CUA prez: Muslim students blameless
This statement was e-mailed by the president of the Catholic University of America to all the students, staff and faculty:
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff,
You may have heard or read news accounts this week about a complaint filed with D.C.’s Office of Human Rights regarding our Muslim students. The complaint has been filed by John Banzhaf, a professor at a neighboring university who has no affiliation with us. In a press release he issued October 19, Mr. Banzhaf claimed that Catholic University has “illegally discriminated” against Muslim students. That charge is completely without foundation. Worse, Banzhaf has created the perception that it is our Muslim students themselves who are offended by the symbols of Catholicism on our campus, and that they object to the absence of worship space set aside specifically for them.
The fact is that no Muslim student at Catholic University has registered a complaint with the University about the exercise of their religion on campus. And today we learned from an article in the Washington Post that Mr. Banzhaf himself has not received any complaints from our Muslim students. Instead, according to today’s Washington Post, he based his complaint on an article that appeared in that newspaper in December 2010. Contrary to the impression Mr. Banzhaf would like to create, the December 2010 Post article spoke in overwhelmingly positive terms about the experience of Muslim students at Catholic University, and explained why they are attracted to us. A considerable part of the attraction stems from the fact that our community, because of its own outward expressions of Catholic faith, makes them feel comfortable living their faith among us. The evidence bears this out. Since 2007 our Muslim enrollment has more than doubled, from 56 to 122.
I want to reassure all of you that our Muslim students are welcome at our University. Our Catholic teaching instructs us to embrace our fellow human beings of all faith traditions. They enrich us with their presence and help to promote inter-religious and inter-cultural understanding. I regret very much that our Muslim students have been used as pawns in a manufactured controversy. I urge all of you to continue to show one another the respect and goodwill that are the hallmarks of The Catholic University of America.
John Garvey
President
In this story from the conservative National Catholic Register, a spokesman for CAIR calls this a “non-issue,” adding that “American Muslims have very good relations with the Catholic community.” You know that if CAIR — CAIR! — sees no problem here, there really is no problem here at all.
This Banzhaf character is notorious for self-publicity. At my last newspaper job, seemed like every three days he was sending me another e-mail-blast press release touting his own bold, courageous activism on behalf of this or that cause. It was so annoying that I ended up directing his junk straight to the spam bucket, just to get relief.
He really ought to be called out and shamed by what he’s done here to Catholic U. and to its Muslim students. He could have caused real harm to them. By the time I heard about this story the other day, it had been widely distributed on the web that Muslim students were suing CUA. It was only when I saw the Washington Post story containing a quote from Banzhaf, who filed the official complaint against CUA with the city’s Human Rights Commission, admitting that no Muslim had actually brought a grievance to him, that I knew the real story. I wonder how many people are still under the false impression that arrogant Muslim students at CUA are trying to compel the private university to back away from its Catholic identity? On the websites you frequent, please do what you can to get the straight story out.
Just curious, but would it be a problem if Muslim students asked this University for separate religious space and when refused turned to the court for redress? For what could they be blamed?
[He could have caused real harm to them.]
Can we be a little clearer about what harm could come to a minority group exercising their right to pursue a legal remedy to perceived discrimination.
Can we be a little clearer about what harm could come to a minority group exercising their right to pursue a legal remedy to perceived discrimination.
Muslim students could have been blamed for choosing to attend a private religious university with a Catholic orientation, then taking the university to court to force it to accomodate their own religious tradition. To be sure, I would have no objection in principle to the school making reasonable accommodation for Muslim prayer, but I think it would be obnoxious for students from a different religious tradition (Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Orthodox Christian, Protestant) to choose to go to a private Catholic university, then subject that university to a legal challenge to its own self-determined identity. It’s rude and arrogant, and people would be right to be offended by it. I feel exactly the same way in the case of Christian students who choose to go to a private Muslim college, and expect the place to accommodate their own worship. Good for the Muslim school if they choose to do so, but they should be under no obligation. It’s like a vegetarian choosing to come to a barbecue at your house, then taking you to court for failing to provide a non-meat option for them.
Banzhaf’s action could have brought opprobrium and resentment onto Muslim students at CUA from Catholics and others who saw them as arrogant in this way. If CUA were a state university, it would be different, of course. This is a religious liberty issue, to say nothing of an issue of common courtesy and respect.
It would be very interesting indeed if every single muslim student (and faculty?) at CUA came together and held a rally against this lawsuit.
What I don’t understand is why any university has to provide space to any religious group. When one looks around the country various groups such as Hillel, the Newman Society and others have buildings close to universities, some actually appear on campus as a university expands their grounds.
“It’s like a vegetarian choosing to come to a barbecue at your house, then taking you to court for failing to provide a non-meat option for them.” but we already see that, vegetarians demand that BurgerKing, MickeyD’s and other purveyors of burgers to provide a vegetarian choice a better analogy would be a meat-eater demanding that a vegetarian restaurant supply them with a burger or ribeye.
“It’s like a vegetarian choosing to come to a barbecue at your house, then taking you to court for failing to provide a non-meat option for them.” but we already see that, vegetarians demand that BurgerKing, MickeyD’s and other purveyors of burgers to provide a vegetarian choice a better analogy would be a meat-eater demanding that a vegetarian restaurant supply them with a burger or ribeye.
