Being Roman Catholic and Jesuit used to mean something. It is interesting to read that when reminded of what, some students and faculty are surprised, even dismayed. It is not to their disadvantage, though. A Catholic, Jesuit institution is not inappropriate if following principles(not the same as rules) in its mission. I realize students/faculty in our secular era are used to an everything-goes morality in which no one is used to hearing No to anything except Politically Correct issues such as Native American nicknames. I hope the BC administration continues to follow principles. THAT would offer true diversity: different environments at different places. If students truly can’t stand a Catholic, Jesuit environment, they do have choices, especially in Boston, where there are colleges in every neighborhood.

Observer, at 7:20 am EDT on October 18, 2006

Don’t people who opt for Catholic or any religion-affiliated school enroll with the understanding that the teachings of that religion are somewhat central to the college’s ideology and often, also, to the curriculum? If there truly is separation of church and state, why should a religious institution have to bow to political trends? (Note, we would also ask why a secular institution would have to bow to religious trends. It goes both ways.)

kgotthardt, at 9:26 am EDT on October 18, 2006

President John F. Kennedy could have chosen any number of hyperbolic nicknames when he famously called Boston College the “Jesuit Ivy” in the 1950s. The fact that he chose “Jesuit” over “Catholic” is telling. The Roman Catholic Church has had a checkered history of attempting—and ultimately failing—to control knowledge over the past 2000 years. The Jesuits’ almost 500-year history of “finding God in all things” has lead to scientific discovery, scholarship and a fearless commitment to intellectual inquiry that has sometimes strained its relationship with the institutional church. Boston College’s motto—"Ever to Excel"–-succinctly expresses BC’s specifically Jesuit mission. It comes not from the Bible or the writings of Saint Ignatius, but from Homer’s Iliad—a passage that ends, “This is my ancestry; this is the blood I am proud to inherit.” Sadly, BC’s administration is altogether willing to sacrifice its Jesuit heritage in its quest to become, in the words of BC’s president, “the world’s leading Catholic university.” What Father Leahy and his administration fail to realize however is that many of us who chose to come to BC, chose it specifically because of its Jesuit dimension—a dimension absent at Notre Dame and withering at Georgetown. If BC is ever to fully live up to JFK’s grandiose nickname it will first have to live up to its own motto. The new speakers policy is only the latest evidence that BC is moving away from “Ever to Excel” to “Ever to Appease.” AMDG.

BC ‘08, Senior at Boston College, at 9:26 am EDT on October 18, 2006

John — you have a point. However, why then are campus leaders afraid that a speaker espousing the death penalty does not need to be balanced, whereas an abortion rights speaker does? Sanctity of life is sanctity of life, or so the church teaches. So, if their worries are correct, it is more an issue of conservative republican views are welcome whereas liberal democratic views need balance, which takes the whole issue out of the realm of religion smack into politics. I am not catholic but the rest of my family is, and I have never understood how a “good catholic” can be for the death penalty (and a fair number are based on my totally unscientific poll) — maybe they are just catholics but not “good catholics” despite what they claim to be.

Ingolf Gruen, at 12:20 pm EDT on October 18, 2006

Delay: This isn’t about balance.

John and Mr. Green, The problem is that the power to delay a speaker is, in effect, the power to supress his views completely, as the speaker might never be able to appear or might only be able to appear at a time when his view are not relevant.

KT, Your point is still too vague to understand. And I am really trying. Assuming someone says “This isn’t what higher education is about,” it doesn’t mean that we all agree as to what exactly higher education is “about.” Instead, someone is simply asserting that their values alone represent the norms of higher education.

Indeed, even when people use buzzwords, it is doubtful that people all mean the same thing or even agree on definitions. Buzzwords, because of their lack of meaning are nothing more than either 1) political rallying cries; or 2) rhetorical fictions that are agreed-upon by differing viewpoints to avoid discussing a real issue. Whatever the case, there are many buzzwords which people claim reflect all sorts of viewpoints.

Larry, at 2:55 pm EDT on October 18, 2006

The school is Catholic. That’s supposed to mean something. If you don’t want a school that pushes, endorses and protects Catholic ideas and ideology, don’t go there.

Catholic Professor, at 8:20 pm EDT on October 18, 2006

Ingolf GruenPlease don’t make the generalization that ‘right to life’ advocates are only concerned with abortion. While abortion cases are several orders of magtitude larger than cases of executions, the right to life group is concerned with the entire issue of life including the death penalty and euthenasia. I can point as just one example to the activities at the U of Notre Dame as one example.

There is a natural tendency to paint groups we don’t like a color that suits our desires. Try to resist that.

William, at 4:20 am EDT on October 19, 2006

The “balance or Censorship” debate is a modern reflection of the age old debate of man’s role in the world. The RC church and its Jesuit soldiers are in a perpetual struggle to spread the Christian, Catholic perspective. Academic freedom is viewed from the eyes of the beholder. A Roman Catholic perpective is that Man is truly free when in union with God and the Church.Opposite perspectives are easily found within the RC church and outside of it.

Campion supporter, at 10:45 pm EST on December 21, 2006