Viewpoint diversity collapses at Notre Dame re Susan Ostermann

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame is a Catholic university that embraces its Catholic identity, so it should be no surprise that having this professor on staff would be controversial. If Susan really wants to work for a Catholic university, she should consider Georgetown, which only pretends to be Catholic. I am sure they will have no problem with her pro-abortion stance.

That’s actually not true. Even Georgetown doesn’t allow students to organize official pro choice clubs, and they sold MedSTAR hospital because the school didn’t want any connection to abortions performed there.

Wasn't that hospital sold years ago before the Georgetown Jesuits abandoned their Catholics mission?

Georgetown University all but rejected the prolife Catholic teachings along with many other tenets of Catholicism in recent years. You only need to look at their website and social media compared to Notre Dame to see that the Catholic faith is no longer part of Georgetown in a meaningful way, while Notre Dame is very much a Catholic institution.

Over the past few decades, Georgetown has become actively secular and moderately anti Catholic.

Heck, some of their student tour guides even brag that the university is "not into all that Catholic stuff".

PP is right. If someone wants a secular university that was formerly Catholic, Georgetown is a very stong secular alternative to very Catholic Notre Dame.

The only reason to get so upset about Catholic Notre Dame upholding Catholic teachings, including with its staff expectations, is that you want Notre Dame to fail in its Catholic mission, and you are upset that it is still a rock against the forces that are against it.

You clearly have no experience with Georgetown. STFU.

[Anonymous]

Nuance is our friend. Are there some far left extremists who lack tolerance for complexity? Yes. But it’s also important to examine the motivations and reasoning that underlie whatever perspectives are put forth, and at this point in time, many “conservatives” espouse viewpoints that simply don’t stand up to analytical scrutiny and also are manifestations of blatant hypocrisy. For example, trans advocates ultimately give ammunition to MAGA when they shut down rational conversation about the medical risks of minors undergoing irreversible surgeries or about the real concerns of ciswomen having to compete in meaningful athletic contests against trans women who have gone through male puberty, especially in contact sports. But the foundation of their advocacy, pushing back against discrimination and violence experienced by trans people just for being trans, is morally and ethically sound. By contrast, there is no reason whatsoever to give any time and space, let alone honoraria, to the third comings of Phyllis Schlafly whose advocacy of tradwife life isn’t based upon logic or legitimate research, is promulgated by people who themselves aren’t walking the
walk and is motivated by misogyny. Why would anyone who values reason and complexity want to give the time of day to speakers (like the late Charlie Kirk) who once commented that “prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuance is our friend. Are there some far left extremists who lack tolerance for complexity? Yes. But it’s also important to examine the motivations and reasoning that underlie whatever perspectives are put forth, and at this point in time, many “conservatives” espouse viewpoints that simply don’t stand up to analytical scrutiny and also are manifestations of blatant hypocrisy. For example, trans advocates ultimately give ammunition to MAGA when they shut down rational conversation about the medical risks of minors undergoing irreversible surgeries or about the real concerns of ciswomen having to compete in meaningful athletic contests against trans women who have gone through male puberty, especially in contact sports. But the foundation of their advocacy, pushing back against discrimination and violence experienced by trans people just for being trans, is morally and ethically sound. By contrast, there is no reason whatsoever to give any time and space, let alone honoraria, to the third comings of Phyllis Schlafly whose advocacy of tradwife life isn’t based upon logic or legitimate research, is promulgated by people who themselves aren’t walking the
walk and is motivated by misogyny. Why would anyone who values reason and complexity want to give the time of day to speakers (like the late Charlie Kirk) who once commented that “prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o)?

Example of these “complexities” that should be tolerated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame is a Catholic university that embraces its Catholic identity, so it should be no surprise that having this professor on staff would be controversial. If Susan really wants to work for a Catholic university, she should consider Georgetown, which only pretends to be Catholic. I am sure they will have no problem with her pro-abortion stance.