That’s a better analogy. I don’t see that vegetarians “demand” that burger joints provide them with meat-free alternatives. Those stores want to increase their market share, and they no doubt have determined that they can make more money if they have a vegetarian option. More power to them. Their telos is to make money by serving their customers food they want to eat. They can do that by being more accommodating to vegetarians.
The vegetarian restaurant, as you point out, has a different telos: it exists explicitly to serve not meals in general, but meals that have no meat in them. Whether for religious or ethical reasons, or simply a matter of wanting to make money by filling a market niche, the mission of a vegetarian restaurant is particular. A carnivore who chooses to eat at that restaurant has no reasonable expectation that the vegetarian place should accommodate his tastes. If it wishes to do so, fine, but he has not right to expect it.
I think this whole way of thinking that you and I decry, Peter, has to do with the selfishness and egotism of our culture. People expect never to have to adjust their own desires for anybody else. They expect the world to cater to them. They find themselves inconvenienced, and think that their Rights Are Being Trampled On.
They find themselves inconvenienced, and think that their Rights Are Being Trampled On.
In this case, the situation is even more odious, I’d say, since Banzhaf doesn’t even have the excuse that his rights are being abused.
He’s concern trolling in order to further his own ends.
Good on ya Rod for keeping the facts of this matter in the foreground.
Is it selfish and egoist to expect Vanderbilt to allow a Christan group to use university money to discriminate? If you attend a secular college that states that it values diversity as a core mission, isn’t it selfish and expecting to get your own way to complain and sue over wanting to discriminate against non “Christians”?
A key element of this, a key term, is that CUA is private and, thus, a “voluntary association.” This must be seen in the context of attacks on the freedoms of religious groups in general.
There are struggles on STATE campuses about the rights of voluntary associations (such as Christian, Jewish or Muslim clubs). That’s tricky territory. But there should be no questions about the rights of liberal or conservative academic institutions to self determine their doctrines and rules.
What’s particularly distressing about this is that people have heard about the case on the news and are spreading it about that, once again, the Muslims are acting against the Christians. I overheard someone this morning after liturgy claiming this to be the case, but it was an instance in which it did not seem appropriate for me to interject myself into the conversation, more’s the pity. I hope that CUA’s statement also makes it into the news.
If you attend a secular college that states that it values diversity as a core mission, isn’t it selfish and expecting to get your own way to complain and sue over wanting to discriminate against non “Christians”?
Well, for one thing, I think Vanderbilt has the right to do what it’s doing. I think it’s wrong for them to exercise that right. For another, there is no actual complaint against CUA to compare the Vanderbilt situation to. If CUA forbade Muslim students to form an organization recognized by the school because CUA felt it violated CUA’s Catholic identity, that would strike me as unjust — but not as unjust as a secular private school establishing a policy that affected all practitioners of normative Christianity.
One shouldn’t be surprised to find a university whose mission is built around the advocacy of religion X to want to discriminate, however benignly, against students who aren’t part of that religion. It is still surprising to me that a secular university wishes to adopt a policy that discriminates against normative Christianity, and does so according to some sham definition of “diversity.”
How are the Muslim students reacting to Banzhaf?
I don’t know if this has already been pointed out in the comboxes on the other posts on this topic, but this guy’s lawsuit will almost certainly get summarily dismissed for lack of standing. In order to have standing there needs to be an actually injured party joined to the suit and it sounds like there is none. So Mr. Banzhaf may yet the benchslap he so richly deserves. Some sanctions would be nice, as well.
I think it was pointed out in an earlier combox that under DC’s Human Rights law, what Banzhaf did is acceptable. He didn’t file suit in a normal court, but filed a 60-page complaint against CUA with the Human Rights Commission, whose rules don’t require one to have standing in the way you describe in order to file a complaint. A stupid law, seems to me, ripe for abuse.
MMH
I ran accros the same thing on a Yahoo board earlier. Unfortunately this kind of story has a life of its own. Banzhaf really didn’t do muslims any favors with this.
Attorney beat me to the punch. Banzhaf’s deceptive Catholic-baiting ought to be sanctionable – in Indiana, for instance, a public reprimand from bringing discredit to the profession of law. Standing or not, what he did is disreputable.
Professor Banzhaf appears to be a malicious instigator! The “neighboring university” should reprimand this professional pot-stirrer…his motivation is questionable. I agree that he has done a great disservice to the Muslim students of Catholic University. The public should be informed that they have been misinformed. His actions represent a deliberate attempt to create a problem that does not exist. This professor is the personification of mendacity!
Thanks, Rod for sending updates on this one. I saw a FB post about this earlier and was able to set my friend straight. However, his link was to an article using this situation as an excuse to rail against supposed Shari’a creep into this land. Ugh. (And I can assure you, I would protest against introducing shari’a in the US as would the rest of my family).
As the university stated–all are welcome, but if you want a school that features a religion other than Catholic, go there instead of a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY!!!! Like maybe a MUSLIM University. This is much bigger than vegitarians at a barbeque. This is about someone trying to take away MY American rights to establish a school focused on Christianity, about CHRIST, who we believe to be our Savior. Amen.
From the article: “Our Catholic teaching instructs us to embrace our fellow human beings of all faith traditions.” …Very true, well and good. However, President Garvey, I pray that your community, because of its own outward expressions of Catholic faith, making them feel comfortable living their faith among you, also makes known to them The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Kindness and friendship, along with the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His Church, will soften hearts to accept Him. It is our duty as Catholics to spread The Good News!
From the Catechism, #848: “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338