When can an employer insist employees keep views private?
St. Louis University hoops coach Rick Majerus has said on a televised interview that he supports abortion rights and stem cell research. These views are counter to those of the Catholic Church. SLU is a Catholic institution.
Says Archbishop Raymond Burke in today’s story:
“It’s not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions,” Burke said. “When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don’t have to embrace everything the Catholic church teaches. But you can’t make statements which call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic church.”
Burke says that he thinks Majerus should be disciplined. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the university, Jeff Fowler, says this:
“Rick’s comments were his own personal view. They were made at an event he did not attend as a university representative,” Fowler said. “It was his own personal visit to the rally. The comments were his, he was not speaking for the university in whatever comments he made to Channel 4.”
I think we could agree that a Catholic priest — a church employee — should be required to conform to his employer’s dogma. Are there other circumstances when an employer would be within its rights to insist that its employees keep their personal views private if they conflict with the employer’s?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
Some employers have personal conduct clauses, dependant on their job. Some professional athletes have clauses forbidding them not to participate in other sports. It would get them fired to do somehthing everyone else can do. I think the same applies here.
I work for the Catholic Church as a minister. If I said those comments I would be toast, because I am expected to uphold the Church’s teachings. Is Majerus expected to uphold the Church’s teachings or coach basketball? I think SLU handled this well stating he was a private citizen when he spoke. I think Majerus should have been smarter. Giving support is one thing. Pushing the hottest topic on the ArchBishop’s agenda is not so good.
A little off topic but what if i’m a practicing catholic ,and I know that stem cell research can help my autistic daughter……..am I to foresake my child?
So, for all of those who think Majerus should be fired:
Does the same hold true for government employees?
If a state employee thinks that some of Blunt’s moves are disastrous, are they not allowed to say as much?
If an IRS auditor goes to a war protest and is interviewed on camera reacting negatively to Bush’s foreign policy–should they be fired?
#31 said they think Majerus should have been smarter. So, then is it okay to have a position against the church, it’s just not okay to speak about such positions?
Someone above was right. We don’t sell our souls to the companies or institutions for which we work (though it sometimes seems that way). While they may control my actions from 9-5, I should be free to speak and think what I wish.
In the Majerus case, I don’t the Church can demand that he keep quiet. Though SLU has a Jesuit Catholic affiliation, it is not covered (legally) by religious creed. I think I would also add that censoring political activity must reach a higher standard than nominal speech. Political speech is a right of citizenship.
Personally, I’m very concerned that the Archbishop feels that scandal only applies to certain pro-life issues. He favors sanctions against those who support a pro-choice and pro-stem cell position, but seems comfortable surrounding himself with supporters of the death penalty and the war in Iraq. This contradiction is very disturbing for Catholics.
Tom - actually, Coke versus Pepsi could be a moral issue — given that many large corporations give money to organizations like Planned Parenthood that assist or provide abortions. Yet, the good Archbishop has yet to rail against any major corporations or their public officers, only against celebrities and liberal politicians. Who really has more influence over abortion policy in this country - the basketball coach at a local university, or major corporations that give millions of dollars?
Who cares what he said. He’s a basketball coach right? He supervises a children’s game. The guy that’s pissed at him dresses like the Emperor from Star Wars and feeds people crackers while telling them bedtime stories. No wonder all the Catholic people I’ve met here are drunks with personality disorders.
Hold on….a black van just pulled up out front.
While Rick Majerus may have the right to his opinion,does this not strike anyone as a bit dishonest and unethical? He may be a very intellighrnt man, but how does his experience as a basketball coach lend any expertise to this issue? Obviously, the answer is “it does not”, but his opinion is given far more weight by the general public and the media than yours or mine.
Seriously, why was he sought out rather than Frank, the short-order cook down at the diner? It is precisely because of the clelebrity status and trust he has gained directly as a result of being an employee of a Catholic University. An honorable man, I would think, would keep his opinions to himself, if he knew (as Majerus must have) that the only reason he was being asked was because he worked for a Catholic institution.
Gimme a break. To say that this is the Archbishop’s personal view is way off base. These are the fundamentals of the Catholic Church and you are employed by a Catholic University.
“Are there other circumstances when an employer would be within its rights to insist that its employees keep their personal views private if they conflict with the employer’s?”
Yes. I remember when a beer delivery driver was fired for purchasing a competitors product while wearing his company shirt. Members of the Armed Forces arent supposed to degrade their superiors, especially on tv.
By Anonaman: “The same people who are vehemently anti-choice are same ones who will campaign against health care for children. They will cut aid to the poor. They will start wars under false pretenses and kill hundreds of thousands to prove a point. Lets be clear about this-In every choice that effects them , they are the culture of DEATH. In a choice that doesn’t affect them, they are a piously “pro-life”. What a crock.”
Ditto