Comments

1. Bob Schwartz 05/01/2010 - 12:26 pm  subscriber

   I wonder how all the massacred unborn infants view Father Jenkins’ statement. But I suppose Commonweal readers would consider my question jejune, eh?

2. Cathleen Kaveny 05/01/2010 - 12:34 pm  contributor

   Well, I think the article makes it clear that Fr. Jenkins made ample allowances for pro-life speech, and for protests that would be safe.

3. Tim Lacy 05/01/2010 - 12:52 pm

   Dear Bob: What a ridiculous piece of commentary. You’re among brothers and sisters here at Commonweal who believe—probably at a 99% clip—that life begins at conception. So if anything is “jejune,” it’s snark on anything to do with the (mere) politics of protest on how to protect the unborn. In your heart of hearts, do you really think that Fr. Jenkins, or anyone at Notre Dame, does not care more than the average American about protecting the unborn? Really? I think your energy would be better spent elsewhere—just about anywhere else. – Tim

4. Nancy Danielson 05/01/2010 - 2:11 pm

   If it is true that the University of Notre Dame was passionate about the Pro-Life cause, why was there no official statement reflecting the University’s passion for the Life of every Human Individual from the moment of Conception until well after the Commencement address by President Obama?

5. Nancy Danielson 05/01/2010 - 2:14 pm

   Since Commonweal professes to be Catholic, why have they not made an official statement supporting the protection of the fundamental Right to Life of every Human Individual from the moment of Conception?

6. ed gleason 05/01/2010 - 2:15 pm

   This issue is a dead horse… something like ‘drill baby drill’

7. Bob Schwartz 05/01/2010 - 6:17 pm  subscriber

   I have to agree with Nancy Danielson’s questions, as regards both Notre Dame and Commonweal. Where is the passion? Passion demonstrates where the heart is.

8. Cathleen Kaveny 05/01/2010 - 6:25 pm  contributor

   No, here’s the question, Bob. If Notre Dame bent over backward to make sure that anyone who wanted to protest Obama had ample opportunity to do so in a SAFE way, why should any slack at all be cut for protestors who, put themselves ABOVE the clear procedures designed to protect the well-being of the thousands of graduates, family members, and others on campus this weekend?

   Do you want to make this group of pro-life protestors heroes because they refused to follow the procedures clearly explained, clearly provided for, and easily followed by the vast majority of prolifers who disagreed with the Obama invitation?

   This is what really troubles me–the pro-life sense that because the cause is just, they are above even reasonable laws for health and safety.

9. Ann Olivier 05/01/2010 - 7:31 pm  subscriber

   There are such things as fanatics, and the radical pro-lifers have their share in abundance. I mean the sort who kill to stop killing babies. Totally irrational, and so they do great harm to the cause.

   Granted, the ND radicals didn’t kill anybody, but they are extremists who think they are above the law. They too do more harm than good.

10. Gabrielle Speach 05/01/2010 - 7:55 pm

    I commend Father Jenkins for affirming the University’s pro-life position while Notre Dame continues to press charges against the protestors. Nevertheless, as a student at Notre Dame and the Editor-in-Chief of The Irish Rover, a student newspaper, I respectfully observe that the statement does not address a problematic issue. While Father Jenkins’ statement emphasizes that the University must show consistency in its policy against trespassing, the University has shown inconsistency in pressing charges against the “ND88,” as the Obama protestors are now labeled. In March 2007, members of Soulforce, a group that advocates religious freedom for gays and lesbians, were arrested for trespassing on Notre Dame’s campus. Later that month, members of an anti-ROTC group known as the Catholic Workers were also arrested on the same charges. Research shows that these charges were later dropped.

    I wrote an investigative editorial on this discovery in The Irish Rover’s final issue. I cite the relevant paragraphs below. The full PDF file of the issue can be viewed at http://www.irishrover.net/PDFs/2010-2011/Volume8Issue1.pdf. Please see page 2 for the editorial.

    ‘A recent discovery, published by the Sycamore Trust in their latest bulletin, undermines the University’s consistency in enforcing this policy [against trespassing]. In March 2007, two other outside groups protested on Notre Dame’s campus. Members of these groups were also arrested. Unlike the ND88, these members were released from any charges.

