Jonah Goldberg on Rice & BC
That settles it. The flap at BC over honoring Condi Rice as commencement speaker has now entered the immortal realm of the Rorschach Test. Jonah Goldberg has issued a column on the controversy. His opening salvo:
How is academic freedom like Catholicism? Well, if you are a left-wing academic, the answer is obvious: both can be used like a club on people you don’t like.
You can guess where this is going. Before Goldberg lands on his predicable conclusion–
Whether the cudgel is racism, sexism, academic freedom or even Catholicism, the intent is the same: Voices the Left likes are privileged on America’s campuses. Voices the Left dislikes are to be smashed, with whatever tool is available.
–he throws himself a few softballs. Like this one:
When a professor at Columbia University proclaimed that he hoped America suffer from a “million Mogadishus”—referring to the battle made famous by Black Hawk Down—and declared that “the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military,” he was immediately defended by the left on grounds of academic freedom.
What could possibly be different between this scenario and the Rice controversy at BC? Here’s Goldberg’s version of events:
In a letter distributed by the heads of the Catholic school’s theology department and signed by about 200 faculty members, we are informed that, “On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work.” The letter, titled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” cherry-picks quotes from Pope John Paul II to argue that Rice’s policies should disqualify her as a commencement speaker.
Cherry picks quotes from John Paul II? No. The 250-word doesn’t once quote the late pope. More:
One can respect honest disagreement over the Bush administration’s foreign policy. But this high-minded rhetoric is a bit hard to take considering that B.C. is fairly selective about where it will draw such lines. For example, Mary Daly was for decades a distinguished professor at Boston College, despite the fact she exceeds even the right-wing parody of a left-wing academic.
Wrong again. It’s hard to know what Golberg means by “distinguished professor at Boston College.” Daly never held the title of distinguished professor. She was Professor Daly. That’s it. It’s no secret that she was hardly beloved within the BC theology department. Daly went too far out for many theologians, and this ultimately isolated her.
In case you’re interested in reading the actual statement, here it is:
Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a
We, the undersigned members of the faculty at
As a matter of moral principle, Rice maintains that
On the level of practical judgment, Rice has helped develop and implement the strategic policies that have guided the
For these reasons, we object to
References are to Condoleezza Rice, “Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs 79 (Jan./Feb. 2000), and to Pope
The letter doesn’t quote JPII? Not in so many words, but it does use the phrase “the common good of the entire human family” in quotation marks. And JPII did use that phrase. (See here, for example.) He himself was quoting a Vatican II document.
Yes, perhaps John XXIII? Gaudiem et spes? Goldberg gives the impression that the letter is rife with “cherry picked” quotes. That’s simply false.
Is there anything to be said about the Goldberg column other than nitpicking over the number of quotes and noting that Mary Daly didn’t have the title “distinguished? (Which, incidentally, is irrelevant: Goldberg used the word “distinguished” as an adjective, not as a title.)
For instance, let’s stipulate that Condi Rice is opposed to Catholic teaching on just war doctrine. If she were a Catholic, wouldn’t that simply make her a “mature Catholic” or a “thinking” person?
Well, then as an adjective, it’s completely meaningless or contradictory, since he clearly doesn’t think she’s distinguished and her fellow faculty members saw her as isolated.
I’m not sure why you want to stipulate fictive versions of the events in question, Stuart. Why don’t you just show your hand?
Here’s something to say about the column: he confuses the Rice affair with his broad disdain for “the liberal academy.”
I’m not sure what “fictive” “events” you mean.
Anyway, if the dispute over Rice is that she doesn’t adhere to Catholic teaching, my response is: Fine. Let’s assume that she doesn’t. Now in turn, can you explain, as a general principle, why all commencement speakers at a Catholic college are obligated to adhere to Catholic teaching? (Or is the claim that commencement speakers obligated to adhere only to *certain* Catholic teachings? Which ones? And why those, exactly? How do you pick which teachings the speakers must obey?)
For my own part:
1) Commencement speeches: I tend to think that it’s OK to have just about anyone as a commencement speaker, as long as he or she gives a speech that is reasonably short.
2) Honorary degrees — I think these are a sham, and that no one should ever be awarded an honorary degree. (You want a degree: Sign up for classes and pay tuition.)
