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.

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.

University donations to political campaigns generally lean towards the left, and five higher education institutions appear in Barack Obama’s top 20 donor organizations, including Harvard and Columbia.  Employees at the University of California alone donated nearly a million dollars to his campaign.  Education was Obama’s third largest industry, giving him just under twenty million dollars (John McCain received only 1.6 million from this same demographic).

Dr. Catherine Mooney, an associate professor at the school of Theology and Ministry at Boston College, explained her contribution to the Obama campaign.  ”This election was the most interesting election I recall,” she said. “It touched on a host of issues related to human dignity and justice, including how best to promote peace, economic equality, racial harmony, environmental responsibility, access to health care and education, immigrants’ rights, and the sanctity of human life.”

Interestingly, BC political contributions were split drastically by gender and employment type.  All four Republican donors were male, and two were university administrators.  The Democratic total was a broader sample of BC employees.  The donor disparity was echoed in donation amounts: Republican donations averaged $814, compared to a $200 Democratic average.  While other administrators did contribute to Democratic campaigns, their participation was nowhere near the 50 percent figure posted by Republican administrators.

The only Republican donor willing to comment, Associate Director of Public Affairs Reid Oslin, was dismissive of trends among BC employees.  ”Offering support to a political candidate is an individual choice, and not related in any way to my employment at Boston College,” he stated.

But election data seems to support the commonly held sentiment that the Boston College administration is more conservative than at comparable schools.  Certainly Republican employees are more likely to be administrators, but this does not imply that the administration leans in any particular political direction.  Some conservative BC policies, such as an aversion to contraceptive programs and penalties on substance abuse, come from its adherence to Jesuit, Catholic values.

According to Dr. Mooney, however, religion does not make one conservative.  ”I agree with the U.S. bishops that participation in our political life is a moral obligation,” she said. “There was no perfect candidate for me.  But as I weighed all the issues, I thought the candidate most likely to move us as a nation to reflect and act positively for the common good was Barack Obama.”

Religion could come into play at BC if an Obama administration continued the President-elect’s support of partial-birth abortion, according to Professor Terri Long of the College of Advancing Studies.  ”Thus far, BC has maintained independence, but additional pressure from bishops or the Vatican could push BC to institute a more conservative Catholic agenda,” she predicted.  ”This sort of change would damage BC’s reputation among non-Catholics, effectively marginalizing the school.”

Not every donor was a McCain or Obama supporter.  The largest Republican contributor, Law Professor Scott Fitzgibbon, gave to Sam Brownback.  The largest Democratic donor, Nancy Veeder, supported Hilary Clinton.  Two other major donors supported Christopher Dodd.

Another significant Clinton supporter, Ellen Friedman, commented on the nature of the political system.  ”Anytime you hear anyone say ‘it’s not about money,’ you know it’s about money,” she said wryly.  ”I do believe that it is obscene that so much money is spent to win the presidency—or, indeed, any office—but until we have real campaign finance reform I’m afraid that is going to be the case.”  Friedman’s observation may be relevant in this election cycle, where Obama outspent his rivals in the Democratic primary and then nearly doubled McCain’s advertising in the general election.

 Nobody denies the historic progress signified by the election of an African-American. Members of both parties, however, are less than satisfied with the election’s results.  Professor Terri Long of the College of Advancing Studies strongly supported Hilary Clinton, and she maintains a healthy skepticism about the upcoming administration.  ”I see the nation moving back toward the welfare state instituted in the New Deal,” she said.  ”This concerns me because I have traveled frequently to Europe and have numerous friends and business associates of my husband’s in Switzerland, Germany and England.  I have seen the effects that far-left policies have had on those countries: massive unemployment, decreased productivity, an inability for European companies to compete in a world economy.”

Long also commented on the election’s impact here.  ”As for BC, I think what happens here will largely depend on the economy.  If Obama’s policies do not improve the current economic situation, fewer students and families will be able to afford tuition.  With credit tightening and endowments shrinking, financial support will become increasingly limited, forcing the school to admit more students from higher income families.”

Professor Friedman summed up the uncertainty many still feel.  ”Will the Obama win mean change?  Will he be able to do what needs to be done to rescue not only Wall Street but also ordinary folks who are losing their livelihoods and homes? Will he be able to get us out of Iraq and keep us out of other wars?  Will the people who were dancing in the streets last Tuesday be dancing in the streets two years from now? All of that remains to be seen.”