An open letter to Fr. Jenkins

No, not from me. It's passed on by a reader who introduces it:

I wanted to share with you a copy of an “open letter” about Notre Dame’s decision to allow the Vagina Monologues from a good and holy priest I know at Notre Dame, Father Bill Miscamble, CSC. Father Miscamble is an associate professor of history at Notre Dame.  He addressed this open letter to his brother in Holy Cross, Fr. John Jenkins (Notre Dame’s president), and it is a forceful, articulate and profound.  I hope that you will read it and post it on your blog.

OPEN LETTER TO FR. JOHN JENKINS, C.S.C.

Dear John,

I write to object to your decision to permit the continued regular production of “The Vagina Monologues” on our campus.  I write in this public manner to alert our faculty colleagues and our treasured students that not all members of the Congregation of Holy Cross, to which we belong, endorse your decision.  Speaking for myself, I find the decision deeply damaging to Notre Dame and its mission as a Catholic university.  It is a decision that I beg you to reconsider and to reverse.

When you were appointed President of Notre Dame there was hope that you might address and reverse the attenuation and drift in our Catholic mission that characterized our recent past.  My own hope was that you would address urgently such crucial issues as faculty hiring, the development of a curriculum that truly conveys the richness of the Catholic intellectual tradition to our students, and the insidious effects on teaching and learning of the increasing corporate ethos at Notre Dame.  For whatever reasons you chose to place your initial emphasis on the regular production and sponsorship by elements of the university of “The Vagina Monologues” and “The Queer Film Festival.”  You put forth the position that “an event which has the implicit or explicit sponsorship of the university as a whole, or one of its units, or a university recognized organization, and which either is or appears to be in name or content clearly and egregiously contrary to or inconsistent with the fundamental values of a Catholic university, should not be allowed at Notre Dame.”  This was a position of such obvious good sense that I never considered that you would retreat from it.  Sadly, you have done precisely that.

In asking why you would reverse a sound position, which you obviously had reached after much thought and prayer, one must conclude that you were influenced by those contributors to the debate who favored the continued production of “The Vagina Monologues.” Presumably, you were influenced by the young women who produce this play and somehow see it as a contribution to the prevention of violence against women.   Undoubtedly, you were influenced by the convictions of certain senior Arts and Letters faculty that any restriction on this play would damage our academic “reputation”—and especially among those “preferred peer schools” whose regard we crave.  Whatever the reasons, I must tell you, that your decision is being portrayed as involving your “backing down.” Indeed, it is hard to understand it in any other terms.

You must know that in taking this decision you have brought most joy to those who care least about Notre Dame’s Catholic mission.  You have won for yourself a certain short-term popularity with some students and certain faculty but have done real damage to our beloved school and its distinct place in American higher education.  By your decision you move us further along the dangerous path where we ape our secular peers and take all our signals from them.   

Knowing you and having conversed with you on matters relating to Notre Dame’s Catholic mission in the past, I suspect that you recognize this in your own heart.  Yet, you seemingly have let the possibility of some protest cause you to back off your own stated position.  You were called to be courageous and you settled for being popular.  This is not your best self.  This is not genuine leadership.

In your recent “Closing Statement” you reveal a level of naiveté about the process of a Catholic university engaging the broad culture that is striking and deeply harmful to our purpose as a Catholic university.  We live at a time, as the

Yale

Law

School

professor Stephen Carter pointed out some years ago, when the elite culture is programmed to trivialize religion.  Furthermore, much of popular culture is deeply antithetical to religious conviction and practice.  It offers a worldview completely at odds with any Catholic vision.  It is a worldview from which none of us can be sequestered and, indeed, many of our students arrive here far more deeply influenced by the reigning culture than by faith convictions.

