A few weeks ago I was delighted to hear that Catholic University of America made the decision to return to single-sex dormitories. I have blogged a good here at this site of horrible moral life on college campuses, and wanted to blog on the good news of CUA’s decision, but found others had beat me to it, and done a fine job in reporting it.
You most surely know my view on this topic and it is summarized briefly as “Bravo Catholic University!” Bravo CUA president John Garvey! The prevailing idea on most college campuses of putting young men and women in the same building, in close living conditions, with little supervision, is one of the most absurd things we could do. This sort of thing could variously filed under: “How could we ever have been so stupid?” or “Common sense takes a holiday,” or, “Your kidding right?”
And don’t tell me about the over 18, “they’re adults now” notions. Maturity doesn’t magically happen at 18. In fact, given the foolish climate at most colleges, maturity may even step backward for a few years for many college students.
Back in my parents day (they went to college in the early 1950s) the women lived in a separate dorm that had a reception area in the lobby with a receptionist. Young men were not permitted in the upper floors, and young ladies would come down and meet their dates, or other visitors, in those public areas. (I know there was some sneaking around, I am not naive, but the system was still more prudent than today’s open fornication culture).
I am not sure if Catholic will go this far, in implementing the new policy, but any steps in the right direction are most welcome.
Lawsuit looming? Now comes the news that, John Banzhaf, a professor at nearby George Washington University Law School, intends to bring suit to prevent CUA from implementing the change. Patrick Lee of the Wall Street Journal reports on this. Here is an excerpt:
John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School, says he intends to sue Catholic University over the same-sex plan, Inside Higher Ed reports.
Banzhaf told the Law Blog that his argument rests on the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, commercial spaces, housing and employment based on any number of factors, including sex, race, religion and marital status. Reinstating single-sex dorms would constitute gender discrimination, Banzhaf maintains.
The only exception allowed under the act is for “business necessities,” which means the Catholic University must demonstrate that it can operate the school and remain in business only by instituting a single-sex dorm policy, Banzhaf said. Given that the university has been offering coed housing for decades, it is unlikely the exception will apply in this case, he said.
The university issued a prepared statement in response to a Law Blog request for comment, saying it had not yet received or reviewed any legal documents regarding Banzhaf’s intent to sue and that it was “confident that the law does not require men and women be housed together in residence halls.”
The full article is here Sued over Single Sex Dorms?
Mr. Banzhaf apparently has too much time on his hands and wants to insert himself into a matter that is none of his business.
Here is yet another example of the attempt to erode religious freedom. Catholic University has a number of reasons to move to single-sex dorms, but chief among them is a moral vision flowing from our religious convictions. Fornication, carousing, drunkenness, lewd conduct, and so forth, are forbidden a Christian. Further, prudence, the avoidance of scandal and occasions of sin is incumbent upon the Christian individual and community. But Mr Banzhaf will have none of this, even if it does not directly involve him. Not only would he like to disagree with us (which is his right) but he insists on limiting our freedom to live as our faith directs. Once again the Church must go back to court to insist on our religious liberty. It is the same drip, drip, drip we have discussed before (e.g. HERE) as the secularists seek to erode our religious liberty.
For some reason, I am mindful of a line from St. Paul who had to endure interference in Christian matters as well. He wrote: Some… have infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, and to make us slaves (Gal 2:4). I do not know Mr Banzhaf’s personal motivation, but in the wider, highly secularized, (and I would add, neo-pagan) world, the presence of Christians is increasingly obnoxious. It would seem it is not enough for this world to abhor us and what we stand for, but they must also seek to restrict us from practicing our faith, publicly, and even in a our own institutions.
Increasing numbers want to limit severely our religious liberty and force us to observe secular norms as though we were bondsmen to the secular vision and state. But we are not bondsmen, we are free men and women in Christ Jesus. We also have the Constitutional right to practice our faith publicly and to seek to influence others to do so as well, by evangelization, both internally and externally.
Please pay attention to the drip, drip, drip of the erosion of religious liberty. Do not brush it off as no big deal. We may well win this one, but endless numbers of legal cases and legislative actions against religious liberty are already in the works, or soon to come. And we must be ready to fight every one of them.
This ABC News report isn’t exactly balanced. I personally know there is more support at CUA than this rather cynical report depicts:
UPDATE: Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick J. Reilly appeared on Fox news today. Video is here, please also see relevant blog posts at the Cardinal Newman blog: Cardinal Newman Society
We need a President, Congressmen, and Judges who abide by the Moral Law, even if not by religious laws.
Go check out GOP hopeful Rick Santorum. He is 100% pro-life and not afraid to speak the truth on other issues and to take the heat for it. Do you remember the heat he took for speaking out on what would happen if the court case in Texas overturned the state’s prohibition on sodomy? Go look it up.
