is ideal for reaching out to these individuals/groups, but that is a different topic.

Further, the act of re-offering the position to Dr. O’Brien provides a tangible rallying point. It becomes our charge as we try to maintain energy around this issue even as campus begins to drain for the summer. Also, we have one more major public event that allows for a strong statement – graduation. This is attended by faculty, students, parents, and many alumni. We need a strategy there.

Also, what about key administrators? My take is that these folks have been very quiet.

Am I correct? I’m talking about Deans, interim Deans, Chris Miller, etc… The May 10 letter from Jeanne Hossenlopp and Stephanie Russell was all about healing the hurt and moving forward. I have tremendous respect for both those women but it read as patronizing to me. And is stripped us of any power to DO something real.

So, my questions are how do we get support from people in positions of power on campus? What would we need to do to have Fr. Wild re-offer Jodi O’Brien the position? and, How do we most effectively use graduation as a time/place for our position to be heard?

Finally, I have no clue who this email is heading towards. I simply hit “reply all” to the most recent message. How do we make sure that all stakeholders are part of this conversation?

All for now,
Ed

Ed de St. Aubin
Psychology Department

Snow Backs Off a Bit

Snow got some flack for the demand that Fr. Wild resign. So the following e-mail went out.

Dear Colleagues,

After circulating this, a broad consensus has emerged that we should leave off the ending - the conditional call for Wild’s resignation. Attached is the amended statement. If you chose to add your name to this list, it will ONLY BE for this version.

Please read the attached “Statement from Concerned Faculty Members of Marquette University” (joined by concerned colleagues from Seattle University).

If you wish to be a signatory to the statement, please send an email to mufacultyresponse@gmail.com.

Please state clearly how you would like to be identified on the statement (i.e., “Dr. Nancy Snow, Professor, Department of Philosophy”).

Please forward this email to supportive colleagues and other members of your department so that they have the opportunity to sign the statement, should they wish to do so.

Thank you for standing up for the integrity of our university!

Very best,
Nancy Snow

Attached to this latter e-mail was a draft of a revised letter of protest.

It omitted the final sentence (“If this is not possible under Father Wild’s administration, Father Wild should immediately resign and his successor should offer Dr. O’Brien the Deanship”).

Lesbian Dean Candidate: Archbishop, Search Committee Members Talk

From WISN-TV, a story on the role of of Archbishop Jerome Listecki in Marquette’s decision to rescind a offer of the Arts & Sciences Deanship to Jodi O’Brien.

What is significant here? The fact that the Search Committee knew there would be “pushback” if an activist lesbian were chosen for the job.

Search Committee members Rosemary Stuart and Scott Reid confirm that.

But did the committee fully inform Wild about all the elements of O’Brien’s writing that might be viewed as objectionable? We don’t really know, but we know that both the Search Committee (which somehow viewed O’Brien’s scholarly record as sufficient, and somehow viewed it as consistent with the Catholic mission of Marquette) and Wild (who seems to have been blindsided by the controversy that developed) bear considerable responsibility.

Marquette Heavily Recruited Lesbian Dean Candidate Jodi O’Brien

From Milwaukee News Buzz, the following in a story about the role of Archbishop Listecki in the rejection of Jodi O’Brien, lesbian candidate for Dean of Arts and Sciences at Marquette.

[Professor Nancy] Snow says the selection committee vetted O’Brien’s work and found nothing to object to before recommending her and another candidate for the job. She insists that university leadership has long been familiar with the professor since it sent a representative to Seattle to encourage her to apply for the dean position. Two years prior, she had applied for the same position, which has been occupied by an interim dean, but withdrew from consideration for family reasons. [emphasis added]

This appears to confirm our inference that O’Brien was the designated lesbian affirmative action candidate for the deanship, moved forward by liberal faculty and administrators who viewed her appointment as a move toward “diversity” at Marquette.