Amidst this larger context you are ready to permit the continued production and promotion of a play which, as our colleague Paolo Carroza rightly put it, “seems to reduce the meaning and value of women’s lives to their sexual experiences and organs, reinforcing a perspective on the human person that is itself fundamentally a form of violence.”  Dialogue with this point of view is ridiculous.  It should be contested and resisted at Notre Dame, but never promoted.  Notre Dame must hold to a higher view of the dignity of women and men.  Might I ask that if this play does not meet your criteria of an “_expression that is overt and insistent in its contempt for the values and sensibilities of this university,” then what would?

My fear is that you have been “spooked” by the fear of negative publicity if you were to “suppress speech on this campus.”  Here, it seems, you have a special opportunity to rethink your position.  Know well that there is much hypocrisy abroad in the American academy on the issue of “academic freedom.”  Note that NYU had no difficulty recently in suppressing the “free speech” rights of the students who wanted to discuss and display the Danish cartoons.  Note that folk at

Brown

University

get by with a “speech code” that bans all “verbal behavior” that may cause “feelings of impotence, anger or disenfranchisement.” In the American academy it is only certain kinds of speech that gets protected. And, as Professor Gary Anderson pointed out in his constructive contribution to this debate, a rather narrow range of politically correct views tends to prevail in the faculties of many institutions which influences what that “speech” is.

Notre Dame presently has a wider range of perspectives represented than most institutions who are forever prattling on about their diversity.  (They are all “diverse” in the same predictable way!)

Please have the confidence to shape Notre Dame into a truly distinct institution.  Take up the challenge to clarify for our secular peers that Notre Dame allows—as they do not—“classroom engagement with religious beliefs precisely as religious” (as Brad Gregory put it so well.)  Reveal to them with the eloquence of which you are capable that the very values and convictions which allow us to consider a whole range of questions that they cannot also necessitate us to restrict the repeated public performance and promotion of works which are deeply offensive to our values.

John, let me commend you for your admirable goal of seeking to find “ways to prevent violence against women.”  Over my years of teaching and pastoral service at Notre Dame I have sought to encourage my female students to appreciate their innate dignity and to truly respect themselves.  I have been blessed to come to know some amazing women whom I now count as dear friends.

Drawing on conversations with such women about the circumstances that they find at Notre Dame leads me to suggest that your rather elaborate committee formed to pursue this goal has the whiff of a public relations exercise about it.  The painful reality is that much of the violence against women in our society results from a sick view that separates sex from love and genuine relationship, from the commodification of sex, from the portrayal of women as objects, from the blatant refusal of some men to treat women with dignity and respect.  Yet how will the committee be able seriously to address such issues when you have approved the continued production of a play that reduces women to body parts?  Surely you see the contradiction here?  Could I request that this be an early item for consideration by this committee.

What I ask of you in this letter will require you to dig deep into your heart and soul and to re-open a matter of which I am sure you want to be well rid.  I suspect you have had moments when you wished never to hear of “The Vagina Monologues” again, and we both know that there are many other important matters to which you must attend.  But careful readers of works like George Marsden’s The Soul of the

American

University

know that similar decisions to yours which conformed religious schools to their secular peers inexorably led them down a dangerous path to the full surrender of their religious mission and identity.  Regrettably places like

Georgetown

University

are well advanced on this course.  Don’t let us merely follow them.  To do so you would be a betrayal of our forebears in Holy Cross.  Instead, Notre Dame must lead the way in American Catholic higher education.  Please go back to your best self and to your original instincts and position on this matter.  Don’t embarrass those of us who want to work with you to build a great Catholic university.  Lead us!

Know of my prayers for you during this holiest of weeks.

Fraternally in Holy Cross

Bill Miscamble, C.S.C.

Associate Professor of History

Comments

[Stephen]

This is the Notre Dame of my experience. An environment where the faith is allowed to flourish, where disagreement is civil and constructive, honest and open. We're not Boston College and Georgetown and we're not FUS and Ave Maria . . . and thanks be to God!

[Michael Hugo]

Stephen,

It sounds like he wants it to be more like FUS and Ave Maria, thanks be to God!

