This week our dean at St. Thomas Law, Tom Mengler, ruled that students seeking to satisfy our 50-hour public-service requirement for graduation cannot get credit for hours volunteered at Planned Parenthood, even if the specific work they do is not abortion or contraception services. The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) applauds the decision here. I'm not trying to curry favor with my dean when say that I (along with lots of others) applaud it too. Since some of Tom's explanatory email has already been quoted by the CNS, I think it's best just to post the whole email and let it speak for itself.
Tom B.
++++++
Dear friends,
I write to resolve a community dispute regarding a decision made yesterday by our Public Service Board (PSB). Yesterday, the PSB voted to authorize public service credit to a student who would like to volunteer at Planned Parenthood. Since then, Dean Organ and I have received a number of emails or visits from students and faculty questioning the PSB’s decision, as well as questioning some of the language and processes under which the PSB functions.
For now, I would like to set aside for another day some of the broader questions that members of this community, including members of the PSB, have raised with respect to modifying the PSB guidelines. These Guidelines were adopted by the faculty and can be amended, therefore, only by a favorable vote of the faculty.
I do think it is important, however, for me to treat as a formal appeal to the Dean the specific concerns that many from this community have voiced regarding the PSB’s decision to certify volunteer work at Planned Parenthood as “qualifying public service.” [I'm omitting a short discussion here about the appeal procedures.--TB]
As the PSB Guidelines make clear, they are designed to encourage an ethic of servant-leadership within this community. The Guidelines also clarify that qualifying public service is restricted to “any type of volunteer work that is consistent with the mission of the School of Law and the University of St. Thomas.” Not surprisingly, this broad encouragement of public service activity places few restrictions on the types of volunteerism for which our law school community should be congratulated.
One restriction, however, flows directly from the University of St. Thomas as a Catholic University, and of the School of Law as an academic unit that seeks to live its Catholic identity. At this University, there is helpful precedent. Nine years ago in 1999, Father Dennis Dease as President of this University decided an issue very similar to the one that presents itself to our law school community. Father Dease denied externship credit to an undergraduate student who wished to volunteer at Planned Parenthood on grounds that St. Thomas cannot endorse -- with academic credit -- student service at an organization whose mission is fundamentally in conflict with a core value of a Catholic University. Because Planned Parenthood is a leader in the abortions rights movement and because opposition to abortion is one of the core values of the Catholic faith, Father Dease refused to authorize the extension of academic credit to academic or service work at Planned Parenthood.
I regard Father Dease’s decision in 1999 as controlling -- and for this reason I must reverse the decision of the PSB. Volunteer service at Planned Parenthood, whatever the nature of that service, advances the mission of Planned Parenthood, an organization whose mission is fundamentally at odds with a core value of the Catholic Church. Such service does not constitute “qualifying public service” for purposes of satisfying the School of Law’s graduation requirement of 50 hours of public service.
I understand and appreciate that my decision in this matter will be met with mixed reaction. At the School of Law, we have set a course that attempts to live out our Catholic identity in a way that, on the one hand, is true to this identity and, on the other hand, is welcoming and embracing of those who differ. I regard this decision as an effort to walk that path. Because our Catholic identity begins with the value of extending respect and dignity to every individual, rarely should it require us to make decisions that cause unhappiness or discontent. This is one of those rare circumstances, however, in which living out our Catholic nature as a Catholic law school may cause a difference of opinion and feelings among students, faculty, and staff.
Finally, I would like to make clear that my decision should not be read as critical of the fine work of the PSB. The student members of the PSB have consistently worked effectively and tirelessly to administer our public service requirement, to make public service opportunities available to this community, and to encourage all of us to become servant leaders. With regard to this particular issue, the PSB debated deliberately and reflectively on their roles and attempted to reach a decision that was true to our Catholic identity and encouraged each of us to draw on our own faith and values to become professionals of character and integrity. I commend the PSB on the seriousness with which it undertook to resolve a difficult question.
Sincerely,
Dean Mengler
Monday, April 21, 2008
As the New York Times reported, the Pope spoke in favor of immigrants several times during his visit, including in his speech to the American bishops, where he urged them and their communities "to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations." He also spoke of the need to prevent the breakup of families in the immigration context, since the separation "'is truly dangerous for the social, and human fabric' of Latin and Central American families."
One of the Pope's comments -- that the U.S. should do "everything possible to fight . . . all forms of violence so that immigrants may lead dignified lives" -- set off anti-illegal-immigration obsessive Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who issued a statement saying, "I would like to know what part of our lax immigration policy is violent" and claiming that the Peope had "encourag[ed] Bush to provide blanket amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the United States." (HT: Kathryn Lopez) Tancredo went on, as described by the Times:
Accusing the Pope of "faith-based marketing," Mr. Tancredo said Benedict's comments welcoming immigrants "may have less to do with spreading the Gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the Church." Mr. Tancredo, a former Catholic who now attends an evangelical Christian church, said it was not in the pope's "job description to engage in American politics."
