Maybe youve seen one of the fliers posted around campus protesting Saint Vincent Colleges policy of filtering pornography and gambling sites. The flier asked the provocative question, Is Mr. Towey our parent or the college president? and it wondered aloud whether it was the presidents place to enforce (sic) his personal morality on the student body.
Unfortunately, the person who raised these questions posted them anonymously. That is a shame at an institution of higher learning to be afraid to raise an issue and stand behind it with a name. Anonymous postings thus have the effect of sniper fire because the person attacks (sometimes with a reckless disregard for the truth) but is unwilling to defend or even own up to his or her position. That hardly lends itself to the intellectual development of students or the growth of a college in its pursuit of the truth.
But I think it would be useful to trace the history of how the internet filtering decision was made, and why, because it communicates a great deal about Saint Vincent College, its identity and mission, and the interplay between academic freedom and Catholic, Benedictine values. Even if you disagreed with the decision, you might benefit from an explanation of it.
So heres how it came about. I was in my third week on the job as president of Saint Vincent when I received an email from our Dean of Students at the time, and the subject line was entitled, Filtering Software for Saint Vincent Residence Halls.
It was addressed to me and two Saint Vincent Vice-Presidents, and it invited my review and comment, and of course, approval.
It began as follows:
As you may know, Internet misuse is an issue impacting colleges and universities across the Nation. While there exist several dimensions of Internet misuse, one area of significant concern is the downloading and viewing of pornographic material by college students. The Colleges Student Code of Conduct makes clear that using the campus network for such purposes is strictly prohibited. However, the Institution has not activated existing technology that filters inappropriate, objectionable content from our students. Commencing August 1, we plan to activate such content management technology for all residence halls in an effort to mitigate this issue.
My first thought was that the overwhelming majority of Saint Vincent students could care less about accessing pornography in the first place. Nationwide the research shows that only about 40% of college students access pornographic sites intentionally or accidentally, and I figured the number would be even lower at Saint Vincent. But then I wondered what other Catholic colleges and universities did on the question of internet filtering. Did Notre Dame filter porn? Boston College? Villanova? I found out that none of them did, and further, that nearly all Catholic colleges didnt.
That surprised me. It made me wonder why and led me to consult with many intelligent, thoughtful people, including a number of our esteemed monks, faculty members and administrators. One monk in an email pointed out that there were many aspects to the problem - the moral, the addictive nature of this material, free speech, and potential technical complications and he concluded that this was an area where the college could better show its Catholic identity in the modern age. But others with whom I consulted disagreed and felt that academic freedom required no internet barriers. They further argued that young adults should be left with the freedom to choose to view porn if they wished because in the process they would form moral disciplines that could last a lifetime. In other words, Dont treat them like children let them learn by their mistakes, and if they want to view pornography, that is their right. I also received convincing data that many information system viruses entered the host through pornography. All told, I had many spirited discussions in my office on the pros and cons of internet filtering.
One area, however, where there was complete agreement was regarding the abhorrent nature of pornography itself. The Catholic Catechism makes the case succinctly and well:
Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense.
On the issue of illicit profit there can be no doubt that pornography has become big business. Worldwide revenues last year were $57 billion, of which $12 billion was in the United States, and $3 billion was in child pornography. To put that in context, porn revenues exceed the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC. While the internet has become an exceptional tool for adults and children alike, it has also triggered what Archbishop George Niederauer termed an electronic tsunami of pornography. There are an estimated 89 million porn sites. And one staggering statistic 70% of men ages 18 to 24 visit porn sites each month and 90% of 8 to 16 year olds have viewed porn online. So the tsunami has many victims.
And it does not take much effort to connect the dots if there are more porn sites on the internet than any other category (there are), and if they generate billions of dollars in revenues and millions of daily visitors, then it is hard to argue there isnt an addictive nature to the viewing of pornography and, because of how men and women are degraded, a socially destructive one as well. It seems America, and most of the world for that matter, have become so accustomed to the presence of hard core and soft core pornography on the internet and cable television that they have become numb to its impact on our youth, on marriage and family life, and on human dignity.
The reason I ultimately approved the Deans filtering proposal was because I felt the College should not have its resources spent directly or indirectly in a way that would facilitate porn and gambling addictions. Further, to do nothing would give a witness that we were indifferent to, or perhaps even cooperating with, a grave offense. I could not accept the idea that an 18 year old arriving in Benedict Hall would discover that his room mate came to college with a pornography addiction and that even though the College Student Handbook prohibited pornography, here it was streaming into his dorm room. How could I defend a no filtering policy to that students parents?
I do not have the slightest illusion that the Colleges institution of an internet filter will prevent a student who really wants pornography from getting it. Porn seems to be ubiquitous and wireless networks and by-pass technology can undermine our best efforts. But I think our students need to know where the College stands and to see us give witness to our Catholic identity, and to invite students to set their sights higher.
The internet filtering policy has been in place for 14 months and the procedure to review student complaints if access is inappropriately denied (called white listing) is working. I realize that the position we have taken places us in the minority among Catholic colleges, and in the super-minority among American colleges and universities. The Colleges policy is not a protest about the amount of pornography there is in America but rather about the kind of harm it does how it defiles human dignity of both the actors and viewers; how it cheapens human sexuality; how it promotes violence against women by treating them as objects; and how, as the good Archbishop put it, it starves the human soul in its spiritual dimension. Jesus first miracle was at Cana at a wedding feast in clear recognition of the importance and beauty of the bonding of man and woman in the oneness of human sexuality (my friend Jean Vaniers words).
Saint Vincent College, from its founding 161 years ago, cares about the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional formation of the students who come here, and seeks to provide an environment conducive to such growth. We promote academic freedom and embrace it. I made this decision because I believe the internet filter is consistent with both worthy goals. And quite frankly, my focus is not on what we are against as a College but what we are for beauty, human dignity, gender equality, justice, and the pursuit of the truth.
(It is the college's responsibility to maintain an up-to-date database in the library.)