[cathy]

beautifully written. what a change from the other mouth of ND - McBrien

[Fr. Brian Stanley]

Fr. Miscamble served for several years as rector of Moreau Seminary at the university. His appointment to that important ministry was seen as a great, positive step forward in promoting faithful Catholic formation of priests. Fr. Miscamble has won the outstanding teaching award at the university, and is widely esteemed by his students and peers. His words here make me proud to be a Catholic, a priest and an alumnus. Sadly there have been less frequent opportunities for me and other faithful alumni to make that assertion. I understand that things have been improving in South Bend; Fr. Jenkins' decision here demonstrates how much farther the university has yet to go. Fr. Miscamble points out the direction for the university if the issue of the Catholic faith is to hold any significance in the future. I hope and pray that Fr. Jenkins will reconsider his position, and retract his "concluding comments."

[AmericanPapist]

is there any possibility that Fr. Jenkins would actually change his decision?

[Christine]

What a breath of fresh air and sanity. God bless his courageous stand.

[Marv Wood]

The History Department at Notre Dame was the one department in which I found religous orthodoxy. Father Marvin O'Connell, a non-CSC diocean priest, was head of the History Department in the '70's and 80's and an expert in Newman and the Reformation and Counter-Refromation. His lectures were spellbinding and he taught us more about our Catholic faith than I ever learned in any theology class.

[Pius]

At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast last week, Fr. Groeschel spoke very forcefully against the performance of this play. He spoke of women he had worked with who had left lives as prostitutes and were treated as a commodity. He said VM (which he would not name by its name) is insulting to the dignity of women. I wish I could remember how he phrased it, but he was very forceful and framed the argument in a very powerful way.

I think at a University named for Our Lady, we should expect a respect for women that would not allow the production of this play.

[Rich Leonardi]

Father Marvin O'Connell, a non-CSC diocean priest, was head of the History Department in the '70's and 80's and an expert in Newman and the Reformation and Counter-Refromation. His lectures were spellbinding and he taught us more about our Catholic faith than I ever learned in any theology class.

I came across transcripts of Father O'Connell's lectures via International Catholic University and indeed they are spellbinding. You can find them here. Click on the forward arrows at the bottom of the link for more of his lectures.

[Glenn Juday]

To repeat: Notre Dame needs to address urgently a serious top leadership problem.

A person holding that position needs to be qualified intellectually (demonstrating the ability to sort through trendy pseudo-intellectual fads, jargon, and pandering) and qualified by adherence to the Faith.

When any institution finds itself lacking two vital elements in its top leadership, it must respond. Leadership is not a right, it is a responsibility to be carried out faithfully.

One can remove an individual with acknowledged fine personal qualities from leadership without rancor or bitterness. And when an individual makes his leadership shortcomings clear, one must remove leadership for the good of the institution.

Just match the appropriate personnel with the appropriate responsibilities. There is not a lot of time to waste.

[Emily of the Holy Whapping]

is there any possibility that Fr. Jenkins would actually change his decision?

At this point, it is so slim as to be almost non-existant. While it is entirely possible that he will come to regret it and see the wrong-headedness of it, the manner in which the decision was drafted leaves him very little room. Months of deliberation, a clear framing of the issue, and a clear (although poorly-written, IMO) decision at the end; just saying, "whoops, guys, I was wrong," is going to make him look like an idiot. The only plausible way for him to admit he was wrong, barring some other circumstance, would be a resignation.

[RP Burke]

I will shock Rich by saying I agree with him. I knew Fr. Marvin -- a priest of the diocese of St. Paul, Minn. -- in my ND days. He is a good historian, and his book on Archbishop John Ireland is outstanding.

[Lily]

Father Miscamble,
Thank you for caring for women, esp the women of the VM, who are sexualized in a play at ND, to teach the ND students not to sexualize women.....it's a contradiction. An absurdity.

You said: "The painful reality is that much of the violence against women in our society results from a sick view that separates sex from love and genuine relationship, from the commodification of sex, from the portrayal of women as objects, from the blatant refusal of some men to treat women with dignity and respect. Yet how will the committee be able seriously to address such issues when you have approved the continued production of a play that reduces women to body parts? Surely you see the contradiction here?"