    The first group, known as Soulforce, travels on a distinctive “Equality Ride” to protest discrimination against homosexuality on college campuses (often those with Christian or Catholic affiliations). The group describes their vision as one of “freedom from religious and political oppression for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, & Questioning People.” I spoke with Bill Carpenter and Jessica Kalup, two members of the Soulforce group that visited Notre Dame.

    Kalup informed me that while the group was allowed to enter the Notre Dame campus, they were prohibited from distributing literature or demonstrating in any building besides LaFortune Student Center. When students began to request literature, members of the group handed out information. Additionally, Eddie Velasquez, an openly gay Notre Dame student who spent time with the group during their two days on campus, set up an impromptu panel discussion.

    On the second day of the Equality Ride’s visit to Notre Dame, six Riders and Velasquez marched onto campus intending to carry a wreath to the Tom Dooley memorial. (According to the Soulforce website, Dooley was a homosexual military hero who was discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.) Two Riders were immediately arrested by Notre Dame Security Police (NDSP), and the other four were arrested when they informed NDSP personnel that they would continue to carry the wreath to the memorial.

    Kalup informed me that the Riders were processed on campus, where NDSP took the group’s mug shots. The police issued citations to each member of the group, but these citations differed from those the group received on other campuses. Standard citations show a follow-up date, as well as a phone number and a courthouse to contact. Notre Dame’s citations did not have a follow-up date or a phone number, but informed those arrested to return to the Court “when notified.”

    Discussing the arrests, Bill Carpenter said, “What happened after that was that nothing happened after that.” He added, “It was as though the citations had been written but never actually filed.” None of the group members were ever told to return to the Court.

    The second group to protest on the University’s campus in March 2007 was an anti-ROTC group known as the Catholic Workers. I spoke to Father Jim Murphy, a member of the group who traveled to Notre Dame to protest the ROTC program. According to an Observer article from the time of the protest, about twenty members from the group came to campus. The group was unable to obtain a permit for a demonstration. Fr. Murphy commented, “It was hard to do anything legal because permission was not granted.”

    Fr. Murphy told me one member of the group was detained and taken immediately to jail. After that member was released, neither he nor any of the other protestors were further prosecuted. Murphy said he was told not to return to campus. He received a letter saying that if he returned he would be liable to arrest and prosecution.

    Given the inconsistency between dropping charges against members of Soulforce and the Catholic Workers’ group and pressing charges against the ND88, what will happen to the ND88 now?’

    Father Jenkins says in his new statement, “The University cannot have one set of rules for causes we oppose, and another more lenient set of rules for causes we support. We have one consistent set of rules for demonstrations on campus – no matter what the cause.” I agree that the ND88’s pro-life position should not require the University to drop the charges. At the same time, I do not believe the ND88 or any illegal demonstrators at Notre Dame should fall victim to a prosecution policy against trespassers that appears to be arbitrary.

11. Jean Raber 05/01/2010 - 8:57 pm  subscriber

    Gabrielle, interesting info, indeed. have any school officials responded to your information?

    It strikes me that these three examples you cite are not completely parallel.

    Trespasser/protesters might be treated with some leniency for appearing on a normal school day.

    Trespasser/protesters bringing a high level of vitriol to campus on a very volatile issue for the appearance of a president (who receives a much higher-than-average number of death threats than other presidents have done) strikes me as a somewhat different matter.

    I’m not sure Fr. Jenkins speaks to that in his statement, as you fairly point out, and I think you raise a fair question in your editorial. But I see a fair amount of difference between the two 2007 groups you cite and those protesting the Obama speech.

12. Cecilia 05/01/2010 - 9:16 pm

    Jean, can you substantiate your claim that President Obama “receives a much higher-than-average number of death threats than other presidents have done”?

    Obviously, different circumstances surrounded all three cases. However, I believe the question Gabrielle is asking is how Fr. Jenkins can fairly say, “We have one consistent set of rules for demonstrations on campus – no matter what the cause.” when the policy appears to admit significantly more flexibility.

