I am a longtime admirer of Mary Ann Glendon, a former Ambassador to the Holy See as well as a scholar and innovative thinker on women’s issues. However, I was gobsmacked by her recent decision to refuse a prestigious award from Notre Dame because, as she discovered, she would have to share a podium with the President of the United States.
I’m not Catholic, so I’m not going to enter into the internal religious politics of Glendon’s decision. In declining the university’s Laetare Medal, Glendon wrote an impassioned letter to Notre Dame’s president, the Reverend John Jenkins, in which she said, in part:
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Glendon then went on to suggest that the university was using her as conservative “cover” for the President’s visit. Notre Dame had defended its decision in a previous statement, in which it argued, “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 wrote in retort:
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision — 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.
Many conservatives — especially those at National Review Online’s “The Corner” — are praising Glendon for her “leadership.” This isn’t leadership but the opposite: it’s burying one’s head in the sand. Here we have yet another example of religious conservatives opting out of engagement with the larger political culture, even that within their own church.
Even if you view President Obama’s stance on abortion — which this is about — as wrong, or even appalling, wouldn’t you want to take this opportunity to address the President directly — or as the old saying goes, “Speak truth to power?”
Notre Dame has not, after all, invited the head of Planned Parenthood, or a doctor who performs abortions, or even a pro-abortion activist, which the language of Glendon’s letter suggests.
Rather it has invited the President. Of the United States. For whom many Catholics and non-Catholics alike voted. Glendon’s words suggest that Obama may be president but he is not HER President, or the Catholics’ president — a highly divisive and anti-democratic sentiment.
Glendon should have accepted the award graciously, and seized this rare chance to articulate her principles directly to Obama. As the university rightly points out: it IS a “good thing” to advance your causes with political leaders. Maybe especially with the ones with whom you most disagree. Certainly, engagement with one’s opponents and the passionate debate of ideas should be at the very core of every college education. Notre Dame realizes this. Unfortunately, Glendon doesn’t.
10 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:38 am
To start a political debate on an issue as divisive as abortion, in front of all the students and their families on Commencement Day, would be unseemly. Commencement Day is supposed to be a happy occasion for the graduates. Why politicize it?
If Ms. Glendon so strongly disagrees with Notre Dame having invited Obama, she is doing the right thing by staying away in protest. That way she’s not darkening what should be a happy day for others.
2 joemarier // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:47 am
Sorry, I completely disagree with this, but I love you anyway, Danielle!
3 joemarier // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:31 am
I’ll let Elizabeth Lev do the talking for me, though… http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/29/why-mom-turned-down-notre-dame-award-over-obama-honors/
4 mpolito // Apr 29, 2009 at 11:28 am
Glendon was being used as a foil for the pro-choice Obama. If she had gone ahead and given the speech -and used it as a platform to directly challenge Obama’s views- she would have been attacked for messing up a graduation. Universities should welcome political debate, but a graduation is not the appropriate place for it.
5 Brutus1776 // Apr 29, 2009 at 11:29 am
Mega Dittos Sinz54. This is about those kids who worked and partied for four (five or six) years to get where they are, and help them with where they are going to be. To use it as a soap box to chastise the president would bastardize the occasion.
Ms. Glendon’s actions are that of what being Conservative is about, having more class and not incorporating politics with a tradition or hollowed occasion.
6 JesusOblahma // Apr 29, 2009 at 11:44 am
No, you aren’t Cathholic and frankly, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you really demonstrate that you don’t have any idea what it means to be a serious person of faith. Nothing about having Obama speak at graduation or receiving and honorary degree is an act of engagement.
That Notre Dame fawns over a man who voted in favor of killing any baby that survived an abortion and is willing to treat all unborn at any state with absolute contempt, is beyond repugnant.
Glendon understands that. What a pity you can’t.
7 pblueridge // Apr 29, 2009 at 1:08 pm
You aren’t Catholic and therefore are missing the point entirely. Glendon has made clear the issue with Obama being at Notre Dame is the honorary award, not the appearance. Dialogue and conversation and speaking truth to power as you say is possible when there is a dialogue. Glendon would appear with Obama if they were to speak together. But awarding an honorary degree on someone who violates the most fundamental social teaching of your religion is appaling. Glendon saw it for what it was. If you were Catholic you would as well. With all due respect, that is why you think she’s failed.
8 danoand // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Have to agree with the commenters that I have read so far. Ms. Crittenden, you simply don’t get it. Notre Dame is honoring a politician who is the most extreme advocate of abortion to hold the office of the presidency. As a state legislator he facilitated and supported legislation that can arguably be characterized as legalizing a form of infanticide.
The action of honoring such a person (whoever he/she is) is not only an abdication of Notre Dame’s core principles as a Catholic institution but a violation of the Catholic Church’s explicit direction for the faithful. A critical thinker (even a non-Catholic) should be able to understand this. If the Sierra Club honored a person who held positions in direct opposition to the organization’s principles, I would certainly question why they would undertake such an action, even though I am no fan of it.
Receiving an honorary degree and making a speech is not engagement. There will be no questions, no back and forth, no dialogue of any type. To assume otherwise is naive.
The real loser here is the University of Notre Dame. The administration had a choice between the honor of holding to their principles and a temporary public relations and marketing coup. The university chose dishonor and will now reap a serious blow to its core identity.
Ms. Glendon was frankly being played for a fool to create some sort of intellectual cover for the university. She has rightfully declined the offer and now there is only one fool remaining – the University of Notre Dame.
9 jgilesphx // Apr 29, 2009 at 2:33 pm
It appears that Prof. Glendon respects both the President and the graduates enough not to skewer the former in front of the latter.
The graduates would be forced to witness — and Prof. Glendon would be compelled to assault — the President’s radical and repeated words and actions that specifically target the weak and innocent for destruction.
It’s not really about Obama. It’s about Notre Dame, which has created this mess and placed the good Professor in this no-win position.
Notre Dame didn’t invite the President to debate. It invited him to address the graduates, at the same time rewarding him with an honorary law degree. Catholics have long argued against laws that violate the dignity of man, and then the premier Catholic university decides to reward the President who argues the opposite.
10 newmajority101 // May 4, 2009 at 7:45 am
NOTRE DAME SHOULD HAVE INVITED AND HONORED STROM THURMOND IN 1958.
Who would agree with this statement after Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1957? Seriously, who would have made these same kinds of arguments presented in this blog? Would a commencement address, that time when a university gives a person the chance to sum up the experiences which a particular institution engenders and send off their graduates, really have been the right time and place to “engage” Thurmond? Give me break.
You must log in to post a comment.