The Ave Maria School of Law is something of a success story. Founded only five years ago in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Ave Maria's mission is to provide "an outstanding legal education in fidelity to the Catholic Faith." But it seems school founder and Chairman Tom Monaghan wants to mess with success. According to this story he wants to move the school from Michigan to a new campus in rural Florida — "Ave Maria Town" — where the school will be insulated from the outside world.
"We'll own all commercial real estate," Mr. Monaghan declared, describing his vision. "That means we will be able to control what goes on there. You won't be able to buy a Playboy or Hustler magazine in Ave Maria Town. We're going to control the cable television that comes in the area. There is not going to be any pornographic television in Ave Maria Town. If you go to the drug store and you want to buy the pill or the condoms or contraception, you won't be able to get that in Ave Maria Town."
Ann Althouse finds this vision "creepy," and I'm inclined to agree. Even accepting Monaghan's values, it's hard to understand. After all, can one really be an effective lawyer if one refuses to engage the outside world? I doubt it. To paraphrase one alumnus, what is the point of creating principled Catholic lawyers if they are not going to "engage the world" but "retreat from it"?
UPDATE: I agree with what Althouse said in the update to her post, and would like to incorporate her sentiments by reference. Also, as I note below in the comments, the "Catholic Jonestown" phrase came from the OpinionJournal story linked above. It was not my formulation. That is why it is in quotes.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ave Maria Responds to WSJ:
- From Successful Startup to "Catholic Jonestown"?
Well put. It should also be noted that Jonestown was set up not only to keep the outside world out, but to keep its inhabitants in. As far as can be told, this Ave Maria town is meant to do the former but not necessarily the latter. That in itself renders the Jonestown comparison an overstatement.
Or am I reading too much into the intent of the founders of AMT? Do they simply want to remove the providers of things that violate their morals? In practice, AMT will probably be more innocent than some of us want to make it sound; but I'll be curious to see how it plays out.
the providers of things that violate their morals...
You mean... people?
What truly bothers me about Monaghan's idea is that supression seems to be equated to holiness. If Monaghan was truly attempting to create lawyers who were free of sin, wouldn't temptation not be part of the gauntlet? Everyone knows the world is evasive with such naughty things as condoms and playboys. How did the religious right ever come to the conclusion that simply making something more difficult to do would eliminate the desire to do it? Am I wrong?
Live and let live, I always say, but most commentators here aren't that tolerant, I guess.
As for Cornellian's rumination that there "always seem to be such a high correlation between religious zeal and fixation with the sex lives of other people," I'd remind him that the secular Left's obsession with abortion and homosexuality is equally fixated on the sex lives of others. One can reasonably agree with those views, but liberals certainly are not disinterested in what's going on between other peoples' sheets. Moral attitudes towards sex have always been a cornerstone of both religion and politics. Of course, it's tough to imagine Ave Maria churning out top notch lawyers simply because they couldn't watch dirty movies. Now, if they banned X-Box, then there might be more time for studying.
Consider internet pornography. According to common logic, and statistics, it has reached epidemic proportions in our society. Some people incidentally view the stuff (via teenage temptation or otherwise). Some people are genuinely addicted and maybe "want" to stop viewing it. For them, it is like having a dry town in order to keep alcohol away from a raging alcoholic.
See Romans 7:19 (NRSV) "I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." Paul desribed this as the bipartite nature of Christians--the original sin nature of the flesh versus the spirit that dwells in those who repent and accept Christ's atonement for that sin. Under this logic, is it not compassionate to try to keep a brother from stumbling? (Though other portions of Scripture, namely Matthew 28 give reasons to question withdrawing from society, as in the case of having a private community).
[Note: Anywhere that freely accessible, and private internet is available, much of this logic is of course deflated, b/c internet pornography is much easier to get than magazines, etc.]
It may not be effective, but it does seem like the idea is to cut off the students from the influences you would find even in your average 'burbs (eg, the usual mix of cable TV).
Now, would our eminent, pseudonymous jurist care to offer a similarly probative analogy for the Amish or Mennonites? Hitlerians all, no doubt. Such profound ideological zealotry to boot.
I personally would like to live in a radical secular version of Ave Maria Town. Perhaps the time for "Camille Paglia City" has come.
Dunno abt AMT, but in Kiryas Joel, their only enforcement mechanism for violating communal norms is ostracism, which makes continuing to live there impossible, and which they exercise every now and again.
As for the motivations of the KJ'ers, the Jewish religion teaches that it is a sin to put yourself in the path of temptation: while temptations will continue to exist, Jews must take affirmative action to guard themselves from sin. That rationale is behind some of the more "crazy" restrictions: if you have no private internet access, it's hard to acquire an offensive item remotely, and it's kind of difficult to walk into a XXX video store in a nearby town in a black hat and side-curls and all!
What's the big deal about that law school anyway? My law school is a goofy, unabashed liberal nuthouse. Our course list is full of worhtless courses such as International Environmental Law, International Law of Peace, Mexican Employment Law (yeah, should be a 1/2 hour seminar), Law of Indigenous Peoples, and things like that.
Obviously, they are teaching some law at Ave Maria, since they have a higher bar passage rate than U of Michigan does. (Michigan probably has the same worthless course list we do)
Call me a sucker but I think that a legal education consisting of some religious values is much more valuable than one that develops experts in Belgian environmental law.
Your argument fails on both fronts on which it's made. First, the liberal argument--"liberal" both in the classic sense of small-government liberalism and in its popularity among the contemporary American left--against homosexuality is not premised on a concern with what people do in bed, but with a resolute lack of concern, and a sense that it's wrong for government to distinguish among its citizens on that basis. Not only would most liberals say that a person's answers to questions regarding his sexuality don't matter; they think that government has no business asking such questions in the first place.