13. Barbara 05/01/2010 - 10:13 pm

    In all cases, ND had the protesters removed. How do you know the prosecutor isn’t setting the terms of the deal here, given the overall difference from the prosecutor’s perspective? One big difference is, simply, the number of people involved (by Gabrielle’s report). A larger number of people is more intimidating and harder to deal with. The disruption and the resources required to deal with it are usually much greater.

    Another is, by Cathy’s report, the duration of the lawbreaking — it sounds as if the trespassing occurred numerous times before people were actually arrested. Did the other groups (anti-ROTC or gay rights) engage in sustained protests or return after having been arrested?

    And, again, if you read the Jenkins statement, there appears to be willingness to drop charges for those with no criminal record — in exchange for getting agreement not to break the law, etc. Do you know this DIDN’T happen in the other cases? Maybe those people simply had no problem with agreeing to those terms. Why do the ND88?

14. Bob Schwartz 05/01/2010 - 10:52 pm  subscriber

    Kathleen: You said,
    Do you want to make this group of pro-life protestors heroes because they refused to follow the procedures clearly explained, clearly provided for, and easily followed by the vast majority of prolifers who disagreed with the Obama invitation?
    Then are you saying that civil disobedience is only a good thing when the disobeyers are on your side? Otherwise they are “disturbing” someone? Maybe someone needs disturbing, as for instance the Selma march. I’m sure you remember that.

15. Mark Gordon 05/01/2010 - 11:09 pm

    This issue is a dead horse …

    No, Ed. The issue is dead human beings.

16. Cathleen Kaveny 05/02/2010 - 8:04 am  contributor

    I think Jean is right–there are tremendous differences between the cases that have nothing to do with viewpoint.
    First, the number of the protestors. Thousands of pro-life protestors were predicted at one point–more than the police could handle.
    Second, the length of the protest.
    Third, the credible threat of widespread disruption. Randall Terry of Operation Rescue promised to make the campus a “circus.” http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/2.2754/we-will-make-this-a-circus-1.255283
    Fourth, personal threats of violence against ND officials–and the presence of the president.
    Fifth, the event. ND graduation has thousands of people who belong there–who were invited there, who are vulnerable themselves. Grandmothers. Babies. Pregnant women. All were on campus for their relatives graduating. ND had an obligation to protect them.
    If you adjust for the situation, it’s pretty clear that the pro-lifers weren’t treated differently based on their viewpoint–but based on a reasonable assessment of the threat they posed to people on campus.

    Bob, the Selma March took place on a public street===not on private property. And the civil rights protestors tried very hard to get a permit to protest legally. They didn’t get one. The pro-life protestors on campus were given ample opportunity to make their point.

    One other thing. I do think all of this will come out in discovery. It will be harmful to the reputation of the pro-life movement. But having taken the case, the ethical obligation of the lawyers for the ND88 is to represent THEM now, even at the expense of the movement. And I’m sure they know that.

17. Jean Raber 05/02/2010 - 10:07 am  subscriber

    Cecilia,

    Washington Post reporter Ronald Kessler’s book, “In the President’s Secret Service” (2009) claims that Obama receives 30 death threats per day (that would amount to 10,950 per year), while President George W. Bush received about 3,000 per year.

    Kessler is a reliable source, having covered the FBI, Secret Service and homeland security issues for decades.

    According to U.S. News and World Report, in 2008, candidate Obama also received Secret Service protection earlier than most political candidates due to higher than usual death threats. This is corroborated by the Secret Service, according to U.S. News and World Report:

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whisp
    ers/2009/08/17/secret-service-opens-up-on-protecting-obama-mccain

    Secret Service Chief Mark Sullivan said in late March of this year that there was a “surge” in threats on Inauguration Day, but that threats have been declining and now are “on par” with those of other presidents.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/24/secret-service-threats-against-obama-declining

    One assumes the threats were still higher than average a year ago When Obama spoke at Notre Dame.

