Below is a statement about the latest developments at Ave Maria School of Law.
---
On behalf of a majority of the faculty of Ave Maria School of law, we write to express our profound sorrow regarding the deplorable treatment of tenured Professor Stephen J. Safranek at the hands of the administration of Ave Maria School of Law. Dean Bernard Dobranski has initiated the process to terminate Professor Safranek's tenure and the School has now suspended him without pay (as of September 15, 2007) during the termination process. We believe that it is critical to publicly disassociate ourselves from and condemn the administration's conduct.
The professed Mission of Ave Maria School of Law includes full adherence to Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which emphasizes respect for the dignity of every member of the academic community. In our view, the suspension and proposed termination of Professor Safranek does not adhere to this standard. Although we will not discuss the charges against Professor Safranek at this time, we will say that they are painfully thin.
Aside from the weakness of the charges against Professor Safranek, we are troubled by the disciplinary process that has led to the recent actions against him. The stated bases for these actions are a record of "findings" compiled by Dean Dobranski in connection with a series of alleged incidents for which Professor Safranek was ultimately "censured" or "reprimanded." In each instance, the Dean served as the sole arbiter regarding what acts constituted misconduct or "firing offenses" while repeatedly refusing to answer questions seeking clarification of his pronouncements. In nearly every instance, he or his at-will employees were the complainants or "victims" of Professor Safranek's alleged wrongdoing. The Dean served as the sole prosecutor, judge, and jury regarding whether vaguely defined offenses had occurred, usually refusing to even grant the "accused" any detailed information regarding the "charges" before conducting the "inquiry."
This flawed process has now culminated in the extraordinary action of suspending Professor Safranek without pay (as of September 15, 2007) through a vote of the "Executive Committee" of the School's Board. Although the suspension appears unjust in itself, the Dean's chosen procedures are absolutely lacking in even the veneer of fundamental fairness or due process norms. Indeed, the suspension occurred without deliberation by the full Board of Governors, without faculty consultation, without due process, and without any meaningful explanation as to why the circumstances satisfy the relevant standard of an "extraordinary" case. This abuse of this procedure has effectively stripped Professor Safranek, a husband and father of seven children, of the very security that tenure is supposed to afford faculty members at law schools approved by the American Bar Association.
In our view, these actions (and many others) reveal the extent to which this administration has betrayed the Law School's Mission. They further reveal how faculty members can expect to be treated at any law school created in Southwest Florida under the current administration and governing Board. Such a school is unlikely to respect the most basic elements of academic freedom and tenure,let alone dedicate itself to providing an integration of faith and reason designed to serve the Church and the broader community.
Notwithstanding this tragic turn of events, we remain committed to the service of our students and alumni, who provide the primary reason for the Law School's existence. For their sake, we intend to do everything that we can to renew the Law School's commitment to ABA Standards and, more importantly, to the teachings of the Catholic Church as envisioned in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
We continue to ask for your prayers, your support, and your full participation in our efforts to heal our community and to return the Law School to the pursuit of its Mission.
Yours in Christ,
Richard S. Myers, Mollie A. Murphy, and Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.
---
Richard M.
Monday, July 30, 2007
I wanted to let people know that the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy was just released by Scarecrow Press (a divsion of Rowman & Littlefield). I had the great privilege of editing this project with Michael L. Coulter (Grove City), Stephen M. Krason (Franciscan University), and Joe Varacalli (Nassau Community College-SUNY). This project was sponsored by the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. The Encyclopedia is nearly 1200 pages and is published in 2 volumes. There are about 850 entries from nearly 300 contributors.
Some of the prominent contributors include Cardinal George Pell (Sydney), Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace), Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio (Brooklyn, New York), Bishop J. Michael Miller (Congregation for Catholic Education and just named to Vancouver BC), Father C. John McCloskey (Faith and Reason Institute), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard), James Hitchcock (St. Louis U), Mark Latkovic (Sacred Heart Major Seminary), William E. May (JP II Institute), Father Francis Canavan SJ (Fordham), Father Joseph Koterski SJ (Fordham), Charles Rice (Notre Dame), Ronald Rychlak (Ole Miss), Russell Shaw (Pontifical University of the Holy Cross), and Paul Vitz (Institute for Psychological Sciences).
