Academic Freedom

In light of the Ward Churchill, Larry Summers, and "Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame" debates that are so much in the news these days, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about what, for those of us hoping to contribute to the development of something called "Catholic Legal Theory" -- and hoping to do so in the context, by and large, of universities -- "academic freedom" should mean? 

In today's Washington Post, Eugene Robinson joins the critics of Larry Summers, adding:

Academic freedom? I agree that it's sacred, but Summers isn't just an overcaffeinated economics professor, bloviating in a seminar or holding court at the faculty club. He's the president of Harvard. He sets policy and has absolute power over careers, and now he has put himself on the record as extremely skeptical, to say the least, about any "special efforts" to increase diversity.

Professor Brian Leiter (and many others) have discussed the academic-freedom dimensions of the Ward Churchill fracas (Churchill is the loathesome poseur who compared the victims of the 9-11 attacks to Eichmann).  Eugene Volokh and Steve Bainbridge have provided helpful thoughts on this case, too.

And, finally, Bishop John D'Arcy (of the Ft. Wayne - South Bend diocese) has weighed in -- addressing the academic-freedom issue -- on the recent presentation at Notre Dame of the "Vagina Monogues."  About academic freedom, Bishop D'Arcy had this to say:

Freedom in the Catholic tradition, and even in the American political tradition, is not the right to do anything. Freedom in the Catholic tradition is not the right to do this rather than that. That would be an entirely superficial idea of freedom. Freedom in the academy is always subject to a particular discipline. It is never an absolute. The parameters of the particular discipline guide research.

Freedom is the capacity to choose the good. In “Ex Corde Ecclesiae,” John Paul II makes it clear that a Catholic university “guarantee its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.”

Here, the Holy Father, a long-time professor in a Catholic university, indicates certain parameters relative to freedom, namely, truth and the common good.

This play violates the truth about women, the truth about sexuality, the truth about male and female and the truth about the human body.

It is in opposition to the highest understanding of academic freedom. For freedom which is not linked to truth is soon extinguished. A Catholic university seeks truth. It is never afraid of truth; but seeks it with respect for both reason and faith. Each gives light and guidance to the other. How has the light coming from faith, or indeed from right reason, been brought to bear on the decision to present this play?

Notre Dame philosophy professor Ed Manier, however, had this to say:

"Academic freedom" . . . is a term whose meaning has been settled by appropriately academic means. It is clearly not a term whose meaning is open to manipulation by political or religious authorities. If the University or the bishop were to require six of its departments to present topics challenging Catholic Orthodoxy in a specific format intended to protect or defend religious orthodoxy, the academy would have no difficulty recognizing that as a violation of the academic freedom of the departments and individuals involved.

The bishop muddies the waters of intelligent public discussion of the relationship between the Church and Catholic universities in the United States by confusing "freedom of religion" with "academic freedom." The liberties involved are always in active tension with each other and will always be so unless Churches were to be required to restrain their teaching by the "requirements of reason alone."

The assumption that this tension can or should be overcome by authoritative fiat is at odds with my reading of the Gospel.

Now, to be clear, I am saying nothing about or on the merits of any of these disputes.  (Well, I am saying that Churchill is loathesome).  I am only asking -- in light of the fact that "authentic freedom" is a theme that runs through Catholic thinking and teaching -- what "academic freedom" can and should mean for us?  I admit that my own libertarian bent on free-speech questions inclines me toward the "tolerate it all" position, but maybe this is the wrong approach?  Should things be different at a Catholic university or law school?  Can they be, though?

Rick