Students Lodged Complaint Against Fitzgibbon in 2008
Oct 02, 2009
56 Comments
Scott T. FitzgibbonIn the Spring of 2008, a group of Boston College Law School students enrolled in Professor Scott T. Fitzgibbon’s “Marriage: Law and Theory” seminar formally approached Dean of Students Norah Wylie to express concern over Fitzgibbon’s allegedly improper conduct in class.
The group, comprising approximately one-third of the small seminar, claimed that Professor Fitzgibbon was endorsing, among other things, a traditional view of marriage and refusing to permit meaningful opposition to his views in class and on the final exam.
“He refused to include any readings from the feminist or GLBT groups into the curriculum, despite requests that he do so,” said Monica Jo Molnar ‘08, a student in Fitzgibbon’s class and a member of the group that approached Wylie.
Instead, students from Fitzgibbon’s class reported that readings from conservative authors predominated.
Students’ objections were not limited to the readings themselves. Several students in class expressed concern that their grades on the final exam would be predicated in part on their willingness to side with Professor Fitzgibbon on controversial issues.
“On the exam, Professor Fitzgibbon insisted that anything we say be supported by the class readings, but his class readings only supported one view — his,” said Molnar.
The course description for Fitzgibbon’s seminar read as follows:
Prerequisites: None
This course will consider the nature of marriage, with special attention to the analysis of friendships and other affiliations in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. It will consider some of the causes of marital breakdown. It will consider the question of the extent to which the law and the social order should support and encourage marriage and some initiatives designed to do so. It will consider the constitutional law of marriage.
As Fitzgibbon’s seminar continued, attendance began to drop, and many students became increasingly dissatisfied with Fitzgibbon’s treatment of marriage. As a result, a small group of students resolved to speak with Wylie about Fitzgibbon’s perceived bias.
The students’ request to modify the curriculum and/or to take the class Pass/Fail was denied.
The 2008 complaint against Fitzgibbon is the latest revelation in a cultural controversy that has engaged students and faculty in recent weeks at Boston College Law School. While previous opinion and commentary focused on such issues as free speech, tolerance, discrimination, mis-quotations, and the use of the BC Law trademark, this is the first time questions regarding the propriety of Professor’s Fitzgibbon’s conduct in the classroom have surfaced.
Reports from students in Professor Fitzgibbon’s Marriage Law and Theory seminar stand in marked contrast to reports from students who had taken Fitzgibbon’s 1L Contracts class. In the latter, past students have said that Professor Fitzgibbon kept his personal political beliefs out of the classroom.
Dean Wylie and Professor Fitzgibbon did not immediately return a request for comment.
Who posted this article?
Inquiring minds want to know: How did Jesse Stellato crack this story? He doesn’t even go to school here anymore! I’ll never seize to be amazed at his sources and intrepidity. Please let us know..
as someone who has known some of the eaglei writers over the years, i think the answer is simple: talent, talent, talent.jesse stellato is intelligent but also aggressive, a quality inherent in all great journalists. he pestered the deans and the lsa incessently during his tenure. as editor in chief, austin evers was a bit more diplomatic and humorous, but nonetheless very effective. adam brenner may have been the toughest leader at eaglei, but i haven’t seen much from him on the site lately [could be cuz he's with the LSA now].ryan morrisson seems be off to quite a start, with some of the biggest stories i’ve ever seem at bc law. the fitzgibbon fiasco is probably an editor in chief’s dream.overall, i think these guys recruit [and attract] some of the best writers at the school, and it shows.disclaimer: i never wrote for eaglei. i didn’t want to piss off the dean.
Very curious to hear Dean Garvey’s and Dean Wylie’s response to this devastating revelation. Why was Dean Wylie unavailable for comment?
The story does not say why Dean Wylie had no comment, and so we can only speculate. One reason may be that her supervisor, Dean Garvey, has made it the party line to contextualize Fitzgibbongate as a "Free Speech" debate, as opposed to a "Gay Rights" debate, and Garvey has spake-ith. So the administration might be thinking that they really don’t have much more to say.At BC Law, Garvey will win this debate if students think of this as a Free Speech issue, but loose if students view it as a Gay Rights issue. (For non-BC’ers, BC Law happens to be a very progressive place, where gay and lesbian students are welcomed by students and faculty, notwithstanding the likelihood that a small minority of professors such as Fitzgibbon and Garvey would not give them an equal right to marry.)
