Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Commencement Turns Ugly

May 24, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When people cry at graduation, it's supposed to be the happy kind of tears.

That wasn't the case Saturday at the University of St. Thomas, when the student speaker at the Saint Paul, Minn., institution's graduation ceremony used his address to denounce as "selfish" those women who use the birth control pill. St. Thomas has been divided this semester by a debate over whether the Roman Catholic institution was correct to ban unmarried employees traveling together with students from sharing a room, so issues of sexual morality have been front and center at the institution. The student speaker also denounced as selfish those unmarried couples covered by the policy who had wanted to share a room with a partner.

Students and family members were shocked by the speech -- and some left their own graduation in tears. Others booed or shouted. Still others are angry that the university administrator who followed the student speaker appeared to many to endorse his views. The university denies that, and the St. Thomas president and the student speaker have apologized. While St. Thomas officials said that they hope the apologies will put the matter to rest, many students and faculty members doubt that can happen.

A portion of the controversial speech has been posted online at YouTube (be forewarned that several loud expletives from audience members are also audible). The speaker is Ben Kessler, who was elected by students and faculty members as "Tommie of the Year," earning the right to address his fellow graduates. Kessler was a 4.0 student and a star on the football team. He is moving to Rome to study for the priesthood.

In his speech, Kessler asked about the couples who traveled with St. Thomas students and who set off the debate over the travel policy. The issue gained the attention of St. Thomas administrators when a choir director who is lesbian wanted to take her partner and their son on a class trip to France, as married couples on university travel had done in the past. Not only was that trip barred, but the university started barring those traveling with students from sharing rooms with their partners if they were not married -- whether the relationships were straight or gay. Kessler said that those wanting to share rooms were "selfish," and that as a result of their actions "students become confused" and "faculty and staff become scandalized," all for "the happiness of one or two people."

He then went on to call using birth control selfish, and specifically cited only one form of birth control: the pill.

As Kessler spoke, some students and faculty members started to leave. Others shouted their anger and called for him to stop. In other parts of his address, Kessler spoke of his own selfishness, praised the accomplishments of his classmates, and encouraged them to lead lives that involve giving back to their communities.

At the end of Kessler's speech, Thomas Rochon, the university's chief academic officer, spoke and he noted Kessler's "courage" in expressing his views.

With students and family members clearly upset by what had happened, St. Thomas issued an apology on Monday. In the apology, the Rev. Dennis Dease, the president, said it was "not appropriate" for Kessler to have shared "his opinions on several issues" during the commencement address, and said "I regret that the graduates and their families and guests were offended." Father Dease's statement also included an apology from Kessler, who said that he "would like to apologize to all who were offended by my words." (University officials said that Kessler was not responding to questions.)

In an interview Tuesday, Douglas E. Hennes, vice president for university relations, also said that it was wrong to interpret Rochon's reference to Kessler's "courage" as an endorsement of his remarks. Rochon and the university believe that it was wrong of Kessler to share those views in a graduation speech and that it was also wrong for those offended to boo or shout.

Hennes said that the graduation events were "unfortunate," but that the university had engaged in discussions about the travel policy in a "pretty healthy way," and that the tensions evident Saturday did not reflect any broader problems. Asked if Kessler's comments were consistent with Catholic teachings, Hennes said that they were. He said that comments the university was receiving were almost entirely critical of Kessler.

Students and faculty members had a range of views on that.

Brian J. Weber, the senior class president, said he had great respect for Kessler and didn't think he realized the hurt his comments would cause. Weber said he disagreed with Kessler's choice of topics, but thought that his apology was sincere and should be accepted. He urged others to show Kessler "some compassion."

One of Weber's classmates, Christine Johnson, said she "felt like I was going to be sick" as Kessler started talking about actions he considered "selfish." Johnson, executive vice president of the student government this past academic year, said that Kessler was the selfish one, by forgetting that he was not the only one graduating. Johnson said she started to cry when she saw the leader of a gay-rights group at St. Thomas leave his own graduation because he couldn't stand to hear the remarks.

Johnson said that the speech reinforced her belief that St. Thomas has problems with tolerance. "There is such a lack of tolerance and understanding, and many people aren't even willing to attempt to remedy this by talking with others respectfully about the issue. Rather, they gather their own conclusions and force it upon the ears of others," she said.

Jill Manske, a professor of biology and former director of women's studies at St. Thomas, said that she worried that non-Catholics would "perceive a shift to the right" at the university and might not feel welcome teaching or studying there.

Manske said that Kessler's apology focused on those he offended and didn't suggest that he understood why it was wrong to express those views at a graduation. Further, she noted that the only form of birth control he denounced was taking the pill, which is done by women, not men. She said that "embedded in the speech" were signs of underlying "climate issues" at St. Thomas. Many people did not feel "that their voices were heard" in the debate over the travel policy, she said.

"There are some very difficult issues of climate and what does it mean to be a Catholic institution," she said, that the administration is not acknowledging. Manske was raised Catholic, but does not practice the faith today.

Married, she would not be directly affected by the new travel policy as she could bring her husband with her when taking students on trips. But she has said that she told the administration that she will no longer take students on trips -- even though she has enjoyed doing so in the past. It would be unfair for her to be able to take her husband when unmarried heterosexual couples would have to marry to take a partner, and gay and lesbian couples would have no way to comply with the St. Thomas policy except to leave a partner at home.

For her to even have the choice of taking a partner, Manske said, "is a privilege I would have that others do not."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Commencement Turns Ugly

  • Ben Kessler and intolerance
  • Posted by Arthur Ide, PhD on May 24, 2006 at 7:40am EDT
  • Ben Kessler is the forerunner and prophet of a new emerging age of intolerance and hatred. Ben Kessler represents the very worse in humanity: the arrogance to presume to judge others. If St. Thomas is a Roman Catholic institution, it is more in line with the medieval world than the world of thought and tolerance, and, like Ben Kessler, rejects its own religious heritage defined in Matthew 7:1. Ben Kessler will drive more people away from Christianity than he will ever bring into Christianity. It is people like Ben Kessler that forced me to abandon my Roman Catholicism and Christianity, for intolerance and judgmental self-aggrandizement have nothing in common with god or goodness.

  • Speech Consistant with Announced Values
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott on May 24, 2006 at 8:30am EDT
  • Why the apology by the administration and student for the content of the speech? Without support or denial of the correctness of the content, nothing in the speech is inconsistent with announced Catholic policy. Why the shock when it is announced.

    Why would one go to a Catholic school without the expectation of announcement of Catholic beliefs, particularly from a student who wants to be a priest? And, then to force an apology for the exercise of the First Amendment rights to speak religious values. Who received an education from this event? Or, the school for that matter.

    My answer, no one.

    Just another example of the failure of education. And, rude conduct.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Posted by LK on May 24, 2006 at 8:30am EDT
  • I don't understand what all the hoop-la is about. It is a Catholic Institution. What did they expect?

  • For God's sake...
  • Posted by David on May 24, 2006 at 8:45am EDT
  • Gonna make a hell of a priest, isn't he?

  • We Need a Speech Coach, STAT!!
  • Posted by Brian on May 24, 2006 at 8:45am EDT
  • I don’t think commencement speeches should dodge political or controversial content. In fact, it would be odd if the speaker (any speaker) didn’t take advantage of the loud microphone and captive audience to convey deeply held beliefs about this or that. Let the boy have his six minutes. Let him say his piece, however Comstockian.

    Here’s my question: What gives him the right to take to the podium with such poor public speaking skills? How does one make it through college without oratorical competence? The form and style of the speech offended me much more than its content. Didn’t he practice? Or did he practice speaking in passionless monotone (he seems to have that down pat). Are the awkward pauses between syllables (e.g. “Martin Luther King. . . . . Jr.”) some sort of code for conservative Catholics? I’m singling out Kessler, but I see it as a larger problem. Maybe the hard emphasis on math & reading (born of No Child Left Behind) has generated a generation of rhetoric-challenged students?

  • Posted by DLR on May 24, 2006 at 8:55am EDT
  • So glad, Arthur Ide, that you repudiate intolerance and judgementalism.

  • Take A Step Back
  • Posted by Tom Lawrence on May 24, 2006 at 8:55am EDT
  • There is no denying that Kessler's remarks had no place at a commencement. There is no question whether any person giving those remarks would understand that they were offensive. It seems a poor choice for an institution to allow a speech that would inspire negative feelings on a day when many need support and encouragement.

    However, Kessler dealing with the issues of "selfishness" and "community." Are at the heart of what he and many other graduates learned with their education. The message of placing personal preference aside in order to benefit a larger community is by no means against christianity, or in any way some manner of hatemongering or intolerance.

    Of course, I am abstracting those concepts, and am unsure of the specific text of the speech. He may have used those concepts as proxies to put forward "other" goals.

    Calling birth control selfish is nothing new. For those who ally themselves with the believe that "relations" are for procreation only, the the act of sex for pleasure only without the intent of reproduction would be quite selfish ... or rather "immediately gratifying." On the other side, people who view one's choice to do as they wish as long as it doesn't hurt others have a very different view of selfish. I am unsure what that meaning is.

    While my own bias (though lack of understanding) is evident here, I would hope that wouldn't invalidate the concept of observing the issue from both sides.

    Was Kessler intollerant? What is the measure of tolerance? Was Kessler inconsiderate? Yes. Was Kessler inappropriate for commencement? Yes. Was it inappropriate to put Kessler's message forward (assuming a pre-screening) at commencement? Yes. Is there the possibility that discussion of general "selfishness" is appropriate at a commencement? Yes.

    We are in the thick of a society of self gratification in all forms. We each fight with it every day. There are limits to self-gratification for everyone: even those who believe in one's right to do whatsoever may please themselves. For instance, when we spend so much time and effort on entertainment and consumption, but we could be volunteering for the community or providing for lesser parts of our own family (or even planning for the future)... that is selfish. There are always thresholds. Kessler's message was one for debate, but not at commencement.

  • Posted by Sam on May 24, 2006 at 9:10am EDT
  • Arthur Ide--

    "It is people like Ben Kessler that forced me to abandon my Roman Catholicism and Christianity, for intolerance and judgmental self-aggrandizement have nothing in common with god or goodness."

    A lack of faith in Jesus Christ should cause you to abandon Christianity, not the actions of a mere human.

  • and you were expecting what?
  • Posted by ex-prof on May 24, 2006 at 9:10am EDT
  • I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic doctrine in question, but St. Thomas is a Roman Catholic institution and everyone knows this. So, why would any of its students, alumni, etc. be shocked, etc., when someone in their midst espouses Roman Catholic views? Sure, those views are unfortunate, but what did they expect? Indeed, aren't these "shocked" students complicit in the promulgation of such views by paying tuition to a Roman Catholic institution? Wake up folks, the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy and never will be. The quicker you recognize this, the better off you'll be. Having said this, I'm saddened by what the first commentator on this article had to say--that it was for reasons like this that he not only left RC but Christianity itself. Christianity is not a church--it’s a belief in love, love more profound than that which any human can muster even on occasion, love we must study, pray for, and humbly acknowledge our failure to reach on our own in order to have any hope of manifesting it. Why let the RC or any other church own that belief and take it from you? Is there anything more important or precious?

  • what an ass!
  • Posted by nick on May 24, 2006 at 9:10am EDT
  • and this "hero" is someday going to council young people on the virtues of love and marriage?
    he is everything that is wrong with the catholic church, but i am sure it will embrace him with open arms.
    no tolerance for those on the pill, yet lots of years of tolerance for the hundreds of pedofile priests.
    ps: do you think this guy will see "the da vince code"?

  • Ben Kessler is the man!!!
  • Posted by Jason on May 24, 2006 at 9:15am EDT
  • Finally, a kid with some balls!!!

  • Free Speech
  • Posted by William Smith at LSU on May 24, 2006 at 9:35am EDT
  • It is called "Free Speech" or "Academic Freedom" You may not agree with what he said, but he has the right to say it!

    Those of us in academia who want to correct or worse stifle his views just because we may disagree with them are the intolerant ones'. With academic freedom comes the responsiblity of allowing desenting points of view, while respecting those who hold them.

  • Posted by Catholic human being on May 24, 2006 at 9:45am EDT
  • Thank you Tom Lawrence for posting an intelligent and thoughtful response that stimulates critical and sensitive thinking, as opposed to just stirring emotional reactions.

  • Standing Up
  • Posted by Gypsy Boots on May 24, 2006 at 9:45am EDT
  • It's unfortunate that St. Thomas doesn't have the courage of its convictions. If it had stuck to its guns, any loss of disaffected alumni and parents would have been more than made up for by those grateful that an ostensibly Roman Catholic university finally had the courage to be consistently Catholic.

  • What is graduation anyway
  • Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 24, 2006 at 9:45am EDT
  • Perhaps it is time to revisit the purpose of graduation ceremonies. If the goal is an inclusive celebration for students and their parents, then make them a non-controversial, inclusive party. If the goal is controversey and attention for the college/university (be it this kid or John McCain or Condi Rice) then, you get what you pay for - including offended students and upset parents. And, well, free speech at a graduation is free speech. If John McCain gets up to campaign for President by giving his stump speech, or Rice gets up to defend American imperialism, or this unfortunate boy gets up to argue for Taliban-style sex separation, they are injecting their opinion into the graduation ceremony. Once that begins I can't imagine asking any graduating student to then do any less.

    Whatever the purpose of the ceremony, public debate or celebration, it is the school's responsibility - obviously in consultation with the student body - to make it clear the purpose of the event in advance.

  • Free Speech vs. Appropriate Speech
  • Posted by SRK , Attorney on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • The first amendment is not the only limitation on speech. What I mean by that is that just because the first amendment protects a person's right against limitation of speech *by the government* doesn't mean that the community around him has to let him say whatever he wants. Free speech was intended to promote a community that exchanges ideas, and in this case, those who believe he was wrong also have "the right" to express their views. That means they are free to say that he shouldn't have spoken, if that's what they believe. That also means a Catholic university, as a private institution, can choose only to present one view on morality. Free speech is ONLY a limitation on the *government* and goes both ways--any opinion, even the one that someone else should shut up, is free from being censored or sanctioned by the government.

    But just because someone has a "right" to say what he said doesn't mean it's always appropriate. If you believe that anything within the acceptable range of free speech is acceptable to say at any time in society, more power to you, but most people would disagree with you. A university classroom is a very different environment than a university commencement. Sure, he had the "right" to say what he said, but he was way outside the bounds of propriety.

    And while I believe that he genuinely didn't know that his speech would have that kind of impact on the audience (I agree with most of you that I'm not surprised to see this coming out of a Catholic institution), then the university needs to choose its student speakers better. A good public speaker is always aware of his or her audience and chooses his rhetorical strategy (I mean that in the traditional sense, not the pejorative sense) appropriately.

  • Kessler does not speak for all Christians
  • Posted by Tom McCool on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • Ben Kessler does not speak for all Christians, just as Ward Churchill does not speak for all liberals, or Pat Buchanan speak for all conservatives. While Christian fundamentalists and literalists will argue that there is only one interpretation of Scripture (their own, of course), there are many Christians who are rejecting both strictly conservative and strictly liberal theologies. They are searching for new ways to be followers of Jesus Christ in a post-modern, post-colonial world.

    To Arthur Idle and others: If you have left the Christian faith because you are dismayed with fundamentalism and literalism, read the works of Brian McLaren, Marcus Borg, Dallas Willard and others. There is a "new kind of Christian" emerging. Come and join us.

  • Posted by KH on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • Let's not blame everything on No Child Left Behind. The law was enacted in 2002 and only BEGAN to be implemented in 2003. By any reasonable measure, this student could not have 'suffered' at the hands of its focus on reading, language arts and math. SHEESH - next I'll hear that it is responsible for global warming, the prolonged insurgency in Iraq and the fact that we don't yet have a cure for baldness.

  • Intolerance and ignorant comments
  • Posted by Michael Jehn at Carnegie Mellon University on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • Clearly, some of those who have posted on this topic, judging by their incredible ignorance and penchant for offensive blanket statements, are not ones to talk on matters of intolerance. From Arthur Ide, Ph.D. (I'm surprised about THAT!):

    "It is people like Ben Kessler that forced me to abandon my Roman Catholicism and Christianity, for intolerance and judgmental self-aggrandizement have nothing in common with god or goodness."

    Mr. Ide, if the beliefs and attitudes of a group of unyielding, closed-minded zealots--who, by the way, do not comprise the majority of Catholics--were all it took for you to abandon Christianity, then you obviously didn't have a very strong faith to begin with. That was a ridiculous and, quite frankly, weak statement to make. Had you been strong in your Christian faith, regardless of whether you chose the Roman Catholic church as the foundation and structure of that faith, it would surely have remained strong despite the often destructive presence of outspoken slanderers, zealots, and others who misrepresent or otherwise bastardize modern Christianity. I strongly agree with the comment that Sam made regarding this issue.

    I am a practicing Roman Catholic who openly acknowledges the many mistakes that the institutionalized church has made--not to mention certain aspects of church teaching and dogma that I disagree with; yet I don't quit my faith and reject my religious identity because of it. Furthermore, although many modern Catholics (including myself) believe that the church should definitely reevaluate its official position on certain things, like birth control and women in the priesthood, that does not IN ANY WAY justify your poor--and rather distasteful--assertion that the Catholic Church is "in line with the medieval world." The truth, Mr. Ide, does not change with time, nor should it be expected to loosen and turn its back in the face of ever-weakening moral values and the proliferation of vulgarity, promiscuity, irresponsibility, and the promotion of reckless lifestyles. (By the way, since I didn't specify any particular lifestyles that I consider reckless, it would be in your best interest, for the sake of your integrity, not to make any assumptions about my beliefs.)

    Finally, a word for "Nick," who appears to have a pronounced grievance against the Catholic Church: your employment of blanket generalizations is especially crude. The ENTIRE church did not and does not tolerate the abuses committed by priests. The Pope is absolutely opposed to the sins committed by that SMALL MINORITY of priests, and it is not the fault of the pope or of the Catholic community worldwide that the hierarchy of the church, and the actions of a relative few, made the covering up of those immoral actions possible. Incidentally, just because Ben Kessler might perhaps have made an error in judgment regarding the delivery of his speech in no way implies that he will not one day make an excellent, honorable, and talented priest. People make mistakes, people change; and honest, brave people like Mr. Kessler continue to stand for what they believe is right, despite the vicious criticism of haters like you.

  • A Commencement Turns Ugly’
  • Posted by H.J. Heflin on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • So, what did these people expect from an institution such as this? I hope your kids grow up to be smarter than you.

  • Posted by Jennifer on May 24, 2006 at 10:25am EDT
  • There is an ever-growing climate of intolerance permeating from every institution in this country. I get the feeling that we're about to enter a Neo-Dark Age where true knowledge is demonized and blind adherence to dogma is the forced norm. I'm just sayin'.

  • Roman Catholic Colleges
  • Posted by Paulette Marty at Appalachian State University on May 24, 2006 at 10:40am EDT
  • Just to clarify, most Roman Catholic colleges I'm familiar with don't push Catholic doctrine on their students. I attended a Catholic college in Minnesota as an undergrad (not St. Thomas) and went to Mass and retreats my first few years, but it was never pushed on me. Eventually, after the nuns and other profs introduced me to feminist ideas, I became disenchanted with the Church's patriarchal structure and stopped practicing the religion. Many of my classmates followed the same path, but many others are still practicing Catholics today. The students, parents, and faculty at the St. Thomas graduation had little reason to "expect" to hear that speech.

    It's also important to recognize that not all Catholics agree with or follow all of the Church's rules, particularly those condemning birth control and unmarried sexual partnerships. I'm sure many of the offended attendees of the St. Thomas graduation were practicing Catholics.

  • William Smith - Excellent point!
  • Posted by Brian on May 24, 2006 at 10:45am EDT
  • The school invited him to give a speech. He should have full command over its content and, as long as there’s no legally actionable content (slander, obscenity, or hate speech), he should be able to speak his mind, even if it departs from the normal self-congratulatory clichés that populate most commencement speeches. Likewise, people should feel free to boo or walk out of the speech.
    But if he’s going to roll out such controversial claims he needs to deliver them with greater coherence, fluency, and persuasiveness. At minimum, he should have the speech memorized. He shouldn’t be stumbling over words or injecting imaginary pauses into whole phrases. He also needs to vary his diction so he's not using the word “selfish” a thousand times.
    This is the issue we all should be discussing. What has happened to speech education in this country? Is persuasive public speaking a dying art?
    Hey, “Catholic human being,” how is Tom Lawrence’s comment “There is no denying that Kessler’s remarks had no place at a commencement” NOT “just stirring emotional reactions?”

  • don't blame Catholics
  • Posted by RS on May 24, 2006 at 11:05am EDT
  • 75 percent of Catholics support birth control, and the right of women to control decisions about their own bodies, higher than for many other Christian denominations. The problem is not Catholics, but the pathological clique that controls the institutions of that faith.

  • Free Speech Modified
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott on May 24, 2006 at 11:05am EDT
  • ARK's response to explain the application of free speech is perfect. I remove that argument from my response.

    My amended response is that the 4.0 grade average and other criteria used to select the student to make the speech carried with it the right for the student to select his topic and the audience had the obligation to sit quietly and accept the presentation.

    He had no obligation to tailor his talk to the audience. He had the stage and earned the right to freely express his views. Nothing he said should have been a surprise once one considers the source and the location.

    If I were an administrator of a Catholic University I would be proud of the job done to produce Mr. Kessler. It appears to me that the school is trying to appeal to too wide a cross section of America. If it does not want to teach Catholic values and allow those values to be expressed, perhaps it should change its name and identity. The force of the apology upon Mr. Kessler was a travesty.

    Mr. Kessler has beliefs and is willing to express them. I regret he was taught the power of political correctness in America extends to an institution of higher learning that tells everyone it is Catholic. And, with a cursory study, Catholic beliefs can be known before enrollment. Don’t like what they stand for, go somewhere else.

    But the school would rather not stand for anything and have everyone attend. No wonder Americans have a confused view of values.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.
    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • A commencement turned ugly
  • Posted by stephen Waite on May 24, 2006 at 11:35am EDT
  • "The truth, Mr. Ide, does not change with time, nor should it be expected to loosen and turn its back in the face of ever-weakening moral values and the proliferation of vulgarity, promiscuity, irresponsibility, and the promotion of reckless lifestyles"
    Jehn what a bunch of self righteous drivel.
    Hey Mike I was educated at a Jesuit Catholic University - you know why I stay as far away from organized religion as possible? To keep away from sanctimonious judgmental ass holes like you. I guess I am just part of the promotion of promiscuity, irresponsibility and reckless lifestyles that the catholic inquisition has tried to warn me against. Organized religion and in particular the Catholic Church is all about male domination, power and control - it always has been.

  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on May 24, 2006 at 12:00pm EDT
  • William Scott asks "Why would one go to a Catholic school without the expectation of announcement of Catholic beliefs...?" Possibly because one was looking for an open, tolerant learning community that had the maturity to not impose its own views on students.

  • Posted by Thane Doss on May 24, 2006 at 12:05pm EDT
  • If higher education is about learning how to learn, to gather information, to formulate and test hypotheses, and in general to replace unknowns and guesses with knowledge and concentrated investigation, using graduation--or a discussion of graduation--to press the the value of faith strong enough to weather reality unaffected seems rather a step backward.

  • Posted by Bob at State U. on May 24, 2006 at 12:35pm EDT
  • Come on, give the guy a break. He was trying to give a morally uplifting speech at graduation. He was sincere. It was reflective of Catholic teaching and so one should not consider his views out of bounds, given the context. And he wasn't that bad of a speaker. All in all, I'd rather hear him and his remarks much more than the useless, insincere (and worse) blatherings of politicians and pundits.

    Having said that, he stepped into issues, and made himself a representative for viewpoints, that have aroused great passion and anger in society. Many women, with good reason, feel under assault from conservative forces in the country. And Mr. Kessler unfortunately made himself a representative of those forces. I don't think he meant to do that, but rather simply saw himself, as an individual, exhorting his classmates to lead a moral, selfless life, in all its aspects, with a little bit of provocation thrown in for effect. So he apologized, and it was generous of him,and probably appropriate, to do that. But give the guy a break, he was trying his best, and he has learned a lesson. His college has learned a lesson as well. But it's not at him that outrage should be directed.

  • Catholic Values at Catholic schools
  • Posted by AB on May 24, 2006 at 12:35pm EDT
  • What most commenters do not realize is that the uproar is not about the subject matter of the speach as much as it is was the manner in which they were conveyed. The tone was accusationary, judgemental, demeaning, self-righteous, and down-right rude.

    I know this because I was there. I am a Catholic and honestly share some of the viewpoints Ben expressed. Nevertheless, he spoke not as a caring, loving, true Catholic on that day, but as an ultra-conservative intolerant bigot.

    That is why people are upset.

  • Posted by paul on May 24, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The issue here is not one of academic freedom or free speech, but one of what is appropriate in this situation. The situation is a commencement at a Catholic institution. What is appropriate is a matter of judgement, and reasonable people can disagree. The speech may well have been consistent with Church doctrine, but as poll after poll has shown, this doctrine is controversial among the laity. Actually I don't think that that is correct. Controversial implies that roughly equal numbers agree and disagree. The numbers show that the doctrine is not controversial among the laity, the laity think, by and large that it is wrong.

    In judging whether the topic was appropriate for a commencement address, the speaker and the administration had to consider whether the commencement was to be a celebration of several (4+?) years of growth and learning, with some thought of future including exhortations for achievement of one sort or another; or whether it was to be a place for instilling church doctrine into the faithful, knowing full well that many in attendance would be either expecting something else, or in strong disagreement with the message, or both.

    For myself, I would lean to the former, and would think it rude if I were a graduate or parent of a graduate, and not warned what to expect.

  • Posted by Mark Press, Ph.D. , Chair, Psychology Dept. at Touro College on May 24, 2006 at 2:10pm EDT
  • I am not a Christian, much less a Catholic, but I am surprised at the lack of sophistication in much of the discussion of this issue. Tolerance is a much less important virtue for religions that believe in an absolute truth than is speaking that truth. The young man involved appears to have spoken what the inswtitutional Church believes to be true, regardless of the fact that many Americans who call themselves RC don't accept it. It is hard to understand the emotional reaction of students who reject the values of their institution and wish to deny others the right to express those values. What they seem to be objecting to is not the young man but the possibility that he (and the Church) believe that they are morally in error. Does this really come as a surprise?

  • The problem is not the tone, is the content too
  • Posted by Joe London on May 24, 2006 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I cannot imagine that saying the same things with a different tone would have made a difference. The problem was in the content too. Catholic religion in intrinsically self-righteous, accusatory and dissociated. It should not be allowed in schools, especially with young easily influenced kids. It can create people with problems.
    That said, anybody can give a single speech, however wacky. But I am against wacky education.

  • How does it fit in with commencement?
  • Posted by Jessie , Student at Villa Julie College on May 24, 2006 at 2:30pm EDT
  • First off, while I do not agree with what he said in his speech, I'll support his right to say it.
    HOWEVER, I think it was stupid in general to give a controversial speech at a commencement. At commencement, one is supposed to say something inspirational and encouraging to those who are graduating, not start a debate. Such opinions are better left to more appropriate outlets, such as the op/ed section of a newspaper, a blog or a political rally, not GRADUATION.

    While I don't know what the entire speech said, judging from what I have read, it was a poor choice in topic for the type of event at which he was speaking, regardless of whether people agree or disagree with him.

  • Posted by Laura Stanley on May 24, 2006 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I wonder if this commencement address will cause students to choose another school over St. Thomas?

    I am a non-Catholic who graduated from a Catholic college, where all religions attending were welcomed and treated well. It saddens me to think that even institutions of learning are becoming so polarized and controlling.

  • Posted by kimo on May 24, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT
  • Here we go again - another candidate for Pres.

  • Posted by W Skinner on May 24, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • My concern is for the wretched memory these students and their families will always have for this graduation. It is supposed to be a time of happiness and bittersweet reflection but instead has been turned into a moment of anger and sadness. That's a pretty sad legacy and no apology can make up for it.

  • It is just the next step.
  • Posted by Joseph Bua on May 24, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • Criminalizing the sex act is next.

    Of course, as I'm not having sex with women, I don't have to worry about birth control, short of course a condom for my own protection, but then I'm sure Young Mr. Kesslar wouldn't want me to use one of them, either.

    What does he think about the previous Pope harboring a child molester for all those years, I wonder.

    Any guy who's on his way to becoming a priest should probably keep his mouth shut until he gets through seminary. He just might run into some fellow students whose sexual past, presents, and futures will astound him.

  • A Debate About A Commencement Turned VERY Ugly
  • Posted by Michael Jehn at Carnegie Mellon University on May 24, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • Stephen Waite, enough with the nasty name-calling. Is it really necessary? You call me a "sanctimonious judgmental ***hole"; what would that make you, then, presuming to know someone you've never met and slandering him on a public forum--and using unnecessary vulgarity?! I loved your assessment of my post as "self-righteous drivel." VERY ouch. Your hypocricy astounds me. Far be it for me, or anyone else, to stand up for personal beliefs... You treat such activity as a crime.

    So you were educated at a Jesuit Catholic University. Great! Why on earth do you assume that I would consider you "just part of the promotion of promiscuity, irresponsibility and reckless lifestyles that the catholic inquisition" has tried to warn you against? I have no idea where THAT came from. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort, and I would never have made such an assumption about a stranger. You've aimed that little personal attack on yourself. The only assumption I'd make about YOU, good fella, is that you're into spreading the misery ALL around. In particular, I enjoyed your statement about staying as far away from organized religion as possible, as if all followers and proponents of organized religion are evil or something. I'll tell you what: you're the one left standing as the venom-spewing hater in this arena!

    Chuckling in Pittsburgh,

    -M.

  • Settle down, y'all
  • Posted by shieldvulf at playful on May 24, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • This unpleasantness hardly rises to Constitutional or doctrinal questions. Kessler's remarks were not about legal guarantees; nor were they about church dogma. Mr. Kessler made personal characterizations about people. He said certain people are "selfish."

    Never mind his reasons. Declaring another's character and then scolding him/her for your characterization is unprincipled and childish behavior. Mr. Kessler can't look into anyone's character any more than I can look into yours. His speculations on the matter don't take on weight just because they are pissy and rude, no more than because he has a microphone.

    And, by the way, he has not apologized, but weasled out of an apology. He said he was sorry for those "who were offended by his words." That is not an apology. An apology would include both his regret at having said the offending words AND a promise never to commit the same offense again. Mr. Kessler offered the popular "non-apology apology," which boils down to, "Hey, I'm sorry you put your face in front of my fist."

  • Posted by Heather on May 24, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT
  • I was surprised to read Mr. Jehn's assertion that the Pope condemns the actions of members of the Catholic Church hierarchy who covered up the decades of sexual abuse. I live in Boston, and, although I have never been a Catholic, it is impossible to have missed the extensive coverage of the actions of the institutional Catholic Church in this respect. Is Mr. Jehn aware that Bernard Cardinal Law, who resigned as Archbishop in disgrace for his aiding and abetting of "the sins committed by that SMALL MINORITY of priests", was recalled to the Vatican by Pope John Paul II and given the title of archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica? See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/pbssq . Critics of the Church's actions have been punished severely, and I cannot believe that Pope Benedict is unaware of and uninvolved in those decisions, and he has done nothing to my knowledge to reverse the reward Cardinal Law received for his role in this matter. I understand that this is somewhat peripheral to the main topic here, but I couldn't let this go unchallenged.

  • Posted by Nathan , Alumnus at UST on May 24, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT
  • The University’s mission statement begins: "The University of St. Thomas is a Catholic, diocesan university, founded on belief in God and commitment to a life of worship leading to active participation in the mission of Christ and the Church to the world. In that context and as an important part of its religious witness, the university welcomes and respects faculty, staff and students who do not share this faith tradition." It is the last sentence that influenced my decision as a nonbeliver to attend UST, and the school met my education needs quite well. However, I too was rather disappointed by the Tommie of the Year speech at my commencement. But that was last year. I’m much more embarrassed by this year’s speech and hope the university can recover its reputation for diversity. I also hope future Seniors will give a little more consideration to public speaking ability when they fill out their Tommie of the Year ballots.

  • Read your Voltaire!!
  • Posted by Ryan Norton at UVM on May 24, 2006 at 4:10pm EDT
  • While you may not agree with what this kid said, he certainly has the right to say it; even if you view his indulgence as "selfish."

    The elephant in the room, maybe even the elephant on the globe, is the absurdity of religious beliefs to begin with. Just think, not this (nor holy wars, nor Terri Shivo, etc.) would even be a discussion if the out-moded, antiquated idea of a fictional diety were finally put to bed.

    All religions are simply used to trick those too ignorant and weak to deal with an uncertain world into serving the immoral and their "selfish" causes.

    ...and that, too, is freedom of speech.

  • Damned dams
  • Posted by normalvision , Prof. of English (ret.) on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • According to the genius with the 4.0 GPA, women who use the pill are “selfish.” That is, those who choose when to conceive and when not to are “selfish.” Don’t they know their role as a woman is to be a breeder? (And if that is the case, what in hell are they doing wasting their time in college?)

  • Don't blame Catholics?
  • Posted by Michael O'Henly on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • The problem is not Catholics, but the pathological clique that controls the institutions of that faith.

    The problem is Catholics, unfortunately. Until ordinary people of the church denounce their leadership, they'll continue to be led around by their noses.

  • Posted by Garth on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • the kid had every right to speak his mind, but he shouldn't be surprised to find that the majority find his views and the official views of the RC a repulsive denial of fundamental human rights.

    if you can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen.

    birth control is selfish?
    gays are bad?

    why doesn't he come out and deny the holocaust while he's up there.

    where ever these views are to be found you will find invariably find a close minded bigot.

  • Posted by JAG , "Religious Freedom?" on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • I find this story just another sad sign of our current times. This is just another manifestation of the institutionalized hatred and intolerance being fostered in the United States under the cloak of "Religious Freedom".
    What this individual has done is reflect the prevalent teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Surprised? What he stated is the current policy of the Catholic Church. It has been well publicised, the official documents from the new Pope, his doctrines on birth control, marriage (man and a woman and non-married couples) Gays, AIDS and even science. The Roman Catholic Church is still retaining the Medieval biases and dogmas it always fostered.
    Should it be surprising these comments came out from someone studying to be a priest?Aren't these ideas promulgated in the Catholic church and other religions worldwide? I'm not surprised these opinions were brought forward. What did the other attendees expect? He likely recited what he was taught. A good Catholic? Religion will be the bain of mankind. I am disgusted with hatred being foisted as "Releigios Freedom".

  • response to comments
  • Posted by Sara at University of St. Thomas on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • Most of the controversy (at least at St. Thomas) seems to come from timing of this speech more than content. No matter how you view the issues that Ben talked about, graduation is not a time in which you scold your fellow classmates for being selfish (which is a huge generalization by the way). This past year at St. Thomas has seen its fair share of controversies. Our campus has debated everything from the travel policy, the hate crime in the spring(yes, there was a hate crime against an African American student in one of our dorms), and the treatment of the student club Allies (a gay-straight alliance group). This was the last thing that our campus needed! If Ben cared about the state of our campus climate, he shouldn't have done this speech.

  • Posted by Mark K , Boycott the School on May 24, 2006 at 5:10pm EDT
  • People should do to this school what country music fans did to the Dixie Chicks. Just refuse to go to school there. Go somewhere else. Refuse to support an institution which promotes intolerance.

  • Posted by CML on May 24, 2006 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Mr. Lawrence,

    Your comment truly contributed to the advancement of the discussion. I applaud its intellectual depth and generosity of spirit.

  • Catholic church -- abuses and cover-ups
  • Posted by Michael Jehn at Carnegie Mellon University on May 24, 2006 at 5:15pm EDT
  • In response to Heather's comment:

    "Is Mr. Jehn aware that Bernard Cardinal Law, who resigned as Archbishop in disgrace for his aiding and abetting of “the sins committed by that SMALL MINORITY of priests", was recalled to the Vatican by Pope John Paul II and given the title of archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica?"

    Yes, Heather, I am. This doesn't mean that Pope John Paul II morally approved of the abusers' actions or of the coverup, or specifically of Cardinal Law's actions. Have YOU forgotten that Christianity is based partly upon the principle of forgiveness? I don't know why Pope John Paul II did this, and I don't really care. In case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church is in dire need of lay leaders and ordained ministers. Would you have preferred if Cardinal Law had been stripped of his title and sent on his merry way? Maybe, maybe not; and I'll give you this much: perhaps that would've been the right thing to do. Honestly, Heather, do you think that the pope (John Paul II) was pleased with what was going on regarding the abuse scandal? Do you think he was tickled pink that many of the abuses went unpunished? Do you think that the pope was happy to know that these abuses ever occurred in the first place? I'm sorry, but I really doubt it. Therefore, I stand by my argument that the pope, recently departed AND current, "condemns the actions of members of the Catholic Church hierarchy who covered up the decades of sexual abuse," at the very core of the issue/crisis.

    And yes, Heather, although you delightfully mock my words, it IS a small minority of priests who have committed immoral and lewd acts upon children--relative to the total number of active priests in the world--, even though so many Catholic-bashers, including ones engaged in this current forum debate, would prefer to argue otherwise. That is what I meant. The number of abusive priests is regretfully, sadly high, but with respect to the TOTAL number of Catholic ministers in the world, the percentage is undoubtedly small. Five percent? Three percent? I don't know.

    Thanks for the flaming. It's been a blast! Now that my participation on this forum has evolved into something that has NOTHING to do with the original topic, I think it's time to bury the hatchet, so to speak.
    -M.

  • Conservatism masking as holiness
  • Posted by Jon on May 24, 2006 at 5:15pm EDT
  • What kind of "courage" does it take to mouth off the opinions and views of what constitutes God's Law by the powers that be? Wouldn't it take more courage to express just the opposite and then wait for the expected attack by those in authority? The conservatives who base their morality solely on sex (as a means of control) while ignoring the kind of morality that Our Lord consistently expressed in the Gospels have hoodwinked the faithful for centuries about their twisted interpretation of the Gospel message. It's time for people to take the Church back from these people. If there was anything Jesus was upset about, it was hypocrisy and self-righteousness and God knows the Church is filled with them. These Pharisees just keep blinding the faithful to the truth of Matthew 25 about who really enters heaven and who goes to hell. Coming straight from Jesus' mouth, it doesn't mention a SINGLE sexual "sinner".

  • Posted by White-Wolf on May 24, 2006 at 9:00pm EDT
  • This guy as a real ass, but as amaricans we must let him speak his views. If we dont, it may be our views that are silenced.

  • About the "Tommie of the Year"
  • Posted by Joe London on May 24, 2006 at 9:05pm EDT
  • Give Ben Kessler a break. The "Tommie of the Year" was just trying to feel the thrill of priesthood before becoming one (as he plans to)! The thrill of making a person feel bad for the legitimate choice of taking the pill. Don't worry, he will grow and intensify his guilt-making skills when talking about: premarital sex, condoms, masturbation, impure thoughts, homosexuality, political orientation and many other things. Perhaps he will encourage joining Opus Dei, and wearing a spiked chain, and whipping oneself (ah, the joys of Christianity!). He will, of course, learn advanced braiwashing techniques for kids, to create great citizens and happy people, able to contain the evil urgings of the body and gain the joys of the afterworld! I know, I know: it all sounds mad and mentally disturbed, but religions are dispensed from sanity are they not?

  • Posted by Catherine Winker on May 24, 2006 at 9:55pm EDT
  • May 24, 2006

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am an alumnus of St. Thomas. I attended the Master’s in Education program just after its inception. I am writing regarding the blatant bigotry that has been running rampant at St. Thomas in recent months. My initial assumption that the original situation (regarding the travel policy) would be handled fairly and without judgment, was, much to my dismay, completely inaccurate. I trusted that the situation would eventually be handled properly, but that couldn’t have been farther from the truth.

    Ben Kessler’s comments in his commencement speech are completely unacceptable, and the only scandals happening here are that he was allowed to get away with these comments without so much as a slap on the hand and that despite his attitudes regarding women and homosexuals, was voted Tommie of the Year. This young man is the future of the Catholic Church. His comments were not only intolerant and offensive, but, as a single, straight, unmarried woman without children, I was horrified by his judgment of my lifestyle, as well. How sad for any institution not only to train such an individual for any kind of leadership, but also to bestow him with honors and entrust their followers with his intolerant fanaticism.

    And what is the University’s response? That it took “courage” to give such a speech. How much courage does it take to oppress the oppressed, Mr. Rochon? And how is it wrong for me, or anyone, to take that comment as an endorsement of Kessler’s remarks, Mr. Hennes? How else are we to interpret it? That you would even insinuate that “the tensions evident Saturday did not reflect any broader problems” (Inside Higher Ed, May 24, 2006) is also insulting to anyone with half a mind.

    I am also concerned about the fact that one student can complain about their professor traveling with their partner and get the results they desired. Where is your loyalty to your faculty and staff? Are you simply catering to the bottom line when you cater to a misguided student? Your reaction to this complaint and the results were shocking! Your thinly veiled attempt at not appearing to be homophobic bigots did not work on me. It certainly isn’t working for St. Thomas, either. I am sure your lack of leadership here is what led to Kessler’s ill-thought-out speech.

    Until we learn to treat all other individuals, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender not only with tolerance but also with respect and dignity, we cannot call ourselves Christian. It is due to this narrow-minded thinking that I have broken with the Catholic Church. I still, however, believed that St. Thomas was not to be included strictly under that umbrella, because when I attended graduate school there, I experienced an open, accepting and more-than-tolerant attitude from my professors, the librarians and all of the faculty and staff with whom I had the honor to work. I can only imagine their thoughts on the matters at hand. Alienating such a gifted group of people does not bode well for your University.

    In light of these events and how poorly they’ve been handled, I would like you to take me off of all mailing and calling lists. I no longer wish to be affiliated with your institution. I find it unfortunate that I have to use the Registrar’s Office in order to receive transcripts, and if ever asked about my thoughts on St. Thomas will reply that I am no longer affiliated with that bigoted, narrow-minded, misogynistic institute.

    With Extreme Offense,

    Catherine L. Winker

  • Not what he said. What he did.
  • Posted by Joshua K. on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • The problem I see is not what he said, which is essentially the view of the RC. I have no problem with the Church claiming that birth control is selfish, especially if you are to be living your life for Christ. The problem I see is in what he DID. What he said is not contrary to Catholic doctrine. What he did is. He judged, in a direct, unsympathetic, and misguided words, the actions and beliefs of others, stating them as unarguable fact - that he is right, the dissenters are wrong, and there is no alternative, no room for discussion.

    In his current state, he would not make a good priest. He certainly doesn't make a good public speaker. His words sounded good and right to him, I'm sure. I doubt he realized his blunder before his speech. He more than likely did afterward. His apology likely more of an apology to those who didn't interpret his words the same way he did, unclear though it was. Ultimately, it was his fault his own thoughts were turned into harsh absolutes of what is wrong and right.

    Unfortunately, he represented a Catholic institution when he gave his commencement speech, which gives so many people the excuse to claim that the church teaches bigotry by focusing on one speech given by a clearly unpracticed college graduate, instead of what his message was trying to convey.

    What he was trying to get at in the speech, although it was very poorly executed, was a call to public service, and putting their newly accredited skills to good use in the worldwide community. Unfortunately, he tried to do what many gradution speakers do, and incorporate some controversial issue, in order to make an example. Clearly, he was inexperienced, and had little help from anyone who was, who would tell him that his claims, many not well founded or researched, would simply cause resentment rather than understanding.

    To those who denounce the Church because of this kid, shame on you. You seem so educated until you speak up. Look at the whole picture. He's not a representative of the Church. He didn't even mention the Church. It was an attempt at rhetorical grace that failed miserably. How can you feel anything but pity for the guy?

  • The Future of the Catholic Church
  • Posted by Joshua K. on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • Ms. Winker, you give this kid far too much credit.

  • Bravo, Mr. Kessler!
  • Posted by J.A. Marritt on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • Isn't it side-splittingly hilarious how the radical chic can dish it out, but they can't take it?

    With all the idiotic and offensive crap that has issued from commencement podia in recent weeks, you'd think the editors could find something more newsworthy than one poor chap who dares to utter a few inconvenient truths.

    I about busted a gut over Prof. Manske's tortured logic. Wotta hoot!

  • Reactive and emotional intolerance?
  • Posted by Bruce Harvey on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • For some time now, certainly in-progress since the ‘60s, we have been slowly heating up a stew of distrust of our cultural institutions, dismay at the betrayals of our role models, and disgust at our inability to reign-in our amorality. [We each choose which icon(s) to indict.] As a result, our culture is supersaturated with “intolerance.” [We each choose which one(s) to embrace.] St. Thomas' Commencement debacle is one more instance of intolerance precipitated out of the dissolution of civility in the U.S.A. Considering that the parents and the grads. have both grown up with the 60s-+ legacy, I find the most interesting aspect is the strength of the audience reaction. Other commentators here are right - what did they expect? To which I add, as a child of the 60s+ myself, why expect anything reactive at all? I think academic sociologists ought to look into the event - perhaps there is a subtext belief system worth of study that is mostly invisible except when unusual circumstances cause it to manifest itself in seemingly unprovoked and unwarranted emotional reactions (anger, tears, etc.).

  • A parent letter tht was sent to Rev. Dease, UST President
  • Posted by MAB on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • Dear Reverend Dease,

    As the parents of a 2006 University of St. Thomas graduate, we attended the May 20th commencement ceremony to celebrate our daughter’s four years of learning and growth at St. Thomas---a journey that culminated in a Bachelor of Arts degree with Summa Cum Laude honors.

    As the ceremony began, we were appreciative of the understated elegance and grace that we have often witnessed at St. Thomas events. Then, an occasion which started with pride and joy transformed into one of shock, anger, and sadness. The turning point was the address by Ben Kessler.

    First of all, we were shocked by Mr. Kessler’s remarks because rather than affirming the wonderful opportunities that he and his fellow graduates have been afforded during their tenure at St. Thomas, he chose to chastise his peers and then judge and demean faculty, administration, and students. He directed his remarks to all, even those who would never participate in or support the behavior he reprimanded. What should have been a psalm of honor and appreciation was rather an epithet of irritation and disappointment.

    Second, we were angered that this young man chose to use this occasion as a bully pulpit for his personal opinions and viewpoints. What self-indulgence he displayed by deeming his voice more important than those whom he represented! He dishonored not only his peers but also the University by ignoring the thousands of friends and family members who attended the ceremony to acknowledge the accomplishments of their loved ones. We are a Catholic family with strong beliefs, but as parents and guests, we were truly offended by his egotistical behavior.

    Third, we were saddened. We were saddened to see this young man, a member of St. John Vianney Seminary, behave in this manner. He spoke of ‘unselfishness’ and yet was consummately selfish in his belief that his need to publicly rebuke his peers and members of the faculty and staff was paramount to the purpose of the ceremony. As he continues his journey to the priesthood, we hope his prayers will include those asking for the humility and compassion that separate arrogance from righteousness. If not, we certainly pray that he is never a priest in a parish of which we are members.

    Father Dease, what we felt on Saturday afternoon was sympathy for our daughter and her classmates. From the moment [our daughter] first selected St. Thomas, she has deeply loved this university. St. Thomas has provided her with wonderful opportunities, has challenged her thinking, and has nurtured her both as a Catholic and as a young woman. She was blessed with exceptional professors and learning experiences that unquestionably prepared her for the next steps in life. How sad it was that Mr. Kessler, by directing his words to all, chose to publicly diminish [our daughter's]character, values, and dedication and commitment to the mission of St. Thoma--at her last, memorable event at this university.

    We read the statement from your office that was published in the May 23rd St. Paul Pioneer Press and wondered how many 2006 Tommie graduates and their families would accept Mr. Kessler’s lackluster apology. After borrowing thousands of dollars to pay for our daughter's education at St. Thomas and after traveling thousands of miles to attend her graduation ceremony---my husband and I do not.

    The 2006 Tommie graduates deserve an apology that carries the same impact as the words he delivered on Saturday. Perhaps Mr. Kessler should take the time to write a personal apology to each one of his fellow graduates. His behavior at the commencement ceremony certainly warrants more than a generic apology issued through an "official press release" to mass media!

    Sincerely,
    [Parents of a 2006 UST Graduate]

  • Interesing Discussions
  • Posted by Brian Weber , Senior Class President at University of St. Thomas on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • As I read some of these comments, I am quite surprised at the lengths to which many have generalized Mr. Kessler, the University of St. Thomas, and the Catholic church as a whole. It is ironic, in a way, as the arguments stem from the content of a speech that left many feeling generalized themselves. How many people know Mr. Kessler, that is, besides what they have seen in this ill-advised speech? How many people know the complete process of awarding one the Tommie of the Year? How many know whether his speech was pre-approved? (I certainly do not - and part of that might be because I know my own speech for the December commencement was not approved. In fact, I was busy with finals and waited until the last moment to write it, leaving little hope of a practice run). The fact of the matter is, we just don't have the facts. While some might argue that we need to look no further than the speech itself, I disagree. If you were judged by the world for what you did at one single instant in your life, I'm sure you would have some moments you'd be more than happy to cover up. Ben Kessler had many great moments at the University of St. Thomas - he was a good student (obviously - the 4.0 gpa has been flashed around on this comment board), but he was also involved in the community, as voters for the Tommie Award were able to see. These voters were not administration, they were students, faculty, and staff. Ben was up against some great fellow student leaders, but he won the award due to the respect that he had gained from all three groups mentioned above. Can we generalize a Catholic institution because of a speech (possibly not approved) that was given by someone (a young 20-something graduate) who, in the final voting for the award, really only needed more than 1/3 of the total votes from students, faculty, and staff (keeping in mind that the voting total could have been as low as one person, since no one is forced to vote for this award). What I hope is clear is that Mr. Kessler, while he was voted "Tommie of the Year," by no means represents the university in any official way, other than a title that just means he got more votes than anyone else. Even if he did represent the university, the debate of whether a speech in line with (although acknowledging it is a hard line) Catholic teaching at a Catholic university is not the issue I want to address. That discussion will go on, I suspect, well past our lifetimes, with all of the numerous caveats that entails. The real issue for the majority of the graduates at commencement (yes, another generalization, but I would propose an accurate one for the graduates - not necessarily the faculty and staff) was not of the content of the speech, but the venue at which the content was presented. I do agree that Mr. Kessler was allowed to speak on whatever he wanted. He earned that right as the tradition stated. However, I think it was of poor judgement to give the speech he did at graduation. While graduation is a time to look back and to look forward, it is most certainly not the time to make people feel like you are singling them out, no matter what your true intentions are. Graduation is a time to celebrate with family, friends, and the university itself. It is a time to look at the amazing achievements of students in terms of growth and personal development. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." I know that those graduates have grown a great deal during their time at St. Thomas. It could be said that some graduates did not grow quite enough (some would argue Mr. Kessler on this point, others would argue the students yelling and walking out during his speech, some both). Show me an institution that graduates perfect people, and I'll show you a smile (while also thinking you're insane). People aren't perfect, but we can learn from our mistakes. On all sides of this debate, I hope plenty of education can occur. Much more can be said, but that's enough from me for now. Keep up the good work... and be careful with those generalizations.

    ps. The mission statement used earlier in a posting is inaccurate. Check the school's website for the real version.

  • "courage"
  • Posted by Brian on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • I would like to add that saying something took "courage" is not saying you approved of it. When public speaking to large crowds of agitated people, one finds it advantageous to move on as quickly as possible. With sincerest apologies, what did you expect Catherine? An impromptu and public calling of an apology? The school is a Catholic institution, after all. Did you want him to say, "Now wait a minute, Ben... come back here and let them all know you aren't speaking on behalf of the school, despite your views being consistent Catholic teachings." No, he would be crazy to drag that out any longer. Instead, Rochon did the only thing he could do in that moment, he thanked Ben for his words, and moved one with commencement.

