Catholic Campus Wars Redux
It seems that Catholic University of America has abruptly cancelled an 11-part lecture series, titled “Building Catholic Communities” (no wisecracks needed) due to the participation of two controversial figures, E. Michael Jones, editor of the South Bend, Ind.-based Culture Wars magazine, and John Sharpe, founder of the Norfolk-based IHS Press and the Legion of St. Louis, an Internet-based forum.
The Southern Poverty Law Center denounced the two as “raging anti-Semites” because they apparently espouse views that reject Vatican II reforms and have made disparaging comments about Jews. I don’t have much else to go on besides a report from The Washington Times and the SPLC site itself. The two gentlemen do seem to hold problematic views.
But two questions present themselves: First, how did they come to be part of such a series? (And why is the Catholic Information Center giving them a venue if the bishops’ university won’t?)
And how does this differ–if it does–from issues referred to in various previous posts about “liberal” groups and speakers being denied forums at Catholic sites?
(Hat Tip to “Uncle Di”–whoever you are.)
“The [Catholic Information] Center has been entrusted to priests of the Prelature of Opus Dei since 1993.” Perhaps that answers your question.
http://www.cicdc.org
Diogenes’ anger makes no sense whatsoever. Simply because this-or-that Catholic college has shat upon its status as a Catholic university doesn’t mean its just fine and dandy for anti-semitic conspiracy theorists like Michael Jones and John Sharpe are entitled to lecture at a Catholic university as well. On the other hand, I don’t know why CUA cancelled the entire lecture series and I don’t know who the other speakers were.
If it’s true that the CIC is permitting Jones and Sharpe to deliver lectures on its premises, that is incredibly unfortunate. (I periodically attend masses and buy books at the CIC.) I’ve also once bought a Belloc book reprinted by one of Sharpe’s outfits, not because I agree with Sharpe’s kook anti-Judaism, but because I wanted the Belloc book.
Patrick, I’d never take you for a mushy-headed liberal, so I assume the criticisms of Messrs. Jones & Sharpe have some merit? It is odd, then, that the CIC–Opus Dei or not–would host them. And also that the rest of the series would get the kybosh. I think more reproting is needed. A messy affair indeed, as are most of these. It usually comes back to the question of how so-and-so was even invited in the first place.
I’ve been called mushy-headed or wishy-washy many times, but not often liberal!
Those articles from Washington Times left much to be desired it raised more questions than answers. I went on the lecture series’ website and found that only ONE lecture has been permitted at the CIC, and the rest are in a space to be determined. So it is not true (yet) that the CIC is having Sharpe and Jones lecture on their premises.
From my scan of the website, most of the lectures represent a right-wing communitarian point-of-view, undoubtedly influenced by Chesterton and Belloc’s distributist economic theory and so forth. I think distributism is a crock, but it’s something that could be discussed in the Catholic academy.
If you surf the dark, dank corners of the internet, there is much out there that shows the dark side of the vision of people like Jones and Sharpe. Jones, in particular, has been interested in the destruction of ethnic Catholic communities in large cities, which he blames in part on hare-brained urban renewal schemes, freeways, the decaying industrial base, and so forth. All that is true as far as it goes, but he goes further and starts getting into wacko conspiracy theories involving rich WASPs with oodles of foundation money, black civil rights activists, Jewish interests, freemasons and so on all of which supposedly were in cahoots to break the influence of Catholicism in these neighborhoods, etc. etc. Giving him a platform is like giving the “AIDS is not caused by HIV” people a platform.
Good info, Patrick, thanks. Nothing mushy there. You’re right about Uncle Di’s outrage–I’m not sure what it’s about at this point, beyond generalized agita.
One does not persuade others by telling them to shut up and listen, Experience teaches that debating all sides of an issue, no matter how noxious the views, refines and expands the truth or shows “truth” to be false. Further.an opinion is most clearly presented by one who holds it, however odious the view.
