“Such symbols …represents a bias towards one way of thinking, elevates one set of ideals above others, honors one group of people in preference to the rest without any meaningful discussion or elaboration;” says professor.

A dispute on the campus of Boston College has erupted into public view with the publication of an article in one of the college’s three newspapers, The Observer.

Boston College is the highest ranked Catholic university in the world according to the Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES) 2008 rankings.

According to the paper when students and faculty returned for the Spring 2009 semester they found crucifixes and icons had been placed in many classrooms that had previously not had such icons. Merkert Hall, where the Chemistry department was housed was one such location.

According The Observer, the move to place the icons came by direct request of President Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., in order to, it is hoped, help strengthen the university’s Catholic identity. However, as the letters below to a survey taken by the paper’s editor demonstrate, it may be a decision which had unintended consequences:

Members of the Chemistry Department at Boston College respond to the placement of “Catholic icons” in classrooms in Merkert Hall:

Amir H. Hoveyda Response

1. Do you feel that the crucifixes could be offensive to those not sharing in the Christian faith?

Not only can such symbols be insulting to those who do not consider themselves Christians, it can be offensive to Christians as well. Taking umbrage by such symbols has nothing to do with the identity of one’s faith. It is about whether symbols that represent a specific branch of beliefs have a place in the scared space of a classroom where we are to teach the students to think independently and do all we can to be unbiased. At least some of my Christian students are offended.

Faith is deeply personal; such surface displays, particularly in a garish way, belittle the significance of any symbol that pertains to any form of spirituality. I am reminded by a saying by the philosopher Toynbee: “The best way to hurt an idea or a principle is not to attack it well, but to defend it badly.”

Such displays are insulting to me as a teacher/scholar. A classroom is a symbol of dispensing with any prioritized prejudices. Any symbol, whether of the Christian, Moslem or Jewish faith, contradicts such underpinning principles that govern all high minded teacher-student relationships.

2. Do you believe that the faculty should have been consulted before the crucifixes were placed in the classroom?

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. How can such a significant symbol be placed in a classroom and the very people who are responsible for teaching, not be consulted? To me, such an approach by a university administration is irresponsible and anti-intellectual; it is not how a progressive and enlightened university thinks and operates. 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.

3. What, if any, negative connotation could these crucifixes project to students and potential students visiting the college?

Such symbols will have a negative effect on many visitors and prospective students and faculty, many of whom will likely be Christians. It represents a bias towards one way of thinking, elevates one set of ideals above others, honors one group of people in preference to the rest without any meaningful discussion or elaboration.

In 1990, my most significant concern about accepting a faculty position at Boston College, was precisely related to this type of behavior. I was assured, by the then Academic Vice President of the University (William Neenan, whom I respect and admire deeply) and all my senior colleagues in the chemistry department that Boston College was an inclusive and welcoming Jesuit University. For several years since my arrival on this campus, I would have completely agreed with that claim. I do not any longer.

Based on what I see now, and what I have experienced for a number of years, I would not consider Boston College as a place that is sensitive to the beliefs of others or one that aims to emerge as a serious place of unbiased scholarship, teaching and learning.

To someone who has worked very hard for 18 years to make the place a world-class university, this is truly heart breaking.

4. Do you believe that a professor should have to teach in a classroom with a crucifix?

No. I would not and most definitely will not. Nor would I present a lecture in a classroom that has a Star of David or a star and crescent or a statue of Buddha or a picture of the American President. As a mere sixteen year old, who believed strongly in ideals of freedom and tolerance and democracy, I voiced such principles in my native Iran, and was imprisoned and badly tortured for having such beliefs. I am not about to give in now; I more than ever appreciate the importance of values that I, many of my colleagues and students stand for. As far as I could tell, such values were supposed to be part of the Jesuit tradition as well.

5. Do you believe that the university should also place icons in classrooms from other faiths (maybe the star of David or Muslim symbols)?

No. I explained this above. This is not about which faith should be represented. It is about what is the significance of an independent and unbiased atmosphere in a classroom. It is about cherishing all and practicing (versus only paying lip service to) tolerance.

6. Do you believe that a Catholic university such as Boston College has a duty to expose its students to Catholicism or should it only concentrate on education?

Boston College has consistently represented a valiant and gentle but firm voice of Catholicism for many years. This was carried out most effectively without overt and garish proselytizing, without being so grossly and aggressively exclusionary. Boston College can continue to represent its traditions, as it has effectively in the past, traditions that are not only based in Roman Catholicism but also tolerance of other faiths, without deeply alienating so many of its devoted citizens, many of whom have served this university much more and for longer periods than those individuals who have decided to adopt such policies.

The insult is particularly scathing, since such symbols were installed without any discussion, elaboration, or advanced warning in a disturbingly surreptitious manner.

Paul Davidovits’ Response

Michael Reer

Editor-in-Chief

The Observer at Boston College

Dear Michael,

As you now know, recently religious plaques (wholly trinity, crucifixion, etc) appeared in all the classrooms in our building (Merkert) glued to the wall.