As for abortion--I hate to break it to you, but medical abortions do not "go on between people's sheets." The liberal argument for choice focuses, not on the act of sex, but on its medical consequences. And as with homosexuality, the most extreme liberal view would be that the government should stay out of the issue altogether.
Whether either of these views is appropriate is, of course, debatable, but your attempt at "a pox on both their houses" fairness simply does not work on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
If the point were to block the students (and faculty?) from all pernicious influences, it would be naive. But of course it's nothing of the sort. It's an attempt to create an environment, complete with public spaces, where Catholic Christian values can be expressed, and things considered clearly evil are refused publicity and promotion.
Those of us who travel with our young children frequently enounter condom machines in roadside bathrooms, child's eye-level pornography in airport concessions, massage parlour and stripjoint billboards along the highway. Do we really need the intrusion of others' choices of this sort into our daily life to be living in the "real" world? I can remember when these were the sort of tings one would consider "creepy," not the efforts of town planners to create some space where sex was, not secret, not devalued, not forbidden, but simply private and intimate.
Of course, the RCC has no use for Milton:
But these aren't children, they are adults. And they are not just generic adults, they are law students.
So, to put the question in a slightly different way: are there really going to be enough jobs for lawyers in places like this?
Indeed, but a profound misapplication and, seemingly, misapprehension of the intent. The Roland Freisler review, together with ideological presumption and insinuation continues with robust, arrogating glee.
By "liberal" of course, I mean the now popular use of the term in reference to Democrats, Naderites, etc. As for the rest of your argument, you should get out of the house a bit more. Stop by a college campus sometime. You'll get an interesting view of Queer Pride parades, seminars, and speakers promoting sexual activities that were, at least at some time, quite unmentionable in public places, much less paid for with public money. The left does not simply shrug their shoulders and say "Let people alone to do what they wish." It actively promotes acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in an attempt to convert (at best, demonize, at worst) those that disagree with them. Others, albeit a much smaller portion of activists, are working vigorously to strip away societal inhibitions against pornogrophy, public nudity, and other niche sexual practices under the banner of sexual freedom. As for abortion, any tried and true feminist will tell you that abortion is intimately linked with sexual freedom. In other words, the ability to chose sex without consequences (except for those pesky STDs). Sure, one can reasonably promote all or most of these things, but it is about promotion and it is about sex. Dressing it up as disinterested sexual libertarianism may be a decent post-hoc rationalization over cocktails, but it doesn't fly in the real world.
"... finds this vision 'creepy,' and I'm inclined to agree." J N-V
No, just agreeing with and promoting it. (And speaking only for myself, I did follow the links.)
Therein Anderson, you rather miss the point.
"Tolerance" means willing to let them do it, which I certain am. It doesn't involve having to have any particular opinion about the merits of it. I'm perfectly happy to let any group of people found their own town in the middle of nowhere and to ban all pornography on their private property. At the same time, I am also free to question the intelligence of someone who thinks educated college students in their 20's will mysteriously lose all interest in sex if there are no copies of playboy at the local convenience store.
There's a world of difference between promotion of the right to do as one wishes in one's own sex life and trying to coerce someone else to live that same way. If by "promotion" you mean the former, I see no problem with that. Such groups have the same right of free speech on college campuses as anyone else. Do you have a problem with such free speech? Are you suggesting such speech should be suppressed?
Well it would give the SC a chance that they probably thought they would never get- to re-visit Griswold v Connecticut!!! Who would have thought someone would tray and enact such a "silly law"!!!
The "Catholic Jonestown" remark is preposterous. If JNV regrets endorsing it (as appears to be the case), he should amend his post.
Your post, however, shows a very bizarre concept of coercion and promotion. You infer that Ave Maria is coercing its students to live a certain way. Of course, it's impossible for the law school to truly coerce its students into a rigid religious life style. If law students do not want to live that way, they will not attend Ave Maria. The law school is promoting a certain life style by attempting to attract people that agree with them. Now, you aren't suggesting that their beliefs should be suppressed, are you?
Maybe it's just me, but there was a reason at Davis that the bars closed at 11 but the law library stayed open all night. Come to think of it, my medschool roommate seemed to spend a disproportionate amount of time studying as well. Ditto for my undergrad engineering experience. I'll put Rolla, Missouri up against the proposed AMT any day.
At most difficult schools, the same factors which drive enforcement of morality in religion drove us as students to avoid temptation. Competition to be the best pushed students to spend (really excessively) long hours with decidedly non-erotic books. Fear of shame or embarassment in Contracts kept one's hand drifting to the hornbook rather than the more aesthetically appealing magazine. Pursuit of status (what else could explain it) made some subscibe to Foreign Affairs (for the articles, doncha know).
I sincerely doubt that, in their personal habits at least, the denizens of Ave Maria are more circumspect than the hapless souls attending Ann Arbor.
YMMV
[And I'm sorry, but, since 1986, I've taken a dislike to the initials "AMT". Somehow it seems to embody a limitation of economic licentiousness as well.]
1) It would be an interesting experiment in utopian theory and self-selection. My own hypothesis is that the "town" would get increasingly conservative over time and would be very vulnerable to a charismatic leader emerging and taking them on the journey of self-destruction that happens to most utopian experiments.
2) I want to open a drug store just outside the boundaries of said town so I can sell material into the black market system that will inevitably arise. (Forget Playboy, I'd probably make more selling pages from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition or the Victorian Secrets catalog.)
I particularly resent the accusation that I simply resorted to name calling.