It is a scientific fact that procreation is necessary to continue Human Life on Earth. There does not exist, however, scientific evidence that a "homosexual" inclination is genetic or "something a person is born with", which is why refusing to condone homosexual sexual acts, or any sexual act that does not respect the sacredness and dignity of the Human Person, and refusing to affirm that various sexual "orientations" or sexual "preferences" define person-hood, can not be considered discrimination to begin with. Referring to someone or oneself according to sexual "orientation", or sexual "preference" is demeaning, and certainly not consistent with The Spirit of The Law regarding the sin of adultery. Professor Fitzgibbon’s response to the need to protect the Sacrament of Marriage is not only consistent with the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium of His Church, it is also consistent with a University that professes to be Catholic. Although it is true that Religious Freedom is protected by our Constitution, our Constitution does not provide for establishing a separate person-hood based upon sexual"orientation" or "preferences". Those who profess to be Catholic believe in The Truth of Love, The Word of God Made Flesh, Who has revealed to us that any act that is not oriented to the Will of God, is not an act of Love, to begin with.
I’m not sure I understand why this is a big story? A professor has determined from what angle he is going to teach his own class? He views on this issue are fairly well known, so I am surprised anyone who took his class was shocked to find that there would be one view of marriage taught. The better question is not why he did not allow alternative viewpoints to be argued or discussed in his class, but why this class, with this curriculum was ever approved by the administration to begin with? I have no problem with "freedom of speech" or "gay rights" arguments, but that should go for both faculty and students — a professor at BC Law should not be allowed to teach a class that shuts out alternative theories and discussions on an issue. We are here to learn, not be indoctrinated. That said, if the curriculum of the course was clear up front, why is anyone complaining? Plenty of BC Law classes tackle and issue from one perspective by a professor. (See: Greenfield’s corporations class). I have no idea if those classes welcome alternative viewpoints/discussion. All I know is they should – a professor who is afraid to defend his views should probably keep them to himself.
Nancy,I think you’re addressing the wrong debate. No one is trying to force the Catholic Church to marry anyone it doesn’t want to marry.There is a difference between legal marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church recognizes this: when a marriage is annulled by the Catholic Church, that is the church saying the marriage never happened. Yet they were certainly married in the eyes of the law…Keep in mind that the Catholic Church need NOT bless, condone, or participate in a marriage for it to be one. As you no doubt are aware, the Sacrament of Marriage is the only Sacrament which does NOT require the presence or participation of a priest; the Sacrament is in between the two people.Lastly, while Boston College is a Jesuit university, it transferred authority over itself to a secular Board about twenty years ago. You and the university are free to consider Boston College Catholic, but other than the length of time in which the two universities have had secular Boards, Boston College is about as Catholic as Harvard University is Christian.
You have to wonder if gay couples would be able to marry everywhere right now if the legal word for marriage was different than the religious word for marriage. I wish the religious debates and the political debates would stay separate. Well said, Ryan.
Nancy’s use of Capital Letters on a lot of her Nouns is pretty awesome. They’re all over the place, not just for all of the words for God! I love it. It’s so old-timey, it really makes her Testimony seem all the more Relevant to Every Contemporary Audience.
Nancy,You forgot to tell those of us that don’t profess to be Catholic, or even believe in Christ for that matter, why we should discriminate against equal marriage rights?
LLL – because God is Watching you all and we have to Return to God in the End of Time.by the way, why such emphasis on whether homoseuxality is genetic or "something to be born with" ? so what if this is partly genetic, and partly a choice? why does it matter after all? in a free world, we have the right to choose whom to love/ sex/ marry.
Amen Amy.Nancy – if BC is a Catholic institution that wants to teach the law from a religious standpoint, it should make that clear when students are applying and writing their checks for tuition. Last time I checked, the BC Law community consisted of people from a variety of religious, ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations. Last time I checked it used that diversity to win points with US News and establish itself as a reputable, serious law school. If Fitzgibbon or Garvey use their positions and this school as a prop to indoctrinate students to the Catholic faith, they can expect BC to continue its slow decline in the rankings. It’s all about priorities. If their priority is to teach people that the law should reflect discrimination because the Bible reflects that same discrimination, then so be it. But I want my money back.