It’s not so simple, or broad, as divining who’s opposed to “Catholic teaching”–since obviously BC can’t expect all honorees to affirm, for example, transubstantiation. The issue for those who signed the letter is whether it’s a good idea to honor someone who has directly participated in conducting an unjust war.
“The issue for those who signed the letter is whether it’s a good idea to honor someone who has directly participated in conducting an unjust war. ”
Well, yes, it does seem to be the issue. But why? Why is that issue a dividing line? Which other issues would be a dividing line as well?
You seem to be distinguishing between teachings that are purely theological (transsubstantiation) vs. teachings that are moral and that might draw on natural law (just war). Do I read you correctly? If so, are you agreeing, then, that Catholic colleges should not honor people who defend abortion? (Indeed, more justified, given that abortion is not an issue that allows for the exercise of prudential judgment.)
Dividing line? I’m not arguing for universals here, Stuart. What’s completely lost in the debate is the question of material cooperation and the notion of proportionality.
Stuart is saying some excellent things here, e.g. in his 5/11 5:01 post on commencement speeches and honorary degrees. Bravo!
This controversy is all puffed-up show, much ado about very little. The main issue underlying everything is dissent, and inquiry, and whether or not they are going to be tolerated in a Catholic institution that claims to belong to the humanist tradition. “Strict adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church” is not the business of a Catholic university. But listening to everybody, is.
Condoleezza Rice is hardly my favorite person, but I would not protest her speaking at my graduation. As Thomas Aquinas teaches, it is good to learn as much as you can about the way your opponents think. And I would have nothing against her receiving an honorary degree, except that it may look like the Roman Catholic Church is embracing the Bush White House. And who knows, maybe there is some truth in that.
Why the BC powers-that-be invited her in the first place is another story, much deeper than what we have read so far. Surely those who invited her knew it would not sit well with lots of faculty and students.
From what I have heard about Mary Daly, yes she says wild things, now offensive, now liberating; but the only truly destructive thing she has done, with regard to academics, is to prohibit male students from attending some of her courses. I have that on hearsay; I hope she does not still do that. If so, it is remarkable that BC has held on to her for so long. What she says in class, with a crucifix hanging on the wall above her head, is entirely up to her, and she should be allowed to say it.
Catholic universities, anyway, should understand their mission, as both “Catholic” and “universities,” to encourage as much challenging questioning of the status quo, of “received doctrine,” as possible. So if, at commencement, the administration stupidly invites an unwelcome speaker to speak, then the much wiser faculty and students who see through that stupidity should conduct a no less stupid anti-commencement. And if they do it in the wrong place, maybe a few of them will have the great good fortune to be arrested. What wonderful photo-ops for the family album! What stories to tell to the grandkids!
Speakers at Catholic colleges are used to club the other side on the routine. Pro-abortion speakers get denounced by the Catholic right and the university that does so gets denounced as an institution of relativism by ideologues at the Cardinal Newman Society.
That the left plays this similarly is hardly any different a tactic .
On an additional note-while interpreting whether a war is just is prudential, redefining the criteria for a just war is not. This is termed theological development. And this is the foundational nature at the heart of the moral discussion of the Iraq war-that it was a pre-emptive war and as such lacked standards within the context of current just war theory.
So, while the justification of a given war on the grounds of just war theory may be prudential, but the inclusion of new criteria in the just war theory is not. Foundational changes to just war criteria have been proposed. This is not a matter of prudential judgement.
Mr. Goldberg seems to demonstrate a lack of insight into this protest, how this iprotest is mirrored by other protests against pro-abortion speakers at Catholic colleges, how some magisterial voices would suggest that Catholic values should be demonstrated by the awardees at a Catholic institution, and how changes to the criteria of current just war theory constitute a change in Catholic moral law. Mr. Goldberg is trying to frame this protest in a context of secular leftist academic demagoguery and this protest has many more contexts than this.
Mr. Goldberg, as is becoming typical of right wing writers and thinkers, are losing their intellectual edge (which they had until recently). They are currently framing debates to “score points” and as such are mere propagandists for this current administration. He should be berated for his lack of skill in identifying the depth of intellectual nuances in this conflict, rather than shilling for some right-wing speaking positions.