Campus speakers: Double-standard?
Rocco has a Providence Journal story about former GOP congressman (and former Catholic, I believe) and outspoken immigration opponent Tom Tancredo not being allowed to speak at Dominican-run Providence College.
A PC spokesperson, Pat Viera, indicated the student group asked late in the semester and that the groups, ”Youth for Western Civilization” (need we know more?) is “not an officially recognized group.” Vieira added that Tancredo’s views on immigrants, legal or not, contrast sharply with those of Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin (who is having no problem generating his own headlines):
“The Bishop of Providence…is a member of the college’s Board of Trustees,” Vieira said in a written statement. “If a similar request to host a speaker on this topic is made in a future semester, the college will encourage and facilitate a format that allows for multiple points of view to be expressed.”
Tancredo will apparently give his speech outside the college gates tomorrow (Wednesday), but anti-illegal immigration advocates are angry and note that abortion rights advocates Senators Ted Kennedy and Sheldon Whitehouse have spoken on campus.
I don’t know when or in what context Kennedy and Whitehouse may have come to PC, but the problem with that argument–and one that points up an important aspect of the Obama-Notre Dame furor–is that I doubt the senators went to Providence College to promote their views on abortion rights, unlike Tancredo, who was coming specifically to promote his views on immigration. Similarly, Obama is not going to Notre Dame to promote the view that abortion is fine. This all raises the issue of whether one particular opinion or policy position–out of many–can disqualify a person from speaking or being honored at a Catholic campus, especially is it is for an entirely different issue than the one Catholic officials would object to.
That said, my preference is for open debate, and all things being equal, it would be good to have Tancredo’s views, noxious as I find them, out there and discussed in light of Catholic teaching, as Viera indicated they could be. Double-standard? Not.
Perhaps not a double standard, but it does demonstrate that there may be a more charitable explanation for the controversy than that the bishops are the sacramental wing of the Republican Party.
It is true that President Obama is not coming to Notre Dame specifically to advocate for abortion, and Tancredo’s prominence is much more directly linked to his views on immigration than President Obama’s are to abortion and embryonic research. But I think it would be foolish to deny that part of the reason President Obama accepted this particular invitation is that it sends a message that his policies are somewhat compatible with Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
I’m not positive Obama should not have been invited, and I agree that Tancredo is more of a clear-cut case. But I think this demonstrates that there could be pure motivations for those who object.
John McG’s take seem right to me, but I’d say that I don’t think the bishops are being consciously partisan in their opposition to Obama, though certainly some may be, to one degree or another. It could indeed be argued that they are not being political (not partisan) enough in that they are restricting themselves (or say they are) to stating a principle–abortion is bad–rather than advocating a political or policy position that would seek to put that principle into practice. By stopping with the principle, they conciously or unconsciusly endorse the GOP anti-Roe position, and exclude all other approaches. That winds up having a partisan effect, if it is not intended that way.
I also agree with John McG’s analysis.
David, you wrote, “[The US bishops] are restricting themselves (or say they are) to stating a principle–abortion is bad–rather than advocating a political or policy position that would seek to put that principle into practice. By stopping with the principle, they conciously or unconsciusly endorse the GOP anti-Roe position, and exclude all other approaches. That winds up having a partisan effect, if it is not intended that way.”
Are you aware that the bishops do advocate and lobby for specific laws and policies?
The GOP in the past has concsciously sought to align their views with the church, although the GOP has never been univocal on abortion, and in light of the drubbing they suffered, it’s not clear by any means that they will continue that alignment.
“The reason President Obama accepted this particular invitation is that it sends a message that his policies are somewhat compatible with Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.”
Can we deny that a large number of his policies (stated and yet to be adopted) are indeed compatible with Christianity and Catholicism in particular? His positions on torture, healthcare, the poor … all good Catholic positions. He is in disagreement on abortion and ESCR as we all know.
Does this mean that a singular position should disqualify him from speaking at UND as opposed to the many positions compatible with the church? And lest we forget, his position on the freedom of choice is THE reason being given for his being cast in many Catholic circles as the spawn of Satan.
