Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., began his tenure as president of the University of Notre Dame by discontinuing student performances of the feminist Vagina Monologues and a queer film festival. It was a strong move substantiated by a clear articulation of academic freedom within the context of the Catholic university, but it was short lived. Faced with significant pushback from students and faculty, Jenkins reversed his decision, permitting the performances on the same grounds upon which he had previously based his opposition: the university’s Catholic character.
The path Notre Dame has set down on was never inevitable — it has been chosen time and time again.
Now, in his final year as president of Notre Dame, the university will be hosting a drag show on November 3. The show’s defenders cry “academic freedom,” as do those who don’t so much defend the show as passively permit it. Some students, however, have called the justification of academic freedom into question, opposing the drag show on the grounds that it perverts human dignity and promotes false visions of femininity and sexuality.
Students Stand Up for Human Dignity
The Irish Rover, Notre Dame’s Catholic student newspaper, broke the story that a professor planned to host the drag show in mid-September. Sponsored by the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts Henkels Award, the department of music, the gender studies program, the Initiative on Race and Resilience, and the department of American Studies, the drag performance is part of a one-credit class. While the course is restricted to 20 students, the show is open to any students, staff, or faculty at Notre Dame.
Following this story, Irish Rover editor-in-chief Nico Schmitz penned an editorial titled, “No Place for Drag at Our Lady’s University.” He writes:
In supporting lies about the human person — lies that say men can be women and that a minstrel show of femininity is a legitimate art form — the university is not only actively working against her mission, but permitting irreparable damage to its community and image.
Schmitz’s position is eminently sensible, cutting through propaganda about “family friendly entertainment” to describe drag as it truly is. “Fundamentally, a drag show mocks all that it means to be a woman by painting a hyper-sexualized picture and making her an object of derision,” he explains.
As the semester wore on and posters advertising the drag show appeared throughout campus — the event has yet to be advertised online — other students joined with Schmitz in their public opposition to the event.
Well this is actually happening, apparently https://t.co/3pRilRdegv pic.twitter.com/kjiHVdM9tm
— W. Joseph DeReuil (@wjdereuil) October 7, 2023
Seniors Madelyn Stout and Merlot Fogarty published a letter calling out administrators for their passivity in the face of the event, who have argued that academic freedom demands that the performance occur unimpeded.
“Regardless of one’s stance on political or cultural issues, I regard this decision as an affront to the sanctity and dignity of the feminine form of Our Lady, the Mother of God and the patroness of our university,” Stout told The American Spectator.
After initially hearing about the drag show, Stout felt convicted to act in defense of the dignity of women. She was especially inspired by the story of Susanna, whose dignity is violated by leering elders. Stout was struck by the question that emerges from the Bible passage: if religious authorities are complicit in the violation of female sexuality, who will stand guard over Susanna?
Academic Freedom and the Catholic University
Since the drag show is technically part of a one-credit class, university administrators have defended it on the basis of academic freedom. But this justification falls flat in the face of the activism inherent in the public performance.
When Fogarty learned of the event, she reached out to a university administrator to express her concern. “I was told this event is ‘part of’ the one-credit course, and hence ‘the principle of academic freedom’ applies,” she told The American Spectator. “What has still not been explained to me is how a drag performance furthers ‘teaching, learning, inquiry, or dialogue’ for the students, faculty, and staff not a part of this course whose souls are being misguided by disordered ideas of sex and gender.”
“It was just another example of the university administration giving in to a progressive activist agenda contrary to what the university purports to believe in,” Fogarty said. She and Stout presented this critique in their public letter, writing:
This event is not for the sake of study or dialogue. It is not the result of faculty or student research. It is not for the sake of academic inquiry. Three male artists are being paid to parade around in provocative women’s clothing under the guise of self-expression and bodily autonomy. If this is academic freedom, then the phrase is meaningless.
Freedom cannot be divorced from truth; the two are bound up together. Fogarty and Stout know this, as does Schmitz. A libertarian approach to academic freedom — in which anything goes as long as it’s somehow course-related — isn’t actually free because it neglects to ask whether the thing in question is true (or at least truth-seeking).
Fr. Jenkins had the opportunity more than a decade ago to clearly articulate the reason why a Catholic university has no interest in hosting a performance of the Vagina Monologues, or a queer film festival, or a drag show. He made the wrong decision at the beginning of his tenure, but he has had countless opportunities to correct his course. The path Notre Dame has set down on was never inevitable — it has been chosen time and time again.
Mary Frances Myler is a writer living in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Notre Dame in 2022. Follow her on Twitter/X at @mfmyler.
READ MORE by Mary Frances Myler: