Thursday
January 8, 2009
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 6, 2007
Georgetown Law’s New Precedent
Jenny Woodson is no stranger to controversial causes. It’s just that the first-year law student didn’t expect that, at the most stressful time of her year, she’d be at the center of a divisive case about adherence to religious principles.
Related stories
- What You Can’t Win in Court, Nov. 17
- A Professor Sues His Students, April 30
- Reflections on a Papal Visit, April 21
- The Pope’s Positive Message, April 18
- Ave Maria Gets High Sign From ABA, July 8, 2005
Like classmates before her at the Georgetown University Law Center, Woodson accepted an unpaid summer position with an organization that supports abortion rights — Planned Parenthood’s public policy and litigation department. When asked during her job interview if she could secure funding for the work, Woodson said she wasn’t sure. Would a Jesuit institution provide financial support for a student to work there?
Not a problem, Woodson’s interviewer told her. Georgetown had a history of funding similar summer internships. So she expected no trouble when she turned in a 50-word job description to the campus group that provides fellowships to students participating in public interest jobs.
But in late March, Woodson was told that T. Alexander Aleinikoff, dean of the Law Center, had decided that the campus group could not fund her internship. (Georgetown helped Woodson find a nonprofit organization that plans to support her work.)
“It wasn’t a change in policy,” Aleinikoff said. “As we became more involved in the funding and more aware of the project, it was clear that the university could not fund advocacy of abortion rights. There’s a very narrow exception in an area that is central to the core identity of the university.”
Equal Justice Foundation, the student-run group that provides the fellowships, receives some funding from alumni and outside sources. But a growing percentage — this year more than $100,000 — of the money comes from the Law Center, which collects and distributes all donations.
Woodson is upset with what she calls Georgetown’s inconsistencies. She said it is intellectually dishonest for the Law Center to claim its action is motivated by a desire to follow Catholic teachings.
“If Georgetown wants to be a Catholic University it has the freedom to identify as such,” she said. “If the school wants to abide by Catholic doctrine it should do so consistently and prevent all activities the Church disagrees with. This includes prosecutors’ offices that impose the death penalty, gay rights organizations, political candidates and judges that hold positions that disagree with the Catholic church, military law organizations and human rights organizations (the majority of which support reproductive rights, as well).
“When we apply to Georgetown Law, the most you hear about the Jesuit tradition is that [the school] supports students doing work in the public interest,” she added. “If I ever knew that taking part in women’s rights issues would lead to a chilling effect, I don’t know if I would have ever considered coming here.”
Days after learning of the Law Center’s decision, Woodson approached the student group Law Students for Choice, which is not officially recognized by the university. Joy Welan, the group’s president, said she agrees with Woodson that Georgetown mishandled the situation.
“We think this is a major change from what [the school] has done in the past, and it interferes with students’ career development,” Welan said. “If [Georgetown] is saying it is instituting this policy because the church demands it, then why aren’t changes happening across the board?”
“The school has tried to be too covert about its affiliation with the Catholic church,” she added. “We want [it] to come out and be honest about what [it wants] to be.”
Welan said the university still allows student groups like hers to bring to campus speakers whose positions differ from the official Jesuit policy, and that while it won’t provide funding for those speakers, the institution will set aside space, which Georgetown has already paid for.
Georgetown, she said, has taken a “piece-by-piece” dismantling approach rather than dealing with the issue of abortion rights holistically. For instance, she said before the academic year began, her group lost the right to have the “.edu” at the end of its e-mail account.
“We’re concerned that this one issue is being targeted and wondering how far this is going to expand in the future,” Welan said.
Deborah Epstein, associate dean for clinical programs and public interest, said Georgetown is trying to make its funding restrictions as narrow as possible so that students can still take part in the vast majority of public interest work.
“The law school is being quite clear — we cannot provide our own funding through EJF or other means for students to work at an organization whose primarily purpose is abortion rights advocacy,” she said. “That’s all we’re saying.”
Daniel Hughes, president of the student group Progressive Alliance for Life, said he is among the students who have confronted administrators with concerns over summer internship funding. He said he threatened to take the matter to the church officials if action wasn’t taken. Aleinikoff said Georgetown’s decision had nothing to do with external pressure.
Hughes said the university is finally taking the appropriate action by honoring church teachings.
“I don’t think Georgetown needs to enact Catholic doctrine on every issue — that wouldn’t be desirable,” he said. “But the most bedrock Catholic teaching is the protection of life. No advocacy group that works against that principle should be supported by the university.”
