Boston College and Condoleezza Rice: What the Media has Missed

On May 1, Boston College announced that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would be this year’s commencement speaker and would receive an honorary degree. Before noon of the following day, two members of our theology faculty had drafted a letter of protest and began soliciting signatures.

There are two stories here, one serious, the other merely entertaining. The media has missed both of them.

On the serious side, the faculty letter claims that “On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment” Secretary Rice’s thought and work “is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions.” As evidence of Rice’s lack of moral principle, the letter cites an article she wrote for Foreign Affairs in 2000. But the letter simply misrepresents what Rice actually wrote, and this alone makes the letter a public embarrassment.

As for Rice’s lack of practical moral judgment, the letter refers to her role in the Iraq war. As Anil Adyanthaya has shown on Real Clear Politics, the letter is a political disagreement masquerading as a moral and theological dispute. By the principles enunciated in the letter, no member of the Bush administration’s executive branch would ever qualify as a commencement speaker. But one could go further. If support for the war is so self-evidently immoral, then it would follow that any Catholic currently in the military or working for the State Department must desert or resign to remain a practicing Catholic. This is absurd. If the Pope or the American bishops actually held this position, we would know it by now.

The protest letter shows a naïve view of politics that does not accurately reflect Catholic teaching. The authors have raised contingent, prudential, political judgments to the level of dogma. Dogmatizing political disagreements is never a good idea. It implies that those with whom we disagree are simply immoral. This is rarely the case. The basis of the disagreement is more often a matter of disputed facts than a rejection of moral principle. The Iraq war is a case in point. This is not to argue, as some Christians do, that faith and politics have no connection whatsoever. Of course our faith should influence and guide our political commitments and judgments. But the Church has long recognized that in political matters people of genuine good will can disagree. The protest letter, both as a matter of “moral principle” and as a “practical moral judgment” simply eliminates the possibility that one can disagree with the authors and still be moral. Does anyone want to seriously suggest that by supporting our country’s policy in Iraq one thereby ceases to be a Christian? I fear some of my colleagues would answer “yes.”

I referred to an entertaining aspect of this protest. From media accounts you would expect Boston College to be humming with protests and debate. We are told that the administration’s choice of Rice has been “deeply divisive” and has “polarized the community.” But if you live and work on the campus, as I do, this description is preposterous. If this is what “polarized” means, then, Lord, grant that I may be polarized to the end of my days.

The students are overwhelmingly in favor of Rice’s visit. The student newspaper has twice editorialized in favor of her visit, pleading with the faculty not to disrupt the commencement. Reporters have told me they’ve heard that a “debate” has erupted on campus. Where? I’d like to attend. As for debate in general on this campus, I can recall only one debate on Iraq since the war began, and that was more than a year ago.

Consider where this “protest” is taking place. This is a liberal college in Massachusetts--the land of Kennedy, Kerry, Barney Frank, and gay marriage. The Federal Elections Commission has no record of a single Boston College faculty member or employee contributing to the Bush campaign in 2004. (Even Georgetown had a few.) Yet despite this climate, they can get only 200 out of 1,000 faculty onboard? Although campus “demonstrations” have been anemic, the protest faction of the faculty has been very busy.

Something called “the Outreach Committee” continually apprises us of their plans and discussions. And the issues are vexing and serious: Should it be armbands, or banners? Should we walk out? No, that might get us booed. Should we have a die-in? Should we take off our academic gowns revealing white shirts underneath? Should we turn our backs? Will that get us booed? What about stickers? What should we put on the armbands? I overheard one faculty member say, “It’s just like the 60's. The struggle never ends.” Yes, that’s the problem: it is just like the 60's, though more grey and genteel. An accurate headline might read: “San-Culottes gather at wine and cheese party to express displeasure.”

On this whole issue, the protest faction of the faculty is completely out of touch with the vast majority of our students. Across the political spectrum, students want to hear what Secretary Rice has to say. It speaks well of the education our students receive at Boston College that they can come to a more sensible position than some of their teachers. Although this is a 60’s moment for some of our faculty, most of our students already know that Che Guevara and John Lennon are dead.

UPDATE: Best response comes from graduating senior.