[Emily of the Holy Whapping]

To complete the mental picture, you really need to read this in an Austrailian accent. Anyone who has met Fr. Miscamble knows exactly what I'm talking about. Kudos to him! He tends to tell it how it is, and this was, thankfully, no exception.

[Alfredo]

Unfortunately, Fr. Miscamble's penchant for telling it like it is is the main reason he will never be president of Notre Dame, even though he is and has always been the best and most qualified person for the job.

[Rich Leonardi]

I will shock Rich by saying I agree with him.

It doesn't shock or suprise me, R.P., and until recently I found myself nodding in agreement at most of your posts. What does shock me is your ability to square mentally an admiration for both Fr. O'Connell's orthodox historicism and Fr. McBrien's dissentient theological speculation.

[Emily of the Holy Whapping]

Alfredo,
I'll second that vote of confidence.

[John M]

Interesting, Fr. Jenkins' leadership style as exhibited on major issues to date: months before he took over as president, he apparently took the bull-by-the-horns and shepherded the firing of a mediocre football coach.

He rather humiliated his predecessor by working with board honchos to get the deed done before another football season began - even though he was months from being installed as president.

Rather a forceful behind-the-scenes entrance, to say the least.

There was a striking quote from him at the time that, in spite of the fact that most agreed this coach was great Monday through Friday, winning on Saturday was an expected part of the job description.

One only wishes his actions here conveyed an equally vigorous commitment to promoting the university's Catholic identity and shielding its students from being subjected to the phoney and harmful violence-as-art which is VM.

Another interesting side-note, Fr. David Tyson, now head of the local province of CSCs in South Bend, slam-dunked VM when he was head of Universty of Portland several years ago.

If I recall correctly, his reasoning was rather plain: he read the script, saw that its contents were plainly offensive and contrary to Catholic teaching and sensibilities, and declared it was not to be performed on campus. His successor, Fr. Bill Beauchamp, CSC, affirmed Tyson's handling of VM. (Both were exec VP's under Fr. Hesburgh during his last years as president of ND.)

One final thought from this ND alum, there is (and long has been) a widely pervasive spirit that 'we are the finest Catholic university in the country and perhaps the world' on campus. (Not to mention the 'only we know what's really going on here, so keep your ND comments to yourself' sensibility.)

I find neither of these attitudes helpful - and both of them questionable.

Having said that, there are many attractive things about ND. The jury's still out for me the degree to which I would encourage any of my children to attend.

[Emily of the Holy Whapping]

Fr. Tyson would be my next vote for President, and a bit more likely than Miscamble.

This letter is important in that Fr. Jenkins knows that his erstwhile allies are not just going to nod and smile at this. The opening shot of the opposition has been fired, as it were.

[Annon]

I believe the strategy should be to make clear that this "closing statement," does not close the issue and we will not let it die, until the Monologues do.

[RP Burke]

Rich, can you square two statements you've made about me today ...

1. No, your point is to show up on every thread and kick sand on anything smacking of tradition.

and

2. ... until recently I found myself nodding in agreement at most of your posts.

So which is it?

[Emily of the Holy Whapping]

Precisely;
It has to be shown that this is not, in fact, a compromise decision, as it was framed to be, but a just plain wrong one. It can only be viewed as a compromise if you are looking at it from a secular, politically-correct framework. From a Catholic position, it soon becomes clear that it is unacceptable.

[Matthew of the Holy Whapping]

Bravo, Fr. Miscamble! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Hunk Hondo]

When I was in the graduate department of History at ND (1978-82) it was my privilege and delight to have Bill Miscamble, then fresh from Oz, as one of my colleagues. He still honors me with his friendship today, and it is one of my proudest boasts. I, too, had hoped that Fr. Bill would succeed Fr. Malloy as President--and I, too, knew that he was far too good for that to be probable. Bonzer letter, old cobber.
Dittos to Marv and Rich about Fr. O'Connell, also an honored mentor and cherished friend, as well as one of the finest historians of our age. (R.P. is right about his status; he's an archdiocesan priest of St. Paul.)