    Moreover, the abortion issue seems to be a hot button issue that increases death threats. Politico (ironically on the same day that U.S. News report said overall threats against he president were declining), that anti-abortionists had issued death threats against Reps. Bart Stupak and Louise Slaughter. Stupak and Slaughter held out against the health care bill until Obama agreed to sign an executive order saying the federal ban against paying for abortions would stand.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34907.html

    ABC also reported incidents of calls for an Obama assassination on Twitter, two of which are being investigated by the feds, after the bill was signed.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/health-care-bill-spurs-assassination-calls-twitter/story?id=10170233&page=1

18. Jean Raber 05/02/2010 - 10:15 am  subscriber

    Cecilia, (separate post cuz the one above was gettin’ too long), yes, I think Gabrielle makes a fair point about Father Jenkins’s statement; her investigation seems to show that policies were NOT applied consistently.

    On the other hand, my guess is that Secret Service/FBI protocols might trump those of the Notre Dame campus cops when it comes to processing demonstrators at a presidential event. To what extent was Notre Dame alone allowed to deal with the demonstrators at the Obama event? Those kinds of things are extremely hard to ferret out of law enforcement.

19. Jean Raber 05/02/2010 - 10:21 am  subscriber

    One final general P.S., and then I’ll shut up:

    I don’t think Catholics, who, for the most part, eschew capital punishment as part of a consistent ethic of life, understand that other pro-life proponents view abortion as murder and support the death penalty for it.

    As I do so often, I wish some of you Catholics could spend an afternoon with my right-wing Baptist in-laws how talk happily about “frying” abortionists and women who kill their babies after asking their meal to be blessed by Our Lord the Prince of Peace.

    I can hardly stand it.

20. Cathleen Kaveny 05/02/2010 - 10:23 am  contributor

    Jean, I guess I don’t see how the pro-life protestors were treated worse than the others, even prescinding from context. I think Gabrielle’s account strengthens the claim of the university.

    The gay rights protestors were immediately arrested–No prior warning. According to Fr. John’s statement, the pro-life protestors were repeatedly warned before being arrested. So far from being discriminated against, the pro-life people had the chance to avoid the whole criminal scene first, without even being arrested. The gay rights protestors got their leniency AFTER booking, so to speak.

    The Anti-ROTC group, in my view, was treated even worse. They weren’t even given a legal avenue to protest on campus–no permission to state their viewpoint was forthcoming. Whereas, the University bent over backward to give the pro-life group reasonable and safe opportunities to protest on campus. What they weren’t free to do was to roam around as they liked.

21. ed gleason 05/02/2010 - 10:26 am

    Mark Gordon; the issue I referred to is the ‘honorary’ degree which now resides in Virginia document dump. get over it.

22. Mark Proska 05/02/2010 - 12:16 pm  subscriber

    Ed–

    Minor point, but according to the latest issue of Commonweal, Father Drinan used his receipt of honorary degrees from Catholic universities as a sign that his pro-aborton views did put him outside the Catholic mainstream. So apparently they are worth something more than the paper they are written on.

23. Mark Proska 05/02/2010 - 12:17 pm  subscriber

    Oops, meant to say did NOT put him outside the Catholic mainstream.

24. Jean Raber 05/02/2010 - 2:01 pm  subscriber

    Cathleen, not sure it’s a matter of being treated “worse,” but if Gabrielle is correct (and my understanding of the situation is accurate), charges were dropped for the other two groups, but apparently charges are still pending for the ND88.

25. Cathleen Kaveny 05/02/2010 - 3:28 pm  contributor

    Yes. But if the other protestors had persisted in trying to get on campus after being repeatedly warned in the same way the prolifers had been warned, they likely wouldn’t have been, in my view. They didn’t KEEP trying to get on campus after having been stopped by the police.

    It seems that the pro-lifers were repeat offenders on campus.

    I don’t understand why they don’t take the deal offered by the prosecutor.

26. Barbara 05/02/2010 - 4:38 pm

    A well organized group of close to a hundred people repeatedly trespass and are told how and where they can protest and then, after ignoring numerous warnings, are finally arrested. This compares to the single, impromptu and fleeting excess of a small group whose legal protest goes beyond what was permitted, or was never given permission to begin with and never returns after being told to stop. The difference is obvious, I submit even without the presence of the president or the heightened difficulty of maintaining order (and a pleasant experience for graduates) with so many visitors during graduation week.