He has made some mistakes, but who hasn’t?
I think he is our best hope for a good President in 2012.
I don’t know why parents of daughters would send their girls away to a mixed-gender dorm. There is just no way my husband and I will do that with ours. Absolutely not.
Ho Chi Minh City, 23 June 2011 (Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 23 tháng Sáu năm 2011)
Epistle 175 (Thư truyền đạo 175)
I just read carefully Msgr. Charles Pope’s article of “Religious Liberty File: Single Sex Dorms at Catholic University Bring Threatened Lawsuit” in your blog (Tôi vừa đọc một cách cẩn thận bài báo của Đức Cha Charles Pope về “Hồ sơ tự do tôn giáo: Những phòng ngủ tập thể cùng giới tính tại Đại học Công giáo bị đe dọa đưa ra tòa ” trong blog của Đức Cha: http://blog.adw.org).
My some ideas of “the article” are here below (Vài ý kiến của tôi về “Bài báo nầy” là dưới đây):
Firstly, reading and comprehension of Msgr. Charles Pope’s homily are very essential (Một là, việc đọc và hiểu về bài báo của Đức Cha Charles Pope là rất cần thiết).
In the article, “A few weeks ago I was delighted to hear that Catholic University of America-CUA) made the decision to return to single-sex dormitories” Msgr. Charles Pope said (Trong bài báo nầy, Đức Cha Charles Pope đã nói “Cách đây vài tuần Tôi vui mừng nghe rằng Đại học Công giáo Mỹ – viết tắt là CUA đã quyết định trả lại những phòng ngủ tập thể cùng giới tính (nghĩa là những phòng ngủ tập thể chỉ có hoặc nam hoặc nữ cùng ở chung)”).
Msgr. Charles Pope said “Bravo Catholic University!” Bravo CUA president John Garvey!” (Đức Cha Charles Pope đã nói “Hoan hô Đại học Công giáo!” Hoan hô Hiệu trưởng Đại học Công giáo Mỹ John Garvey!).
However, in the article, Msgr. Charles Pope said that CUA faces a problem. That problem is that John Banzhaf, a professor at nearby George Washington University Law School, intends to bring suit to prevent CUA from implementing the change. Patrick Lee of the Wall Street Journal reports on this. Here is an excerpt (Tuy nhiên, trong bài báo nầy, Đức Cha Charles Pope đã nói rằng Đại học Công giáo Mỹ đang đối mặt một vấn đề rắc rối. Vấn đề rắc rối đó là John Banzhaf, một giáo sư ở gần Trường Luật của Đại học George Washington, có ý định đưa ra việc kiện tụng để ngăn trở CUA khỏi thực hiện sự thay đổi nầy. Patrick Lee của báo Wall Street Journal tường thuật về vấn đề nầy. Đây là một đọan trích dẫn):
“John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School, says he intends to sue Catholic University over the same-sex plan” (John Banzhaf, một giáo sư ở Trường Luật của Đại học George Washington, nói ông có ý định kiện Đại học Công giáo trên kế họach cùng giới tính)
“Banzhaf told the Law Blog that his argument rests on the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, commercial spaces, housing and employment based on any number of factors, including sex, race, religion and marital status. Reinstating single-sex dorms would constitute gender discrimination, Banzhaf maintains” (Banzhaf đã nói với Blog Luật rằng lý lẽ của ông dựa trên Luật Nhân Quyền của Columbia, nó cấm sự phân biệt đối xử trong những chỗ ở (ký túc xá hay phòng ngủ) công cộng, những không gian thương mại (căng tin), nhà ở và việc làm dựa trên bất kỳ nhân tố nào, bao gồm giới tính, chủng tộc, tôn giáo và tình trạng hôn nhân. Việc phục hồi lại những phòng ngủ cùng giới tính sẽ tạo ra sự phân biệt đối xử nam nữ, Banzhaf bảo vệ (quan điểm của ông)).
After analyzing view of Professor Banzhaf, Msgr. Charles Pope concluded that Banzhaf ‘s view is “the attempt to erode religious freedom” (Sau khi phân tích quan điểm của Giáo sư Banzhaf, Đức Cha Charles Pope đã kết luận rằng quan điểm của Banzhaf là “nỗ lực nhằm xóa bỏ tự do tôn giáo”).
Msgr. Charles Pope stressed that Professor Banzhaf infringed the right of religious freedom at Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Đức Cha Charles Pope đã nhấn mạnh rằng Giáo sư Banzhaf đã vi phạm quyền tự do tôn giáo tại Điều 18 của Tuyên Ngôn Phổ Quát về Nhân Quyền).