Obviously there are legitimate arguments for strengthening anti-illegal-immigration policy in various ways. No one could reasonably criticize Benedict for his calls for humaneness in treatment of illegal immigrants -- which has implications for the policy issues like deportations (although I'm quite confident he's never urged "blanket amnesty"). But one can colorably argue that a call, like his, to "welcome immigrants" must always be qualified by recognizing the need for legal-immigration requirements to manage the flow of incomers in an orderly way.
But my preexisting impression that Tancredo carries beyond these arguments to foment prejudice has now been strengthened by his rush to beat off any challenge by invoking, explicitly or implicitly, other prejudices: that the Church is mostly concerned to "recruit" rather than uphold human dignity, and that the Pope should not comment on American moral-political issues (combining allusions to "religion should stay out of politics" and "the Pope is a foreigner").
Tom
Monday, April 14, 2008
There is developing blogosphere commentary over the recent decision by a University of St. Thomas administrator to reject an April 21 on-campus speaking event with Star Parker, pro-life activist, who would speak about "the harmful impact of abortion, especially in minority communities." The speech would have been sponsored by the University's Students for Human Life and the conservative Young America's Foundation. From everything I can tell, this is another misguided decision by University administration to reject a speaker based on greatly exaggerated fears about disturbances, or about inflammatory speech that might be inconsistent with the University's mission. (See here, e.g., for a statement last fall criticizing the University's decision, later reversed, to refuse an invitation to Abp. Tutu -- who coincidentally spoke in the Twin Cities last Friday at the event in question, which in the end was not held at St. Thomas.) Hopefully, criticisms of this decision, as of that one, will lead to a reversal.
Tom
Friday, April 11, 2008
Continuing in the threats to conscience vein .... Eugene Volokh reports:
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane's work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock's same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney's fees and costs.
Eugene goes on to discuss Elane's legal objections to this sanction. One is the First Amendment's right against compelled speech (Board of Education v. Barnette), based on the argument that the photographer is compelled to use her artistic talent to present positive images of an event she opposes. Another is the New Mexico state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires that the state justify any substantial burden it imposes on religion as "essential to further a compelling governmental interest" and as the "least restrictive means of furthering" that interest. Statutes like this, also in force for the federal government and about a dozen other states, provide legal authority for giving weight both to religious conscience and to governmental interests in particular contexts. In this case it's the photographer's interest in freedom of conscience against government sanctions, versus -- and let's put it in the strongest light -- the couple's interest in carrying out their conscientious decision to make a public commitment to each other with the assistance of various commercial services that one expects to be able to make such events memorable.
It seems very likely than in Albuquerque, the couple can go the next wedding photographer in the phone book or online and secure its services. To help the couple can avoid this inconvenience, the state proposes to drive out of the wedding-photography business anyone who won't participate in commemorating same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies. I would think that the effect on the photographer (who has probably made some investment in that business) is typically much greater than the effect on the couple who can usually obtain another photographer easily. Thus this seems like one of the many cases in which an exemption preserves the ability of the people on both sides to follow their consciences.
As Eugene notes, though, antidiscrimination plaintiffs and state antidiscrimination agencies argue that each act of discrimination itself violates a compelling interest in nondiscrimination, so the availability of other services (photographers or whatever) is irrelevant. This argument has basically been accepted in the case of race discrimination, where exemptions are almost always refused even if done by a few isolated entities (think, for example, the Bob Jones University case). But as Rob and others have argued, the prohibition on race discrimination in commercial activities came after a long national debate (with just a few battles and protest marches along the way) out of which an overwhelming consensus emerged about the wrongness of racial discrimination. We are much, much earlier in the process of debating the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. Giving conscience serious but sensible protection includes leaving room for that debate to happen before the government throws its weight in by sanctioning those who carry their belief (on one side or the other) into their work lives.
It's especially silly, of course, that the state should punish private citizens for doing the very thing that the state itself does: refuse to recognize or participate in a same-sex marriage. That certainly undercuts any allegedly compelling nature of the state's interest here; and it dramatizes how misguided it is for the state to try to pressure people on the same-sex marriage issue at this stage in the debate (when the state isn't even willing to take the step itself), unless same-sex couples are really unable to get services. Even if or when the state recognizes same-sex marriage, the photographer's conscience should be protected when other photographers are available; but the state's coercion of conscience at this point in time is even more unwarranted.
Tom
