The High Ground

Perhaps Stan Lee said it best. “With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.” Who would have ever thought that a 25¢ four color comic could distill such wisdom. Unfortunately, I understand that it is no longer common for people to read Augustine and Aquinas, but one would have hoped that Myers had read – and understood – young Peter Parker.

For those readers who are not familiar with the story, Mr. Myers is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota – a post that makes him eminently qualified to discuss and declaim on theology. He stole a host from a Roman Catholic Church and for several weeks, wrote repeatedly on his intentions to do ’something’ to the ‘cracker’. I wrote Mr. Myers to explain the nature of his intentions and did not receive the courtesy of a response. Last week, he impaled the Eucharist with a rusty nail, made a quip about hoping Jesus had his tetanus shots, and threw it in the trash. This forum is a means to express the importance of making decisions and actions based on sound principles, so let us examine Mr. Myer’s shortcomings in this affair.

All actions have consequences. All actions are the expression of intent. Actions can serve noble and ignoble purposes based on the merits and motives of the intent. What has Mr. Myers achieved in this action? What was his intent?

For some time, Mr. Myers has used his position as a professor – and university resources – to espouse his contempt for organized religion. A common target for his criticism has been the Roman Catholic church. In and of itself, criticism is eminently appropriate. Martin Luther’s criticisms were a reaction to an institution that he felt was no longer responsive to the people it was supposed to serve. And in many ways, he was correct. Unfortunately, the Counter-Reformation movement did not coalesce quickly enough to prevent a schism in Christianity that exists to this day. Mr. Myers actions do not satisfy responsible criticism or responsible actions because he offered no intellectual argument. Luther posted his objections for the world to read and discuss. It sparked a debate that generated social, religious, and political movements that profoundly effect all corners of the world to this day. Mr. Myers action was petty, mean-spirited, and hateful.

One could argue that he acted from ignorance. Many readers may not be aware that in the Catholic tradition, the Eucharist is transfigured, it is in a very real sense the Body of Jesus Christ. While many denominations have Communion, only the Catholic faith considers Communion to be a sacrament that must be earned through study, prayer, and preparation. Whether one believes in transubstantiation or no, it is nonetheless a key tenet of Faith for Catholics. To assault a symbol integral to the beliefs and traditions of a people is morally indefensible.

Myers is hiding behind the cloak of academic freedom, the doctrine that educators must have freedom to express controversial ideas in the course of educating students. As a teacher myself, I understand and endorse this concept. But the use of this power comes with responsibility. Unethical use of a privilege should not be countenanced. Indeed, the University of Minnesota has such safeguards built into their Code of Conduct and their Tenure Code. As a biology instructor, Mr. Myers actions against the Eucharist could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered as appropriate for the purposes of instruction. The Tenure Code and the Code of Conduct both address that faculty members are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is sensitive and respectful to all people. In fact, there is language that considers his actions to be contrary to University expectations.

Section III, Subdivision 1.“Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member…be personally accountable for individual actions.”

Section III, Subdivision 2.“The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences….avoid all forms of harassment, illegal discrimination, threats, or violence.”

The Tenure Code of the University of Minnesota states that a professor may be removed from his position for  ‘unprofessional conduct which severely impairs a faculty member’s fitness in a professional capacity.’  

It is clear that the University has established very clear guidelines for ethical behavior. Why is this continuing to be an issue? The Chancellor stated that Mr. Myer’s actions are protected under the doctrine of academic freedom. Unfortunately, the University has determined that some cases of discrimination are acceptable while others are not. If a professor on campus expelled students who did not hold valid citizenship papers or visas, would that be tolerated? If a professor espoused that limited-intelligence people should be sterilized in order to prevent them from breeding, would that be acceptable? Of course not – not should it. By providing a flagrant example of discrimination, I hope to illuminate the skeptic that a hate crime is a hate crime. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Freedom without responsibility is the tyranny of the indulgent.

It is time that consistency be applied to the definitions of hate crime and discrimination. The University of Minnesota has a moral obligation to the institution, the faculty and staff, and to the state of Minnesota to maintain it’s standards. One hopes that the Regents will have the courage to seek the High Ground and stand firm upon it.

We shall see….