That’s actually not true. Even Georgetown doesn’t allow students to organize official pro choice clubs, and they sold MedSTAR hospital because the school didn’t want any connection to abortions performed there.

Wasn't that hospital sold years ago before the Georgetown Jesuits abandoned their Catholics mission?

Georgetown University all but rejected the prolife Catholic teachings along with many other tenets of Catholicism in recent years. You only need to look at their website and social media compared to Notre Dame to see that the Catholic faith is no longer part of Georgetown in a meaningful way, while Notre Dame is very much a Catholic institution.

Over the past few decades, Georgetown has become actively secular and moderately anti Catholic.

Heck, some of their student tour guides even brag that the university is "not into all that Catholic stuff".

PP is right. If someone wants a secular university that was formerly Catholic, Georgetown is a very stong secular alternative to very Catholic Notre Dame.

The only reason to get so upset about Catholic Notre Dame upholding Catholic teachings, including with its staff expectations, is that you want Notre Dame to fail in its Catholic mission, and you are upset that it is still a rock against the forces that are against it.

+100 My kid applied to both, rejected from ND, got into Georgetown, and did not enroll after she explored Georgetown more deeply. She's going to BC, which is much more Catholic and has a MUCH more beautiful campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuance is our friend. Are there some far left extremists who lack tolerance for complexity? Yes. But it’s also important to examine the motivations and reasoning that underlie whatever perspectives are put forth, and at this point in time, many “conservatives” espouse viewpoints that simply don’t stand up to analytical scrutiny and also are manifestations of blatant hypocrisy. For example, trans advocates ultimately give ammunition to MAGA when they shut down rational conversation about the medical risks of minors undergoing irreversible surgeries or about the real concerns of ciswomen having to compete in meaningful athletic contests against trans women who have gone through male puberty, especially in contact sports. But the foundation of their advocacy, pushing back against discrimination and violence experienced by trans people just for being trans, is morally and ethically sound. By contrast, there is no reason whatsoever to give any time and space, let alone honoraria, to the third comings of Phyllis Schlafly whose advocacy of tradwife life isn’t based upon logic or legitimate research, is promulgated by people who themselves aren’t walking the
walk and is motivated by misogyny. Why would anyone who values reason and complexity want to give the time of day to speakers (like the late Charlie Kirk) who once commented that “prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o)?

But there are no such things as irreversible trans medical surgeries for minors in the US- there’s a lot more nuance to the hormone debate, but that previous point itself is a lie that is useless to debate, because it’s obvious that it was created to make trans advocates look like they care to mangle children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nuance is our friend. Are there some far left extremists who lack tolerance for complexity? Yes. But it’s also important to examine the motivations and reasoning that underlie whatever perspectives are put forth, and at this point in time, many “conservatives” espouse viewpoints that simply don’t stand up to analytical scrutiny and also are manifestations of blatant hypocrisy. For example, trans advocates ultimately give ammunition to MAGA when they shut down rational conversation about the medical risks of minors undergoing irreversible surgeries or about the real concerns of ciswomen having to compete in meaningful athletic contests against trans women who have gone through male puberty, especially in contact sports. But the foundation of their advocacy, pushing back against discrimination and violence experienced by trans people just for being trans, is morally and ethically sound. By contrast, there is no reason whatsoever to give any time and space, let alone honoraria, to the third comings of Phyllis Schlafly whose advocacy of tradwife life isn’t based upon logic or legitimate research, is promulgated by people who themselves aren’t walking the
walk and is motivated by misogyny. Why would anyone who values reason and complexity want to give the time of day to speakers (like the late Charlie Kirk) who once commented that “prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people” (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o)?

Example of these “complexities” that should be tolerated?

Still waiting to hear about these “complexities”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when you starting taking away people’s rights and shitting on the Constitution?

Many, if not most, left-leaning people were fine with constitutional rights being limited as long as it related only to firearms.
Now that reproductive rights are being restricted, it’s a crisis.