I utterly agree with the Father of the Father’s article (Tôi hòan tòan đồng ý với Đức Cha về bài báo nầy của Đức Cha).
Secondly, now we discuss additionally about the Father’s article (Hai là, bây giờ chúng ta thảo luận thêm về bài báo nầy của Đức Cha).
In yesterday’s my epistle, I wrote that (Trong thư truyền đạo của tôi hôm qua, Tôi đã viết rằng):
“As a Catechuman of Mai Khoi Monastery, I was allowed by my teachers (Dominican Priests) to enter website of Pope Benedict XI, the Father, Catholic News Agency, HCMC ARDIOCESE, New Advent, and Got Questions Ministries (Với tư cách là người đang học đạo của Tu viện Mai Khôi, Tôi được phép bởi các thầy giáo của tôi (Các Linh mục Dòng Đa Minh) để vào các website của Đức Giáo Hòang Biển Đức Mười Sáu, Tổng Giáo Phận Washington, Thông Tấn Xã Công Giáo Tòan Cầu, Tổng Giáo Phận Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh, ,Từ Điển Bách Khoa Tòan Thư Công Giáo Điện Tử, và các Bộ Hỏi Đáp Kinh Thánh).
The purpose of entering the websites is that so that I can study and write letters to discuss them because they are my studies (Mục đích của việc vào các websites là để Tôi có thể nghiên cứu và viết thư để thảo luận chúng bởi vì chúng là những việc học của tôi).
As a Doctor of Economics, translating, annotating and commenting articles from BBC are due to obey an order of Rector of UEH of mine (Với tư cách là một Tiến sĩ Kinh tế, việc dịch thuật, chú giải, và bình luận các bài báo từ BBC là do việc tuân theo mệnh lệnh của Hiệu Trưởng Đại học Kinh tế Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh của tôi).”
As a result, I as well as Rector of UEH also don’t infringe the right of freedom of speech at Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Do đó, Tôi cũng như Hiệu trưởng Đại học Kinh tế Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh cũng không vi phạm quyền tự do ngôn luận tại Điều 19 của Tuyên Ngôn Phổ Quát về Nhân Quyền).
Finally, permit me to summarize briefly is “Bravo University of Economics HCMC! Bravo UEH president Pham Van Nang!” (Cuối cùng, cho phép tôi tóm tắt một cách ngắn gọn là “Hoan hô Đại học Kinh tế Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh! Hoan hô Hiệu trưởng Đại học Kinh tế Phạm Văn Năng!”).
As the Holy Spirit tries to right wrongs, we will come under ever increasing attack by the Neo-Pagan.
This is absurd.
I think that any istitution should have the right to decide wether a campus or dorms are co-ed or single-gender.
Single-gender dorms do not violate any constitutional or personal freedom. Except perhaps the freedom to bring a boy or girl in your room, but boys and girls can meet elsewhere as well. Where there’s a will there’s a way, they say.
Forbidding single-gender dorms, on the other hand would violate the constitutional right of freedom of religion.
The lawsuit will be successful unfortunately. The only chance CUA has is winning on appeal that the HRA violates teh 1st Amendment and I don’t see that happening.
I like (by which I mean “don’t like”, dontcherknow) how they talked to 4 or so kids who said they didn’t like it – I’m sorry, who said um like we don’t um like you know like it right cuz it’s like old fashioned, and one who said it was reasonable.
Good move though, I never understood why schools moved that way in the first place, except maybe to attract the certain type of “mature” 18 year old that would be interested.
The lawyer stated cATHOLIC schools started allowing co-ed dorms in 1982…These are the fruits of the “spirit” of Vatican II.
Linking something that began in 1982 to VC II may be a little unfair and simplistic don’t you think? There might be just one or two things that went wrong after 1980 that had other causes too such as just plain stupidity, or lust, or smoking too much dope, or Woodstock, or the 1950s beatnick generation, or rock and roll, or TV, or Wolfman Jack, or Elvis, or the porn industry, or Hollywood, or Original Sin, or the flesh, or an over-reaction from the strictness of 1950s, or the Sears Roebuck catalog ladies underwear section of the 1950s, or too many Martinis being had by the parents and teachers of the early 1960s who were too tipsy to raise their kids right who then went to college in 1980s, Or it could be the parents of the 1950s who spoiled their kids so that the selfish brats rebelled in the mid 1960s and ushered in the sexual revolution, and the complete meltdown of college life and family values. I don’t know it could be a few things other that Vatican II.
I can’t help thinking that if Catholic schools had never started with co-ed dorms, they would likely not be facing a lawsuit of this nature now.