[Kevin Jones]

For some reason, Aristophanes' play Lysistrata came to my mind. In it, the Athenian and Spartan women mutually declare a sex strike until their husbands make peace. It is of course incredibly vulgar, but it also reveals the limited position of women in that society: the only influence they had over society in general was sexual.

By reducing women to purely sexual creatures, it seems to me that the VM play mirrors that idea despite all its ritual invocations of "empowerment." Only it doesn't seem to notice it. So much for hip, self-aware irony.

[Anonymous Teacher Person]

My hope is that Fr. Jenkins' strategy is similar to that of my mother when I wanted to watch "St. Elmo's Fire" as an eighth grader: allow it, but suck all the joy out of the experience by pedantically pointing out all of its ethical shortcomings. Faced with this running commentary, I finally had to admit to myself that it wasn't a very good movie and, overall, was kind of trashy.

Perhaps enough such reminders to the VM-loving portion of the student body will ultimately wear them down in their determination to celebrate this play. I think this strategy is misguided and will backfire, but maybe that's what Fr. Jenkins hopes will happen.

[Rich Leonardi]

So which is it?

For the past six months or so you've mostly done (1) and little to make me do (2).

[RP Burke]

Rich, you need to re-read my posts on, for example, music. And how about your echo just a few days ago when I said "In media stat virtus"?
We don't disagree on everything, you know.
rpb

[Rich Leonardi]

We don't disagree on everything, you know.

Indeed.

[Paul]

*Sigh* ND is the only university to which I ever actually wanted to go. The fact that there admissions office wasn't as keen on me as I was on them didn't really change that (maybe the law school will be kinder). Growing up, I didn't even know there WERE other major Catholic universities; we were Catholic, so we loved Notre Dame, even though nobody in the family had ever gone there, or even been to South Bend. If the people on campus have a mystical sort of ethos about them in the way they think about their school, it's probably because so many American Catholics have a special mystical conception of Notre Dame too. And I think that's a good things for us to have -- I sincerely hope that we can keep that, and that ND can keep at least some justification for it.

[Michael Hugo]

Kevin Jones: Excellent, creative post!

[Jimmy Huck]

Whaddaya know?!? Father Jenkins' closing statement and Father Miscamble's open letter framing a polemical debate openly at a Catholic University. For shame to even legitimize such a debate. Perhaps we need our Catholic Universities to do some more "slam-dunking" and "door-slamming," like the University of Portland, on such open and shut cases. I wonder what Fr. Miscamble would have done had he been President of Notre Dame, slam-dunked the VM, and had received an "Open Letter" from Fr. Jenkins criticizing his decision. Think that letter would have been circulated, or would it have been "slam-dunked," too? A Catholic University's Catholic identity is no more threatened by permitting the production of the VM to take place than it is by permitting a production of Tartuffe to take place. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing cries that Catholic Universities should ban English Lit professors from assigning The Da Vinci Code in any of their literature classes.

[under the dome]

I can't describe how pleased I was to read this during lunch today. I coudn't help but reflect on how difficult it must have been to speak out against a good friend of his, and how he will likely suffer a backlash from his friends and colleagues for it. Fr. Miscamble is without a doubt one of the best priests on campus (I've heard him speak several times), not to mention his talents as a professor and administrator.

I agree with Alfredo. His up-front personality is both a blessing and a curse.

[under the dome]

I can't describe how pleased I was to read this during lunch today. I coudn't help but reflect on how difficult it must have been to speak out against a good friend of his, and how he will likely suffer a backlash from his friends and colleagues for it. Fr. Miscamble is without a doubt one of the best priests on campus (I've heard him speak several times), not to mention his talents as a professor and administrator.

I agree with Alfredo. His up-front personality is both a blessing and a curse.

