Abortion Activist to Lead Asian Studies Institute

The University of Notre Dame does not have a problem outlining its ambition to be the world’s leading Catholic university, but it faces perennial problems in fulfilling this goal. It confronts a major test of fidelity to its Catholic mission right now. 

The university’s recent strategic plan outlined that Notre Dame must be “the leading global Catholic research university, on par with but distinct from the world’s best private universities.” The authors of the plan declared to the various constituencies of the university that it would maintain its distinctive religious identity and assured that Notre Dame would be anchored in its Catholicism. Indeed, the first goal delineated was the noble objective to “ensure that our Catholic character informs all our endeavors.”

That claim is being put under a severe trial during the early part of the presidency of Fr. Robert Dowd, C.S.C. Indeed, it is being explicitly repudiated by the recent decision to appoint one of the university’s most vocal pro-abortion advocates to head Notre Dame’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. The announcement of Prof. Susan Ostermann’s appointment to head the Liu Institute, starting July 1, was made by Mary Gallagher, the dean of the Keough School of Global Affairs, with the approval and backing of the university’s provost, John McGreevy.

Ostermann is described as “a political scientist who studies state capacity, law and regulatory compliance,” but she has also placed much energy in recent years to promoting abortion and to denigrating those who oppose it. A mere listing of just some of her essays and op-eds—most written in collaboration with her one-time colleague Tamara Kay—published in the last five years gives a rather sickening sense of her views: “Medical fraud at crisis pregnancy centers should make us rethink policy”; “Banning abortion pill mifepristone would be a terrible policy choice and violate human rights”; “Abortion, racism and guns: How white supremacy unites the right”; “Forced pregnancy and childbirth are violence against women—and also terrible health policy.”

Ostermann has seen fit to malign the pro-life movement as having “roots in white supremacy”—surely a gross slander, especially in light of Planned Parenthood’s well-known targeting of poor and minority neighborhoods. She bears a special animosity to crisis pregnancy centers, branding them as “anti-abortion rights propaganda sites” that provide “false information” to pregnant women. 

Ostermann has sought to co-opt Catholic social teaching to support her abortion rights agenda and to align herself with the principle of integral human development that supposedly guides the Keough School. She holds that “abortion access is freedom-enhancing, in the truest sense of the word.” In her rather Orwellian formulation, abortion is “consistent with integral human development that emphasizes social justice and human dignity.”  

There can be no dispute that Ostermann stands in stark contrast to fundamental Catholic moral teaching on the sacredness of human life. Her pro-abortion views expressed in a December 2022 Chicago Tribune article provoked Fr. Dowd’s predecessor, Fr. John Jenkins, to state unequivocally that the “essay [did] not reflect the views and values of the University of Notre Dame in its tone, arguments or assertions.” And yet, somehow Gallagher and McGreevy deem her worthy to head an institute at Notre Dame.

Her appointment to head our Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies is made more of a travesty by her serving as a consultant to the Population Council, a Rockefeller-founded agency dedicated toward population control. This association alone should have ruled Ostermann out of consideration for any leadership position at Notre Dame given the damage this agency has done in numerous countries. The decimation of the Chinese population stands as but the worst example. 

In an attempt to defend the appointment, the argument is being made that Ostermann will be able to separate her “personal” pro-abortion views from her role in leading the Liu Institute, but this is a specious position. Given the demographic issues that certain Asian countries now confront, the Liu Institute must be led by a scholar who understands well the disastrous course that has been perpetrated by organizations like the Population Council. Susan Ostermann cannot do that.

A number of distinguished senior faculty have made representations to the administration to have Ostermann’s appointment rescinded. These requests have been denied. The matter has now been placed before the university president, but he seems reluctant to overrule the provost and dean. I have now brought the matter before the Board of Fellows at Notre Dame—six Holy Cross Priests and six laypersons—who have the fiduciary responsibility to maintain the university’s “character as a Catholic institution of higher learning.” I have requested that they intervene to support Fr. Dowd in rescinding this appointment.

If this sad appointment is allowed to stand, the hollowness of the claim that Catholic character informs all Notre Dame’s endeavors will be painfully exposed. All the fellows—lay and clerics—are called to act on this matter, but the six Holy Cross priests (of whom Fr. Dowd is one) hold a special responsibility. This scandalous appointment should never have been made, but it will be truly damaging to the Holy Cross Order if it is allowed to stand. Our younger religious and men in formation will be deeply discouraged by a failure to act. They and other good-hearted faculty, students, and alumni will see that six Holy Cross priests refuse to take up the responsibility to maintain Notre Dame’s Catholic character and mission. May they have the wisdom to see the right course and the courage to act upon it.