Examining the other side of the argument, it is evident that Notre Dame s right to fire the controversial faculty member is based on an important assumption. As the author points out, the question of private versus public funding of the university is crucial. Public funding for otherwise private associations, therefore, erodes the claim to self-determination by those associations one reason why some private institutions staunchly refuse to accept government funding of any kind. It s a good idea to follow discussions up with short writing assignments in which students put the four-part reasoning process to work in their own words and defend a particular position. Another critical reasoning skill that can be exercised in the study and discussion of the article is the use of analogies to make arguments.
Analogies are powerful, persuasive rhetorical tools.
They may also be misused, so students should be trained in evaluating the legitimacy of analogies when they encounter them. The analogy of the person hiring someone to paint their house and discovering that the painter has taken artistic liberties with his work is clear and persuasive, but worth a closer look. A house painter s job is certainly to perform his work as much as possible according to the specifications of the person who hired him. There is no other standard for his work than to meet or exceed the expectations of his employer to perform according to the values of the client. It would seem that faculty members are not expected to mirror the values of their employers even at religious institutions otherwise it is unlikely that a school such as Notre Dame would have hired the offending faculty member in the first place.