[Mike Petrik]

"Next thing you know, we'll be hearing cries that Catholic Universities should ban English Lit professors from assigning The Da Vinci Code in any of their literature classes."

Any English Lit professor who assigns DVC for class reading should be fired, regardless whether the college is Catholic and regardless of the silly substantive claims of the book. The book is poorly written -- on par with a Grisham novel. Fine for a beach read for those with nothing better to do, but completely inappropriate for academic study as literature.

[Alfredo]

Multiple Choice Question:

I wonder what Fr. Miscamble would have done had he been President of Notre Dame, slam-dunked the VM, and had received an "Open Letter" from Fr. Jenkins criticizing his decision. Think that letter (a) would have been circulated, or (b) would it have been "slam-dunked," too?

Answer: (a)

Comment: It's the liberals who have had power in the Church in America for so long who are the experts at suppressing dissent to their dissent. I know. I've been teaching at Notre Dame for the past 27 years.

[Sam Martin]

So - when will all the good Catholics at ND start building that wall to keep the narrow-minded thinking in and the world-at-large thinking out? The VM is just one person's thinking and providing fodder for discussion. Get over yourselves and your self-righteousness already. PS - And get your misguided religious thinking out of my sexual life.

[Christine]

"get your misguided religious thinking out of my sexual life."

If you don't want religious influences at the academic level -- don't attend a school with the name "Notre Dame" or any other religious affiliation.

Very simple.

The VM isn't about *your* sexual life. It's something very much centered on women's issues.

[Jimmy Huck]

"Comment: It's the liberals who have had power in the Church in America for so long who are the experts at suppressing dissent to their dissent. I know. I've been teaching at Notre Dame for the past 27 years."

With all due respect, if that is what you believe, then you are not paying attention. First, I'd ask you to define what you mean by "suppression." Then, let's move to the subject of simply suppressing dissent, before we get to the next level of suppressing dissent to their dissent, whatever the heck THAT means. Let me remind you that it is not the "liberals" who are telling the orthodox "dissenters to the dissenters" to leave the Church, or Notre Dame, because of their "dissenting" views. Furthermore, I challenge you to provide me one instance when the "dissenting" views of the "conservatives" of the Church of America have ever been "suppressed." The myth of conservative persecution by intolerant liberals continues.

[Ferde Rombola]

"And get your misguide religious thinking out of my sexual life."

I think you mean 'sex life.' Either way your post is tiresome, dreary and decidedly sophomoronic.

Pass and go.

F.

[Ferde Rombola]

Jimmy Huck:

If you don't know what "supressing dissent to their dissent" means you're not equipped to discuss the subject. Especially with someone who's been teaching at Notre Dame for 27 years.

F.

[Jimmy Huck]

Ferde - Of course, I know what Alfredo means, but let me tell you what it really means:

1) The conservative "authority" comes out with a definitive policy or statement.
2) The liberal critics removed from any position of authority react with a statement of dissent.
3) The conservative "authority" publishes a "dissent to the dissent."
4) The liberal critics somehow, magically, use their power over such originating conservative authority to crush the "dissent to the dissent."
5) The original conservative authority is henceforth suppressed.

The logical fault lines occur between #s 3 and 4, and again between #s 4 and 5. How so? First, the dissenters, no matter how loud or obnoxiously they shout, really have no power or authority to suppress anything. Second, it is not a question of "suppression" if the originating conservative authority does not stand up to liberal dissenters, but rather a question of political will. Call it self-suppression, if you want; but at least be honest about it.

[Alfredo]

Dear people at the end of this thread,

I apologize for my intemperate remark. This is the busiest time of the year for me, I haven't had enough sleep lately, and I'm feeling grumpy.

Why don't we call a truce in honor of Christ crucified and spend the next couple of days contemplating his suffering face? Have a blessed Triduum. Pax.

[Ferde Rombola]

Jimmy: Maybe I read you wrong, but when you write "whatever that means" I get the impression you are in some doubt about what it means. But let that go.

