How can Mr. Hennes, St. Thomas VP of University Relations, say with a straight (no pun intended) face that the administration at St. Thomas doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Sure they do. When a committed lesbian couple can’t share lodging on a school sponsored trip when a heterosexual couple can, then St. Thomas is clearly discriminating based on sexual orientation. The discrimination may be perfectly legal and reflecting the Catholic Church’s teachings, but that doesn’t wash it of the fact that it’s still discrimination. Many forms of discrimination are perfectly legal, but discrimination is still discrimination irrespective of the issue of legality. This case is about treating people fairly, not legal niceties.

Catholic (and other private) universities can’t have it both ways. They can’t with one hand (legally) discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation and then with the other hand accept millions of federal, state, and local tax dollars to fund sponsored research, university initiatives, and grants and loans to pay student tuition while at the same time hiding behind a connection with the Catholic Church to justify that discrimination. Like discrimination, hypocrisy may be legal but that doesn’t make it anything other than what it really is – hypocrisy.

Intolerant of Hypocrisy, at 8:19 am EST on January 4, 2006

I remain astonished that gay and lesbian people (and fair-minded heterosexuals) would want to have anything to do with the Catholic Church or its educational institutions.

The moral inconsistancy of these people’s position gets more and more apparent with every passing Vatican pronouncement proclaiming the primacy of heterosexuality, and the absolute evil of love between men, and love between women.

A one day strike by all the lesbian and gay people in Catholic universities and parishes will bring it to its knees and perhaps to its senses.

Tom Henning, at 8:44 am EST on January 4, 2006

Good job St. Thomas! Whenever someone takes the high road they get the hypocrisy counter. Why not just sacrifice all moral standards to avoid facing that argument? It is a positive-feedback argument leading to more deterioration of moral standards. Should we offer trips where everyone can sleep with whoever? More importantly, why bother making faculty set an example? Does an institution have to facilitate or promote a life style that it does not support by saying nothing? While many may not appreciate the stance St. Thomas is taking, realize that students go to such conservative institutions to avoid the moral dilemmas they encounter at other institutions (real or preceived). For anyone to challenge with “Why try to correct it, they are just hypocrites anyway?” is a slippery slope.Any muck-raker can find dirt on anybody. What does it prove? The faculty know the values the institution promotes and if they do not have buy-in, they should find employment elsewhere.

Personally, I think there is more to this story than what is in print. If “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy is alive and well at St. Thomas, it sounds like someone is sure “telling” and that bringing the issue to the surface was the spark that made the university take action. I read no indication that the university was spying on the faculty to “catch” them in some act. Between the lines, I perceive that the actions of these faculty is in the open – everyone knows about it. If this is the case, the faculty are forcing the university hand.

EB, at 1:38 pm EST on January 4, 2006

Not anti-homosexual

Those that have charged bigotry in the decision have not read the article, which goes on to say that the same decision was made with a heterosexual couple.

RKS, State Education Bureaucrat, at 3:24 pm EST on January 4, 2006

In response to the U of I professor’s comment, I don’t think it can be seriously considered that the “red flag” put up in the case of the homosexual couple was due to a matter of making special accomodations. Pretending that this isn’t about the Catholic church’s aversion to homosexuality is precisely what St. Thomas is doing. If you read an article from St. Thomas’ newspaper, The Aquin, it will tell you that a student’s parent called the university to protest the sleeping arrangements. Further, I think “consistent” is the last thing we can call a university that hires openly gay, openly unmarried, openly non-Catholic employees that are under the impression they can share their lifestyles with the student community. These professors were bringing their partners along because they felt it was acceptable. Clearly the university has not drawn a clear line. They might as well not hire faculty who are living contrary to Catholic principles if they expect them to intermittently be open about who they are. The only thing consistent about UST is its contradictory, reactionary policies that preclude students from appreciating diversity.

Louisa, Grad Student at University of Wisconsin, at 5:28 pm EST on January 4, 2006

Why is the university concerned with moral policing?

Catholic and other religiously-affiliated institutions have to make a choice: either adhere to every religious doctrine and practice that their faith teaches (and give up both the quality faculty who don’t share such beliefs and the public money that they accept for research, financial aid, etc.), OR, adhere to the secular laws and practices that govern all citizens of the United States, whether or not those laws are consistent with the moral teachings of the faith. That would include laws against discrimination, the recognition of civil unions, the legal use of contraception, abortion, etc. Such is the price of participating in our political culture—one in which civil law supercedes any particular religious law.

Now if an institution clearly and consistently chooses one path or the other, then no one, particularly their employees and students, will have room to complain. Unfortunately, most such schools try to walk a thin line between these two options—hiring and supporting faculty who don’t necessarily share their religious mission, while at the same time applying their moral regulations inconsistently and unfairly (often in response to student or parent complaints rather than according to any set policy). This is neither fair nor functional, and doesn’t serve the needs of the school or the church.

A third option that no one seems willing to entertain is to take the position that the role of the institution (as of the church) is to promote the faith, not enforce it. To convince rather than coerce. To teach rather than indoctrinate. It doesn’t matter if everyone consistently obeys the letter of the law (in fact, doesn’t Catholicism insist on our innate inability to live “sinless” lives?), rather, it only matters that they be exposed to the faith, be willing to listen, learn, discuss, and share their insights and understandings of their faith and intellect. In fact, that’s the real mission of the university—to provide a space for learning, not for moral policing. “Protecting” students from dissenting moral viewpoints and influences is certainly NOT what an institution of higher learning should be concerned with! If anything, it should be using those encounters as an opportunity for teaching and learning.

John Martin, at 6:49 pm EST on January 4, 2006

Couples who are divorced and remarried??

The university is not allowing two persons who are not married to sleep together while on official business.

What about divorced and remarried people? These are NOT legally married in the Church. They cannot take communion!

Does the university restrict and censure all these couples as well? Make the rules clear for everyone!

Allowing divorced people to sleep with new mates must also be disallowed! I certainly hope the parent of the student who complained is in a first marriage. What about all the parents of all the students? Should students with divorced and remarried parents be allowed even to attend the university?

Compound the absurdities!!

Patricia, at 10:56 pm EST on January 4, 2006

I find St. Thomas’ statement that “it would not be appropriate for an unmarried partner — homosexual or heterosexual — to travel with the director of the choir” disingenuous to say the least. By saying that it is inappropriate to allow partners to travel (and sleep) together because they are unmarried, they imply that it would be appropriate for those partners to do so if they were married. As a Catholic institution, I am sure St. Thomas is aware that it is significantly more difficult for homosexual partners to get married (requiring travel to a place where such a thing is legal) — even assuming that that marriage would be recognized (and with DOMA laws, this is by no means assured) than it is for heterosexual couples.

A heterosexual couple that is unmarried is unmarried by choice. A homosexual couple that is not married may have made that choice, or may not be fortunate enough to live in a state that enables them to do so.

Heather, at 11:09 am EST on January 5, 2006