Comments on: Mary Ann Glendons Failed Hail Mary

By: newmajority101

newmajority101 — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:45:49 +0000

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.

By: jgilesphx

jgilesphx — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:33:43 +0000

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.

By: danoand

danoand — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:00:26 +0000

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.

By: pblueridge

pblueridge — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:08:53 +0000

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.

By: JesusOblahma

JesusOblahma — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:44:27 +0000

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.

By: Brutus1776

Brutus1776 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:29:43 +0000

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.

By: mpolito

mpolito — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:28:19 +0000

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.

By: joemarier

joemarier — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:31:13 +0000

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/

By: joemarier

joemarier — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:47:03 +0000

Sorry, I completely disagree with this, but I love you anyway, Danielle!

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:38:03 +0000

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.