    If you really can’t see the difference, I am giving free career counseling: don’t become a prosecutor — you are likely to anger everyone in sight.

    Seriously, even if ND were a state actor, a dubious proposition, states can set reasonable time place and manner restrictions on speech — and in this case, a time, place and manner were made available to the pro-life protesters. They still could have been arrested without having their rights violated. It’s the anti-ROTC whose rights were violated in that scenario, because the “state actor” did not set “viewpoint neutral” limits on their ability to protest, even if the charges were dropped. So if ND was not “evenhanded” it was not evenhanded in a way that should have benefited the ND88, if they had not proven themselves too clever by half by continuously ignoring warnings to relocate their protest.

27. Michael 05/02/2010 - 7:03 pm

    Dead babies? No one here supports that. But some support the notion that differences of opinion are inevitable, and that the search for common ground should prevail. I think ND handled this controversy intelligently,

28. Nancy Danielson 05/02/2010 - 11:20 pm

    Perhaps you can explain how one finds common ground on a Truth that is self-evident, to begin with?

29. David Nickol 05/03/2010 - 6:06 am  subscriber

    Perhaps you can explain how one finds common ground on a Truth that is self-evident, to begin with?

    You gather together people with different self-evident Truths and get them to talk to each other and work something out.

30. David Nickol 05/03/2010 - 8:14 am  subscriber

    Perhaps you can explain how one finds common ground on a Truth that is self-evident, to begin with?

    You fight a revolutionary war based on the premise that all men are created equal, and then you work out a compromise in your constitution that, without mentioning them explicitly, counts a slave as three-fifths of a person.

    You write that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and then you own slaves and take one as your mistress.

31. Jean Raber 05/03/2010 - 10:24 am  subscriber

    Barbara/Cathleen, thanks for clarifying the repeated trespassing.

    Also thanks to the belated career advice from Barbara, but I’m not looking to change fields, just retiring.

32. Barbara 05/03/2010 - 10:44 am

    Jean, I think you would make a great prosecutor!

33. Cathleen Kaveny 05/03/2010 - 10:48 am  contributor

    Yes. You might want to consider going to law school rather than retiring– I think you’d find it a lot of fun!

    Just like blogging–but you could make money down the road!

34. Jean Raber 05/03/2010 - 12:15 pm  subscriber

    Barbara/Cathleen, over the years, many have suggested I am already a good persecutor and, unlike a law degree, that’s a natural talent that requires no tuition payments.

    In fact, if you come over to my house right now, where Raber is installing a garage door I’ve been bugging him about for about two years (with a fair amount of gratuitous hammering), he’d probably be glad to speak to my skills in this area.

    At least I didn’t have to get out the comfy chair. This time.

35. Jean Raber 05/03/2010 - 12:17 pm  subscriber

    That’s gratuitous hammering on HIS part out there in the garage. If you’re a really good persecutor, you need not resort to actual hammers, just a ratchet jaw.

36. Michael 05/03/2010 - 4:21 pm

    The protesters were not violent – Fr. Jenkins should be a decent human being and fight to stop this prosecution that he started – what an unbelievably hard-headed man.

37. David Nickol 05/03/2010 - 6:39 pm  subscriber

    The protesters were not violent – Fr. Jenkins should be a decent human being and fight to stop this prosecution that he started – what an unbelievably hard-headed man.

    Michael,

    What lesson will that send the next time protesters are intent on breaking the law? When you try to get arrested, how can you claim it is unfair to be prosecuted?

38. Eric Bugyis 05/03/2010 - 7:28 pm  subscriber

    If they really believe in the cause, the ND protesters should stop whining and go to jail like true non-violent radicals. But, I guess that might interfere with picking up the kids from soccer practice.

39. Nancy Danielson 05/04/2010 - 9:12 am

    Least we be “inwardly paralyzed” regarding a Miscarriage of Justice:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

    This is a Miscarriage of Justice:

    http://www.renewamerica.com/article/100430

    This is a Miscarriage of Justice:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/notre-dame/video-of-elderl.html

40. Cathleen Kaveny 05/04/2010 - 9:30 am  contributor

    You know, about video. I think I saw one just like it being staged on Notre Dame Avenue. And I mean staged. The priest was carefully lowered to his knees by his companions. He was filmed saying the rosary as background shots. The police as far as I can tell, were called. And I think the point was that he was filmed being taken away, although by that time I had gone on my way.