I never said nor implied that Ave Maria was coercing its students to live a particular way, nor did I call it "creepy" or use the "Catholic Jonestown" term. I think my term would probably be "laughably naive" for thinking students with cars and internet connects will somehow be prevented from seeing porn because it isn't being sold on campus. And if by "porn" they mean any representation or description of nudity, then I might add "prudish" as well. As I write this I'm moved to wonder how they plan to grapple with a signficant chunk of first amendment caselaw while still shielding their students from any exposure to pornography.
What happens to children in a system like this? This is an entire town, after all. Professors, Wives, Students, Children therefrom. They are bound by a contract they never signed?
At what point does it become so quasi-governmental that the private organization no longer has the right to limit such activities? What if it grew into an entire school system? K - 12, University, Graduate Schools, with a combined child/student/adult population of 40,000?
First, a professor is in a position of power vis a vis students, which mandates a standard of behavior vis a vis those students not applicable to people at large, so using a professor is hardly a valid measure of I am, or should be free to say. I am not a professor or an employer and not in a position of power over anyone.
Second, "despises Catholics" is both inflammatory beyond anything I said and is based purely on one's status as a Catholic, rather than the action of moving to the middle of rural Florida, buying up a lot of property and banning pornography on that property. There is nothing distinctively Catholic about the latter course of action, and criticizing it is hardly equivalent to saying that one despises Catholics.
I actually didn't pay much attention to the Catholic Jonestown reference that seems to have upset many of the people posting here. Perhaps I'm too young for it to have had an impact on me, since I have only a very vague recollection of what the "Jonestown" part refers to but apparently it's something quite perjorative, at least in the view of some of the people posting here.
I've not sure which part of which of my posts you're referring to by "it", but if you mean the idea of buying up land in rural Florida and creating a private campus upon which pornography and birth control will be prohibited, then certainly I wouldn't suggest that is unconstitutional (I'm assuming there are not other circumstances giving rise to an issue of state action). I'm not even sure I would describe it as hypocritical, slightly or otherwise. If those responsible for such plans were themselves viewing pornography and using birth control, that would certainly be hypocritical, but I don't know that to be the case.
That's what I was referring to. Sorry.
I've only done some quick and dirty research because this caught my attention, but see generally Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (198) and Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). My understanding is that regulation of commercial pornagraphy establishments must not be aimed at suppressing the content of the material shown or sold. See Renton v. Playtime Theatres, supra, 475 U.S. at 47-48, 106 S.Ct. at 929-930; Young v. American Mini Theatres, supra, 427 U.S. at 67, 71, n. 34, 96 S.Ct. at 2450, 2453, n. 34 (plurality opn.); id., at 79-80, 81, n. 4, 96 S.Ct. at 2456-2457, 2458 n. 4.
Moreover, in the Eleventh Circuit, where Monaghan intends to move his school, "zoning ordinances that target the social ills associated with adult entertainment are constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to further a substantial government interest and 'allow for reasonable alternative avenues of communication.'" Ranch House, Inc. v. Amerson, 238 F.3d 1273, 1286 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Renton, 475 U.S. at 46, 106 S.Ct. at 928).
I doubt that a zoning ordinance specifically and effectively designed to prevent "reasonable alternative avenues of communication" satisfies this standard.
Like I said, the above is only quick and dirty research, and I have to get back to work. But I do think there is an issue here. Some would say there is a business opportunity.
1) it's in a WSJ section called "Opinion Journal" (not, e.g. "Pure Reporting")
2) The "Catholic Jonestown" reference in the title of the article is in quotation marks
3) The "Catholic Jonestown" reference in the body of the article is actually a quote from an Ave Maria faculty member, and the article describes the faculty member as referring "hyperbolically" to a "Catholic Jonestown"
Now here's the part of the article that I really did find creepy. The chair of the Board of A.M. is a pizza magnate named Tom Monaghan, quoted in the article as saying "There are not many out there who are really authentic Catholics," and creating them "is what I plan to do in the rest of my life."
It would seem that Mr. Monaghan doesn't consider anyone who views pornography or uses birth control to be a "really authentic Catholic" and that his mission is to create "really authentic Catholics" (rather than provide Catholics with a real legal education). I am not a Catholic, but if I were, I would consider the idea of putting the authenticity of my Catholicism in the hands of a layperson who seems to consider the absence of pornography and birth control the central features of that authenticity to be pretty creepy.
On the other hand, the reason Monaghan picked Florida is that he's already found some private property surrounded by, or mostly surrounded by, protected state and federal land, which would make this issue irrelevant.
If the town is established, after a few years some social scientist should figure the average number of children per family.
And no one thinks this will prevent people from getting porn if they want it. They simply don't want it shoved in their faces every time they turn on TV or walk past a newsstand. This represents one view of an extensively debated understanding of human sexuality and its temptations. (It's not that different than alcoholics who avoid bars so they're not tempted to drink. No one would suggest that they can't get booze if they want it, but it may still make sense to avoid it if possible.) If you're not familiar with this debate (and / or Jonestown [hint: yes, it is "quite pejorative"]), you should go read about it, not post comments on the internet.
I think Ave Maria Town will then include both the law school and the university.
Imagine your wild extrapolations applied to San Francisco. It would be called bigotry.
Stop being argumentative in blog posts? Are you serious? If no one argued about anything why would there be any posts at all? And you seem to have an exaggerated view of what tolerance means. I find facial piercings to be ugly and I've told other people my opinion, but I don't consider that to make me intolerant of facial piercings or people who have them, for 2 reasons 1) I don't make any attempt to stop anyone from getting such piercings and 2) I don't walk up to people with facial piercings and gratuitously offer them my opinion of how awful they look. I don't think tolerance requires anything more, and certainly doesn't require me to lie and pretend I think they look great, or that it's a good idea to get them.
And furthermore, there's a world of difference between saying, one the one hand, that it's creepy to move to the middle of nowhere so I can live and study in an environment completely controlled by a multimillionare pizza magnate of no particular religious qualificiations who says there are "very few authentic Catholics out there" and who thinks it's his job to create more of them in the guise of providing a legal education versus, on the other hand, saying that my roomates are creepy purely because they are Catholic.
I doubt that any, much less many, private religious universities have a comparable situation -- i.e., where they own "all commercial real estate" in a town. It is one thing for a religious university to say that it is not going to sell Playboy magazine in the campus bookstore. It is another for it to own all of the commerical real estate in a a town expressly created to prevent the sale of Playboy magazine, and then to deny all zoning applications by non-commercial property owners designed to enable the sale of the magazine.
I refrained from dealing with the "Catholic Jonestown" comment for the very reason that I wasn't all that familiar with the reference. I might read up on that some day, but in the meantime there's no reason why I can speak to the other portion of the post, namely the odd idea of a multimillionaire who wants to build a campus in rural Florida where he can control all aspects of the environment there, who feels there are very few authentic Catholics out there, and who considers it his mission to increase the supply of what he considers to be authentic Catholics. That seems to be an odd way to carry out what I thought was their mission of providing a legal education.
AMDG
I'd prefer to live in a genuinely federal system in which the people of Nevada can have the kind of state they want, and the people of Florida (Alabama, Minnesota, California etc.) can have the kind of state they want, instead of having some transient, majority-of-the-day in D.C. forever trying to impose a once size fits all approach to the country. All of which should, of course, be subject to the limits on state power set out in the Constitution, and by "Constitution", I mean the whole Constitution, without pretending that things like the 9th and 10th Amendments don't exist.
Here, we have a group of orthodox Catholics who believe (as most orthodox Catholics do) that Christians should be more devout in practicing their faith, which requires (among many other things) closer observance of the Church's teaching on pornography, birth control, etc. Because of that, and because of the nature of things like pornography (which, like cigarettes and chocolate, tempt people to indulge even if they have made a rational decision not to), they want to limit their exposure to them. The government makes that hard to do if you live in Ann Arbor. Given all that, seems to make some sense to set up a little community of like-minded people to live together, no? Also, seems to make some sense to train lawyers to change those things about the law you disagree with, no?
But let's put all that aside, and please do tell us more about your Theory of Comments to Blogs, which seems very robust indeed.
"Creepy" may be unnecessarily pejorative. But I do think it is worth commenting on when a group of people feel the need to withdraw from organic communities into their own centrally-planned and semi-closed communities (and yes, I realize that lots of people do this for all sorts of reasons, including many non-religious reasons). And it is perhaps not surprising that many commentators on a libertarian-leaning blog will find this idea personally unappealing, because libertarians have a general skepticism about the benefits of centralized planning of communities.
Of course I believe that. Who doesn't believe that a negative opinion from your commanding officer / employer / professor has more impact on you than a negative opinion expressed by a friend, passing acquaintance or total stranger? I'm not saying that people who have no power over you can't be intolerant, only that it's easier for people in a position of power to cause you harm and accordingly similar behavior can have different effects, depend on the status of the actor involved.
And I am not aware of any libertarian skepticism of benefits of planned "communities." (Federal or even state government, yes - but a university town of 10,000 people? What classical liberal idea informs that skepticism?)
I think this has more to do with libertarians disassociating themselves from religious conservatives than with classical liberalism. I can't imagine a bunch of libertarians rushing to attack a high-rise apartment building that is "centrally planned," and I doubt it's because that only includes 1,000 people, whereas Ave Maria would include 10,000.
Who exactly are the "they" you're referring to? The story is about Tom Monaghan, multi-millioniare and primary benefactor of Ave Maria, who wants to build his own town in Florida so he can control what happens there, and the opposition to that idea from the faculty and alumni of Ave Maria. It's hardly a collective decision by a group of like minded people.
I have no problem with a group of like minded people setting up a community and living however they wish. What I consider worthy of criticism is the idea that a multi-millionaire who thinks there are very few authentic Catholics out there wants to take an institution purportedly there to provide a legal education and use that as an opportunity to control the lives of the students who live there. Now lets's suppose he builds Monaghan Town in the middle of the Florida wilderness. No one is forced to move there, and for someone who does move there with full notice that Mr. Monaghan is going to set the standards for what constitutes an authentic Catholic and expect the student to live by those standards, well the student won't have much cause for complaint. He knew what he was getting into. That doesn't prevent me from criticizing it as a plan that is both strange and not even particularly Catholic.
It's not much of a theory. If you have an opinion that relates to the subject of the blog entry, feel free to post your comments. I'd call it more of a position than a theory.
I certainly don't claim to speak for all libertarians. But to me this is not just an issue of the number of people, but also of the degree of control Monaghan wants over things like cable programming. Similarly, I would be concerned about how this power was allocated. And at some point, I would question the distinction between what Monaghan wants to control and government control of the same things (even if the "government" he wants to create is very small).
Of course, you are right that libertarians might object if a higher government authority wanted to interfere too much with this community. But this is not an either-or proposition: we can find troubling the idea of any government (or government-like) planning authority controlling something like our cable television choices, whether it is the federal government, a state government, or our local town government.
There are several ways he could then proceed; renting or leasing residences, selling them with strongly worded covenants and the requirement that property be sold back to the Monaghan (or trust) when it is sold or offering residences for "free" with salaries or paid tuition.
Check out Disney's planned community Celebration for a rundown on other solutions or information on the Fundamentalist LDS settlment outside Eldorado Texas, which is held as community property.
The comparison to Jonestown is quite unjustified. I hope...
Moreover, the county would have both the power and incentive to ensure this didn't happen. My own real guess is that were this successful, an only slightly less conservative community would grow up next door. Yes, someone would try to put in a porn shop, but the legal cost would be so high that they'd probably give up. And even if it did work, it would probably go under.
Just visit Provo, Utah for a prime example of this. (You have to go to Salt Lake City for the strip clubs and porn shops and there are no x-rated theaters that I know of in the state. The porn shops that do exist are pretty mild by comparison to other cities. Some of this is prudery, much is simply the lack of a viable market.
He's not reacting here against government, as one poster claimed. Government doesn't produce Playboy, birth control pills, or cable television. The free market does. Mongahan is attempting to escape the market, not government.
(The idea of living in a free love community creepy as well, but like this idea, if a bunch of people want to do it of their own free will, all power to them. Just don't expect me to stop using the word "creepy" when describing them if asked.)
Does your apartment building actually choose cable providers based on trying to keep out certain content? If so, I actually would find that an unappealing practice.
And if your apartment building proposed to move all of you out to a rural area so that it could extend its control over the stores to all of the nearby stores as well, I would find that an unappealing practice too. And so too if they wanted to be in charge of the local law school ... which finally gets us back to Ave Maria Town.
And none of this has to do with the people who want such control being Catholic. They could be Socialists, or Democrats, or just people who really like authority. It doesn't matter to me why they want so much unfettered control--I don't trust the very idea of such control.
Those classical liberal texts would have no problem with you finding that "creepy" even as they remind you that your subjective sense of creepiness is not a valid basis for dictating the behavior of others.
In any case, I don't know when libertarians became worried about "excessive" power in private hands, but if we're joining Michael Moore down that road, shouldn't we all be pooping our pants over Wal-Mart (which refuses to carry even soft-core smut, and tries to encourage employees to eat properly and exercise), and not worry too much about some town with 1/500th the reach of that behemoths?
I have the same basic feelings about many such gated communities, particularly the ones that strive to be almost entirely self-contained. Again, I find this idea of withdrawing from organic communities and giving a lot of control to central planners unappealing no matter who is doing it.
I also have never, ever heard concerns over high-rises and gated communities from libertarians, which reinforces my suspicion that the concern with Ave Maria has something to do with its religiosity. (In fact, libertarians as a group tend to run for the mountains of MT, no? I know I fantasize about that from time to time . . .)
Imagine your wild extrapolations applied to San Francisco. It would be called bigotry."
I don't think it's overwrought.
(1) I think that people who think they know "the way" and believe they are entitled to determine what is proper for everyone are scary, regardless of whether they are on the left, right, or in the ionosphere communing with aliens. Yes, this applies equally to your implied hypothetical San Francisco example in which apparently the city defines for its denizens what is right, wrong, shall be, and shall not be. Everything I've read or seen suggests a tendency on the part of fanatics of every strip to attempt to accumulate and then misuse power.
(2) It wasn't an extrapolation, it was largely a hypothetical question: What if X happened?
On a separate issue, it appears to me that if libertarians don't like the exercise of power by governments, that there is no reason why they would prefer the exercise of the same amount of power by a single individual or corporation.
I think the building analogy is a poor one, as well. A building, a single entity, is not a town. It does not seek to regulate the behavior of those who are not within the building. Nor does it seek to ensure that no person in the building have a particular religion, political belief, or taste (or lack thereof) for pornography, among other things. The differences in the scope of control and ready availability of outside choices are substantial.
An eye-roller, and this from a self-described libertarian.
However, the term "control" has been siezed upon both here and in Althouse's venue as well. It's interesting (rather than merely being a quibble or an exercise in moralistic pettiness) because in doing so it allows one to attempt control of the debate. What has been established about this term "control" as applied to AM? As applied to Monaghan? As applied to others' choices and liberties? As applied to the debate as a whole? (And, one might ask, what are the corrolative views toward Amish, Mennonite, etc. enterprises and their own uses of their own private lands? They too must be creepy!)
Personally I'm no more interested in AM than I am in an Amish or Mennonite setting. But from a legal and constitutinal perspective - and this and Althourse's are blogs with a stated serious interest in legal/societal matters - the seeming willingness of some to insinuate their (in several cases) cavalier opinings into others' lives and liberties is no small or slight matter. Creepy.
Perhaps even worrying. Or at least it might be for some as it's seemingly a casuistically attuned creepiness intent upon - control. The charge of creepiness per se is typically of no or little account; in the hands of earnest lawyers with constitutional interests however a charge of creepiness can turn into coersive control.
And, while it could be argued that Provo, UT is insulated, it isn't to the degree suggested here.
Thanks to the Nets, the students will be able to get all the sin and degradation anyone could want.
I think it's quite strange that some people worry that other people don't get a high enough dose of perversion. What is the minimum daily requirement?
You should be aware the today's Trads get exposed to much more perversion than the libertines of 50 years ago. They will get enough from that "low" dose to function adequately in Mod Cult.
I suspect the authentic reason is an economic one, to make money, or perhaps the desire to produce a larger school.
Pardon me lest I criticize my oh so open-minded "colleagues" in the profession, but to me that description sounds a lot like your average secular college or university.
I think this is factually incorrect. According to the Opinion Journal article: "'We'll own all commercial real estate,' Mr. Monaghan declared." He did not state all of the real estate.
Even if you are factually correct, I suspect that the plan would still not be free from First Amendment difficulties. If you are correct, Mohaghan is trying to set up a "company town," in this case the "company" being a university, that may be subject to the holding of Marsh v. State of Ala., 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946). See also N.L.R.B. v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 69 S.Ct. 541, 93 L.Ed. 638 (1949).
Obviously, the only solution is mobile porn trucks (sort of like old-fashioned ice-cream trucks) plying the streets of Ave Maria Town, or perhaps door-to-door porn salespersons.