Ryan, F.Y.I.- regarding the Sacrament of Marriage http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htmThough it is true that Marriage may be regulated by both Civil and Church Law, this does not change the fact that Marriage was instituted by God, and can only be considered a union if it exists between a Man and a Woman because of the complementary nature of Man and Woman to begin with. It is because of the complementary nature of Male and Female, that the two can become one, forming a union that has the potential to continue Human Life on Earth.
Nancy, I don’t see anything in the catechism that contradicts what I said earlier. Note that the catechism denies marriage to a man and a woman who have no intention or ability to have children. If you argue members of the same sex cannot marry legally because they cannot have children, doesn’t it follow that heterosexual couples without the desire or physical ability to have children shouldn’t be able to marry legally, as well?The legal and religious definitions of marriage are already different (lack of a desire to have children at the time of marriage is often grounds for annulment). Why pretend they’re not?
"this does not change the fact that Marriage was instituted by God."Okay – this is where the intellectual train goes off the tracks. Fact? NO. NO. NO.
Since nancy gave us a url to the vatican catechism, I think we should post a more relevant link:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
This debate is misguided and off topic, and ultimately pointless:"…while one’s experience thus makes certain preferences dogmatic for oneself, recognition of how they came to be so leaves one able to see that others, poor souls, may be equally dogmatic about something else. And this again means skepticism. Not that one’s belief or love does not remain. Not that we would not fight and die for it if important—we all, whether we know it or not, are fighting to make the kind of a world that we should like—but that we have learned to recognize that others will fight and die to make a different world, with equal sincerity or belief. Deep-seated preferences cannot be argued about…"http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1438Nancy, Ryan, and everyone else, the point of this article is not whether Fitzgibbon has the right to slant his class if he chooses — he does. The point of this article is to question: if a professor confines all of the resources used in the class to one side of a contentious issue, is that permissible? If he or she does so, and then asks a question on an exam, allowing students only to cite materials that were assigned in the class, is this ethical? Fair?
Ryan, no where in the Catechism does it state that couples without the desire or physical ability to have children, shouldn’t be able to marry legally.Talon, Professor Fitzgibbon has the right to speak the truth regarding Marriage which is the union of one Man and one Woman creating a new Family. If Marriage has become a contentious issue for some, it is because there are some who have made it a contentious issue. This does not change the fact that Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman, creating a new Family.
Nancy, doesn’t mean he gets to use the Boston College Law School name when he says it. And from an academic standpoint, Fitzgibbon hasn’t publicly defended the bald contentions he made in the Maine commercial… and that’s not cool. You’ve defended him more than he’s defended him. Although I dare say if Fitzgibbon were to defend himself, it would make a bit more logical sense…
Nancy:Of course not! A catechism couldn’t deny a legal marriage to anyone. But one of the requirements for "conjugal love" is an "openness to fertility." Can "one Man and one Woman" be married in the eyes of the Catholic Church if they have never had any intention whatsoever of having children?From the catechism:"Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage." Seems like the last is the cited reason to deny legal marriage to gay couples. But if it is, it would just as much be a reason to deny legal marriage to any couple that was not open to fertility.Also, I would like someone to explain to me: why is it ok for there to be legal divorce? Seems like anyone who wishes to deny legal marriage to gay couples should also be against legal divorce.
The way I see it, every gay individual has the same exact right to get married as every straight individual. Gays are just less inclined to get married because they find the idea of marrying someone of the opposite sex appalling. This is why relatively few gay men have wives, and why relatively few gay women have husbands. What gay individuals are asking for, therefore, is not an equal right because they already have the exact same right to marry. Therefore its not an equal rights issue, but a question of whether society wants to invent an entirely new institution (gay marriage) out of whole cloth. To do this, gay marriage advocates need to convince others that this new institution is a good idea, not pretend the two institutions are identical.
2L, that’s a ridiculous argument known as the theory of equal application. They used the same argument against inter-racial couples getting married. You see, inter-racial marriage bans weren’t racist because black people couldn’t marry someone of the opposite race just as white people couldn’t either. The argument didn’t hold any weight then and it doesn’t hold any weight now.
"okay-this is where the intellectual train goes off the tracks. Fact? No No No"Perhaps you have never heard of the unaminous Declaration of Independence that refers to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God or the Truths that are self-evident, the unalienable Rights that are endowed to all Mankind from their Creator, (a.k.a. God with a capital G) the Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness ( the Right to Life listed first because it is the fundamental Right upon which all Rights, including Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness depend and the fact that "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…" ( for example, The Constitution)Fact? Yes
The Declaration of Independence is not a law or Constitution of the United States. And the fact that it was "unaminous" doesn’t mean much…Also, the words "life, liberty, and property" were the words of John Locke that were borrowed and altered for the Declaration of Independence. It isn’t smart to derive meaning from the order or syntax of a statement if it was largely borrowed from another source.
