Blog Archive » 2006 » February

Humanity's most profound intellectual and spiritual characteristics are the yeast for some of contemporary civilization's most intractable conflicts: the freedom to speak without fear; the freedom to believe and worship without governmental interference; the freedom to report what is newsworthy without officially-mandated restraint. The often-conflictful consequences of the exercise of these freedoms are evident all over the world: in the most notable current display of this clash, Muslims around the globe are protesting, sometimes violently, the decision of a Danish editor to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed (depicting the Prophet Muhammed in any way is strictly forbidden in Islam, let alone portraying the kind of offensive cariacatures seen in the political cartoons).

Does freedom of the press mean that the press has the freedom to offend religious people? Does freedom of religion mean that expression of ideas contrary to religious beliefs must be restrained for the sake of maintaining peace and civic order?

Americans might, at first, find the answers to these questions easy: yes to the first, no to the second. Surely, we might say, the press is free to publish opinions, no matter how offensive to some people; the vigorous (but not violent) expression of disagreement with the offensive opinion is the appropriate way to respond. And, certainly, religious freedom does not mean that other freedoms must be curtailed for the sake of religion.

But today's reality is far more complicated. Religion and democracy are among the most powerful forces shaping global societies, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. The United States itself was founded in the crucible of the human quest for freedom of expression including religious belief; the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is history's strongest espresssion of the principles of freedom for speech, press and religion. Yet, our own history repeatedly demonstrates the deep conflict these freedoms pose to each other; the law libraries of American might be half empty but for the two centuries of cases resolving disputes over the free exercise of religion, speech and press. In one of the pithiest comments on the tension inherent in these freedoms, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once wrote that freedom of speech does not protect "free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate." U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (1929).

While not so dramatic as the Muslim cartoon issues, another contemporary struggle over the meaning of free expression and religious belief is playing out on the campus of the University of Notre Dame, where the new President Father John Jenkins has openly questioned whether certain activities are in keeping with the Catholic character of the university. Other Catholic universities have struggled with similar issues about whether to permit the staging of plays that offend Catholic teachings, or whether to permit certain speakers whose views are at odds with the Church. Catholic universities are not alone on this subject. Mercer University, Baylor University and others have had controversies with their respective Baptist conventions, and other religiously-affiliated colleges and universities have also struggled with the balance between the freedom of the university and the commitments inherent in the religious mission.

These are not small issues. Our freedom to express our religious beliefs is as vital as our freedom to express differences of opinion. For example, the very same First Amendment that protects the university's right to be Catholic also protects the right of someone to speak or write in a way that is different from Catholic belief. How do we resolve the inevitable conflicts that arise when these precious freedoms all compete around the same topics?

Respect is an essential virtue in considering the necessary balance among the competing freedoms. Respect means that just because you have the freedom to say or publish a thought does not mean you should. Prudence is respect with a more conservative cloak. Respect also means that while you may believe deeply in the teachings of your faith, you respect the rights of others who might not share that faith. No progress on Ecumenical or Inter-Faith relationships is possible without the fundamental respect among all believers for each other's traditions. Even non-believers deserve respect, and they, too, owe respect to believers.

Perhaps, most critically, respect takes into account that a win-at-all-costs attitude in the defense of one form of freedom will ultimately defeat the very idea of freedom. In order for freedom to flourish, we must accord respect to all. Our freedom to believe, to worship, to speak as we wish will be much safer if we do not try to preserve our freedom by preventing others from doing the same. A true sense of justice accords respect to others in the exercise of freedom as a means to ensure peace for all.

What do you think? Express yourself on these issues. Send your comments to me by clicking on the little envelope below or email president@trinitydc.edu

For more click Cartoons and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Press

A year ago today (February 12) the most awful news imaginable emerged from deep in the Amazon rainforest: a Sister of Notre Dame, Dorothy Stang, was dead, murdered, assassinated by men who thought they could stop her courageous advocacy for justice. Dorothy Stang devoted her life to advocacy for the indigenous people in the Amazon basin. Her advocacy focused, in particular, on the destructive force of development and logging in the rainforest. She obviously posed a great threat to very powerful interests. Although some of the perpetrators of the crime were found guilty at a trial last fall, the real instigators have yet to come to justice.

Trinity remembered Sister Dorothy last April with a special symposium on Founders Day. A major snowstorm cancelled the event we planned this evening to mark this first anniversary, but we hope to reschedule soon. Meanwhile, Trinity will also devote Founders Day 2006 (April 20) to continuing examination of the theme of environmental justice in Sr. Dorothy's memory. This year we will focus on global warming.

Dorothy Stang's death was cruel and evil, a shocking reminder of the malignancy of greed and selfishness. But that tragedy is also a source of renewed conviction and passion among the Sisters of Notre Dame and all those who share their commitment to action for social justice. Trinity's mission is inextricably linked to the mission of the SNDs to work for justice and peace in all corners of this earth.

For more click Dorothy Stang

For more on the Amazon Rainforest click Amazon Rainforest

Not all of the Olympic champions will mount the medal podium during the next two weeks. In fact, one of the most iconic athletes of this era will retire without ever wearing gold. Michelle Kwan had to withdraw from the Olympics today because of a nagging injury. Her lifelong quest for an Olympic gold medal is over. Yet, her graceful exit from the Olympic scene is a remarkable example of the values and ideals the Olympics claim to manifest — teamwork, good sportsmanship, devotion to excellence in the sport. She felt she could not do her best, and so she conceded her coveted spot on the U.S. Figure Skating Team to Emily Hughes. She did not want to hurt the team on the outside chance that she could recover by next week and still skate competitively.

