News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
June 19, 2006
Margaret Somerville plans to pick up her honorary degree today at Ryerson University, in Toronto, whether protests materialize or not.
Somerville has plenty of honorary degrees and other honors from universities around the world. But Ryerson’s decision to give the McGill University professor an honor at today’s graduation ceremonies has set off a huge debate in Canada — similar in many ways to the furor over the New School’s invitation to Sen. John McCain to speak at its graduation last month.
In the case of Somerville, her opposition to gay marriage led several student groups and many faculty members to urge that she be disinvited to receive the honor. Somerville is a medical ethicist, holding appointments at McGill’s medical and law schools, and most of her work has nothing to do with gay marriage, but she did testify against it before a Parliamentary committee. With protests being planned for graduation, a Ryerson panel reviewed the invitation and concluded that it would be wrong to rescind the honor, but said that had Somerville’s views been known before the honor was announced, it would have been appropriate never to have extended the offer in the first place.
That statement offended Somerville, who suggested to reporters that she might not go after all, and angered many Canadians as a spineless defense of Somerville’s right as a scholar to hold to her views. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s most influential newspaper, published an editorial Saturday in which it said: “If there were a medal for the limpest defense of free speech, Ryerson University would take it in a walk.”
When Ryerson last month announced that Somerville was among the nine people selected for honorary degrees this year, she was praised for her “active role in the worldwide development of applied ethics, particularly the study of the wider ethical and legal aspects of medicine and science.” Somerville’s work covers many topics — euthanasia and the death penalty (she’s against both), studying the ethical issues raised by plans to combat bioterrorism, and reproductive technologies (she’s skeptical of many and opposed to others). Of the more than 300 scholarly papers she has published, only 1 focuses on gay marriage.
In a phone interview from her Montreal office Saturday, Somerville said that her opposition to gay marriage comes out of her work on reproductive technologies. She said she started working on that issue when she was approached by children and adults who were created by artificial means — and that many of them are troubled by the process by which they were brought into the world, and their lack of information about one or more of their biological parents. Somerville said that she worried that gay marriage would lead to challenges to laws she supports that ban cloning and the selling of eggs. She stressed that she backs full civil unions for gay couples and laws that would bar any discrimination against gay people except on the right to marry.
While Somerville’s views on a range of issues have been debated over the years, her opinions on gay marriage came as an upsetting surprise to many students and faculty members at the university. An online petition called her anti-feminist and anti-gay and said that giving her an honorary degree would be “contradictory to the human rights and anti-oppression policies” of the university.
Organizers of the opposition to Somerville, who are planning protests for today, did not respond to requests for interviews. But Nora Loreto of the Ryerson Students’ Union told The Toronto Star that it was “ridiculous” not to rescind the invitation, adding, “If this was any other kind of hate, I would expect that the university would be very, very quick to rescind this degree.”
The faculty committee that determines honorary degree recipients was convened to study the controversy and issued a statement last week standing by its decision — but that is the statement that has resulted in more criticism of Ryerson.
The statement said that committee members were “unaware of some positions” that Somerville had taken, and that the panel would review its procedures in light of that. Some of Somerville’s views, the committee said, are “at sharp variance from those of many members of our community.” The problem, the committee said, was that the invitation had already been extended.
“There would have been no academic freedom concerns if we had initially decided not to award an honorary doctorate to Dr. Somerville. However, if we decide to rescind the award in a public manner, we are raising these concerns.... If we withdraw the award, then we demonstrate that as a university we show tolerance for some contestable views but not others. Consequently to rescind the award would raise basic issues of freedom of speech in an academic environment,” the committee said.
Somerville characterized the statement as being one of the university saying “we don’t want to honor you but we are going to hold our noses and do it.” She said that by failing to defend her right to have her own views, beyond the question of appearances, the university committee was hurting academic freedom.
Normally in such a situation, she said, she would skip the ceremony. “If you don’t want to honor me then I don’t want to be honored,” she said.
But she is going to Ryerson, she said, for two reasons. One is that Ryerson’s president, Sheldon Levy, called her to apologize and to say that the university truly wanted to honor her. (University officials did not respond to requests to confirm this or share the institution’s perspective.)
The other reason, she said, was that staying away would have been giving in to those who believe her views should make her unwelcome. “If I withdraw, I cause to happen the thing they want to happen,” she said. As for the protests, she said, “as long as they aren’t violent, I don’t care.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Thank you Claude. I have no doubt some will ignore the relevant issues in this article and use this instead as a forum against gay marriage, but you make excellent points and I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you.
Response to Claude Summers, at 9:45 am EDT on June 19, 2006
The issue here is not gay marriage itself, but rather whether one should be free to argue their stance on the matter, irrespective of the side taken. While one may or may not agree with the position taken by Prof. Sommerville, one cannot deny that she expresses her views in an argued, respectful and non-inflammatory way. The issue of gay marriage is one that may have far reaching consequences for our society, whatever the final outcome of it may be. As such, it should be debated in the public forum. Labelling the professor a bigot and hate-monger because the views that she argues for happen to be politically incorrect is wrong – particularly in an academic setting. The proper way to proceed would be to attack her arguments, not her person.
Mark, at 2:55 pm EDT on June 19, 2006
Does anyone know any particularly relevant articles that (attempt to) draw a distinction between what constitutes legitimate speech and what is unacceptable or even hate speech?
It seems like it may be a line that needs to be drawn in this case. If someone had come out against a particular equality right for tall people, non-Caucasians or say, evangelical Christians, would we be so quick to defend it as free speech and protect it under the umbrella of academic freedom?
JL, at 6:20 pm EDT on June 19, 2006
The Globe and Mail, as well as many other commentators have it wrong in characterizing this issue as one of free speech or academic freedom.
Margaret Somerville has had no restrictions on her speech. This is someone who gets to write op-eds in the papers, hold press conferences, and testify as to her views in front of Parliamentary committees. Few others have had such opportunities to have their ideas broadcast.
People weren’t protesting her right to speak; they were protesting the University for choosing to confer particular honours on the person doing the speaking. In the marketplace of ideas, specious arguments like Somerville’s are supposed to be subject to criticism and counterargument; but instead of challenging her ideas, Ryerson put them on a pedestal.
Paul, University of Toronto, at 12:25 pm EDT on June 20, 2006
Prof. Somerville’s opposition to gay marriage is described in the piece by one protester as “(any other kind of) hate.” Is disagreement with the concept of same-sex marriage a phobia? Gay marriage advocates like to think so, but Somerville’s statements and demeanour, both now and in the past, belie the accusation of her being a homophobe. She, and I, agree that gay and lesbian individuals deserve and in fact have the same rights as straight individuals. Where such rights are absent that situation should be rectified. But the debate on same sex marriage goes beyond an issue of individual rights into an issue about the good of society as a whole. The argument against gay marriage can be broached on the level of biology. The right to marry flows naturally from biological reality; that is the natural teleology of the body and the biological complementarity of the sexes provide the basis of marriage. It should be noted that the teleology extends down to the level of the gametes. Only the union of sperm and egg can produce a child.Prof. Claude Summers thinks that since some heterosexuals can’t have children, then gays should have the right to marry. This claim misses the point that procreation is a feature that is generally true of heterosexual couples but which is never true of gay couples. Gay partners are by nature incapable of procreation. In the case of couples who cannot or will not have kids, the natural teleology argument still stands. There is simply a barrier preventing them from achieving natural ends. This barrier could be biological in nature or surgical (eg. vasectomy) or economic ("we can’t afford to have kids").
For seniors, most of them have already had and reared kids. They’ve done their job, so to speak. So, their right to marry can be seen as a collateral or fringe benefit of natural teleology. In addition, gay marriage advocates need to do more than point to the exceptional cases to make their case. Exceptions do not disprove the general rule. Civil unions provide a middle way that can provide gay couples with important benefits while keeping the traditional definition of marriage intact. Compromise of this sort can end up pleasing few on either side, but then isn’t that the Canadian way?
canadian, at 5:20 am EDT on June 21, 2006
As I said in my original post, Somerville’s position (and that of Canadian’s) re marriage is simply Roman Catholic ideology lite. Instead of “Natural Law,” the buzz word is apparently now “natural teleology.”
The fact remains, however, that despite the claims of traditionalists who fancy themselves defending marriage, marriage is not exclusively about procreation and never has been. People—including gay people—have children both in and out of marriage.
If child rearing is the principal purpose of marriage, then it seems to me that Somerville and others who believe as she does ought to be intent on protecting all children, including the children (whether natural, adopted, or artificially conceived) of same-sex couples by affording their parents the legal protections (and name) of marriage.
Somerville claims that her interest is in protecting children and allowing them knowledge of their biological background. Opposing gay marriage will do nothing to further these aims, unless (as many suspect) she has another agenda, which is to limit artificial means of procreation to married couples and to deny them to same-sex couples (while saying that same-sex couples in civil unions have all the rights of marriage).
If that is her intent, Somerville should say so clearly, and for consistency’s sake she should be opposed to the use of artificial means of conception for all couples, same-sex or opposite-sex. That, at least, would be an intelligible position.
I do not, by the way, think that Somerville is a homophobe or otherwise a hater. However, I think her arguments about marriage are not at all convincing (and indeed did not convince either the Supreme Court of Canada or the Canadian Parliament). My objection to her receiving an honorary degree from Ryerson University at the beginning of Gay Pride week in Toronto was that it was terribly insensitive of the university to honor someone of her views at that moment, somewhat analagous to a university in the southern United States with a large African American population awarding an honorary degree to an otherwise exemplary individual who had worked against the Civil Rights movement, and doing so on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.
Claude Summers, at 9:40 am EDT on June 21, 2006
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Fairmont State University and Pierpont Community & Technical College, with a 120-acre main campus in Fairmont, WV, is part of ... see job
Texas Woman’s University — Denton Campus Department: History and Government Title: Assistant Professor of History Job Code: ... see job
School of Medicine Department of Family Medicine Ambulatory Practice Position: Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Open Rank ... see job
The Sellinger School of Business at Loyola College in Maryland is looking for talented part-time instructors with a passion ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job
Instructor/Visiting Assistant Professor in Paper and Chemical Engineering see job
Hofstra University seeks a Dean of University Advisement to provide leadership, vision and oversight of the Center for ... see job
Position: Design Research Librarian Position Number: FA4310 Location: Doha, Qatar Position Begins: July 1, 2009 VCUQatar (see job
Margaret Somerville’s Honorary Degree
Margaret Somerville’s testimony against same-sex marriage mostly presents Catholic theology in a secular disguise. She says that she is in favor of civil unions for homosexuals that would grant all of the rights that heterosexual couples have except for the right to marry. But since her definition of marriage assumes that marriage is exclusively about reproduction, one assumes that same-sex couples in civil unions would not be permitted to adopt or to have access to reproductive technology. Her notion of equal rights is quite straitened.
Her chief argument agains same-sex marriage is that it would violate the symbolism of marriage as procreative. This argument is somewhat farfetched since marriage has never entailed an obligation to procreate and has always been available to people who are infertile or unwilling to reproduce. While she acknowledges this problem in her argument, she insists that the symbolism of marriage would be violated by homosexuals in way that it is not by the elderly or other people who cannot reproduce or do not want to do so.
In light of the significance that she accords symbolism, I find it surprising that she seems so surprised by the gay community’s reaction to her being honored by a university that is located in the heart of the largest gay and lesbian community in Canada, at the beginning of Pride Week, on the eve of the federal government’s plan to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. Many people in the gay and lesbian community see Somerville as a threat to their families; for her to be honored at such a time and place seems all too symbolic to them.
Claude Summers, Stirton Professor Emeritus at University of Michigan, at 9:05 am EDT on June 19, 2006