Talon, if the Constitution is not the "Government" that was instituted among Men in the United States to secure the unalienable Rights that have been endowed to each one of us from our Creator, God, (with the capital G) then what form of Government was created to secure these unalienable Rights?
I personally believe that no government receives its authorization to govern from God… some clearly disagree.
Paul, those laws were specifically designed to keep blacks from marrying whites (although they tried to tailor the language so it seemed to apply to all). Laws giving weight to the time honored institution of marriage were not designed with some ulterior motive of keeping men from marrying men and women from marrying women. Furthermore, race is an immutable characteristic making laws targeting it particularly unfair whereas sexual preference is merely how attractive you happen to find people.
Eaglei seems to view BCLS getting on AbovetheLaw as a good thing. I view it as an awful thing.
I have heard of that, Nancy. That does not make the statement you made regarding Marriage any more a Fact simply because the Founding Fathers invoked their BELIEF that there is a Creator. They, in fact, made it abundantly clear that the Creator and a belief is said Creator would have nothing to do with protection under the laws of the United States (see: Constitution).Get a damned clue.
Nancy — Re: "then what form of Government was created to secure these unalienable Rights?"Answer: A goddamned secular government.
First off, I think we owe Nancy some respect. She has written some intelligent comments that, though I may disagree with them, are nevertheless well-considered and obviously strongly held. That said, Here’s why I think she is wrong: the law in Maine at issue carves out a specific exception for religious organizations to discriminate against gays. Simply put, Catholic churches in Maine can deny gays the right to marry with impunity. To quote the purpose of the relevant Act from its legislative history: "This bill also clarifies that the authorization of marriage between 2 people of the same sex does not compel any religious institution to alter its doctrine, policy or teaching regarding marriage or to solemnize any marriage in conflict with that doctrine, policy or teaching. It also specifies that a person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.Furthermore, Nancy has not provided any reason why people of other faiths should adhere to a Catholic law that holds gay marriage sinful.
"Nancy has not provided any reason why people of other faiths should adhere to a Catholic law that holds gay marriage sinful."That’s exactly what I was trying to get at before…
Paul is EXACTLY right on his logic (and his law). 1Ls may not have read Loving v. Virginia yet, but in that case the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute which prohibited blacks and whites from marrying. Though Virginia claimed the law — which allowed whites to marry whites and blacks to marry blacks — applied "equally" to whites and blacks, the Court ruled that the law discriminated based on race and thus "violate[d] the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. As you may recall, the 14th Amendment’s purpose is to "eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.”It is not difficult to draw a similar analogy to marriage.
Race refers to a Person’s Ancestry. Sexual "orientation" or "preference" does not. Refusing to condone sexual acts that do not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of a Human Person is not discrimination. Refusing to respect the Sacredness and Dignity of a Human Person because of that Person’s Ancestry is discrimination.
from a dictionary:"discrimination:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"Even if being gay were a choice (which it’s not, and which you have NO WAY of knowing), treating LGBT persons differently because they are LGBT persons IS discrimination.
Nancy:You still haven’t answered a specific question. Why do Catholics have a right to impose their religious beliefs with respect to gay marriage on others of different faiths? How could they?
Talon, the Right to Life of a Person, (Human Individual) is, in fact, the fundamental Right upon which every Right for that Person depends. Without the Right to Life, there can be no other Rights, which is why the Right to Life must be protected first. ( According to our Founding Fathers, the Right to Life is one of those self-evident Truths endowed to each one of us from our Creator. )Order does matter for one can not protect a Person’s Liberty or Property or Pursuit of Happiness ect., if one does not protect that Person’s Right to Life, to begin with.
Talon, classifying people according to sexual "orientation" or "preference" is demeaning. Sexual "orientation" or sexual "preference" refers to sexual relationships.God made all Men and Woman ( not just Catholics) complementary. The complementary nature of Man and Woman is a Scientific fact.
Nancy—When I just read you calling MY statements demeaning, I threw up in my mouth.How about addressing why you have the right to impose your beliefs on others of other faiths (or, GASP, no faith)?