Ave Maria School of Law had a critical role in the project. Dean Bernard Dobranski generously supported the project since its inception. My assistants Sheri (Ashley) Fornell and Sharon Sansoterra were instrumental to our efforts. Sue Berendt and Dia Moulton also contributed greatly. A number of Ave Maria students (Albert A. Starkus III, Trent Pepper, Daniel G. Byrne, and Heather Brenneman Miles) provided important research assistance. The following Ave Maria professors also contributed entries--Jane Adolphe, Howard Bromberg, Joseph Falvey Jr., Bruce Frohnen, Patrick Quirk, Stephen Safranek, and James Sonne.
We think that this is a unique resource. It is a bit expensive for individual purchase (the list pric eis $150) although it would certainly be appropriate for libraries. We tried to make an effort to include a range of perspectives within the Catholic tradition. So, for example, on economic issues we have contributions that range from those that are more free-market oriented to those from a more distributist perspective.
We are hoping to have a website resource available within a couple of weeks. This website will have the full list of entries and contributors and also include sample entries so that people can get an idea of the quality of the Encyclopedia. I will post something when the website is on-line.
Richard M.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Sandro Magister has a fascinating transcript of Pope Benedict XVI reflecting on the postconciliar period. Here. Although we all have our own thoughts about this period, I don't think many have the wisdom and historical perspective of Benedict (I have to say my knowledge of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea is a bit thin). The transcript closes with a beautiful passage that reflects Benedict's humility and his deep love of "the Crucified One" and his optimism. I will only quote the last line of the transcript--"In this combination of the humility of the Cross and the joy of the risen Lord, who in the Council has given us a great road marker, we can go forward joyously and full of hope."
Richard M.
Monday, May 14, 2007
I very much appreciate the further comments from Karen Stohr, Tom Berg, and Father Araujo. I am not sure I have a lot to add. I do think that Karen makes a good point about drawing a distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic speakers. While I think it would be inappropriate for a Catholic university to give an honorary degree to the Governor of Michigan (Jennifer Granholm), who stated that she was 100% pro-choice the last time she ran for office, it would make it make it worse in my mind if a Catholic university did so because she is prominently identified as a Catholic.
I think there are a range of cases here. We mentioned this a bit last Spring with regard to Condoleezza Rice. The opposition to her focused on her position on the war. I mentioned that critics might also have cited her mildly pro-choice views. I think one could argue that since her views on abortion had not been a part of her public responsibilities that it would be appropriate not to disqualify her on these grounds alone. I guess one could think about other cases when the speaker's identification with (and role in implementing) a position that is in conflict with Church teaching might be more or less clear. People seem to agree that it would not be appropriate to honor someone such as Kate Michelman even if she were being honored for her work on a worthy cause (e.g., breast cancer awareness). Other cases might be tougher. What about honoring (by inviting the person to give a conference keynote speech) the head of the ACLU who would speak on free speech. The connection of the ACLU with the abortion rights perspective would in my mind make this choice inadvisable. I suppose it's better to look at concrete examples because I am not sure that I've thought about this enough to know whether it is possible to come up with a set of principles in advance.
With regard to candidates, I don't have a problem with debates or with something close to a debate (a series of talks by candidates). There may be some risks with this though because I think candidates sometimes use their Catholic identity when it is clear they don't share the Church's moral beliefs. So, a Catholic candidate for Governor might emphasize her role as a Eucharistic minister at her parish or feature in her campaign literature a talk she gave to a local Catholic high school. I don't think a Catholic institution ought to be wary about being used by the politician.
Maybe, as Father Araujo suggests, Catholic schools shouldn't be so eager to have the "benefits" of having speakers in lofty positions (presidents, governors, etc.).
Richard M.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Eduardo has some good questions about the propriety of honoring President Bush. Here is a very quick response. I'd say that Bush's support for the death penalty is not inconsistent with the Church's teaching. I'd agree with Avery Dulles (here) that the Church has not (yet) taken the view that the death penalty is always immoral, and that the decision about whether it is permissible in certain conditions is a prudential judgment on which people can reasonably disagree. On the war in Iraq, we discussed this a bit last year when the issue of honorary degrees came up in the context of Boston College and Condoleezza Rice. Here was my view at that time. I took the view that the administration had not taken a position that was inconsistent with Church teaching and that the area of disagreement about the war (I suspect that my views on this are probably close to Eduardo's) related to prudential judgments. On torture, if the Bush Administration has defended a position contrary to that expressed in the Catechism (2297-2298) than I'd say that would be grounds for opposing an honorary degree.
Richard M.
I have to disagree with Karen Stohr about her take on commencement speeches. She contends that rescinding an invitation means that the school is saying that the speaker can't make a contribution to the communal project of pursuing the truth. I don't think that is what is going on here at all. I think honorary degrees and commencement speeches (usually the speaker is also receiving an honorary degree, at least where we are talking about higher education) send a message about the school's identity. The honor is being bestowed on someone the school thinks it ought to honor. While the honor doesn't necessarily mean that the school endorses everything the person has ever said or done, the choice to honor someone who disagrees with Church teaching on very important issues has the potential to interfere with the clarity of the message that the school ought to be trying to communicate.
The school might think the person had something to contribute to a a discussion of an issue and it might be appropriate to have a debate between Mario Cuomo and Henry Hyde or Judge James Buckley about the role of a public servant. It would be perfectly appropriate for the school to have a debate on infanticide featuring Peter Singer and Robby George or a discussion on liberation theology involving Father Sobrino and Pope Benedict.
But a commencement speech is not a debate. The school is defining itself through these selections and the selection (the honoring) of someone who is in favor of abortion rights communicates either that the school doesn't think there is anything wrong with the person's views or that the error in the person's views isn't terribly important. With regard to the issue of abortion, I think those are the wrong messages to be sending.
Richard M.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Thanks to Eduardo for the post on the Ny Times article on liberation theology. I thought it was interesting that the article doesn't say much about the theological aspects of the movement. The theology of the movement was the Vatican's concern in the recent document relating to the works of Father Jon Sobrino SJ. That document, contrary to what the Times suggested, was a doctrinal and not a disciplinary document. The Vatican made it clear that the preoccupation with the poor and the oppressed is shared by the whole Church. The theological elements that the Vatican has criticized go to the core of the Christian message. The Explanatory Note accompanying the Notification states that Father Sobrino's "methodolgical errors give rise to conclusions which do not conform to the doctrine of the Church in certain key areas: the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the relationship of Jesus with the Kingdomof God, Jesus' self-consciousness, and the salvific value of Jesus' death."
The concern for the poor expressed is admirable. The practical strategies of the liberation theologians, though, should be judged by practical concerns (Will it Liberate? was the title of a book by Michael Novak on liberation theology that suggests the proper focus). The concerns that many have about liberation theology are its heterodox understanding of theology and its tendency to equate arguable political programs with the Gospel.
Maybe Eduardo could explain a bit more about why he thinks the theological aspects of the movement are so creative.
Richard M.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The annual meeting/conference of University Faculty for Life (UFL) will be held at Villanova on June 1-3, 2007. This year's conference, which is being supported by Our Sunday Visitor Institute and Ave Maria School of Law, is being organized by Jeanne (Heffernan) Schindler from Villanova. This year's conference should be excellent. The speakers will include Helen Alvare, David L. Schindler, and John Keown. The call for papers (and other conference information) is available on the UFL website. I hope to see many of you there.
Richard M.
