The ongoing flap about Notre Dame University's invitation to President Obama to speak at commencement (and concomitantly to be awarded an honorary degree) is amusing, though undoubtedly some of those involved don't see themselves as ridiculous. It would be more laughable if it weren't also so reflective of some sad currents in higher education in the U.S.
It's not the first time serious universities and their graduates have seemingly forgotten the basic precept of intellectual freedom. I wasn't too proud of the University of Kansas, one of my alma maters, a couple of years ago for not being more forceful when the state of Kansas temporarily decided that the spurious "science" of creationism should be taught in schools -- but that was politicians fooling around, not the university itself. Yale ought to have been embarrassed even to claim George W. Bush as a graduate, a fellow who seemingly flunked remedial English; yet they raced not only to claim him, but fulsomely to give him an honorary degree within months of his inauguration. Maryland legislators recently intervened in the affairs of the state's university to emasculate plans to air an avowedly pornographic film.
Now we have Notre Dame. I'm not in a position to judge the university's motives or actions here - not on the religious level, in any case. As laymen, we might suppose that Obama, a man of some educational achievement, and being the current President of the United States, would be a reasonable candidate for honorary treatment. Further as laymen, we could be excused for thinking the university was seeking to "do the right thing" by laying down a marker for freedom of thought and intellectual inquiry.
Yet many Notre Dame alumni have objected to the university's plan. The latest to come to our attention is one Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard prof who has declined to accept an honorary award of her own because the university is violating a "request" laid down by a panel of bishops, the gist of which is that Catholic universities ought not to proffer honorifics to people whose views aren't the church's. Ms. Glendon is certainly entitled to her opinion. I don't think she's adding much to the dialogue, and is perhaps even detracting from it.
The press credential her as a former Ambassador to the Vatican, but the chief qualification for obtaining this political appointment is to be a Roman Catholic. Furthermore, the timing of her announcement is political; clearly aimed at influencing the university's decision. So, when she says that the bishops' position "in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate," there is every reason to suppose that like most of the other alums who have objected, she's reasoning from a religious and political, rather than intellectual, basis.
That, it seems, is what Professor Glendon and other howling alumni would have the university do: Define itself first as a religious institution and only secondarily as an institution of higher learning. Could Notre Dame have the President speak and not grant him an honorary degree? I suppose so. Would he still speak? I presume so (I doubt that he's much concerned about having an essentially meaningless certificate to hang on his wall at the White House). But the public might then consider if it's appropriate for any U.S. President or national politican to speak at a university that makes such decisions under the chilling effect of a batch of bishops, rather than on their value in educated discourse.
One gets the impression that a certain group of Notre Dame graduates would really prefer that the Presiden'ts appearance be canceled. Of course they would deny that. Regardless, they do the reputation of their university no favors by raising objections that sound to others as if they were anti-intellectual. Could they be worried that his ideas might resonate with some in the student body? Instead, these folks should consider the positive effects of having a U.S. President whose beliefs are different from theirs appear before this particular audience and speak on the record about the issues that so concern them.
Comments