The difference in Amish, Mennonite, etc. enterprises is that the entire community decides on the standards they all accept. In this case, it will apparently be Monaghan alone who decides what is and is not allowed in the community on pain of pulling his money out and effectively killing the school.
When he says "we'll" own the property, what he means is "he'll" own the property. When he says "we" will control what goes on in the town, he seems to me "he" will. If you complain, you get kicked out like the objector in the original article.
Maybe I'm wrong and he plans to let the people of the town elect their leaders and trusts they'll make the right choices. But it sure as heck sounds like he's going to make all the decisions for everyone.
I presume this town/school is supposed to generate folks that will travel out into the great big wide sinful world? How will they effectively cope and perform their jobs well?
I'm curious as to why you are so sure there would be the sort of the zoning problems you're talking about. Over here in MA, for example, it is rock-hard settled law that you can't spot zone. So if you were in the middle of a residential zone and your parcel did not border any parcels zoned commercial, not only would the town be able to refuse to rezone you commercial, it would be <i>illegal</i> for the town to rezone you commercial. So I doubt very much that there's any constitutional right to be able to get your land zoned any way you want it.
Second, I'd imagine that when people buy non-commercial land, the purchase and sale agreement will have clauses and the deed will have covenants that run with the land whereby the buyer (and thus future buyers) will be subject to various land-use restrictions. And that's hardly unheard-of -- it's how homeowner associations operate and get their power.
My guess, and of course it is only a guess, is that the zoning situatons you've addressed have not raised First Amendment concerns. It is one thing to not allow somebody to rezone their residential property in order to convert it into a barbershop. It is quite another to not allow him to rezone his property to permit him to sell magazines when: (a) one of those magazines happens to be Playboy; and (b) the zoning system is designed, and has the effect, of not allowing Playboy to be sold anywhere.
Whether people like or not, it appears the entire point of Monaghan's plan is to suppress Constutionally protected speech. Now, I know some people here don't particularly like the speech being suppressed, and may be sympathetic to Monaghan's concerns, but then again I thought that was the point (or one of the points) of the First Amendment.
Here's a test. For "Playboy" substitute "New York Times." Is the analysis different? Should it be?
What a non-issue.
I think we part company on the definition of "the left." Personally, I don't consider all members of campus GBLTetc. groups "left." Those groups are essentially single-issue interest groups, and although today their bread is buttered largely by the political left, they are not "leftists" per se. Likewise, I wouldn't identify "the right" with, say, Ave Maria, although it seems pretty much beyond dispute that the contemporary American right is far more sympathetic than the left to such fusions of religion and public policy as that referenced in JNV's post.
By compressing "the left" to the actual marchers in campus gay pride parades, you eliminate a substantial portion--I'd guess a majority--of those who believe that the government should stay out of the sexuality business altogether.
But thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Cheers
Then again, how about Monaghan's statement: Guess that right will be contracted away also... along with the right to watch CNN, or have the New York Times delivered to one's door. Then again, I guess one could contractually give Monaghan the right to open one's mail -- there might be a copy of Playboy inside.
In stable communities like the Amish (which in the Anabaptist tradition are anti-hierarchical), there are checks and balances to prevent excessive concentration of power. Where communities go bad is when one person in a position of power who is not accountable to a greater power authority (i.e. is accountable only to self or "God") gets corrupted and starts to violate boundaries and taking an increasing degree of ownership of other people's lives and uses their power to assert that ownership in a progressively more controlling fashion.
The consequence ultimately is that either the individual self-destructs (often via sexual misconduct) or the community is led into self-destruction, leading at a minimum to serious psychological damage to the community members and in severe cases, to sexual crimes, physical injury, deaths, or in the most extreme cases, mass murder/suicide. The more physically separated the community is from the surrounding world, the higher the risk of a violent outcome. And unfortunately, the more benevolent the original intent, the more perverse the corruption tends to result (if things do go bad). Again, though, it's the unaccountability that leads to destruction.
The elements that concern me here with Ava Maria are the phyical separation of the community from the surrounding communities and the fact that one individual appears to be setting the rules with little or no accountability, and that he seems to be the sole arbitrater of authentic Catholicism. The danger is if Mr. Monighan starts to take excessive ownership of the lives of the students and faculty, continually purging dissent. The power structure will be key.
What's interesting is that you have to read between the lines to determine how they are creating this place. One thing is clear; it is the same thing as a planned, gated community. One big clue is in the FAQ, which states that they will be "working with" the Collier County Sheriff's Office. This means that the place is, indeed, built entirely on privately owned land.
It also presents information about commercial opportunities, but mentions that office space is leased, not purchased. The lease agreements will not doubt come with severe limitations, much like what happens in airports. (This is why Monaghan keeps mentioning that they'll "control" the commercial real estate; to assure interested parties that they won't be surprised.)
Residential lots will clearly have heavy covenant and deed restrictions.
Another interesting tidbit is the portion about "Rural Stewardship." It's clear that what they've done is create a large buffer zone around the community.
I really don't see any major constitutional issues here and for good reason; it really is a private enterprise. Again, I think it will initially be very successful. A few people will get fed up and leave and give exposes to the press (as has happened at Celebration.)
Again, in the long run, it will become very self-selecting. The only people who will live there will be people who want to live there and societal pressure will force those who don't play the game to leave. Ironically, if history holds true to form, the first residents will likely find it growing too conservative even for them!
I think it will be fascinating to see how this works out.
The Left and Right are clumsy terms. Many on each side would like to eliminate the perceived "wackos" in their ranks, but we're often stuck with them. As a Republican, it's pretty tiresome to see the media portray Pat Robertson as speaking for all of us. And I'm sure there's plenty on the other side who'd love to see Michael Moore just go away.
It would be a bit harder for the media to do that if Republicans would make a greater effort to repudiate Robertson. Ditto for the "other side" and Moore.
Only a couple of readers have mentioned Marsh v. Alabama, which held that a privately owned company town could not bar leafleteers from the streets because the town's streets and stores were open to the general public, i.e., outsiders. In these circumstances, the first amendment prevailed over private property interests.
Monaghan would have to be very careful about controlling access to his private religious town. If it is not a prpetually gated community with strictly controlled access at all times, the town will be subject to first amendment requirements. Outsiders might be able to visit on guided tours or on special invitation from residents, but not otherwise. Businesses within the private town could not accept customers from without the town.
Monaghan should also be concerned that Marsh might not be the last word on when private towns become subject to first amendment freedoms. Marsh might not be extended or read more broadly, i.e., private ownership might be held to yield to the first amendment in certain circumstances even if outsiders are not given general access to the town.
What if operating the town becomes so enmeshed with local government that it becomes part of that government? What if the town is designated an electoral district which has its own representative on the local county government body? What if the town uses all the available local county governmental services? What if some of the governmental services--e.g., fire department, police department, health and safety department, building department, elementary schools--have facilities within the private town? What if the local government body enacts some laws specifically directed at and for the benefit of the private town" And so on.
Marsh might
notbe extended or read more broadly, i.e., private ownership might be held to yield to the first amendment in certain circumstances even if outsiders are not given general access to the town.Huge difference. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do no ask Michael Moore for advice. Bush has given Robertson private audiences.
Apparently that was a figment of our collective imaginations when Michael Moore was prominantly seated at the "President's Box" alongside Jimmy Carter at the DNC convention. While Bush may have given Robertson private audiences (although I have never heard of any), he is hardly the mascot of the RNC the way some Dems have embraced their associated wingnuts like Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and George Lakoff. And this has certainly put off many rank-and-file Dem voters.
I wouldn't want to go there, but I don't see the harm if one law school wants to experiment with something like this. It is a risk, though.
... the term "control" has been siezed upon both here and in Althouse's venue as well. It's interesting ... because in doing so it allows one to attempt control of the debate. What has been established about this term "control" as applied to Ave Maria? As applied to Monaghan? As applied to others' choices and liberties? As applied to the debate as a whole?
What we know, for those who did not check the links, is both minimal and tentative - it's largely gleaned from a speech of Monaghan's from 18 months ago. (And Monaghan is the chief benefactor and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the law school, not a dictator who exercises "absolute power" (anon7) or who is going to make "all the decisions for everyone" (civil truth). But it's understandable such distortionist claims are made - in order to justify the creepy, even contemptuous, intolerance variously exemplified herein.) Additionally, much of what we know of this Ave Maria School of Law can be discovered by following that link. Doing so will lead to discoveries including 1) distinguished, socially involved board members, 2) some of Juan Non-Volokh's "insulated from the outside world" aka Katrina relief, 3) yet more of that "insulated from the outside world" stuff, 4) inspired by John Paul's Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason, as if!), etc.
Am not Catholic, Amish, Mennonite or an ideological secularist snob and presumptive; I merely attempt to be tolerant within reasonable bounds. Those bounds can be variously debated, obviously, but they don't include forwarding a "Jonestown" smear of a law school in high standing simply because it has some noted religious affiliation and wants to control some aspects of its environment. But it can't be easy displaying one's bigotries under the banner of "tolerance", that requires, naively or otherwise, a certain felicitous and energetic use of the language.
If Ave Maria LS is relocated to its own little enclave, will it lose ABA accreditation? See, e.g., www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter1.html
There are a number of standards that might come into play, but Standard 105 (Major Change in Program or Structure) seems to indicate that the move would require approval of the ABA accreditation council and that approval would come "only if the law school establishes that the change will not detract from the law school's ability to meet the requirements of the Standards." Could they possibly meet that requirement? How could moving a law school to their own private Idaho not detract from its ability to otherwise meet the standards? What happens to it if it loses ABA accreditation?
Another standard that might come into play is Standard 210 (Equality of Opportunity) if admission was in any way restricted to Catholics -- let alone 'authentic' Catholics -- or denied to members of other religions or gays. I presume that is not their current policy since they already have ABA accreditation, but you have to wonder whether their admissions policies, faculty, or curriculum will change with this type of move. At the very least, I would guess it would be harder for them to recruit or retain decent faculty.
Nope. Seems as if some people can't get past their own narrow views that a woman who uses birth control is some sort of libertine who wants sexual freedom without fear of pregnancy. Too bad to any Ava Maria woman who has PCOD, endometriosis or many other hormonal imbalance conditions that are best addressed through hormonal therapy (unless one wants surgery to remove the "offending parts").
I find the Jonestown comparison to be ridiculously hyperbolic as well. Ave Maria sounds more like Plymouth Bay to me, and a very good idea. I'd like to form a Protestant version.
Yours,
Wince
Significantly, Interpretation 105-1(15) provides:Interpretation 105-1(15)
To me the more interesting issue is whether the school could (or for that matter, does in fact) discriminate based on sexual orientation. Standard 210 generally provides that a qualifying law school may not discriminate based on sexual orientation. However, Standard 210(e) more specifically provides:Standard 210(e). Thus, the question is whether the school has a First Amendment associational right to discriminate against gays in admission, hiring, etc. It appears that ABA does not think so, because Interepretation 210-3 provides:Interpretation 210(3)
I'm not sure Interpretation 210(3) is consistent with Standard 210(e) in that Interpretation 210(3) appears to assume that gays have a right to be admitted to and hired by the school. I'm not at all sure they have that right. On the contrary, it appears that the school would have a First Amendedment Associational right to exclude gays. See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). Further, as I recall, sexual orientation is not (yet) a protected classification (or at least not a fully protected classification) for the purpose of 14th Amendment equal protection analysis.
