Drawing the line at Notre Dame

Neil Steinberg thinks Obama is coming to ND to give a lecture or take part in a debate in which there is delicious free flow of ideas, when he is coming as political ceremony. 

Where in Catholic theology does it say that they are not allowed to hear other perspectives?

He compares Cardinal George at the editorial board table to the #1 political figure at a graduation podium, with honorary degree thrown in. 

I don’t recall anyone here complaining, “Why are we letting this guy in here?

He thinks the issue is what Obama thinks or believes about abortion, when that is beside the point, which is public policy as regards abortion.

So the question is how bad should a president’s policy be before an institution takes away the welcome mat and bestowal of esteem and honors?  George sees policy gone awry to that extent, Notre Dame doesn’t.  How bad should it be before Notre Dame draws a line?  How immoral on its face?

Steinberg is unimpressed by arguments against abortion, but George is.  He thinks it’s time to draw the line.

Later: Look, even Congress members get it, that some invitations imply approval, as in a House committee having former AIG chairman “Hank” Greenberg to testify:

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), the top Republican on the panel, suggested it shouldn’t even be hosting Greenberg because of the many legal entanglements.

And he came to tell them something most of them thought they ought to hear about.

Yet later: Here’s an idea for the Sun-Times, where Steinberg works: Bring back Tom Roeser as a columnist, thus demonstrating liberal openness to others’ ideas.  At his blog, Roeser counts the ways in which Obama policy decisions make him anathema to the pro-life community.

How our library can win its medals

Chatting with Debby Preiser, the events lady at Oak Park Public Library, yesterday, I got a glowing account of a recent session with Iraq and Viet Nam war vets, all but one of whom (five in all) regretted their and our participation in those wars.  Interesting, she said with a smile, and I smiled back.  She had glimmed my No Obama ‘08 cap (my Rohrshach test of tolerance levels) before recounting the vets’ session, held I assume in the library’s Veterans Room.

I felt somewhat buffeted by the account, but Debby is a sales person, and selling gets that way sometimes.  In any case, it put me in mind of a trend I have been noticing and storing in the back of my crowded, cluttered mind, that our library serves its supposed constituency a steady diet of progressive (let no man say liberal) programs. 

In this case, the vets endorsed an anti-war position, and that could have been merely the luck of the draw, reflecting Oak Park and literary Chicago’s widespread firmly held convictions.  A similar program in Mississippi or Oklahoma would have produced a different response, I imagine.

Nonetheless, assuming it was accidental in this case — pure chance, let us say — we cannot help notice that library programs tilt heavily to the left.  That’s us in Oak Park, yes, but we are also literate, urbane, highly educated, and keenly interested in intelligent, even intellectual debate and discussion, are we not?  Including conservative ideas in a debate atmosphere. 

Why not a debate, to give an example, between an Al Gore acolyte (Al would be great, but he declines debate) and a nay-sayer, each of some professional heft and platform style.  Sounds like money to me, and not available from the Great ATM in Washington probably, but who knows?  Stranger expenditures have happened and will happen, now that happy-go–lucky times are here again.  Meanwhile, our library movers and shakers might give it a thought.  After all, why be left all the time?