The recent decision by Susan Ostermann to withdraw from her appointment as director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies at the University of Notre Dame has stirred significant reaction. Ostermann, a known advocate for pro-abortion policies, faced backlash almost immediately upon being announced for the position. Her long history of public support for abortion access drew the ire of many within the university community, prompting her exit.
Mary Gallagher, the Marilyn Keough Dean of the Keough School of Global Affairs, communicated the change through a message to the Keough School community, expressing gratitude for Ostermann’s work. However, this statement comes amid a striking contrast between Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and Ostermann’s controversial views. Gallagher acknowledged Ostermann’s qualifications as a scholar in South Asian politics, yet many questioned how her views could align with the values traditionally held by the university.
In 2022, Ostermann co-authored an op-ed that was sharply critical of any abortion restrictions, framing them as harmful and based on misinformation. She claimed, among other things, that the vast majority of abortions occur early in pregnancy before any recognizable fetal development—a point that has been heavily disputed. Such claims have been labeled as misleading by pro-life advocates, who feel they misrepresent the reality of abortion.
This op-ed garnered significant attention, even leading the university’s then-president, Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., to publicly disavow it, asserting it did not reflect the Catholic values of the campus. His remarks underscored the deeper conflict at play—how an institution rooted in faith can reconcile its identity with an appointment to a position of influence by someone with such a provocative stance.
Many within the Notre Dame community, including pro-life groups, expressed their concerns regarding Ostermann’s appointment. They argued that her views were at odds with the mission of a Catholic university and were incompatible with the teachings that emphasize the sanctity of life. The Notre Dame Right to Life executive board was vocal about these concerns, underscoring that Ostermann’s writings had no place in a leadership role at an institution that upholds Catholic values.
The situation came to a head on February 24 with a prayer gathering led by Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Students and community members gathered at the university’s Marian grotto to pray for the protection of life and the integrity of Notre Dame’s Catholic mission. The bishop’s leadership at this gathering highlighted the community’s concern over the direction of the university and the impact of such an appointment on its Catholic character.
In addition to the prayer gathering, students organized a planned protest called “March on the Dome.” This event aimed to reaffirm Notre Dame’s commitment to its Catholic principles and advocate for its identity as a faith-based institution. Even after Ostermann’s withdrawal, the organizers confirmed that the rally would proceed, emphasizing that while one battle had been won, the fight to uphold the university’s identity continues.
Bishop Rhoades has been clear in his opposition to Ostermann’s appointment. He pointed to her work with the Population Council, an organization known for promoting abortion globally and associated with controversial population control policies, particularly in China. His concerns reflect a broader anxiety that Ostermann’s leadership would compromise Notre Dame’s witness as a Catholic university. He articulated the fears expressed by many in the community, echoing their disappointment over the potential negligence of the university’s mission and values.
In light of this unfolding story, it’s evident that the situation raises important questions about academic freedom versus institutional integrity. While academic freedom allows scholars to pursue research and express conclusions based on their work, the appointment of a figure like Ostermann to a leadership position presents challenges that could affect the university’s public image and its commitment to Catholic teachings. Bishop Rhoades captured this tension succinctly, noting that such administrative decisions carry profound implications for Notre Dame’s identity and faithfulness to its mission.
The atmosphere surrounding this controversy illustrates the fundamental divides present in contemporary discussions around abortion and education within religious institutions. The reaction from students and faculty alike signals a committed community ready to protect its values amidst rapid cultural changes. The unfolding events present a vivid snapshot of the complexities involved when personal beliefs clash with institutional identity, particularly within a setting dedicated to fostering faith and virtue.
As Notre Dame navigates this contentious chapter, it remains crucial for the community to reflect on its core values and articulate its commitment to those principles clearly and consistently. The ongoing conversations are not merely about one individual’s appointment but about the broader mission and identity of the university as a prominent Catholic institution in today’s world.
"*" indicates required fields