Your scenario is your spin on 'dissent of dissent.' But it's a little broader, and a little more serious, than mere intramural squabbling. How about this?

1) The Church reiterates a point of doctrine or dogma;

2) The secular media reports it with commentary from the dissenters, lay and clerical, who howl to the heavens and wail about how egregiously oppressed they are by these medieval monsters in the Vatican (or wherever);

3) The secular columnists flog the Church and deify the dissenters;

4) The Church's defenders, the conservative authority of your scenario, reply point by point;

5) The secular media ignores the reply while continuing the attack on the Church, i.e., suppressing the dissent to the dissenters' dissent.

I live in Massachusetts. I'm ashamed to say I subscribe to the Boston Globe. (I absolve myself by telling myself I must know what the enemy is up to.) I have seen the above described process repeated at least a dozen times a year in that odious rag. The Globe and its columnists are rapacious in their hate for the Catholic Church and when it comes to what gets out in the press, they're driving the bus.

So it's not the power or authority of the dissenters that is the determining factor. All the dissenters have to do is provide the material. The Globes of the world will take care of the rest.

Alfredo knows what he's talking about.

F.

[Ferde Rombola]

Intemperate remark?? I read no intemperate remark from you, Alfredo. Truth is never intemperate. I may have been speaking about the world at large while you were speaking of the ND campus, but it's all of a piece, isn't it?

Thank you for your Triduum blessing. May you be blessed as well.

F.

[Jimmy Huck]

Alfredo, I agree with Ferde that your remark was not intemperate. It was provocative. I responded. As someone sometimes characterized as a "liberal dissenter" in the Catholic community, and who often feels the heavy weight of an inflexible orthodox judgment and sometimes a stifling feeling of impotence that there is no space for me to breathe within the Catholic communion, I just wonder about the fairness of labelling liberal Catholics as suppressors. For me, it so often feels just the opposite. But I, too, am a member of the academy (though not at a Catholic institution and not for as long as you have been), and so can relate to the peculiar pressures of the moment in our profession that make even the best of us prone to some testiness.

But I can heartily echo Ferde's thank you for the Triduum blessing, and likewise wish you both also a joyous Easter.

[Jimmy Huck]

Ferde - I was taking issue not with the Globes of the world, but with the notion of "liberals in the Church of America" being the suppressors and stifling dissent. We do no such thing. In fact, within the Church, it appears to me that whenever dissent gets suppressed, it usually comes in the other direction. And I point to the Thomas Reese affair at the Jesuit magazine Americas as just one example.

But that is neither here nor there at this point. I'd like to end on the note that we all rejoice in the Paschal Sacrifice this weekend.

[Ferde Rombola]

I'm with you on that, Jimmy. I do have a lot to say about dissent, but I'll save it for another time.

A blessed Triduum and Happy Easter to you.

F.

[David]

Alfredo is not specific about what kinds of conservatism are suppressed at Notre Dame. One wonders what opinions he holds that cannot be expressed in public. Notre Dame even has a chaired Creationist professor.

Many departments are dominated by political conservatives, and most are decidedly conservative in terms of their intellectual discipline. The Law School, for example, could hardly be more conservative without breaking with the Catholic Church.

Bill Miscampbell is distressed that the Notre Dame he loves is changing. He says that he is concerned about the sexualization of young women. I believe that he believes that. He is a painfully sincere man.

Yet neither he nor the other critics of Father Jenkins address the issues of male sexuality on campus which the performers of the VM have raised, year after year. Father Miscampbell has spent much of his life at ND living in men's dorms. Where is his criticism of the pornographic posters or the habitual drunkenness, of the knowing acceptance of rape or the degrading images of women presented every year in the Keenan Review?

The VM is not an admirable piece of drama, but if its performances encourage a serious discussion of the campus culture, it will have achieved at least one good thing. Unlike the critics of the VM, Father Jenkins took the time to listen to the women who performed the play, to discover why they thought the issues worth raising.