More professors speak out about recent tension at AC

This academic year, Assumption College has engaged with important issues of free speech, the meaning and role of the Catholic intellectual traditions in an Assumption education, and the value and definition of a liberal arts education. These are important matters, and we agree with the authors of the article in the 2/20 Le Provocateur ("Professors speak out") that they should be subject to civil, thoughtful, and respectful discussion. Our view of how this discussion has progressed so far, however, is not as positive. For many of us, issues of free speech came to the fore in the context of actions on the part of the administration in regard to Assumption's AC Allies club, actions which we considered to be an infringement on that club's rights as a recognized college organization and a constituency in the larger community. Some of those concerns have been addressed and some not. We see issues of free speech as central to the concerns that have not yet been fully addressed.

No one has ever suggested that the views of those who agree with the Church's positions on sexual and reproductive issues should not be expressed or be part of the dialogue; we encourage such expression and see clear evidence that it is taking place. The concern is whether those views should be subject to the same analytic and critical scrutiny as all other views expressed in an academic forum and a democratic society. On this, the Administration's positions have been at best ambivalent, and at worst negative in their practical implications.

The administration has told us that advocacy of what has been called the gay "agenda" is inconsistent with the Mission of the College. As a practical matter, will it be possible for the Allies to invite speakers who are openly and unashamedly gay to discuss their lives and experiences on this campus, or will this be considered "advocating an agenda," or "in conflict with the Mission"? Can true dialogue, which requires the expression of sincerely held beliefs of two sides, on current public issues such as gay civil marriage, embryonic stem-cell research or a host of other issues, take place here? Will the administration support expression of all views, or will some views be subtly censored, based on the wrong date, or the wrong procedure followed, or insufficient opportunity for rebuttal?

In 2004, we did in fact have a speaker on stem cell research on this campus, and last semester Holy Cross permitted use of their campus facilities by organizations which hold positions considered in conflict with Church's teaching. We believe both events, to whatever extent they became known, reflected favorably on these colleges in the larger community. Serious discussion of views, by committed advocates, is the precondition of academic freedom and a democratic society, regardless of what might be the sponsoring organization or its philosophy.

We also believe such discussion to be a fundamental right and need for young people facing the difficult reality of being gay in our society. Whether true debate will occur on this campus at this time remains, we fear, an open question. Given the greater openness in the public discourse on issues such as sexual orientation, reproduction, and medical ethics, the lack of exposure to such debate could seriously disadvantage all our students in their future endeavors.

As is appropriate, we talk a great deal here about the Catholic tradition.

We expect that all can agree that this tradition includes instances of great tolerance, and great intolerance; and of support, and opposition, to scientific progress and human rights. Like all intellectual and cultural traditions, Catholic traditions continue to evolve. With this in mind, we believe that allowing truly open discussion ultimately reflects favorably, in much of larger society, on the integrity of the Church as well as the College.

We are gratified that at least dialogue about dialogue has been taking place and we appreciate hearing from both those who agree and those who disagree with us, but we are concerned that no honest voice in this dialogue be silenced.

Submitted by the following professors:
Vincent Cioffari
John McClymer
Frank Corbin
Elizabeth Howe
Linda Ammons
Thomas Begley
Steven Farough
Leslie Choquette
Paul Ady
Dona Kercher
Chuck Stuart
Bill Sullivan
Regina Edmonds
Richard Bonanno
Judith Leeman
And two non-tenured faculty members