Minnesota Lawyer Blog

There is a article worth reading on MinnPost about the University of St. Thomas School of Law. A student at the school was apparently denied "volunteer credits" (required by the school as part of its curriculum) for volunteer work done with Planned Parenthood.

According to MinnPost, Dean Thomas Mengler announced in a campuswide letter that students would not receive credit for volunteering at Planned Parenthood or any other organization "whose mission is fundamentally in conflict with a core value of a Catholic university."

The story goes on to note:

Several dozen St. Thomas law students signed an open letter to Mengler earlier this week, which voiced concerns about the law school's ability to attract a diverse range of students, both those who agree with the church's teachings and those who do not. (For the full MinnPost article, click here.)

It's a difficult conflict between the school's religious underpinnings and principles of academic freedom. The school seems to be leaning toward resolving this particular controversy in favor of the former, which could make the school a more difficult sell, particularly to nonCatholic students. On the other hand, being too flexible on this issue could threaten the young school's core identity. Nobody ever said being a law school with a mission would be easy ...

UPDATE: Jonathan Kaminski over at CityPages' blog "The Blotter," who I believe was the first to report the UST/ Planned Parenthood story, reports that a conservative UST Law students' group has thrown its support behind Mengler.

Even with the preliminary legislative audit being performed at the state Attorney General's office, the AGO is going ahead with an independent review under the auspices of University of St. Thomas Law School dean Thomas Mengler (on right).

AGO spokesman Benjamin Watson said Mengler's investigation is going on in tandem with that of Legislative Auditor James Nobles, but declined to say how long it would take or what Mengler would be trying to determine.

Nobles decided late last month to begin what he called a preliminary investigation of "any sort of inappropriate, unethical, illegal activity" in the AG's office, also reserving the right to launch a more elaborate probe at a later date.

Is the AGO bringing in Mengler in the hopes that he'll paint a sunnier picture than Nobles? It would be interesting to compare the two reviews once they're completed.

University of St. Thomas President Rev. Dennis Dease reversed his earlier decision to bar Archbishop Desmond Tutu from speaking at the school because of Tutu's previous statements on Israel, the Star Tribune Reports. (Click here for the full Strib article.)

"I have wrestled with what is the right thing to do in this situation, and I have concluded that I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop," Dease reportedly wrote in a letter to the St. Thomas community. "Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do." (Click here for the full text of Dease's letter.)

I commend Dease for admitting he made a mistake and reversing course. Only a big person can do something like that on such a public matter. His willingness to do so exemplifies the best traditions of the institution which he leads.

Perhaps because the University of St. Thomas is a Catholic school, there is a cliché I can’t get out of my head when reflecting on its decision not to let Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak there – the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Indeed, it was with the very best of intentions that St. Thomas made its decision. The school was concerned that some in the Jewish community would be offended because of controversial views the archbishop has previously expressed about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The school should be commended for its thoughtfulness, sense of inclusiveness and religious and cultural sensitivity. However, its decision is a mistake.

The role of an educational institution is to educate – a function that is ill served by filtering out controversial views. In fact, we learn the most from those with differing views and values than ours. When in doubt, consider Voltaire's famous words: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

I know that Archbishop Tutu can find other venues locally, and, in fact, the group sponsoring the Nobel laureate’s visit has already lined up a secondary site. But I nonetheless think it sets a bad precedent for a respected local institution of higher learning such as St. Thomas to turn away a speaker of Tutu’s caliber to avoid a debate. Better to have that debate and make sure it is done in a respectful way, such as holding a public forum or bringing in speakers with opposing viewpoints.

Again, I understand why the University of St. Thomas has reached the conclusion it has and applaud its ecumenical spirit. I also appreciate how much soul searching must go on before one says no to a religious leader with the worldwide name recognition of Tutu. However, I urge the school to reconsider. I think it's doing the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

The decision by the University of St. Thomas not to invite Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at the university has drawn respectful opposition from faculty at the law school. The school reportedly felt that Tutu's appearance would be hurtful to some Jewish members of the community due to some controversial remarks he has made relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Professor Thomas Berg, the co-Director of the Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law,and Public Policy, and 17 other faculty members sent a letter to UST's president, Fr. Dennis Dease, asking the university to reconsider its decision.

"To reject a distinguished speaker based on worries that his words may cause hurt or offense to some is entirely at odds with the search for truth that should characterize a Catholic university. Speech taking positions on controversial subjects will often be offensive or hurtful to some people. Nevertheless, a Catholic university should be willing to open itself to such speech – and criticisms of that speech – in order to learn the truth," the letter says.

The law school has also requested permission to invite Archbishop Tutu on its own if the university doesn't change its mind. Professor Hank Shea wrote to Fr. Dease that the faculty had voted -- with no dissent -- to request Dean Thomas Mengler to invite the archbishop to speak in the atrium.

"Please open your heart to the pain that your decision has caused and will continue to cause parts of our UST community, particularly those who are minorities. I know this pain was unintentional but it is real and deep. We must begin to heal it," Shea's letter says.