I grew up in a town in MN that was founded by socialists right after world war II. They instituted a municipal gas service, and built cooperative housing. After a few years the socialist dream died because, of course, it was impractical. But at least they lived in a county that let them be free enough to try to live life the way they wanted to live it.
They wanted to live life their way. What's wrong with that? When did freedom become so little valued in this country?
When did the unofficial national motto morph from "Live and let live" into "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile"
America used to believe in freedom. Now it believes in sameness. We used to hear people say "Well, it's a free country" when someone did something they didn't agree with. Now, they call the authorities.
The people of Ave Maria Town will hardly be separated from the world - anymore than Cambridge is separated from Boston. They're not trying to impose on anyone, they're not trying to become isolated and monkish. They're just trying to ameliorate the caustic effects - to the degree possible - of modern life on their children. If you haven't noticed a general lowering of standards in the last 20 years, a decline in common civility and a spread of scum on television and media, you've been asleep.
At least they're doing something about it. As far as I can tell, most people are just accepting all of the social detioration like a bunch of sheep.
But, of course, these are not really mutually exclusive views, as several of the commentators have expressed. Indeed, obviously the very idea of Ave Maria Town is that these people do not find appealing the sorts of communities that some of us do find appealing. In other words, it seems odd to me that people would be accused of unfair intolerance for criticizing Ave Maria Town, given that the people building Ave Maria Town are explicitly criticizing our communities.
But, of course, having the freedom to live in a community that suits your values and tastes is not the same thing as having an immunity to criticism for those values and tastes. In general, the fact that you have a legal right to do something does not mean that we cannot express any disapproval of how you exercise that right--indeed, a preference for private debate and efforts to persuade over the use of state coercion is one of the many reasons to favor the legal right.
My question regarding ABA approval of the move is really addresed to the application of Standard 105. There is no question that they would need ABA approval to make the move, or they would lose their accreditation. Standard 105 states that approval would come "only if the law school establishes that the change will not detract from the law school's ability to meet the requirements of the Standards."
The real question is (assuming they do not decide to discriminate against gays in admission, which is an entirely different question), could they still meet the other standards after the move?
Students can order the birth control online and have it mailed. If the school tries to restrict internet access, students can just get dial up accounts using cell phones if needed.
The school might also pay a price in terms of finding faculty willing to live in such an isolated environment. That will be interesting.
And I agree that "Jonestown" is pejoritive, but it was an Ave Maria faculty member who coinded the phrase. Perhaps the professor meant that the school was committing suicide by the venture.
All that said, the concept seems more Stepford than Jonestown.
Worse, law school should be a period where you can have lively discussions. Who is going to argue liberal view points? Unless you can practice sparring with opponents, you really don't get to be a great lawyer. (The same can be said for liberal law schools, but even most liberal law schools have at least a few conservatives to argue with.)
Yours,
Wince
First of all, I find it hard to swallow that a genuinely Catholic education can take place in a some sort of "commune". I think an "us against them" mentality would quickly develop that would really hinder Ave Maria students from having any legitimate impact on the legal profession. Quite frankly, Monaghan's plan sounds more like Calvin's Geneva than a place based upon the Catholic social justice teachings.
Second, there are plenty of ways to object to this without using a strictly libertarian premise. I believe St. Thomas said a little bit about how over-regulating certain activities can cause harm greater than the good intended. In other words, because of the fallen nature of man, utopias, secular or religious, aren't possible. I also have a real problem with centralized control of all commercial enterprises. Keep in mind that I generally think that there can be legitimate regulations on pornography and so forth without violating the constitution. Nonetheless, insulating law students from vice just seems absurd. I think people sometimes want to try and create a past that never really existed in the same way that the Romanticize it. Besides, what if I want to watch an episode of South Park? I think the show is pretty vile--but I like the political satire.
The bottom line is that if Monaghan forces the school down there the same way he forced Charlie Rice off of the board, it'll go down the crapper.
Eric
So be it..live and let live...buyer beware and forwarned.
We will be watching this grandiose experiment with a great deal of debate.
What I am most interested in is....does Justice Scalia have a hand or voice in this plan? He is a frequent speaker at Ave Maria and was a consultant to Monaghan on the establishment and cirriculum of the law school.
They may be able to filter the cable provider but not the internet. Without the threat of force, for example, the Chinese government would be unable to prevent citizens from surfing the full range of information out there. (Filtering software is easily spoofed.) And once you have full internet access, you have full acess to all the television and porn dowloads you can handle.
Also, this place is about a 2 hour drive from Disney World and an hour from Ft Lauderdale/Miami. Ft Myers has a ferry service right to hedonistic Key West. On the other hand, Naples and the surrounding area is somewhat conservative and wealthy. I think it'll fit in just fine.
What will be interesting is to see how Pulte Homes, Del Webb, the local cable company (Brighthouse/Time Warner?), and other national firms handle the restrictions that are imposed, if any. It can't be good publicity, for example, if Verizon DSL filters all town service based on a catholic black-list.
Someone said, why don't they just have an honor code that reflects Catholic values? We do, the relevant portion here says we're supposed to act "chastely" and this was controversial among the students. But the administration clarified saying that it simply means we conform to our own idea of "chaste". Oddly relativist for such an institution but it did make me feel better.
To the person who said why would anyone go to this law school, and don't you need people to argue liberal viewpoints, there are a fair number of liberals here, about as many as there are conservatives at liberal law schools I guess. But that would change if we moved.