    The purpose of the event, as far as I could tell, wasn’t the protest itself. It was to create a montage that could be used for publicity purposes.

    I was rather taken aback when I saw it, but then I realized I was being too naive. This is the television and the youtube age. Reality tv isn’t reality. What they wanted all along was that shot. They got it. It’s very good.

    Nancy, bottom line: Prolifers are not above the law And to the extent that the message you’re trying to get across is that they are, I think it’s correspondingly important for the prosecutors to make it clear that they’re not.

41. Nancy Danielson 05/04/2010 - 10:00 am

    Justice requires The Truth of Love. Justice does not reside above The Law but rather within The Law. Those who are with Christ cannot be against Him, simultaneously.

42. Michael 05/04/2010 - 10:26 am

    Don’t try this argument that the law must be enforced at all times in order to be an effective law. That is just not true when it comes to minor offenses. It’s not the way it works. Judgements are made all the time about who and who not to prosecute, even though they technically broke the law – one person may get a ticket, while the other person may not, etc. The enforcement of this law right now is for show. Fr. Jenkins does not have to do this to make his point. And a better point would be made if he made every effort to stop this prosecution and show how welcoming ND can be to others. This is pure stubborness.

43. Bob Nunz 05/04/2010 - 12:14 pm

    I’m surprised this thread has gone on as I think Cathy has tried patiently to explain from close up the dynamics, but continues to get objections from defenders of the staged event, for example.
    I think it’s still another event that part of the pro-lfe movement wants to use that says the way they see the movement is the way -and I think, even if they pour live coals on my head or Nancy sends several more non-sequitur posts, that that approach is counterproductive to the pro life cause.

44. Nancy Danielson 05/04/2010 - 12:49 pm

    I suppose one could also argue that if they saw the Pro-Life demonstrators as a real “threat”
    then why did they not cancel the invitation to President Obama to give his monologue and receive an honorary degree at The University of Notre Dame’s Commencement?

45. William H. Dempsey 05/04/2010 - 8:25 pm  subscriber

    Whatever similarities and differences third parties might perceive between the ND 88 on the one hand and the pro-gay and anti-military protesters on the other, the fact is that the University has not explained its position in this way. Rather, Father Jenkins continues to insist that it treats all demonstrators the same and that it is this principle that it is applying in supporting the prosecution of the ND 88. The University’s response to Sycamore Trusts request for comment upon its discovery of these prior incidents was: “We have decided to discontinue communication with you on this subject.” And although Father Jenkins’s statement was published in the South Bend Tribune together with the Tribune investigatory report confirming Sycamore Trust’s findings, the statement contained not a word about those findings. The University’s reason, accordingly remains a mystery. If it is to punish — the subject of many of the postings — then let the University say so. The question would be why that is not the province of the prosecutor rather than the University. The University’s legitimate interest in maintaining order was secured and the event is long past. But of course an appeal to equal treatment as requiring support of the prosecutions of pro-life advocates even though, the University says, it agrees with their cause is a good deal more appealing than a desire to punish them.

    On a very peripheral matter, the Soulforce demonstrators were warned the first day and were arrested when they returned the second and refused to leave the campus.

46. Cathleen Kaveny 05/04/2010 - 8:36 pm  contributor

    Mr. Dempsey, I’m quite sure the University’s lawyers –both inside counsel and external counsel– will deal with the matter appropriately.

    I must say I am quite surprised with the fact that the Sycamore Trust, which states its purpose is to promote the distinctive Catholic identity of Notre Dame, is so sanguine about a legal strategy on behalf of ND 88 which would treat ND as a state actor. And that’s the point with which I began the post.