  • Give 'em enough rope
  • Posted by Brian on May 25, 2006 at 10:50am EDT
  • I am dismayed at how many people here think this guy should not have said what he said. He should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants wherever he wants. If you don't like it, speak out yourself.

    I think the religious right should be given enough rope to hang themselves. I would not have been upset at his speech -- I would have been laughing at him. And I would have felt sad for him. He has let teachings about "God," which have all the intellectual credibility of the story of the Easter Bunny, rule his life. He has allowed a warped, corrupt institution make him think that being a human being (ie, sexuality) is somehow a bad thing.

  • Sure Free Speech, Also Free Opinion, And Free Fallout
  • Posted by Kim on May 25, 2006 at 6:10pm EDT
  • Sure he can speak his mind, but people can also take offense. If he wanted to be remember he has done that. Now, he will have to take the lumps of his choice of topic. If I was honored to speak at such a prestigeous event - I wouldn't have chosen that topic. I sort of think he is a brainwashed Catholic.

    I personally don't care what this guy said. To me it didn't even have shock value. What I see is a man who has been brainwashed into these beliefs. He will fit well in the celergy life. Doesn't matter what he says because I stopped listening to Catholic priest for some time. The thought of listening to men who preach one thing and pratice another - does not seem like a wise place to get my values.

    Now I would like to see what his views are on sex offending priest.

  • PC FOREVER
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on May 25, 2006 at 6:10pm EDT
  • Hmm... Bash Bush at graduation - great. Give ill-informed moralizing lectures on the need for tolerance and diversity - applause.

    Yet, express a non-PC opinion, and dozens if not hundreds will annonymously mock you from the stand and internet and people will call for your censorship and the downfall of your entire university, not to mention religion.

    And yet this somehow isn't a double standard....

  • Posted by Laura on May 25, 2006 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Kevin, this is beyond being a non-PC opinion, it is relegating an entire gender to second-class citizens. Maybe we should just nationalize women's uteruses. Federal guidelines have been released suggesting women consider themselves pre-pregnant as long as they are of childbearing age:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html

  • Character witness
  • Posted by T.J. Scott at University of St. Thomas on May 26, 2006 at 4:40am EDT
  • I agree with my classmate Mr. Weber and wish to represent Ben Kessler as a character witness after seeing the abusive generalizations on this comment board. I feel that I am especially qualified in this capacity as I attended the same seminary as Ben and was his roomate freshman year.

    Firstly, Ben Kessler is a man who was extremely active within his community. Representing St. Thomas as a senior captain of the football team in addition to his seminary duties, Ben also found time to lead the Knights of Colombus chapter on campus while maintaining a 4.0 GPA in both of his majors: Philosophy and Business. He was elected, (not selected,) to be the Tommy of the Year and I couldn't imagine a more fitting candidate.

    Secondly, while Ben may not always have the best timing, he is an extremely honest man who will tell you what he thinks while he is thinking it. Some may view him as impetuous, but I know his impulsivity as an endearing trait. He is a kind human being who is constantly thinking about others. His top goal may not be to please everyone, but it certainly is to serve what he deems his greatest good: God.

    Finally, while Ben's comments may have been uncomfortable in their context, his actions have had their desired effect. Ben Kessler has brought the issues at St. Thomas and issues within the Roman Catholic Church into the open. He initiated the discussion of the elephant in the room not only within the St. Thomas community, but anywhere that this news has spread. Whether or not he stands on the correct side of the issues, I will leave to you. He has, however, managed to remind the world of the Roman Catholic stance and encourage discourse on the topic.

    While I may disagree with Ben's timing, I am very proud of my friend. He has been an exemplary student at the University of St. Thomas. It is important to note that although the opinions that he voiced may not be the opinions of all the students at St. Thomas (as evidenced by the background noise and walkouts in the video,) he was courageous in his actions and made a statement about what he felt was important, despite the fact that it was a difficult statement to make.

  • William Sumner Scott not related to TJ
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on May 26, 2006 at 6:35am EDT
  • No relationship to TJ Scott although I am quite proud of TJ's defense of his friend. More than the school administration could muster.

    Bill

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Ben's character
  • Posted by kim on May 26, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • At this point, it's not about Ben, but what he said, and what response he got from his audience. You can be the smartest brain child in the universe, but if you upset many parts of your audience, one has to ask if it was worth it?

    On a second note, I hope his honesty follows him into the priesthood for all of his days. Sure could use that honesty in professions as such.

  • Posted by Laura on May 26, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • While I'm sure Mr. Kessler has all sorts of qualifications in order to have been chosen to speak, I see his speech as an attack on women. Many women graduated that day, to be told they were selfish if they chose to delay their families. Whether or not this speech will cause the Roman Church to acknowledge the "elephant in the room" remains to be seen.

  • Timing
  • Posted by kim on May 26, 2006 at 9:30am EDT
  • 'Timing is EVERYTHING'.

    Yes, this something I would expect in a Sunday Morning Homily but not at commencement. Some people probably would have liked to agree with him but where angered that a day of recognition of accomplishment wasn't the day they wanted to think of an issue that may not even pertain to the majority of his audience.

  • Posted by John Keenan, J.D. on May 26, 2006 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Amazing, absolutely amazing. The virulence of opposition, the intolerance, and the elevated rhetoric, simply shows that Mr. Kessler hit a nerve in our selfish society. Yet his message was one of hope--that there are those who are not selfish or scandalous and that life is worth living. How sorrowful that the University had to solicit Mr. Kessler's apology and could not stand up for him and for what was right and good. How intolerant of you Fr. Dease. Was Kessler's speech timely? Yes. Appropriate? Yes. Especially in this day a self-indulgent and sex-crazed society. Thanks for having the fortitude Mr. Kessler in the midst of your colleagues.

  • The truth is the truth
  • Posted by Brendan Murphy at Santa Clara University, '91 on May 26, 2006 at 6:10pm EDT
  • Ben Kessler's comments certainly hit a nerve. Those ranting against his remarks on birth control employ such terms as 'offensive', 'inappropriate', and 'judgmental.' That allows them to avoid the central issue: is what he said true or false?

    Is the use of birth control by men or women selfish? It most certainly is. Birth control by its nature divides the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from the unitive aspect. It is selfish by definition. Those who use birth control attempt to vivisect a natural act, keeping the pleasure for themselves while discarding that which they find to be inconvenient or challenging. This is rooted not in the love of another, but in fear and selfishness.

    If Ben Kessler's comments cause you distress, be honest enough to acknowledge that it is because his comments are true, and be happy that your conscience isn't completely dead.

  • true or false; timing
  • Posted by kim on May 26, 2006 at 8:55pm EDT
  • If it were true or false given the sophistication of the topic, timing is pertinent. Otherwise, it falls on dead ears. Why defend something that obiviously was brought up at a bad moment? How would you like abortion brought at a soliders funeral? Stick with the topic. Are you sure this is higher education??

  • poor little guy
  • Posted by Tony on May 27, 2006 at 5:40am EDT
  • as one who attended a catholic university as a seminarian in a house of formation, exactly like kessler, i feel sorry for the little fella. he knows not what harm he causes with his spew. chances are extremely high-- given his career choice-- that he is gay and trying to deal with it. black-and-white, right-and-wrong answers create for him a comfort zone he would not otherwise have. he probably really thought people would be happy to have him share the comfort zone he found. in five or ten years he will come out of the closet in a public way with a real apology. i wish him the best in his struggles between now and that point of liberation.

  • Commencement Sinner?
  • Posted by David W.Backstrom , Sinner saved by Grace at UEBI (UnEducatedBeyondIntelligence) on May 27, 2006 at 5:40am EDT
  • Yes,
    Thank you and I thank God for this life that God has given us. That we can give our lives back to Him, that we could then recieve our lives as a prize from Him, to love others with the love He has shown us, in sending His son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins, and not just selfishly my sin but the sins of the whole world. I also love, Ben Kessler. God loves all the rest of you, also...and I'm trying. (Romans 3:23) Poor Ben, he is so immature. In watching the video I found no evidence of stones being cast and harming him unto blood. I used to carry such a stone in my own heart, with which to repell the conviction of the truth of the mystery, of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Bible states is "only a mystery, to those who are passing away". Where does that place you, today. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." (Psalms 14:1) If God does not exist in your experience, does that insure that He does not exist in reality, or only that He does not exist in... your reality? The most learned men of authority once proclaimed the earth to be flat. Ben Kessler Loves God and I believe, you all, also. Ben has alot to learn and he is possibly being tested in his faith to a greater degree that most of us possibly ever will, as he is willing to step out in faith not only in his speech but also, I hope, in his walk. To often, with us, being sorry is a self-centered emotion, whereas repentance is manifested in true Godly sorrow for others.Demanding an apoligy for our conviction will only temporarily stave off the return of the offending truth. God will again bring us back to the truth because He loves us. Telling the truth stands alone. Many are offended. Some will change. My prayer for Ben is that he would be led of the Holy Spirit to do God's Will, not his own, giving grace to recieve grace and learn how to love others as Christ loved. God loves all of us, we should, return the favor.
    P.S. the editing of free speech and judging as libelous, denies this gift that God has given us here in America. We live with this freedom today because men and women, girls and boys of Ben's age, really... have fought and died for us. If we then are willing to edit or supress this freedom because our own self-centered uneasiness with truth, we then deny those who were so selfless to surrender thier lives for us and curse also their gift to us. I thank God for all our United States Military Service Personel this Memorial Day weekend. God Bless. D.W.Backstrom

  • An Uncomfortable Six Minutes
  • Posted by Brian on May 27, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT
  • Interesting discussion. Although I don't agree w/ Kessler's views, it doesn't upset me or shock me that he holds & expresses them.