Years ago some Nazis applied for a permit to march in Skokie, Illinois, and the ACLU defended them. Many were horrified that the ACLU would do so, but they misunderstood what the ACLU stands for (or used to stand for): freedom of speech for everyone. The theory is — and you will find this in Newman’s “Idea of a University” — that only by hearing all sides is the truth arrived at and expanded.
Would that Newman’s work were more widely appreciated in American Catholic universities. Why do the officials of those universities fear dissent so much? Is it fear of being proven wrong? Yes,discovery of truth can be extremely painful. But is that reason to avoid it?
It was gratifying to read recently that Pope Benedict said that the Enlightenment initiated some good ideas. Would that he could see that freedom of speech and academic freedom were among those goods.
Ann:
I remember the Skokie incident well. I believe that what the ACLU stands for is the destabilization of Judeo-Christian civilization, and the Nazis definitely fill that bill. Of course I can’t prove my belief, and I am certainly not advancing a conspiracy theory, just a general impression that they are interested in a certain kind of chaos.
But to the main point of allowing anti-semitic speakers on a putatively Catholic campus, I’m ambivalent.
Sorry for all the italics; I was trying out the technique for using them and I did something wrong. But much thanks to Eugene Palumbo for pointing me to the website.
Bob,
Yes, it seems to me that the ACLU is not exactly the same organization it was when I was young and thought of joining it. Yes, it does seem to enjoy tearing up the pea patch when the pea patch would best be let alone,
How can we have academic freedom for anyone if it is denied of some? I don’t think it’s possible. Yes, truth is sometimes lost in intense debates. But it is more likely to be lost if such debates are not permitted for all sides, no matter how noxious the side. Yes, it is fearful to have to engage in such debate, but given the grace of the Holy Spirit, our only fear should be of our own mistakes.
I respect Ann Olivier’s commitment to making sure that “all sides of the debate” are represented — but the question remains — if someone makes inflammatory claims that are demonstrably not true, don’t we have an obligation to identify that as not really part of the debate at all?
I think this whole episode is odious for the following reason: CUA’s swift reaction once they had been alerted to the backgrounds or Mr. Jones and Mr. Sharpe. Shouldn’t CUA have done its due-diligence months ago when the requisite permits and so forth were issued for the conference? The incident makes CUA look like they are the SPLC’s lap-dog. Would CUA have reacted as quickly if alerted by AEI or the Heritage Foundation to the anti-Semitic background of a Muslim scholar brought to campus to speak on Christian-Muslim relations? I hardly think so…
Midwesterner asks -if someone makes inflammatory claims that are demonstrably not true, don’t we have an obligation to identify that as not really part of the debate at all?’
If the claims are demonstrably false, then it is the function of the C.U. professors who think they know better to demonstrate their falsehood for the sake of the students there. It seems to me that when professors think that the matter(s) was not settled tbat shows that such an issue ought to be debated at the university. This most certainly does not imply that the administration and other faculty members must agree with anything said in such a debate, nor that they should not criticize the logic of others. It only implies that we all have something to learn from others, if only that they are dishonest or fools or both.
This whole brouhaha reminds me of the recent one at La Sapienza University in Rome where a number of faculty and students loudly protested the invitation for Pope Benedict to speak there. See? if we can do it to them, they’ll do it to us.
Shutting people out is no way to dialogue, and dialogue is of the essence of a university. And so long as a competent professor thinks a matter is worth discussing, it has a place in his/her university. I might add that in my experience the teachers who most object to controversial debates are teachers who are not competent in the subject involved.
I agree with you that inflammatory speeches are problems. But who decides when the speech is inflammatory? What are the criteria of being inflammatory? ISTM that if a speech results in violence that obviously it *was* inflammatory. But how does one decide that a speech *will be* inflammatory? Because most people hate what will probably be said and they will become angry? But feelings should not determine our judgments, evidence should. Is a speech inflammatory because it will probably be mostly empty rhetoric? And what is the difference between empty rhetoric and non-empty rhetoric? Further, does *any* rhetoric belong in an academic debate? I think not.
But I think the whole subject of inflammatory speech needs to be reviewed. considered.