47. William H. Dempsey 05/04/2010 - 9:44 pm  subscriber

    Where did you ever get the idea that Sycamore Trust has any view on defense counsel’s legal strategy, Dr. Kaveny? We don’t represent the defendants in any respect, and I can assure you that I know far too little about either the facts or the law to have a personal opinion about the merits of either the defendants’ or the prosecutor’s cases. Nor do I have any idea whether your analysis is well grounded.

    Personally, I would much rather there had been no demonstrations, since they drained all media attention away from the moving Mass and Rally on the quad. We passed along to our subscribers the Bishop’s advice not to participate in any disruptive demonstrations.

    This is not to say that I do not honor the demonstrators for their passion and their self-sacrifice in the cause of life, for I do. They have given much more than I ever will. But our interest in this matter is entirely what we conceive to be the best interests of the University, not of the defendants. If the prosecutor were to determine it to be in the public interest to prosecute these cases even if the University were to recommend dismissal, we would have nothing at all to say. That’s his responsibility, not the University’s and most certainly not ours.

    As to the University, it properly secured order, its primary interest, and now Its position as to the ND 88, as I’m sure you know, is further darkening its reputation in the pro-life community and undermining its post-Obama efforts to show that it is pro-life after all. That seems to us to be most undesirable in terms of the Catholic identity of the University and ought be avoided in the absence of a compelling reason. If there is such a reason, as I have said, the University in my view most certainly does not provide it by relying upon an equal treatment that runs aground on the facts.

48. Cathleen Kaveny 05/04/2010 - 10:43 pm  contributor

    I got the idea from your own press release, which seems to me to echo and support the viewpoint discrimination argument of the defense; and does not clearly distance itself from the incorporation of that argument into a claim that ND is a state actor which is unjustified in committing viewpoint discrimination. You link to an article that talks about their defense. I would have expected, given the obvious deleterious implications the defense line of “state actorhood” would have for ND’s Catholic character, that you would distance yourself from that line. I was surprised you didn’t. So I assumed you didn’t object to it–which puzzled me. If the defense wins on that line (which I doubt), ND’s ability to protect its Catholic character will be eroded.

    http://www.projectsycamore.com/bulletins/100418.php

    Alas, I am now of the opinion that there is no single, unified pro-life community. Nor do I think the way for ND to go is to gear its activities toward the most extreme elements such as Randall Terry and his associated protestors.

49. William H. Dempsey 05/05/2010 - 9:20 pm  subscriber

    Well, as I said, you were wrong. We brought the facts we unearthed to the attention of the University immediately and then to our subscribers when the University responded by cutting off communications. In our view these facts in combination with the University’s contrary stance respecting the ND 88 reflect on the University’s Catholic identity. We are certainly not going to suppress facts that we have bootlessly brought to the University’s attention for fear that they may have some collateral effect in an area in which we are not involved on a complex issue we know nothing about. Let the University change course and eliminate the risk.

    Along that line, if you think there is a risk the University might lose on this issue, this would seem to be reason for your joining us in urging that the University get rid of these cases. What’s the counterbalancing advantage of persisting? Your discussing this contention at all, even while saying you doubt its chances, gives it some purchase, at least with me.

    So far as Randall Terry’s bloviation is concerned, the wind didn’t topple anything. He stepped a few yards onto campus weeks before graduation, was arrested, and that’s the last time he set foot on ND property. We’re talking about the ND 88, not Terry and his few associates who are represented by ACLJ, not the ND 88′s lawyers. But if the prosecutor thinks that his or anyone else’s actions were egregious and ought be prosecuted in the public interest, by all means he should do it and Notre Dame should of course cooperate. The only question is whether ND should tell him that as landowner it is content for him to drop the cases.

50. Cathleen Kaveny 05/05/2010 - 9:32 pm  contributor

    Mr. Dempsey, we’ll have to see how things play out. I am quite confident that ND’s lawyers will handle the matter appropriately, in a manner consistent with the larger vision set by the Administration and the Trustees.

51. William H. Dempsey 05/06/2010 - 6:45 am  subscriber

    Indeed we will, Dr. Kaveny. And as a professional courtesy I always assume beforehand, at least, that attorneys will do the right thing. As to the larger vision of those in governance, I’m sure you will agree that we will know what it is by the actions they take rather than by the words they utter.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment