September-October 2007

« AAUP Homepage

A Jesuit Approach To Campus Speakers

Boston College tries to balance Catholicism and free speech, religion and higher education, as it decides who will be permitted to speak on campus.

By Dale A. Herbeck

Boston College proudly defines itself as “one of the oldest Jesuit, Catholic universities in the United States.” Although it may seem a descriptive claim, this simple statement is a powerful ideological argument as it uses “Jesuit” and “Catholic” as adjectives to modify “university.” This assertion is controversial because some critics have suggested that a Jesuit or Catholic institution could never be an authentic university and, conversely, that a real university could never be an authentic Jesuit or Catholic institution.

The conflict between these two competing identities—religious institution and university—is palpable at Boston College. On occasion, the college has managed to reconcile the tension with dramatic results. The best example of this might be the Church in the Twenty-first Century (C21), a two-year initiative launched by the college in September 2002 to “explore the problematic issues highlighted by the sexual-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.” Student groups, academic departments, and other administrative units organized a provocative series of lectures, symposia, and conferences that addressed a critical subject of importance that affected members of the college community, the archdiocese of Boston, and the larger Catholic Church. More than 220 different events were held in conference rooms, lecture halls, auditoriums, and, on occasion, in large venues normally reserved for sporting events. The discussions were often difficult, but no aspect of the problem was declared off-limits and C21 sessions considered the status of women, celibacy and the priesthood, birth control, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and the abuse of institutional authority by the Catholic Church.

The C21 initiative provided an important forum for a far-ranging discussion that could not occur elsewhere. No state university or government agency could have organized such a dazzling series of events on religious topics. According to published accounts, more than 36,000 individuals attended C21 events and another 160,000 readers subscribed to various C21 publications. These numbers included students, faculty and staff, and members of the larger geographical and spiritual community. The two-year initiative was such a success that in 2004 Boston College established a permanent Church in the Twenty-first Century Center to explore some of the most important issues facing the Catholic Church.

Despite the obvious success of the C21 initiative, our administration does not, unfortunately, always listen to what Abraham Lincoln once referred to as “the better angels of our nature.” While C21 stands as a powerful illustration of the promise inherent in the idea of a Catholic university, Boston College sometimes behaves like a religious institution. This is particularly evident in a series of regrettable decisions pertaining to different aspects of student life. Perhaps the single best example of this parochial thinking can be found in our newly revised speakers policy.

Speakers Policy

Like most universities, Boston College has long had a formal statement governing speakers invited by students to appear on campus. Over time, differences emerged between the language of the published policy and the manner in which the policy was being applied. To close the disparity, new guidelines were announced in Boston College’s 2006–2007 Student Guide. The revised policy, defended by administrators as being consistent with past practice, differs in two important respects from the speakers policy it replaced.

While the first paragraph of the old policy boldly declared that “the free exchange of ideas is a principal objective of the University,” the new policy adds a sentence dramatically narrowing this bold affirmation of academic freedom. “Such freedom of inquiry is,” according to the new policy, “not absolute and must be balanced by the University’s obligation to adhere to the principles and values inherent in Boston College’s identity as a Catholic and Jesuit institution.”

To guarantee balance in all student-sponsored programming, the second paragraph of the revised policy claims an explicit “right to review presentations funded by student activity monies. Such a review could result in necessary adjustments to require that balanced views be presented, postponement of the program for further discussion and review, or, in rare instances, cancellation of the program.” The final sentence of this paragraph also claims a right to relocate, reschedule, or cancel an event “in cases where the University may not be able to assure the adequate safety of either the University community or an invited speaker.”

Lest the scope of this unfortunate policy be exaggerated, it is important to note that the policy covers only speakers or events brought to campus by recognized student groups using student activity money. The policy does not apply to events organized by academic departments, nor does it restrict academic freedom in the classroom. In practice, balancing has been required only on a handful of occasions involving events dealing with different aspects of human sexuality. A panel discussion was mandated, for example, after performances of a student production of Eve Ensler’s controversial play The Vagina Monologues.

As a private institution, Boston College is not bound by the First Amendment and has the legal authority to slam the schoolhouse gates and restrict access to its campus. Along the same lines, a private institution can refuse to recognize certain student groups, it can discriminate among groups and activities when apportioning funds, and it can require and enforce balance in programming. None of this intervention into student life would be permissible at a state institution like the University of Massachusetts.

The fact that Boston College has this authority does not, however, mean that the institution should balance or otherwise restrict speakers invited by students to appear on our campus. While it may be tempting to intervene in the marketplace of ideas to the advantage of preferred viewpoints, a Catholic university should embrace the opportunity to address difficult questions. Instead of balancing or simply avoiding tough topics like abortion or gay marriage, Boston College should be the place where informed discussion and intelligent debate can occur.

The very freedom that allows a Catholic university to close its gates also makes a Catholic university the natural place for passionate argument about the origins of life, sexual practices, and religious beliefs. Michael J. Buckley, SJ, the Bea Professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, has suggested that a Catholic university should be “an intellectual community where in utter academic freedom the variant lines of Catholic tradition and thought can intersect with all of the traditions and convictions that constitute contemporary culture and move toward a reflective unity between world culture and the self-revelation of God.” This is more important today than ever before because state institutions are either unwilling or unable to discuss complex moral issues and the associated social and political implications.

Broad Audience

This ideal, the Catholic university as a place for discussing questions pertaining to matters of faith, is what made C21 such a rousing success. Because it provided an open forum for all ideas, C21 appealed to a broad audience that included devout Catholics, fallen Catholics, and non-Catholics. The initiative demonstrated the promise implicit in the idea of the Catholic university. But this generous attitude did not, unfortunately, extend to Boston College’s speakers policy. By suggesting that there is a single set of preferred answers that must be recited whenever certain controversial questions are discussed, the speakers policy undercuts the unfettered exchange of ideas by artificially limiting the discussion of some of the most difficult issues confronting the Catholic Church.

This does not mean that Boston College should renounce its history, revise its curriculum, or give up on the idea of merging intellectual and moral purpose. On the contrary, Catholic universities have a distinctive place in higher education, and Boston College has considerable resources at its disposal. The institution maintains a newspaper and a magazine, Web sites and cable channels, and several speaker series that it can use to promote “the principles and values inherent in Boston College’s identity as a Catholic and Jesuit institution.” It does not need to identify and balance the occasional student-sponsored speaker who dares to challenge the Catholic viewpoint on any particular issue to guarantee that the Catholic position is fully represented.

Our society is becoming ever more secular, but at the same time, religion has become an increasingly divisive issue in domestic politics and international relations. Catholic universities can play an important role in higher education by providing an honest forum for the discussion of questions related to faith. They cannot serve this function, however, if Catholic universities like Boston College privilege the inculcation of preferred moral values over the free and open discussion of the most difficult religious questions.

In “The Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus Christ invoked the image of “a city upon a hill” as an ideal for his followers. A variation on this theme can be found in “A Model of Christian Charity,” a sermon delivered by John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1630.More recently, the image has been appropriated by former presidents John F. Kennedy, to define the qualities of good government, and Ronald Reagan, to suggest America’s place in the world. In many respects, “a city upon a hill” should be the constitutive metaphor for the Catholic university. Rather than being intellectually removed from the secular world, the Catholic university should serve as an ideal for higher education. Like the city upon a hill where all people are welcome, the Catholic university should be a place where all ideas are welcome, most especially opinions related to difficult questions involving different religious traditions and human sexuality. Achieving this ideal will be a real challenge, however, as it requires a Catholic institution that is true to its faith and, at the same time, is enough of a university to allow honest discussion of those faith commitments.

Dale A. Herbeck is professor of communication at Boston College. His e-mail address is herbeck@bc.edu.

Comment on this article.