It’s a scientific fact that women and men are complementary? What does this mean exactly?Also, what about those unfortunate intersexed people (formally called hermaphrodites)? How do they fit into this plan?
wow – this is really enlightening!!men and women are complementary?that means I must find my "other half" to make myself full. I am not independent, self-sufficient … to make such a statement might even be blasphemous to begin with ….
The mistake many of you are making is trying to engage Nancy in a debate. You cannot win in the battle of logic vs. mysticism.
Talon writes: "Even if being gay were a choice (which it’s not, and which you have NO WAY of knowing)" — You say there is no way of knowing whether X is true or false, yet you assert that X is false. Allow me to make an argument similar to yours. "There is NO WAY of knowing whether God exists or not. THERE IS NO GOD!"
Amen Rotterdam. I do not believe in God. I am an Atheist. I think the male and female of the species certainly serve a reproductive purpose and Nancy is correct that they are complementary in that regard. However, humans have evolved to understand there are biological/evolutionary exceptions to the norm. I’m gay and I have no problem accepting that my sexuality is likely a genetic hiccup, because I truly believe in evolution and the fact shit happens. I also think we are fortunate enough in our evolved intellectual capacities to accept that these exceptions are not a foundation for discrimination, ridicule, harassment, etc. We don’t prevent heterosexuals incapable of reproduction from participating in civil marriage, because we know that’s unnecessary. It hurts no one to allow people to marry who they want to marry. Get over it. We should not be mistreating people because of these things. Please come out of the cave…stop thinking your magical gods are throwing thunderbolts and clapping their hands to make thunder. Or sending hurricanes to punish us. These beliefs are beyond archaic and unevolved. And so is thinking that another person’s biological makeup (or even their chosen preferences if you must still think that sexuality is something you choose) should serve as a basis for discrimination.
2L,Sorry. Since that wasn’t the point of my comment, I didn’t dwell on it. If I had, I would have said: you have no way of knowing if being gay is a choice or not, because you’re not gay (as far as I know). And that’s just opinion, but I’ll stick by it.Your attempt to shame my logic is actually not something I have a problem with at all. I do believe we have no way of knowing if there is a God, and also I don’t believe there is one. I believe there is a "God module" in the brain that makes us more likely to believe in a supernatural being, because that makes it easier to cope with life, which serves an evolutionary purpose.If there is a God, and He is both infinitely good and omnipotent, then doesn’t it stand to reason that he would want there to be a way for us to live on earth that didn’t involve suffering? And even if suffering seems necessary for us to prove ourselves, if He is omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to make it so that we could prove ourselves without suffering. Even St. Augustine couldn’t come up with a real rejoinder to that little pickle for you monotheists.
The topic being debated is Marriage, and in order for Marriage to be a union of Sexual Love, that union must be complementary to begin with. Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
"There is no God." If there is no God, then why is there something? Since nothing is the abscence of something, and the Laws of Nature reveal that nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could, there must be something that exists outside time and space that created The Laws of Nature, to begin with. That would be God, or according to our Founding Fathers, Natures God.I wish you Peace in Christ.
Nancy,How do you get from there has to be something to the idea it must be your God? This is exactly the leap of faith that makes what you believe just that, a belief…a faith…NOT a fact. God is just a manifestation of your lack of understanding or knowledge about why there is something. It’s the same mental construction cavemen did when there was lightning and thunder and storms. There was something they couldn’t explain, so they invented gods to answer these questions. Why people today cannot see this is bewildering to me.Your argument re: Marriage implies that it is impossible to have Sexual Love without one male, one female or this complementary nature you speak of. But you give absolutely not evidence to show that to be true other than just saying it. Trust me, I don’t need a woman to be complete, sexually and emotionally. Have you ever stopped to think that the one man + one woman combination makes the most sense to you because you are a heterosexual – it is what is "natural" to you? Why can’t you understand it isn’t like that for me or any other gay person? I cannot sexually love a woman…it won’t happen. And it isn’t a choice. And I shouldn’t be forced to live in any closet because that is how I was born.
Nancy, you wrote "The topic being debated is Marriage, and in order for Marriage to be a union of Sexual Love, that union must be complementary to begin with. Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate."You do realize that marriage started out as an exchange of property rights, and that love had nothing to do with it, right? The idea of marriages as a partnership of love is a new concept, and a break from tradition.
Nancy, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may I have mercy on your soul.