|
April 26, 2006
Dear Oregon Lawmaker:
As president of the nation’s largest Catholic
civil rights organization, it is my job to combat anti-Catholicism.
Unfortunately, one of the most flagrantly anti-Catholic incidents I
have seen in some time recently occurred at the University of Oregon.
The president of the university issued a response that was sorely
inadequate, and that is why I am writing to you.
Enclosed find two obscene and blasphemous
depictions of Jesus Christ. I am sending them to you because words
cannot sufficiently convey the vicious nature of these graphics. They
were published in the March edition of the Insurgent, a student
newspaper that is funded by the Student Government; up until the March
edition, the Insurgent was also allowed to use the university’s
non-profit bulk-mail permit.
The enclosed pictures are only one small part of
the March edition. Indeed, the entire issue is replete with the most
egregious examples of hate speech targeted at Christians. For
example, there are several cartoons of Jesus—including Jesus
crucified—that are so gratuitously offensive that only the most
depraved would defend them. Moreover, the two opinion pieces against
Catholicism are patently malicious. That all of this appeared in a
student newspaper, during Lent, on the campus of a state institution,
makes one wonder what is going on at the University of Oregon. All of
this was deliberate.
What triggered this explosion of hate speech? An
editorial in the Insurgent said that its March edition was a
response to a decision reached by one of its rivals, the
Commentator, to publish the 12 Danish cartoons that recently so
inflamed the Muslim world. The Insurgent’s logic was
nothing short of amazing: It held that because the Commentator
published depictions of Muhammad so as to “provoke dialogue,” they had
a right to thrash Christians as a way of provoking dialogue.
Even the Insurgent editorial admitted that
the Danish cartoons were “seemingly innocuous.” But no fair-minded
person would ever classify the representations of Jesus to be
“seemingly innocuous.” And this raises the question: Why did the
Insurgent choose Christians, especially Catholics, to make their
point? Why didn’t they choose Jews? Why didn’t they insult African
Americans? Why didn’t they drag gays through the mud? For that
matter, why didn’t they bash Muslims?
The response by University of Oregon President
Dave Frohnmayer was extraordinarily weak. “While I am an ardent
supporter of free speech, I also have strong beliefs that this freedom
should be exercised with maturity and good judgment,” he said. He
added that “creating controversy for controversy’s sake” was not wise,
and it was further unwise to make “individuals feel that they or their
beliefs are unwelcome and belittled.”
As a former college professor, I, too, prize free
speech. But I hasten to add that if other segments of the student
population had been the subject of the Insurgent’s attack, it
is highly unlikely that President Frohnmayer would have offered such a
tepid response. At the very least, he could have issued a statement
of moral condemnation. Other college and university presidents who
have been faced with similar problems have cancelled classes for a day
so that a college-wide symposium on tolerance could ensue. Frohnmayer
had these options as well.
State institutions of higher education are not
permitted to promote religion. Fairness dictates that they not
assault the sensibilities of any religious community, either. I hope
you agree and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President
|
