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. 
What happened to the First Amendment?
If the Catholic Church decides he can’t have communion - that is a church issue and is separate from what the man says in public response to a question. Firing him over this would be wrong.
Aside from Fr. Biondi, who is more recognized for an association with SLU than Majerus? He has a higher profile and a larger salary than (probably) any other professor or coach. If that is true, is it reasonable to expect that the terms of his employment are different, more encompassing, than, say, an associate professor of physics? If that is reasonable, then SLU likely would have reason to want to insulate itself from negative publicity generated by the person who holds the position of prominence. To do that, SLU would have been well advised to put terms into its contract with Majerus that limit his ability to negatively portray the university.
Having said all of that, however, I do not see how Majerus’ comments necessarily reflect on SLU. It would seem to be only the least well informed Catholic that believe Majerus was stating a position consistent with Catholic doctrine. He most certainly was not. Waht is more, his opinions on stem cell research now seem to be superceded by new research developments. And recent research reflects that abortion in the Roe v. Wade era dispropotionately occurs among minorities. These are hardly the opinions that Majerus needs to be discussing with his recruits.
He probably shouldn’t be fired, but a formal reprimand and an explanation about the importance of realizing that in St. Louis he is perceived as SLU’s coach and not just a guy named Rick. As someone working for SLU, he should keep his TV, radio and newspaper comments focused strictly on basketball and closely related topics. We’ll never know if this happens - but it should.
Wasn’t Hitler looking for the perfect society of humans that would believe exactly like he did??
Many people have made statements along the line of “Its a Catholic school, so only Catholic views should be expressed publicly”.
The funny thing is, SLU just fought – all the way to the State Supreme Court – to prove that they are NOT “controlled” by the church or it’s “creed”. This was a big deal, because public dollars can’t be used to support a religious institution, and SLU wanted $8,000,000 in public money to help build a stadium. In the end, SLU proved to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that it “is not controlled by a religious creed.”
Now, the Arch Bishop wants SLU to punish the coach because he dared to speak out against a catholic religious creed. Fortunately for all involved, AB Burke doesn’t control SLU. In fact, the Jesuits who sit on the board of directors don’t even answer to him – they answer to Rev. Adolfo Nicolas – in Rome.
I think SLU did the right thing by saying the coaches comments were his own, and while we disagree with his opinion, he is entitled to have one. If the AB feels compelled to make this a public issue (and I’m sure he does) he can deny the Coach communion. But for the school to reprimand him for expressing a valid, legal, political viewpoint? It would be disastrous for the school.
To R.O.T.E. comment #23:
I have seen variations on your theme of “freedom of expression” quite alot here and elsewhere.
To my thinking, the only thing being inhibited in this instances is Rick Majerus’ ability to say “I support abortion rights”, for instance, while at the same time professing to be a Catholic.
It is rather hard in the modern times to profess to be Catholic and not be led into some or another conflict with the Church’s doctrine. An obvious example is birth control. I understand explicitly that Church doctrine prohibits the use of artificial birth control. As a Catholic I have a very hard time conforming my behavior to the doctrine. It is somewhat easier to understand why the Church holds that doctrine. What is simple or evident is that it is wrong for me to state that the Church doctrine allows for some use of artificial birth control. It does not. If I teach that falsehood as Church doctrine, then I lead others into evil.
A claim of free expression simply does not cover up the moral wrong being committed.
Anti-Catholic bias aside, doesn’t it concern anyone that Mike O’Connell and Channel 4 engineered this controversy? O’Connell didn’t pick Majeris out of the crowd because he thought he’d look good on television. He knew who he was and who he worked for. He didn’t ask Majerus about the economy, or the war, or illegal immigration. He asked him about abortion and stem cell research. Lucky for him, he got exactly what he wanted. Majeris was interviewed Saturday night. The story is still on the home page of kmov.com four days later.
O’Connell’s next move was to ask Archbishop Burke what he thought about Majerus’ comments. What would you expect him to say? Of course he’s upset. A highly visible employee of an institution that many people still believe to be Catholic has made statements on television that go against the teaching that said university is supposed to uphold.
Bottom line, Majerus was stupid. That’s probably not a firing offense, but a public apology is certainly not out of line.
The Archbishop did nothing wrong. His job is to correct misguided Catholics. That’s what he did. Private errors deserve private correction. Public errors require public correction. Get off his back.
The University should have taken some action. Maybe they still will, but I doubt it. I agree with some other posters that the university should probably disassociate itself from the Church altogether since they have a history of ignoring the Church’s authority. It’s worth noting that the “university spokesman” in this matter is Jeff Fowler, a former employee of Channel 4.
As for O’Connell, he should be fired. It’s not a reporter’s job to manufacture news. He has violated the trust that the public places in him as a so-called journalist.
Anyone who has ever attended a freshman open house at SLU will tell you that a VERY big deal is made about Catholic values being taught and reinforced to the students. Guess SLU needs to figure out how to balance the ‘not controlled by the Catholic church’ with ‘teaching Catholic values’.
Hitler was a catholic.
#60, My point exactly