Inclusiveness and Accommodation (and Incidentally St. Thomas)

Jason Adkins at The Seventh Age continues the debate about the University of St. Thomas School of Law and the "conservative" label.  Some of his latest post consists of characterizations -- well, mischaracterizations -- of St. Thomas.  That particular debate probably is not of much general interest to readers of MOJ.  I have, however, posted comments on the Seventh Age blog (at the bottom of the link above) in which I offer lots of evidence that -- contrary to Mr. Adkins' suggestions -- St. Thomas does have a very strong "critical mass of [faculty showing] fidelity [to] the Magisterium"; that it does offer "an encounter with the Catholic intellectual tradition"; and that politically conservative students should not feel out of place but will find plenty of faculty and fellow students supporting (as well as others challenging) their views.

Of more general interest to MOJ readers may be Mr. Adkins' claim that "tag[ging] the usual disclaimer about how inclusive [St. Thomas] is" to our Dean's statement communicates the message that "yes, the Church and its teachings can be offensive and intolerant, but we soften the edges around here to accomodate."  I don't see the equation between inclusiveness and softening the teachings.  Inclusiveness, at a Catholic law school, means that non-Catholic voices of good will are welcomed as partners in the dialogue and debate with Catholic thought.  That is quite different from changing (softening) the Catholic teachings.  As applied to a law school, this means that one can hire non-Catholic and non-Christian faculty who are engaged productively with the Catholic tradition (including productive debate) -- while simultaneously making it a priority to have a critical mass of faculty who are strong, explicit proponents of the Catholic tradition.  And analogous points about student admissons.  Of course, "critical mass" really has to mean something (that's a subject for another post).

Mr. Adkins doesn't actually claim that being inclusive is the same as softening the teachings; he backs off to saying that "that is the message folks are going to take away from the [St. Thomas] disclaimer."  Sorry, folks, but that reminds me of CNN smuggling a scandalous story onto the air in the guise of reporting about how other media are reporting the story.  If people interpret a law school's statement that it does not "ascrib[e] to any political agenda"  as being "anti-conservative," this will likely be in part because they read commentators who describe the school that way (inaccurately in this case, as I've said in my comments on the Seventh Age blog).

Tom Berg