Scott Nearing Award

In the UPenn political science department there is an lecture presented by the graduate students (it used to be an award, but contention ensued) on the subject if academic freedom. Past lectures were given by Peter Singer, Juan Cole, and Joseph Massed, and while Singer was well received the selection of Massed and Cole (especially the former) was controversial (see above, now a lecture not an award).

The spirit has always been to invite scholars, whether we agree with them or not, who have faced institutional resistance for their academic work. The last three have tended to be on the left, although both Singer and Massed are difficult to place, and the department seems interested in balancing this out.

So I'd like to suggest Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois Urban, who was let go because he apparently taught that the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is that it's immoral. I say apparently because the student complaint suggested explicitly that he was not simply teaching this but suggesting that the students were not in a position to argue otherwise. The "he said, she said" quality to these disputes make this award/lecture kind of a mug's game.

Nonetheless, teachers should be able to express their views, even when hateful, so long as they don't create an environment that is itself destructive to learning and civil engagement. Where that line is tends to be the focal point of dispute in these cases. And so while I strongly disagree with Kenneth Howell and believe that his understanding of natural law is facile, he might nevertheless make a reasonable conservative candidate for giving the lecture.

But one thing he said struck me as deeply problematic:

"All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions."

This is a remarkably aristocratic position in regards to how questions of moral controversy should be resolved. In order to make an informed decision you must (1) have done extensive research on homosexuality, and (2) be cognizant of the history of moral thought? This implies that the question should be left to the smallest coterie of dedicated scholars. It is the hyper professionalization of morality. And apparently the rest of us are supposed to wait and hope for a consensus to emerge from the moral aristocrats and then follow their decision.

In practice he is setting up a standard which his students can't meet, asking them in the process to ignore the wisdom of their friends, family, priests (few priests know the history of moral thought in its entirety, let alone have extensively researched homosexuality), and their own sense of right and wrong. He will be the only one in the room, and possibly in the students' circle whose position will have met the necessary standard.

He was silenced for his views and as such is a valid candidate for a lecture on institutional residence to controversial opinions in the academy. But his subsequent comments suggest that frank debate and discussion was being ruled out by a presumption of aristocratic authority. And I would like to hear him speak so I could ask whether he would disagree with my characterization of his position and see whether he would defend it. A democratization of morality, not in the sense of majority rule but in the equal opportunity for each individual to question for themselves the authority of moral commands, is one of the great achievements of the last five hundred years, and is worth defending in the various moments, small and large, in which it is questioned.

 http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free