Also, this holds the potential to cause problems for schools that have never had co-ed dorms. Imagine if the ruling is that same-sex dorms are illegal. Imagine what will happen at all the fundamentalist Protestant schools where co-ed dorms have never been accepted. Or how would such a ruling impact sororities or fraternities? Or even all-girl colleges? I do hope the judge thinks through these ramifications.
I would pray that all Catholic and other Religion based Colleges and Universities follow suit and implement separte dorms for male and female students. I would certainly volunteer to be a Dorm Mother either dorm.
This is the kind of situation that calls for our Bishops to get some steel into their collective spines. For decades the Catholic Church has been pushed and shoved and bullied. It’s time to push back — per unanimous declaration of our Bishops, all Catholic universities in the U.S. need to be ordered by the Bishops to implement single-sex dorms, with restricted visitation. If the Government orders otherwise, then it is time for ALL of our Bishops to stand together and DISOBEY, AND DO SO PUBLICLY, LOUDLY, AT PRESS CONFERENCES; AND, IF NEED BE, PHYSICALLY TO STAND AT THE ENTRANCES TO THESE DORMS AND DARE OUR GOVERNMENT TO ARREST THEM — EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. I’m guessing that the Government would back down. Failing that, then it’s time for the Bishops to be willing to be arrested and to go to jail for the sake of our Faith, which daily is experiencing more and more attacks such as this.
“…single-sex dorms would constitute gender discrimination, Banzhaf maintains.” Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I maintain that laws are passed or not according to what are the intended consequences. If the intended ends are not obtained by the laws, they must be discarded. New laws are needed. Also, if Banzhaf’s opinion were true and legally valid, it would mean that his concept of “discrimination” should prevail over the common good of The Catholic University of America. Ethics (character building) is forever, not a matter of temporary customs (single-sex dorms). Banzhaf, good laws are ethical rules, not mere political and legal subterfuges. Gonzalo Palacios, Ph.D.
I may add my 2 Cents—-if you want a Co-ed Dorm fine..Dont APPLY HERE ……find another college except Catholic University —The name speaks for itself!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a current CU student, I am completely enthused by what Mr. Garvey did. And I have it on good authority that this is only the beginning, nor will a lawsuit stop Mr. Garvey from going through with this. And the GW professor bringing forward this lawsuit not only has too much time on his hands, but he has more important things to worry about. Like GW allowing, if not explicitly condoning, co-habitation in their own dormitories.
Obviously plenty of frivolous law suits make it to court, but what possible basis is there for saying that single-sex dorms constitute housing discrimination? If the university provided only single-sex dorms and had twelve for men and only 2 for women, maybe. Or if the women’s dorms were all clean and modern and the men’s dorms were falling-down hellholes. But as long as there is equal opportunity and the same standards are applied to everyone, how can it be discriminatory?
Some thoughts on this subject:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304791204576401930158962312.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Yes, this is great. I link a lot to Cardinal Newman Soc. on this blog. They do great work
Catholics wouldn’t have to play so much Defense if they were more focused on the Offense. Start by banning Mr. Banshaf from the University, his views are detrimental to our religious teachings. Next, someone at Catholic needs to sue Georgetown for operating with co-ed dorms, which are also detrimental to the Christian walk. Suing Mr. Banshaf personally might give him pause and something to do with his extra time on his hands…
Actually the teacher in question is a George Washington University teacher.
What is the criteria for being a law professor at George Washington University? What do his faculty colleagues think of this misguided and arrogant individual? His behavior here is bizarre, and he should be dismissed from his teaching position, although he is probably protected by tenure. The image of the legal and education professions in the United States are being disgraced by academics who engage in such nonsense.
Perhaps I should refrain from being uncharitable but what in the world is Mr. Banshaf’s motive? Is he about due for his 15 minutes?
Apparently, this “gender discrimination” lawsuit is based on a DC law. I’ve read that the law exempts situations that would be deemed to harm the business of an affected institution. The exception is sited as the reason segregated restrooms are allowed under the law.
It seems to me that the fact there are any exceptions at all, essentially admits that civilized society can and should have standards that should be adhered to. A similar perversion of logic is being used to justify the debasement of Marriage to be just about anything someone can think up.
Anyway, it seems to me that CUA can very logically claim an exception based on harm to its business by not having gender specific dorms. In deed, we now see so-called Catholic schools being regarded (properly) as secular schools when it comes to regulations that exempt religious institutions from forced unionism. Chastity norms are very much in the interest of schools that identify themselves as Catholic.
To argue that CUA is changing a policy that did not violate the statute for over 30 years is convoluted logic once again. It does not follow that, since the school violated the Church’s norms for that period, it should continue to violate them. Indeed, chastity norms in the church go back centuries and were adhered to for the vast majority of CUA’s many years of existence. Years of doing something wrong does not make it right.