Mirror - Vol. 04, No. 25 - April 24, 1981

              Jesuits Morally Oppose Haig
The motto of the Society of
Jesus appears on many of the
buildings at Fairfield Univer-sity—
A.M.D.G.—ad majorem Dei
gloriam, "for the greater glory of
God." For over four hundred
years, Jesuits have been involved
throughout the world in proclaim-ing
in word and in work "God's
greater glory," filled with the same
Spirit that animated the Lord
Jesus, "The Spirit of the Lord is on
me, because he has anointed me
to preach the good news to the
poor." (Lk 4:18) Jesus sought out
and was sought out by the poor
and the powerless, the blind and
the lame, the prisoner and the out-cast;
he was accused by his
enemies of consorting with sin-ners.
In cases of conflict, Jesus
was on the side of the powerless.
In his work, The Spiritual Exer-cises
of St. Ignatius Loyola, the
founder of the Jesuit Order invites
Christians to make an election, a
choice in the spirit of Christ who
chose the "weak ones of this
• world to confound the strong."
Just as Jesus came to identify
himself with the poor and the
powerless, St. Ignatius invites us
to choose "the highest spiritual
poverty, and even actual poverty,
to desire insults and contempt, for
from these springs humility."
Clearly, Jesuits, the spiritual sons
of Ignatius, are called upon to
signalize themselves in identifica-tion
with the poor, both spiritually
and actually, and in leading and
teaching others to do the same.
In 1975, the Thirty-second
General Congregation of the
Society of Jesus reaffirmed the
commitment of Jesuits to the poor
and the powerless. The Congrega-tion
defines a Jesuit as one who
"knows that he is a sinner, yet call-ed
to be a companion of Jesus." In
response to the question, "What
is it to be a companion of Jesus to-day?",
the Congregation replies,
"It is to engage, under the stan-dard
of the Cross, in the crucial
struggle of our time: the struggle
for faith and that struggle for
justice which it includes." The
Congregation further states, "The
Society of Jesus ... acknowledg-ing
with repentance its own fail-ures
in keeping faith and up-holding
justice, and asking itself
before Christ crucified what it has
done for him, what it is doing for
him, and what it is going to do for
him, chooses participation in this
struggle as the focus that iden-tifies
in our time what Jesuits are
and do."
Mindful of the thousands (in-cluding
the archbishop, clergy, re-ligious,
and the people of God)
who have been murdered in El Sal-vador
in their struggle for justice
and human rights, moved by the
accounts of violence from Ameri-can
and Salvadoran Jesuits, dis-tressed
by the destruction being
directed at Jesuit institutions and
their personnel there, heeding the
anguished plea of the chief Shep-herd
of Christ's flock there—a
plea echoed by our brother Jesuits
and concerned persons there and
everywhere —that the United
States stop giving military aid to
the incumbent junta, and perplex-ed
by the American government's
contrary policy, we, the undersign-ed
members of the Fairfield Jesuit
Community, wish to express our
regret that Fairfield University has
decided to honor the Secretary of
State who must implement this
foreign policy. Without passing
judgment on either the integrity of
those who choose to honor Mr.
Haig, or the sincerity of his own
position, we wish to exercise our
constitutional right and discharge
our moral duty to dissociate our-selves
from this tribute. Our in-tegrity
as men committed to faith
and justice demands this dissent,
lest loyalty appear to have eclips-ed
justice once more.
William J. Cullen, S.J.
Thomas J. Regan, S.J.
William G. Devine, S.J.
Frank W. Lewis, S.J.
Michael D. Barber, S.J.
Charles H. Allen, S.J.
William J. Eagan, S.J.
Charles F. Kelley, S.J.
Francis J. Moy, S.J.
Patrick J. Cafferty, S.J.
John W. Elder, S.J.
Douglas Hypolite, S.J.
Crispin T. Somera, N.S.J.
William Hohmann, S.J.
Denis R. Como, S.J.
Ronald V. Perry, S.J.
George H. McCarron, S.J.
Thomas R. Ryan, N.S.J.
Maurice Wong, S.J.
William J. Kennedy, S.J.
Vincent W. Hevern, S.J.
John O. Borgo, S.J.
Michael Gareffa, N.S.J.
Martin G. Shaughnessy, S.J.
Walter R. Pelletier, S.J.
James M. Murphy, S.J.
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 34
Fairfield, Conn.
riinriFIH WW Volume 4, No. 25, April 24, 1981 ^
FAIRFIELD ^^ FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY, FAIRFIELD, CONN. 06430 MIRROR \^^^^^ Incorporated 1977
Petry Evaluates Kelley's Letter
History professor Walter Petry recently criticized a letter to the
Academic Council in which Fr. Kelley offered his views on the Haig con-troversy.
[Photo by Duane Bailey]
by Richard Swietek
A recent letter from President
Aloysuis P. Kelley to the Aca-demic
Council has caused a num-ber
of questions to be raised, con-cerning
the selection of Secretary
of State Alexander'Haig as a reci-pient
of an honorary degree. The
letter outlined reasons and pro-cedures
for the appointment, and
included some of the president's
own ideas on the recent controver-sy.
Professor Walter J. Petry was a
member of that council and voiced
his opinions on the memo.
The first discrepancy pointed
out by Prof. Petry concerns a
meeting he and another professor
had with Fr. Kelley in March 1980
to discuss their apprehensions re-garding
Mr. Haig's invitation to
speak at commencement. In his
letter to the Academic Council, Fr.
Kelley states that, "Neither in the
intervening months nor subse-.
quently was there any expression
of faculty concern regarding the
invitation.
