Virtue in Action: Controversy, journalism, and the virtue of restraint
In some corners of the internet, and of academia, there’s currently a big kerfuffle over an adjunct professor who was fired for “hate speech.” He was teaching a class on Roman Catholicism and, in response to a student’s inquiry, he noted that the Catholic Church considers homosexual behavior to be contrary to nature and therefore to be wrong.
I’ll get to my own take on the situation in a moment. But first, I want to point out an article on the following web site: Edge Boston. This is a site dedicated to gay interest and advocacy. So naturally they take an interest in the story, just as many Catholic news sites have taken an interest in the story.
Now, it’s awfully tempting to toe the line of whatever agenda or issue you’re focused on. But what impressed me about their article was how truly balanced and restrained it was. The author, Killian Melloy, resisted the temptations of inflammatory language or condemnation of those he disagrees with – temptations all too common on the internet. Rather, he provides as fully he can the details surrounding the event. He describes the event in such a way that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. This kind of restraint is laudable. It provides the reader a service by offering the matter for thought and argument rather than imposing a conclusion.
My own take on controversy
Now, I normally don’t like to wade into controversy myself. I usually am far too ignorant of the issues involved to have anything worth adding to the discussion. Moreover, I find my emotions tend to get involved in ways I don’t notice until it’s too late and I’ve said something in anger or fear that I can’t retract. That lack of self-control is a definite vice on my part.
So, in this case, I have more questions than answers. For example:
- Was Howell fired or was a completed contract simply not renewed?
- Did the university cite Howell’s statements as providing cause for his dismissal?
- What exactly did the students find offensive or hateful in Howell’s statements, and how does that compare with the literal meaning of Howell’s statements?
- and so on….
Apparently, Howell is suing the university; and it seems he may have a strong case. After all, he was hired to teach about Catholic beliefs and practices. Should a professor who gives a class on the Ku Klux Klan be fired for describing the Klan’s hatred of Catholics, Jews, and non-whites? Should a professor who teaches about Islam be let go for acknowledging that women and men have very different statuses in Muslim faith and practice?
However, there’s much that remains unknown. And without all the facts, I’m in no position to pass judgment on the students, the professor, or the university. (Even with the facts, I have no authority in the matter, and so….)
Melloy seems to realize that he is in exactly the same position. So he refrains from passing judgment in his article. He describes reality as best he is able. By doing so, he renders justice both to his subject and to his readers.
Perhaps the problem is as simple as the fact that English lacks the “First Subjunctive” that German has.
I routinely see in academic and journalistic writing passages such as this: “State Department spokesman Harold Willoughby stated that Russian spies have infiltrated our government at the highest levels. These spies communicate with Moscow using secret codes.”
In the second sentence, is the writer asserting something about these spies, or is the writer continuing to paraphrase what Willoughby stated about these alleged spies? I would guess the latter, but it’s hard to be certain, especially when the passage continues for a long time. In German, such sentences use the First Subjunctive — “sei” instead of “ist” — and so there is no doubt that the paraphrase continues.
Professor Howell sent an email to UIUC students which contained the sentences (in the indicative mood) asserting the wrongness of homosexual activities. I think that his intention was to paraphrase Catholic teaching rather than to assert such claims on his authority as a UIUC professor. If English had a First Subjunctive, then no confusion would have resulted.
I can’t argue the relative merits of English having a First Subjunctive. It does seem to be somewhat off the mark in any event.
On its face this story seems to be saying that the professor got the axe for truthfully conveying what Catholic teaching says about homosexuality. If I were rewriting the story for a broadcast audience based on what was provided, that’s probably how I’d lead it off. The story is as balanced as it can be, I think. And Robert raises appropriate questions — answers to which might have made the whole thing a non-story.
Still, as written, the story does suggest that the professor may have been a victim of overreaction by the school to second-hand comments — much as former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod has been due to hasty action by the Obama administration in the wake of partial information.
Steady as she goes would seem to be a lesson to take away from such events.