Tancredo was to present his views on immigration. Obama is not going to? Well, Fr. Jenkins says he may well, in fact he may be intended to–it’s part of dialogue on this and other issues says Fr. Jenkins and even says the White House, dialogue that was going to be balanced by Glendon until yesterday. So which is it–dialogue or not addressing that issue at all? And Mario Cuomo did come to ND to present his defense of “pro-choice” legal and policy views. No double standard at all? Come on. An entire lecture series on communitarianism, presenting different views, was ejected from Catholic U at the last minute merely because E Michael Jones was on one panel of one night of events. Please don’t tell us there’s no left-leaning bias on Catholic campuses, you have more credible things to say than that. Liberal campus decision makers are hard line purists when speakers are conservative and are academic freedom champions otherwise, and if you say conservatives are the same then fine, but it doesn’t help to perpetuate that polarization.
Speakers come in different contexts–Tancredo was more there for his problematic position than Obama may be (or maybe not), but, Obama is being honored and Tancredo was not, and Obama is university sponsored and Tancredo was sponsored by one student viewpoint, and abortion is killing the innocent by the millions whereas immigration policy, even at worst which I will grant you, does not approach that level of injustice.
The bishops should be given that credit for trying a neutral approach–no honors regardless of the content of that speech, but it’s OK to have debates. If Obama was coming to debate I would have no problem with it and this would simply not be the controversy it is. In fact, here is a way for Jenkins to resolve this situation without disinviting Obama–actually turn commencement into a debate, a very civil, polite debate, but a real and true debate (or call it “dialogue” if that is more palatable), with someone of the caliber of George or Arkes on the other side. Make idialogue real, not just an empty talking point.
David G.,
Thanks for posting this story about my Alma Mater. I agree with you and John McG that this story is different from ND, though it sheds some light on the motivation of the bishops, who only silly people think are the Republican Party at prayer.
You are absolutely correct that Kennedy and Whitehouse were not invited to speak about abortion. In fact, I don’t think Ted Kennedy has spoken at PC in a long time. More likely, the person quoted is really thinking of Patrick Kennedy, Ted’s son, a RI Congressman, and PC alum, who has spoken at PC many times, though never about abortion.
Also, the name “Youth for Western Civilization” may refer to PC’s core curriculum, which requires a two year course on Western Civ, which has recently undergone some reforms. Perhaps the group was started in relation to debate on those reforms, and then got involved with Tancredo. My point is that the name does not necessarily mean that the students think illegal immigrants will destroy civilization.
I was wrong. Youth for Western Civilization is a national anti-immigrant group:
http://www.westernyouth.org/Join/index.htm
I’m fairly certain they will never get official recognition from PC.
Double standards …. not just for campus speakers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/the-president-and-the-fel_b_192389.html
“This all raises the issue of whether one particular opinion or policy position…”
Abortion is not, however, just any policy position.
This is the real problem with Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment,” at least as actually applied by many Catholics today: When all issues are important, none are. And you pick which ones you want to emphasize and hope the running total is reasonably high enough.
President Obama holds the most radically anti-life position of any U.S. president – this is beyond dispute, whatever Doug Kmiec (with all due respect) thinks. Whatever policies he may espouse that are more congruent with Church teaching (and they do exist) simply can’t offset that: Most are policies with prudential aspects, whereas the taking of innocent human life, through abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, or infants allowed to expire after failed abortions, is always, always intrinsically grave evil.
And this is a matter of natural law, not a specifically Catholic dogma or discipline. No one expects Obama to agree with every single Church teaching, and no previous president I know of has, either. But his position on life issues is a grave affront to human dignity, one which does not require you to be Catholic or even Christian to draw offense.
But having said that, I see no objection to inviting Obama to a dialogue on Catholic campuses on these issues. It could even be a fruitful occasion. To honor him, however, sans dialogue, is much harder to justify.
I don’t know about “Youth For Western Civilization” (I could have sworn Latin America was part of that rubric, but what do I know?) but Congressman Tancredo’s views on immigration, while not relating to an intrinsic evil, seem hard to square with Church teaching or, indeed, the virtue of charity. I could see allowing him to campus to exchange views on this topic, but I don’t second guess Providence if they decide otherwise.