Hughes said he doesn’t understand the complaints. Students, he said, need to realize that there are tradeoffs to coming to a Jesuit institution, such as the fact that some alumni donate because they support certain beliefs associated with the church.
“If this is finally a sign of them owning up to their commitment to honor the church, I’ll be impressed but surprised,” he said. “This seems like a grudging, half-hearted commitment.”
Woodson, the law student, said she is also upset with the timing of Georgetown’s decision. She said by waiting until late in the application process, the law school hamstrung EJF.
“Almost every year someone has a job like this,” she said. “It should have been foreseen. If the school is going to make this decision, announce it in an open forum so students can understand what is going on and so people pledging money understand the new limitations.”
Epstein, the associate dean, said it was an evolving decision that “could have been made any year.”
Georgetown is working on a new statement to clarify that EJF cannot fund future summer jobs involving abortion advocacy groups.
“This is a practical question that we are trying to resolve with prudence,” Aleinikoff said. “Our policy is one of total free speech. We welcome a full discussion on campus, and speakers of diverse viewpoints are brought by student groups.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Who Decides Where the Line is Drawn
Woodson is upset with what she calls Georgetown’s inconsistencies. She said it is intellectually dishonest for the Law Center to claim its action is motivated by a desire to follow Catholic teachings.
Woodson said further “If Georgetown wants to be a Catholic University it has the freedom to identify as such,” she said. “If the school wants to abide by Catholic doctrine it should do so consistently and prevent all activities the Church disagrees with. This includes prosecutors’ offices that impose the death penalty, gay rights organizations, political candidates and judges that hold positions that disagree with the Catholic church, military law organizations and human rights organizations (the majority of which support reproductive rights, as well).
“When we apply to Georgetown Law, the most you hear about the Jesuit tradition is that [the school] supports students doing work in the public interest,” she added. “If I ever knew that taking part in women’s rights issues would lead to a chilling effect, I don’t know if I would have ever considered coming here.”
Why is the abortion issue more important than the support of the death penalty?
Who let organized religion into the provision of higher education, or any formal education for that matter.
Quizzical, at 8:01 am EDT on April 6, 2007
Who let organized religion into the provision of higher education, or any formal education for that matter.
People who believe in liberty, I would say. To forbid organized religion to establish private educational institutions would be a step on the road to authoritarianism.
K.T., at 9:16 am EDT on April 6, 2007
Response to KT
Then they must teach only what they can prove — all discussion is qualified by “there may not be a God and, certainly, the printed word must be the work of man.” If you have an opinion on abortion or any other issue, it is only your opinion or analysis of the facts, not the word of God.
Otherwise, we are led by the insane.
Quizzical, at 10:11 am EDT on April 6, 2007
Religion and Freedom
We can only teach what we can prove? So black holes are out? Any teaching of the meaning of Moby Dick (as but one example) is dead?
But wait, this is not even that. While Quizzical (a non de plume, I am certain) is railing against what GU may or may not teach, this is not an article about instruction; this is an article about the limitations on funding for students’ summer internships.
I support GU’s position on funding, but I oppose GU’s position on abortion. My position on what has been reported here is based upon my belief in the (necessary) rights of private educational instutions.
Andrew Purvis, at 11:15 am EDT on April 6, 2007
liberty and orthodoxy
I concur with Mr. Purvis. Requiring a private institution to teach only what Quizical finds provable is not too much different from requiring people to assent to a theological doctrine of an established church.
chris b, at 11:35 am EDT on April 6, 2007
Fact from Fiction
Certainly, Black Holes can be taught — when presented as the unknown.
The problem with the denial of abortion promotion funding is that the decision was based upon the belief that the word of God demands no funding.
It is wrong for an institution of higher learning that attempts to mold future leaders of intellectual thought, particularly a law school, to make business judgments based upon any belief that is attributed to an unproven source, such as God.
Or a mislabeled source, such as the claim that the written word of man, such as the Bible, has devine inspiration.
AP was close to express his positions as personal to him.
But he missed the point because funding denial must be condemned as impossible to justify.
Chris, at 1:15 pm EDT on April 6, 2007
Georgetown misled alumni donors
This article misses an important point: Georgetown’s policy change means alumni donors to EJF were misled.
While much of EJF’s funding for student summer public interest fellowships comes from Georgetown University, a large percentage of it comes from alumni donations. Alumni donated to EJF during its fund drive, expecting that reproductive rights fellowships would be funded just as they were in previous years. Georgetown waited until after the fund drive to announce that it was pulling funding from this student. Had I, and other alumni donors, known that Georgetown would discriminate in this way, we would not have contributed.
