This week, Providence College, a Roman Catholic institution, canceled a lecture that was to be given Thursday by John Corvino, a gay philosophy professor at Wayne State University who supports same-sex marriage. After receiving national attention and criticism, PC released a statement alleging the cancellation was “not really about academic freedom, but rather … the meaning of being a Catholic college.” This justification, along with several other rationales they offered, is unconvincing. We urge PC to reconsider its decision, and if the college fails to do so, we encourage Corvino to visit the University and engage with Brown students, PC students and the greater Providence community about the true meaning of academic freedom.
Attempting to explain its decision, the provost and senior vice-president of Providence College told the Providence Journal, “the event was canceled only when it became clear” that “a free and fair discussion … would not be the case.”
But a response from Corvino undercuts this rationale — he claimed that he had offered to do a debate instead of a one-sided lecture but that his offer was declined. When PC administrators finally decided a debate format would be more balanced, they asked Dana Dillon from their own philosophy department to present the opposing viewpoint. Provost Hugh Lena then proceeded to argue that “it is simply not fair” for Dillon to have less than a week to prepare for a debate. Not only is this line of reasoning absurd — Professor Corvino was invited in February, and the College had plenty of time to prepare a speaker — as Corvino notes, it is quite telling that Lena “believes no one (at PC) can persuasively articulate the Catholic position on marriage with a week’s notice.” The leaders of Providence College clearly didn’t want this debate to happen for fear of the controversy it could generate.
Furthermore, the administration of Providence College seems fundamentally confused about the definition of academic freedom. Lena cited a church document from 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement “Catholics in Political Life,” in arguing that PC, as a “Catholic institution, should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” It is disconcerting that Lena apparently doesn’t understand a lecture does not honor its speaker; rather it gives him or her a platform for academic discourse. What makes the situation more absurd is that Corvino is not particularly radical — he has been a speaker at more than 10 Catholic institutions and is a frequent participant in so-called “friendly” debates with religious leaders opposing gay marriage.
Perhaps we should not expect so much clarity or freedom of debate from an institution that just 13 years ago suspended three students for posting pro-choice flyers on campus. Of course, we recognize we are buying into somewhat of a false equivalence when we talk about a “debate” about same-sex marriage given that we believe equal status for LGBTQ individuals is a basic human right and not up for debate. But we admire Corvino’s attempt to use reason and intellect, rather than resorting to argumentative vitriol, to change people’s hearts and minds. We hope Providence College administrators will open their minds to debate and inclusiveness. But until then, we would be happy to engage Corvino at Brown.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Rachel Occhiogrosso, and its members, Daniel Jeon, Hannah Loewentheil and Thomas Nath. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