In this sports-saturated age, where winning the Super Bowl or Final Four is exalted above all meaning and reason, Michelle Kwan provides a refreshing dose of common sense. She certainly wanted to compete and win. But she took the wisdom of the Greek philosophy "Know Thyself" seriously. In walking away from the chance to win one more medal, she confirms her legacy as a real champion.

For more click Michelle Kwan

For more on the Olympics click Torino

For the longest time when I was a young girl, I thought the name of the book was "The Feminine Mistake." That's because at about the same time that Betty Friedan's landmark book "The Feminine Mystique" was published in 1963, I accompanied my mother to a lecture by a famous Catholic priest, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. I was eleven, and hearing Bishop Sheen "live" was a really big deal. The room was full of good Catholic women raised in the 1930's, '40's and 50's, and they applauded loudly every time he denounced this idea he called "the feminine mistake." Being eleven and clueless, I had no idea what he was talking about, so I clapped along with the ladies. My picture proudly standing next to him after that lecture is still part of the family Hall of Fame photo album.

In college, at Trinity, I finally read "The Feminine Mystique" and discovered with some considerable chagrin the real issues that Archbishop Sheen was alluding to so many years earlier. Friedan unmasked "the problem that has no name," the idea of "desperate housewives" long before we could laugh at that terminology. Friedan's survey of her Smith College alumnae sisters opened a window into the large abyss of women's sense of repression, unfulfilled desires for personal growth and professional attainment that was denied to them because of the sexist structures and policies and attitudes of society. Archbishop Sheen had good reason to be worried. Friedan's book was a flashpoint igniting a new and more vigorous phase of the women's rights revolution, leading to changes in the law and social attitudes toward women, reaping huge benefits for succeeding generations of women and generating significant new controversies about women's roles and rights in society.

Friedan died yesterday, another icon of the 20th Century movement for human rights now gone from the stage. The many obituaries recount her leadership accomplishments for women's rights, equal pay, gender-neutral help wanted ads, equal treatment in employment. But the obituaries also recount some of the dilemmas that Friedan created when she did not go along with all of the later ideas of more radical feminism. She was truly an iconoclast, someone who challenged all conventions including the conventions of the movement she owned for a portion of its long history.

It's exactly this iconoclastic quality of Friedan's that still gives me pause so many years later. While I disagree vigorously with the sarcastic dismissal of her work as "the feminine mistake," yet, from the vantage point of history I now understand more completely the ways in which Friedan and other feminist leaders sometimes devalued the essential importance of those great women who clapped for Fulton Sheen so many years ago — women like my mother who stayed home and raised families and contributed to the advancement of their children and communities in myriad unheralded ways. It is a great dilemma — applauding her leadership in securing the hard-won rights that make women's professional advancement possible, while also realizing that the either-or rigidity of some feminist positions simply misses the point about human freedom and fulfillment. Women at work can be just as much "desperate professionals" as the desperate, depressed women at home whom Friedan described in her book. The point is not that one lifestyle is good and the other bad, but rather, all people (male and female) should have freedom and equal opportunity to construct lives that are fulfilling.

The Friedan Dilemma is also present for the millions of people who believe deeply in women's rights and feminism, but who also believe equally strongly that abortion is a grave moral problem. Friedan founded several women's rights organizations that have become single-issue "choice" advocates. Their refusal to acknowledge the moral problem at the heart of the "choice" rhetoric clouds Friedan's legacy and diminishes the impact of the feminist movement with regard to other extremely important issues in the ongoing quest for women's equality.

Revolutions require passion, not nuance, and revolutionaries are often figures of conflict and controversy. So it was with Betty Friedan. She re-ignited the women's revolution begun in previous centuries by women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. She gave new voice to women's drive for equality, a drive that even religious women such as Trinity's Founders Sr. Julia McGroarty, SND and Sr. Mary Euphrasia Taylor, SND carried forward in 1897 in founding a college devoted to women's education and advancement. We are part of "the movement" and we know that the revolution in women's rights and human rights continues.

Now, new generations of women are redefining the meaning of feminism, freedom and fulfillment for a new century. For today's young women, the notion of help wanted ads appearing in "male" and "female" columns is as bizarre as the idea that women should not attend college because they might go insane with too much study (a reason specifically cited in the 19th century to block the formation of women's colleges). The young women I speak to at Trinity and elsewhere today are ambitious, visionary about their futures, and balanced in a healthy way about their hopes to raise good families while also achieving whatever is possible professionally. They largely eschew the rigidity of earlier feminist positions, rejecting the idea that in order to be a good feminist "you must" adhere to certain political positions — that rigidity, in and of itself, is a form of repression.

Today's young women claim the right to hold a broad range of political beliefs, while also sharing one clear vision: that people must be accorded freedom to live, work and enjoy life without discrimination, fear or oppression. In their passionate commitment to social justice for all people, they honor the work and achievements of the courageous women who came before them. Betty Friedan is one of the leaders from another era who made it possible for today's young women to have such bold, fresh vision. She would be proud to know them.

For more click Betty Friedan