Moreover, EJF has always funded fellowships based on student votes: Students select the projects they deem most worthy of funding. If Georgetown wants to preserve a Catholic identity, it should accept students who will vote in line with what it considers Catholic doctrine. Otherwise, it should respect student and alumni choices to fund reproductive rights projects. And it certainly should not take alum’s money and then change the rules.
Emily E. Arnold-Fernandez, GULC ‘04
Emily E. Arnold-Fernandez, at 1:15 pm EDT on April 6, 2007
As a student, has I known that EJF would not fund students who spend their summers working in non-profits that litigate reproductive health, I too would not have donated this year. While the Administration says the decision could have been made at any time, I find it curious that the decision was made after the donation process has all but concluded. This leaves the impression that they snuck the change in after the fact. In addition to being inconsistent across the board (by funding students who work in jobs that support the death penalty, etc) this new policy decision stymies student’s educational and professional development — surely an anathema to the goals of GULC. Furthermore, it will end up penalizing students who don’t have the economic capability to forgoe funding and take the summer job in spite of the University’s refusal. As a result, only students with an indepenent source of income will be able to participate in these non-profit jobs. Considering the big push to have law students go into public interest work, this is sad and ironic.
GULC 3L, at 5:10 pm EDT on April 6, 2007
LSFC : Georgetown :: Georgetown : Military Recruitment
I know we all hated the SATs, but the title says it all. Aleinikoff’s hypocrisy is much more astonishing than the article suggests.
Georgetown receives significant government funding, but tuition and alumni donations constitutes most of Georgetown’s operating budget. Similarly, EJF receives significant funding from Georgetown, but student, alumni, and professor donations constitutes most of EJF’s budget.
When Congress threatened to pull funding from the entire university if the law school refused to allow military recruiters on campus, Aleinikoff fought the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. Yet he feels that it’s perfectly acceptable for him to do the exact same thing to EJF — even though EJF doesn’t have the resources to contest his decision.
Moreover, EJF doesn’t directly determine which student projects get funded. Student, alumni, and professors donating anonymously rank the projects. Those rankings ultimately determine which projects get funded. It’s rather odd for a school that strongly emphasizes community to suddenly prevent the community from determining how their dollars should be spent.
Meredith E., at 5:15 pm EDT on April 6, 2007
If Georgetown wants to hamstring the work its students do, then it should be honest and direct about it and work consistently within the Catholic tradition. Don’t fund pro choice groups, don’t fund gay rights groups and don’t fund people working in support of the death penalty. Then be prepared to take the hit academically and financially when you drop in the rankings. Picking on a single student in a underhanded and secretive way is, at best, poor management and at worst, cowardly. Either way, it surely isn’t an intellectually consistent or honorable position.
Sean S, at 8:00 pm EDT on April 6, 2007
Sean,
I believe that perhaps you are allowing your personal views on abortion to color your comments on Georgetown’s decision.
I would be very suprised if Georgetown funds any pro-death penalty groups. Your other example, gay rights, shows a lack of knowledge about Catholic doctrine. I suggest you research what the stands are and then make your comment and the world not being “all good” or “all evil".
Regarding ‘taking a hit’, Georgetown is a Catholic university, not a catholic university. As I understand things, being willing to ‘take a hit’ for something they believe in something they are supposed to do. Personally, I admire people and organizations that take stands on principle at a financial cost. And usually I admire them whether I believe in their cause or not. Too few universities do that.
Did you make these same type of arguments whenever Georgetown divests its investments in securities related to industries or regimes it finds morally reprehensable. Probably not, so long as you also find those firms morally reprehensable.
In any case, I don’t feel that Georgetown’s discontinuation of funding pro-abortion activities will seriously impact its standing or will cause any of its student’s to leave the school due to fear of having their marketablity diminished. In my experience most students are not that narrow in focus when looking for a school and, in any case, I suspect abortion activists don’t flock to schools which consider natural law a moral basis for decision making.
stm60, UConn, at 7:25 am EDT on April 7, 2007
Religion and Law School
The stand on the abortion issue or any other discussion motivated by what the law is or should be is admirable.
The interjection of religious dogma detracts from the process.
Should the religious be allowed to remain in the law school business is the question prompted by this article and the comments.
