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. 
#58 Mike,
I doubt we see eye-to-eye on many things, but on this point we agree. The reporter created this controversy by intentionally cornering people and getting them on record. Majerus didn’t seek to make a statement, and AB Burke didn’t seek confrontation. This whole mess was made by a reporter who doesn’t understand the difference between reporting on events and engineering them.
The allegation is sometimes made that Hitler was a Catholic - a Christian until the day he died. This claim is based upon the fact that Hitler was born and raised in a Catholic family. However, as an adult, Hitler specifically rejected the Catholic Church, as well as Christianity in general. He described himself as “a complete pagan”. The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations: 1941-1944, published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. (1953), contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views.
Tom,
It doesn’t matter whether these are his moral beliefs. You can in fact discriminate based on religious view if you are a religous institution. It’s the way it is for a good reason. It’s the reason Joyce Meyers can advertise for christian employees without violating labor laws (although she doesn’t seem too concerned with violating other laws.)
It basically is the coke/pepsi analogy. Just the church markets one morality, and he publicly supported the competition.
Now, if SLU is not really a catholic institution, that all changes.
Must all employed by catholic instituttions be catholic?
If the institution wants them to be.
As a SLU graduate and Catholic, I guess I missed the freshman indoctrination as I started my sophomore year there.
In any case, the funny thing to me here is that we have two opposite poles:
One is a university, a place where questioning the status quo, thinking about the hard questions, sometimes upsetting the apple cart, is *expressly desired*.
The other is a person who believes that he is supreme leader of his little neck of the woods - no dissent tolerated, shut up and get in line. He who has played the political game the right way has risen to the level of archbishop (you do know that Burke is personal friends of that oh-so-progressive Benedict who now wields absolute power…)
Well, sorry Ray, we might be in “Mizoura” (yee-haw), but I’m not some country-bumpkin peasant from the 12th century who can’t read and think for myself and needs my priest to read my letters from home. Of course, Ray must think that all Poles are that ignorant - that’s how he’s treating St. Stanislaus - “hand over your property to me or else”. Next thing you know, we’ll be handed lists of books we’re not supposed to reading. “Book burnings on Sunday afternoons in the Church parking lot!! Bring your copy of Philip Pullman’s stuff and we’ll have a big BBQ!” (Pullman is author of Golden Compass, etc.)
Hmmm… let’s see what we have here:
1. Property seizures
2. Can’t express divergent views without being “disciplined”, possibly being fired.
3. Control over what is ‘acceptable culture’ and what isn’t (”better not go to that benefit concert - that person isn’t ‘approved’ “)
Sure sounds like 1930’s Germany to me…
- Bill
If Burke was sincerely concerned about Majerus’ comments, he could have called the coach or his employer to privately discuss the matter, and spurned media requests for a reaction. Who knows? He could have learned something from Majerus as to why the coach holds those views. Unfortunately, that is not his style. There is nothing pastoral in Burke’s approach to controversy. He makes no attempt to understand views other than his own, but energetically pursues official sanctions against those who express them.
My guess is that a large, urban university such as SLU employs Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Would the archbishop subject them to idealogical fitness for duty tests?
If Burke was sincerely concerned about Majerus’ comments, he could have called the coach or his employer to privately discuss the matter, and spurned media requests for a reaction. Who knows? He could have learned something from Majerus as to why the coach holds those views. Unfortunately, that is not his style. There is nothing pastoral in Burke’s approach to controversy. He makes no attempt to understand views other than his own, but energetically pursues official sanctions against those who express them.
My guess is that a large, urban university such as SLU employs Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Would the archbishop subject them to idealogical fitness for duty tests?
“As a SLU graduate and Catholic, I guess I missed the freshman indoctrination as I started my sophomore year there.”
Apparently you missed more than that. Your parents must be very proud.
Aren’t all you people dodging the question of this post? Can an employer insist and employee keep their views private? Let’s consider some non-Catholic bashing examples.
1. A police officer with a desk job is asked on TV “What do you think of armed robbery?” and he responds “I don’t it should be a felony.” What should the Police Cheif do?
2. A teacher in a public school decides to tell her students about the benefits of cocaine use. How should the Principle respond?
3. A nurse tells her patients that she thinks that she would rather see babies being aborted than being born into a poor family. How should the Hospital respond?
The obvious answer to all these is that the employer can decide in any of these cases that the employee should be fired. Employment is not a right. If you make statements that damage the business, the employer has the right to take disciplinary action.