    I teach at a Jesuit U and our "diversity committee" constantly talks in a condescending manner about how our students can't handle being made to feel "uncomfortable." What they mean is that some student voiced an opinion that homosexuality is a sin and their women's studies teacher told them they were an idiot to feel that way. This leads to the student giving the teacher a bad course evaluation and then the teacher says "see, the students can't handle hearing things they disagree with. Clearly, we need more diversity (i.e. people who agree with me)."

    Which brings me back to Kessler's speech. If you don't agree w/ his speech and this causes you to physically get ill then stop listening. Do what I do during these speeches---daydream for six minutes, read the program again, make out your grocery list----but stop acting like a child by throwing a temper tantrum.

  • Selfish?
  • Posted by Laura on May 28, 2006 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I notice while Mr. Kessler suggests all we non-celibates do the non-selfish thing and have children, he will be going off to the lofty halls of Rome having estoric religious discussions on life.

    Mr. Kessler, maybe those who DON'T use birth control can also be construed as selfish. Tell people to have a dozen kids, who will continue to over-populate the earth and use up its resources, while you continue to paint women as empty vessels waiting to be filled with their true (and apparently only) unselfish purpose. But for God's sake remember to do exactly as the church says, don't think for yourself.

  • Posted by Claire Breaux on May 30, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT
  • I'd like to respond to those who see Ben Kessler's comments as an attack on women. As a woman and a practising Catholic, I have never felt that because the Catholic Church rejected the use of birth control, or even declined to allow women to enter the priesthood, I or any other woman was considered inferior to men. The Catholic Church does not insist that all women be child-bearers with no careers. It objects to the use of contraceptives because they block the possibility of something that the Church sees as intrinsic to sexual relations, namely, procreation. The Catholic Church does offer an alternative to the use of contraceptives, abstinence, whether it is all the time or during certain parts of a woman's cycle. This practice is certainly difficult, but it is not impossible and it is 100% effective.

  • Posted by Dee , Current Student at University of St. Thomas on May 30, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT
  • I just wanted to take a moment to reply to all of the comments about the problems within the University, and what that says about the students who go there. As a current student, I certainly do not consider myself unintelligent or in support of discrimination while I choose to remain a part of the St. Thomas Community. Personally, my decision to be a part of this sometimes discriminatory institution (one in which I at times feel discriminated against) is based on my desire to challenge individuals to broaden their horizons, and to continue doing whatever I can to be a part of welcoming and accepting every individual at our institution. If I leave, who stays to make ensure that the voices of the open-minded minority are heard? Other students have stood by me in times when I have felt nothing but disgust for St. Thomas, and I am going to continue to do that for other students here.

    I refuse to let the extremely vocal hateful part of our campus define my college or my college experience. That is why I stay, and why I continue to work to change things for the better in whatever way possible. I encourage other students to take up this same cause to ensure that EVERY student at UST is valued. Truly if only students who fit into the "mold" that Ben Kessler advocates chose to attend St. Thomas, our institution would consist solely of the Seminary and a handful of other closed minded individuals. Seeing as this is not the case, there is much hope for us in future classes.

    On a final note, I too was in the audience the day that Ben chose to spew hate onto his fellow classmates. It is the majority opinion on campus that regardless of his views, this was not an appropriate forum. I extend my applause to those classmates who refused to sit idly by as individuals were being verbally attacked from the stage. They had the courage to stand up against a wrong that was being committed. While being very proud of you all, it breaks my heart that a day that you worked so hard for, and paid nearly $120,000 for, will forever be marked by this one person's words. Know that you are being thought of, and that most of your fellow students do not endorse what happened to you, and I personally, feel that you were cheated in Ben's half-hearted and forced apology.

  • Posted by Mara at University of St. Thomas on June 5, 2006 at 2:40pm EDT
  • What I would like to point out to all of those saying "what were you expecting at a Catholic institution?" is that, above all, a university is a business. The primary goals of any business are to attract and retain clients in order to keep financially afloat. In order to keep and retain clients, appeasing them is a priority for businesses. This said, although St. Thomas is a Catholic institution, I do not think that the University was out of line in apologizing for the statements made by Benjamin Kessler on May 20. I would also point out that St. Thomas did not review Kessler's speech prior to the commencement ceremony.

    As a current "client" of the University of St. Thomas, and one who attended the 2006 commencement, I respect Kessler for standing up for his opinions and beliefs (despite the fact that they are contrary to my own) but I do not agree with his choice of venue in which to express them, as many other commencement attendees - whether they agree or disagree with Kessler - have expressed.

    From the moment I first toured St. Thomas, I have heard about the extensive pride the school takes in its religious diversity. As a non-Catholic, I have at no time within my three years at the University felt ostracized, belittled or looked-down-upon because of my differing beliefs. As a school that acknowledges that a large percentage of its students, faculty and staff are of religious orientation other than Roman Catholic, the institution has every right to regret putting students, alumni and community members of all denominations in such an uncomfortable position.

    The vision within the mission statement of the University of St. Thomas states: "We seek to be a recognized leader in Catholic higher education that excels in effective teaching, active learning, scholarly research and RESPONSIBLE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY as well as with the NATIONAL and GLOBAL COMMUNITITES IN WHICH WE LIVE." The mission also states that the university strives to create "a vibrant DIVERSE community in which, together, WE WORK FOR A MORE JUST AND INCLUSIVE SOCIETY."

    In light of the University's mission statement, I am also sad to say that I was embarrassed by the reaction to Kessler's speech. While I do not think his words were appropriate for the commencement ceremony of a school that takes pride in its diversity and encourages more diverse student and employee applicants, as a mature and [mostly] Christian audience, we should have sat and listened respectfully, no matter how much we disagreed or disapproved. Kessler may have been "excluding" members of the audience from appreciating the ceremony and standing for their beliefs at the moment, but many members of the audience did the same with their disrespect in booing, spouting rude comments and walking out.

    As someone else above said, graduation is a time for celebration and, in his own way, I believe Ben Kessler was celebrating; he was celebratory in his statement of a strong desire to offer hope for the future. Again, despite the fact that I disagree with him, I believe that Kessler has a sincere desire to make the world a better place, but I would urge him to consider refining his methods.

  • Tolerance and Charity.
  • Posted by The Ven. John C. Yanek, .D..D. , Dean of Holy Rood at The Holy Rood Consortium, Rome on June 9, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • Strange that the radical left complains when an orthodox Catholic with quite the marvellous track record in all fields sacred and secular upholds Catholic doctine in a quondam Catholic institution. Thr nerve! So one is open only when attacking Holy Church? Can the administration, & put the lad in as president of the school... or country. He knows the Truth and lives it. More than one can say of other presidents mis-managing the show! He is blessed and will prosper in Rome. Hope he eventually succeeds Harry Flynn and company. We need holy priests and bishops who are grounded in Theological Truth and orthodos in praxis, not ceo's bloviating wit and charm in liu of sound teachings.

  • Loved the speech
  • Posted by Mark on June 12, 2006 at 5:20am EDT
  • I thought the speech was great. It is very sad to hear that a Catholic school would produce such a large number of students who don't know their own faith. It is even more disturbing to hear that the school doesn't follow the faith.

  • Posted by Laura on June 12, 2006 at 5:20am EDT
  • This "quondam Catholic institution" is more than willing to accept tuition monies from the many non-Catholic students attending the university, only to turn around and insult them when they graduate. Rather non-sporting of them, don't you think?

  • Posted by Laura on June 19, 2006 at 10:45am EDT
  • Mark says:

    "I thought the speech was great. It is very sad to hear that a Catholic school would produce such a large number of students who don’t know their own faith."

    The point is, Mark, that although it is a Catholic University, not all its students are Catholic, nor are they expected to be. And it has not previously been the goal of Catholic universities to convert its non-Catholic students. If that was the purpose of this speech, it failed miserably.