Subsequent inquiry showed that the postings were done on orders from the President’s office and unbeknownst to the Provost. Many of my colleagues (as well as I) find this a distressing and alienating development.

Thirty five-years ago, when I first came to BC, Fr. Monan (then president) recognized the exclusionary negative effect of such symbolism and ordered the removal of crucifixes from classrooms. His approach and vision of a Catholic University was a place where the whole community both Catholic and non- Catholic felt included, embraced and invested; where we all could be committed to shared values and work toward the goals and the success of the institution.

This vision and approach have certainly been successful. Boston College has become a highly respected world-class university. At the same time the University provided opportunities for student to deepen their commitment to Catholicism, to Catholic values and religious sensitivities. I know this because I have witnessed the development of our students through seminars and hundreds of advisement meetings as the students enter and leave our institution.

It is clearly evident from a simple survey of the BC Community that people of every faith (including those with no religious affiliation) have made key contributions to the evolving success of Boston College. I think this forward movement was only possible because nobody felt excluded and we all felt part ofthe same team and community.

Placing Catholic iconography in classrooms undermines the successful efforts of Boston College to be a University that welcomes all students, faculty and staff. Such iconography has positive uplifting connotations only for Catholics raised in that tradition and its proper place is the Church setting. For most of us the iconography in our classrooms is meaningless and in fact often carries very charged negative and threatening connotation that promotes alienation. Some key colleagues are considering leaving the University because of thisdevelopment.

This was not a good move.

Paul Davidovits

L. T. Scott’s Response

Dear Michael,

To keep my opinions to myself and not to answer your questions would be antithetical to the very purpose of a university. Societies all over the world for centuries have grown to recognize the importance of universities as oases in which thoughts and ideas can and should be freely exchanged and questioned, with the objective of teaching students the value of independent thinking. As our students graduate and enter the real world (leave the oasis), they will inherit the earth and assume responsibility for the care and protection of the planet and all who live on it. The future of the world depends on our success.

Here are the short versions of my answers to your questions:

1. Do you feel that the crucifixes could be offensive to those not sharing in the Christian faith?

Absolutely. I was born into a Christian family, was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal church, married a Christian woman, and I sing in my church choir on Sunday mornings. I am offended by the “religious art” that has been mounted on the walls in classrooms, and several of my non-Christian colleagues on the faculty have made it clear that they are likewise offended.

There is no ambiguity in the answer to your question “…could be offensive…?” It is offensive to at least some of “…those not sharing in the Christian faith,” as well as to some Christians.

2. Do you believe that the faculty should have been consulted before the crucifixes were placed in the classroom?

In contrast to many other universities, Boston College does not have a tradition of faculty governance. Nevertheless, the mounting of “religious art” on the walls of classrooms where I teach resembles the unseemly marketing practice of “bait and switch.” I was a full professor with tenure at a public university when Boston College induced me to move here. I was attracted in part by the prospect of teaching at a university that shares many of my ideals about ethics and social justice, and that experience has been quite satisfying to me. As a non-Catholic, however, I had concerns about the extent to which students and faculty might be expected to accept aspects of Catholicism that were not universally shared. I looked very closely at what I might be getting myself into by talking to the dean, the vice president, and many of the faculty, which included non-Christians, and they all assured me that my concerns were unfounded. I agreed to come to Boston College in good faith and was relieved to find their assurances to be well grounded, until now.

3. What, if any, negative connotation could these crucifixes project to students and potential students visiting the college?

Some students who are already enrolled at BC may feel like victims of the same bait-and-switch I referred to above. The ability of Boston College to recruit a diverse student body in the future, both at the undergraduate and the graduate level, and to recruit a diverse faculty may be jeopardized by this mounting of “religious art” on the walls of classrooms.

4. Do you believe that a professor should have to teach in a classroom with a crucifix?

No, not unless that was an agreement he or she entered into as an original condition of employment. At Notre Dame, for example, I am told that “religious art” on the walls of classrooms is not uncommon. There are members of the BC faculty who would probably consider that sufficient reason not to accept a faculty appointment at Notre Dame.

5. Do you believe that the university should also place icons in classrooms from other faiths (maybe the Star of David or Muslim symbols)?

No. I would object equally strongly to the Star of David or Muslim symbols on classroom walls. Where would one draw the line? Which religions would be consider “suitable” to include, and which would be excluded?

6. Do you believe that a Catholic university such as Boston College has a duty to expose its students to Catholicism or should it only concentrate on education?

BC offers an abundance of opportunities for students to pursue, examine, and deepen their spiritual beliefs, whether they be Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or of some other faith. 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. I know more about Catholicism now than I did before moving to BC, and the non-Catholic students who complete degrees at BC probably know more about Catholicism when they graduate than they did before coming to BC. Exposure to Catholicism is already widespread at BC, but it should not be escalated to the mounting of “religious art” on the walls of classrooms.

L. T. Scott

Professor of Chemistry

Bookmark It

Hide Sites