[Houghton M.]

It’s a tad more complicated than that. Unlike nearly all other state universities in the USA, the U of I has an old agreement with the Newman Center to be able to offer religion courses for university credit. (This is common in Canada and the UK but not in the US.) The agreement goes back to around 1918.

It’s factually true that, if Howell has been fired by the university, the Newman Center’s courses taught by him would not get university credit.

I think the Newman Center caved and should not have, should have joined in a lawsuit, protested to the department head’s superiors etc.

I imagine they thought they needed to do this in order to keep their program going for fall. They undoubtedly had Howell scheduled to teach in the fall semester; students in his courses would have been denied credit and the NC wanted to ensure credit for them so they got another teacher.

I think they should have stood their ground and protested, made a huge stink about it. It seems to me that there might well be other, secular senior faculty in the university who can see that this was an egregious abuse of power. If an objective explanation of Philosophy X (with which I happen to agree personally) is hate speech, then no professor is free to make objective explanations of this or that unpopular philosophical or political or religious position.

There may have been more in the emails than we know, but I rather doubt it. The Newman Center was not so much wanting to be liked but just robotically trying to keep its program administered. That’s still bad, but different.

Stupid, yes. Naively unaware of the implications, perhaps. But I would chalk it up more to administrative inertia than just to wanting to be liked.

[Desdemona]

Like I said, the head of the Newman Center wanted to be liked by the university administration.

[Steelfish]

Well, the actions of the Univ. of Illinois are flatly unconstitutional. When government opens up a public forum limited for certain forms of free speech- such as a faculty courses on campus, it may discriminate on the basis of content (e.g. only courses leading to the degree may be allowed- not courses like the occult “sciences” ) but it may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. And this is what the Univ. of Illinois has done here.

[mlizzy]

A priest in our family spoke with Monsignor Swetland (in 2005) regarding the Newman Center and Catholicism on campus in general as our son was planning to attend (2010). Fr. gave positive reports back to us.

Earlier this year, our daughter (UIllinois '13) traveled to the March for Life in Washington with UIllinois, she went to a talk on campus by an official Church exorcist that was open to the public and very well attended, and she participated in an outdoor Confession that Newman Center sponsored that had 4-5 priests equally spaced on the square with a "giant" poster of Jesus at the center. There were also students at the ready to answer any questions the "puzzled" kids passing by might have. My daughter said it was like a scene out of a movie; she couldn't believe it was happening at UIllinois.

So it's really troubling the Newman Center has wimped out regarding Professor Howell, but I'm pleased that, through Professor Howell's "awesome" teachings, our daughter has met some extraordinary Catholics at UIllinois. Prayers for Professor Howell. Surely his replacement will be an ultra dud. Those that teach the Truth, get canned!