The nerd in me would love to see whether or not there is a statistical correlation between the warm weather and lower exam grades. Someone could have an outstanding senior thesis if they tracked changes in average temperature and grades over the final month of school. First semester exam grades, when the temperatures hover about 10 degrees, could be compared to the second semester, when students first break out their shorts and flip-flops. I would love to see a piece done on this is it hasn’t been done already.

In an ultra-classy letter to Father Jenkins, which was also released to the press to avoid random speculation, Glendon noted that, in effect, she felt that she was being used by Notre Dame. She is exactly right. In defending its invitation of Obama, Notre Dame has repeatedly pointed out that Glendon, a staunch conservative Catholic, would be speaking at the same event. Notre Dame, in one of its earlier press releases, admitted rather weakly that “we think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.” Glendon pointed out rather astutely that commencement is not the time nor place for conflict or debate. It is supposed to be a joyous day.

Furthermore, it is unacceptable for Notre Dame to be justifying its actions by promoting some seperate event that it might be doing correctly. Mary Ann Gledon’s invitation to commencement does not justify Obama’s. In fact, his invitation is a metaphorical slap in the face to her life’s work. As a frequent advisor to the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Glendon noted that Obama’s invitation is “in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops–to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.” Notre Dame can have Obama or Glendon, not both.

A few weeks ago, the Clough Center came under intense criticism for trying to help bring Bill Ayers to campus in collusion with the Lynch School of Education, the College Democrats, and Americans for an Informed Democracy. The Clough Center was the last of these groups to agree to cosponsor the event, and never initiated the original idea. It is important to understand that the event was already in motion by the time the Clough Center signed on. I have come to believe that the Clough Center only had the best of intentions at heart. While some student groups certainly were superficially looking to provoke a response from the administration with this event, I believe that many people at the Clough Center were simply interested in listening to someone who fundamentally does not believe in the Constitution of the United States and actively sought to overthrow it.

In contrast, the Center cosponsored an event with the Madison Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton this weekend which discussed the Establishment Clause. The event, I can safely say, was clearly right of center, with professors citing gay marriage as an unjust law, and Roe versus Wade as a prime example of judicial fiat. That being said, the conference was deeply intellectual, interesting, and presented some compelling arguments for rethinking the implications of the First Amendment.

I fail to see how either event is truly indicative of the Clough Center. I, instead, believe that both events must be taken together in order to understand how the center will work in the future. The center is interested more with dialogue, both conservative and liberal, than with ideological hit jobs. Professor Kersch has come under a ton of unwarranted fire over the past few weeks and will probably never see the credit he deserves for pulling off two ideologically opposed events in the span of less than a month. Dialogue without a predetermined end is becoming increasingly rare in our universities and it is wonderful to see that Professor Kersch subscribes to the idea of walking into events with an open mind.

Revisionist history, even though it is implicitly written well after the historical events it concerns, is not necessarily better than the original consensus of historians. For example, although revisionist historians in the late 1990s challenged the impression that the Carter Administration’s foreign policy was an utter failure, much of this was based upon pre-existing evidence that was available soon after Carter left office (memoirs of his staff, press conferences, and personal statements). On the flip side of this issue, some revisionist history has corrected terrible historical inaccuracies. Although Eisenhower seemed to be a novice in foreign policy, revisionist history challenged this widely held view once documents became declassified that showed Eisenhower to have a very real presence in the making of foreign policy during his administration.

How the academic community should separate revisionist history that provides needed change to historical inaccuracies and revisionist history that simply exists for the sake of challenging the status quo is difficult to determine. Looking at the evidence revisionist history is based upon is an excellent way of determining whether or not it is work reading. If it is based upon newly found or newly presented evidence, then chances are good that it has something worth while to offer the academic community. If it is merely an attempt to rehash old evidence in order to draw different conclusions, chances are good that it is more wishful history than useful.

The censorship label is inappropriate in this instance because The Observer never called for events to be canceled or remodeled. Rather, the editorial simply calls for lectures that preach or misconstrue Catholicism to be augmented by a companion lecture that allows both sides a measure of legitimacy. In many ways, this action extends, rather than suffocates the debate. If professors arguing against the Church are truly concerned about a simple counterargument, then perhaps their lecture stands on shaky philosophical or theological grounds.

In the eyes of many Catholics, it is unacceptable for confusion to result on the non-negotiable teachings of the Church at a Catholic university. Examples of this at Boston College include the theology department’s co-sponsoring of the Vagina Monologues, a theology professor who preaches that the Church’s position on pre-marital sex is archaic and bound to change, and a lecture co-sponsored by the theology department entitled Jesus Christ as Grand Marshall of Queer America.

The argument for this editorial comes down to whether or not one believes that a Catholic university has an obligation to defend Catholicism in open debate. The Observer certainly thinks so.

The idea that all students should willingly take a tuition hike so that the university can offer subsidized STD testing is abhorrent and truly furthers a type of “socialized” health care. Those who do not engage in risky behavior should not be forced to subsidize the actions of others. Additionally, the provision of the petition that deals with condoms appears to be mean-spirited and lazy. Condoms are readily accessible at convenience stores within 100 feet of campus. Rather than ask students to take some personal initiative, this petition asks Jesuits to provide free condoms, an action that goes against Humane Vitae (1968). We the students at Boston College, are so lazy and short-sighted that we ask others to violate non-negotiatable religious beliefs rather than walk 100 feet off campus. This says much about Boston College.

My hope is that the administration not only completely ignores this petition, but also publically explains why the movement should and will fail. The debate should center not over whether or not sexual health is important, but what the implications of this policy would be for chaste students and Jesuits.