Prof. Petry also commented that
not once in his letter does the
president mention, the honorary
degree that the Secretary of State
is receiving, but rather discusses
only his selection as commence-ment
speaker. The teachers who
disapprove of the selection aren't
against his appointment as speak-er,
but are annoyed that he is
receiving a degree from Fairfield.
Fr. Kelley also said that "Mr.
Haig is being honored and has
been invited to be the commence-ment
speaker because of the im-portant
role he has played in the
life of this nation." Prof. Petry
feels this raises the question of
exactly what the Sec. of State is
being honored for. Petry feels that
an award such as this must be
given to someone who has ac-complished
something special to
make him stand out from others.
According to Petry, Haig's back-ground
is too sketchy and more in-formation
concerning the
secretary's involvement in Viet-nam
and Watergate is necessary
before the school chooses to
bestow this honor upon him.
Prof. Petry made it clear that all
teachers opposed to Haig would
attend if they could, even though
the administration might not want
them at graduation. As Fr. Kelley
wrote in his letter, "I have already
indicated to some faculty mem-bers
and intend to communicate
to all of the faculty, that those who
do not wish to participate should
feel under no obligation to be pre-sent."
Fr. Kelley also mentioned that
the invitation was "not intended
as an endorsement of the present
administration or of any of its
domestic or foreign policies," but
-■-Prof. Petry feels it has already
been made political because a
Secretary of State has been
chosen. According to Prof. Petry,
one of the most important things
in a situation such as this is to
make sure that the university is
not compromising on the image or
values represented by the school.
The two men did agree on one
thing. As Fr. Kelley mentioned in
his letter, "A university ought
always to its business—and dis-cussion,
and argumentation and
disagreement are its business—in
a way appropriate to its special
nature." Prof. Petry commented
that, "It is important that other
universities realize that Fairfield is
not a tyranny or a following, but a
place where opposing viewpoints
are welcomed and not suppress-ed."
Petry concluded by saying he
appreciates Fr. Kelley because he
truly understands what a universi-ty
is about, and in his opinion,
"this situation would have made
more sense with either of the last
two presidents of the university,
. than with Fr. Kelley."
Academic Council Against Haig
by Lauren Pennisi
In response to the controversy
surrounding Alexander Haig, the
Academic Council passed a mo-tion
stating: "The Academic Coun-cil
expresses its disapproval of
the selection of Alexander Haig as
an honorary degree recipient."
The motion, proposed by Father
Devine, passed by a vote of 10 to 6
at the April 8th meeting.
As the executive body of the
faculty, the decision represents
the extent of the Academic Coun-cil's
capacity to act on the Haig
issue. Any farther action is Father
Kelley's decision.
Initially, the council meeting
gathered in reaction to Professor
Rosivach's proposed motion,
which stated: "It was a mistake to
invite Alexander Haig to receive an
honorary degree." The motion was
defeated, 7 to 7, and 2 absten-tions,
after much discussion. It
was voted down for various rea-sons.
Some members felt the wor-ding
of the motion implied a pro-cedural
error, others thought the
motion was not specific leading to
confusion as to what was being
objected, and others felt the mo-tion
straddled the issue.
Father Kelley was invited to at-tend
the meeting in order to res-pond
to Professor Rosivach's mo-tion.
Due to a previous commit-ment,
Father Kelley was not pre-sent
at the meeting. Instead, he
issued a memoradum to the coun-cil
expressing his view of Haig's
selection.
The statement reviewed last
year's procedure for choosing
degree recipients, which he found
consistent with previous years. He
stated the selection committee
hasn't any record to show where
Haig's recommendation origin-ated.
Later in the memorandum,
Father Kelley focussed his atten-tion
on the present situation. He
stated that Haig's invitation is not
an endorsement of anything Haig
has said or done in his personal or
private life. Father Kelley also said
he "sees no good purpose" and
"fears considerable embarrass-ment
for the University" if
Rosivach's motion was passed.
For these reasons, he requested
the motion be defeated.
After Rosivach's proposal was
defeated, alternative motions
were suggested. Dr. M. Grossman
proposed a motion to deal with the
sentiments of those on campus. It
stated: "An area of the campus be
set aside for those wishing to ex-press
dissent from the honorary
degree to Alexander Haig." Gross-man
felt it would be useful to for-malize
that it is allowed. The mo-tion
was defeated, 2 to 14, be-cause
some members are in favor
of Haig and others felt they
shouldn't be limited in their right
to demonstrate. Also, ttie ques-tion
was raised whether the mo-tion
was to include outsiders
wishing to protest Haig.
Dr. Petry offered a proposal
stating: "That the Academic Coun-cil
form an ad hoc committee to
explore possibilities of, and make
proposals to recind the honorary
degree to Alexander Haig." This
motion was defeated, 5 to 7 and 4
abstentions, for a variety of
reasons. Some members felt that
this action would be awkward,
others thought it was too late
since the damage was already
done by inviting Haig, and other
members felt this action was
unlikely to have any effect.
In an interview with Professor
Rosivach, he commented on the
Academic Council proceeding. He
said that the council has a
legitimate concern with the Haig
issue, since it is part of the coun-cil's
function to nominate honor-ary
degree recipients. Presently,
there is confusion whether Haig's
nomination went through the
council last year.
He felt Wednesday's meeting
represented the faculty since
there was a wide spectrum of opi-nions.
According to Rosivach,
"this is the first group on campus,
in the public forum, that address-ed
the issue of morality." He
stated that graduation is impor-tant,
but the issues are also impor-tant.
"Life is more than one big
party." By making this comment,
he is not implying that graduation
should be ruined, but the decision
to invite Haig already accomplish-ed
this. "It was an unfortunate
mistake." Rosivach also stated
that any form of protest will be
nothing compared to the security
measures during commencement.
He hopes that there aren't any out-side
agitators to interfere because
"anything that's done will exacer-bate
a bad situation."