The end result should be the loss of accreditation for all religious law schools – a free, peaceful, society begins with secular law schools open to all people.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
www://jefound.org
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 4:05 pm EDT on April 7, 2007
So Mr. Scott, a free, peaceful society begins with the loss of accredidation for religious law schools? What sort of concept of freedom are you operating from? Do you wish to deny private institutions the right to self-regulation (unless they agree with your tolerant views)?
Cory Madsen, at 8:35 pm EDT on April 7, 2007
What Daniel Hughes FAILED to say was that the reason he doesn’t want Catholic doctrine applied across the board (“I don’t think Georgetown needs to enact Catholic doctrine on every issue — that wouldn’t be desirable,” he said) was because he is gay and also the head of the campus gay rights group. So he’s fine with enforcing Catholic doctrine when it comes to an issue he has ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL STAKE IN, but he certainly doesn’t want Catholic doctrine enforced in every respect, because then he wouldn’t be so welcome on campus anymore. He is an unbelievable hypocrite and entirely without credibility.
concernedstudent, at 6:20 pm EDT on April 9, 2007
not a shocker
everything about religiosity today is hypocritical. why should anyone be surprised that the GULC trend has continued in this most unfortunate way?
a real problem, however, is that the money supposedly provided by GEORGETOWN for the EJF program is greatly contributed to by STUDENT funds — many of whom would likely have held back their purse strings had they known they would be supporting the Jesuit pro-life cause.
amy, GULC ‘06, at 3:50 pm EDT on April 10, 2007
Georgetown
is a Catholic law school. Period. Since they are apparently a large number of people up in arms about this thing, I woudl urge them to look at what they are getting themselves into by coming here. IT is not a secret that Georgetown is a Catholic University, nor is it a secret that the Catholic Church does not support abortion. While it is unfortunate that the student can’t be funded, I don’t believe the shcool did it in an underhanded way. She did not ask the law school about it only Planned Parenthood, and it wasn’t until after she submitted the description of the exact work she was doing that they said she did not qualify for funding. Perhaps the moral of the story is if you feel so strongly about such rights and you are aware you are coming to a Catholic School you should probably check out these things first, but it is not fair to blame Georgetown for their 250 year religious history.
someoneatgeorgetown, at 5:30 am EDT on April 11, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Georgetown Law's New Precedent
or search for jobs directly.
Developmental English Instructor
Lee College
Description: Essential job functions include, but are not limited to: Teach developmental level courses ranging from basic ... see job
Post-Doctoral Associate
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
FT 12 Mo Faculty — 2020A
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
Associate Director for Cancer Prevention and Control
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver
Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver Associate Director for Prevention and Control University ... see job
Career Services Representative
Corinthian Colleges
Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job
Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor of Mathematics Education
Georgia Gwinnett College
Georgia Gwinnett College, the 35th member of the University System of Georgia, is a premier 21st century four-year liberal ... see job
Part Time Faculty Art Appreciation
University of Texas, Brownsville
[ Position Number: P/T FY 08-4 ] Reports to: Chairperson of Fine Arts Scope: Part-time faculty for Fine Arts Department. ... see job
Internship Coordinator
James Madison University
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Assistant Professor Accounting
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State University, College of Business and Industry, Adkerson School of Accountancy, invites applicants to apply ... see job
Assistant Professor (Tenure-Track) Positions in Integrative Physiology
University of Colorado
Posting Description: Specialization- Two positions are available for candidates with expertise in one of the ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
The Right to Pick and Chose
At the core of the abortion belief and all other beliefs based upon interpretation of ancient writings is the teaching of Deuteronomy 13:6-9 — let one who teaches a false religion die at the hand of the truly religious. No educated person could possibly continue to refer to any written work based upon this arcane belief, yet the Torah, Bible and Koran do just that. No less than two of them are wrong.
Obviously, this problem goes deeper than how to deal with abortion at Georgetown Law. All law schools must teach sufficient sanity to overcome the lack of tolerance taught by all organized religious people if religious wars like the ones to preserve the Theocracies of Afghanistan and Iraq are to be eliminated. At present, no American law school makes the effort.
Begin with the question: Why no payment of real estate taxes by owners of religious brick and mortar? The buildings are protected by services provided by the pubic. The free tax ride is support of those religions with buildings over those that do not. Those who want to be free of religion pay for them all. Is that legally correct?
The Georgetown Law abortion issue should prompt a broad discussion of the harm organized religion does to the World.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
www://jefound.org
wss@jefound.org
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 7:41 am EDT on April 6, 2007