The picture raises two fairly important questions about the university and its students. First, students must determine whether or not the picture portrays a political belief that is viable, articulate, and respectful of other students. Secondly and independently, students must determine whether or not the picture is appropriate to be shown at a student activities center. As to the first question, I strongly believe the beliefs of these students to be completely ignorant. Columbus Day is not celebrated in order to remember Columbus the man as much as it is for the discovery he made. I understand that many people disagree with the notion that Columbus “discovered” anything but the undeniable fact is that he was the first to open a distinct and lasting line of communication between the America’s and Europe. This was easily the most important accomplishment of Columbus’ generation and quite possibly one of the most important in the entirety of human history.

As to the second question, I am not sure that this abrasive manner is the most conducive to dialogue. Students surely have the right to voice their opinions, but there must be a distinct line between effective dialogue and meaningless controversy. For example, if the man depicted in the picture was Martin Luther King, Jr., I do not think that it would have stood for five minutes. Campus police would have undoubtedly taken it down and possibly arrested all of those involved. If it is unacceptable for one person to be depicted in this manner, than it should be unacceptable to depict anyone in this manner.

I do not write this to defend Columbus’ personality but to merely point out that someone can disagree with the personal choices of a man and still respect the very important accomplishes he made. Furthermore, this blog post is meant solely to encourage decent, honest, and meaningful dialogue instead of simply throwing up an abrasive picture and hoping it somehow helps the situation.

Djintcharadze, who recently penned two articles for the controversial Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, could have her work amended by Blackwell Publishing even though both her and the editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia steafastly stand behind the accuracy of her articles. Accusations by some that the encyclopedia is “too Christian” sparked an immediate response from the publisher. The printing of the encyclopedia has been stopped indefinitely and the volumes in shipment have been recalled. Contributers to the encyclopedia have been asked to return their complimentary copies and the publisher has destroyed all copies of the publication in its possession.

This case is sure to be bound in the court system for some time but I believe that the issue at stake here is that of intellectual property. The editor-in-chief of the publication, George Kurian, went to the publisher with the idea of putting this publication together, completed it a full year ahead of schedule, and convinced his writers to fill four volumnes of text instead of the standard three at no extra cost to the publisher. Simply put, this idea, and the work behind it, belongs to the man who conceived and carried out the project, not the publisher. I understand that the publisher has a duty to produce a product that makes a significant profit, but this duty must be balanced with the right of those working on the project to sign their names only to work they approve of.

The complete article on this subject will hit news stands at Boston College around noon today and I will try to get the article posted on CAMPUS in the near future.

Note: I could only get the video to play in Internet Explorer, so if you have problems viewing it, try that.

The crucifixes have been a part of The Heights in scattered classrooms since the 1970s. Former University President and current University Chancellor J. Donald Monan, S.J. has confirmed that there was no specific directive or university initiative to make the classrooms uniform in appearance. Indeed, many of the professors who have come forward against the new crucifixes typically lecture in Merkert, a hall which did not have crucifixes adorned on the walls prior to the current semester. Some classrooms in Gasson, meanwhile, have had crucifixes for the past few years.

Professor Hoveyda, the Vanderslice Millennium Professor and Chairperson of Chemistry at Boston College, found it disconcerting that the faculty were not consulted before the decision to implement crucifixes was reached by administrators. He stated that “in any respectable university, it is the faculty who are responsible for the level and the quality of the education of our students; this does not pertain to administrators, particularly those who are either not scholars or are have never in their lives been highly respected serious scholars.”

Professor Hoveyda went even further when he said “I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution. If that has been the purpose of the administration of Boston College, I congratulate them, as they have succeeded brilliantly.”

Even some professors who recognize a duty on the part of a Catholic university to expose its students to Catholicism object to the crucifixes on the basis that they impose too much upon the religious freedom of students. Professor Scott, a member of the chemistry department, commented that “as a Jesuit university, BC does have a duty, in my opinion, to expose its students to Catholicism. However, ‘expose’ and ‘impose’ ought never to be confused.”

The university denies that the crucifixes were ever meant to be or are in any way offensive to the campus community. In fact, it seems as though the move to introduce crucifixes into the classroom has been underway for some time as the administration has searched for some time for crucifixes that represent both Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and BC’s commitment to social justice and missions around the world.

In a short statement to The Observer, University Spokesman John Dunn said that “Several years ago, University President William P. Leahy, SJ, appointed a Committee on Christian Art at Boston College, chaired by T. Frank Kennedy, SJ., then chairman of the Music Department and now director of the Jesuit Institute. The committee’s charge was to promote Christian art on campus, reflecting the Jesuit, Catholic mission and character of Boston College. Over the past few years, the committee’s efforts have resulted in statues, banners, paintings, musical recitations, crucifixes and icons in buildings, residence halls, and classrooms throughout campus. Many of the artifacts have been donated by students who brought them back from immersion trips. This Christian art is meant to constitute an enrichment of the culture at Boston College and is reflective of the University’s pride in its religious heritage.”

Student reaction, meanwhile, remains mixed. Although Professors Hoveyda and Scott cited several examples of even Christian students taking offense to the new icons and crucifixes, some members of BC find their arrival “comforting.” Billy Cody, A&S 2011, argued that “having a Crucifix or an icon in the room is a powerful daily reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for us and that without him we are nothing. It fits perfectly with the Jesuit motto ‘Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam’ (For the Greater Glory of God) because its presence reminds us that even in the classroom, we act for His greater glory.”

The university has declined to comment on what, if any, action will be taken against professors who refuse to hold classes in their assigned classrooms. How far professors will press the issue also remains unclear, as one professor recently said, “I do not feel comfortable sharing with you what the faculty plan to do, but I can tell you that we are not going just to sit back and watch this.”

This article originally appeared in the January 27, 2009 issue of The Observer at Boston College.