Governor Landry Wants More Death Row Prisoners to Be Executed: I’m Opposed

More than 100 film industry leaders released a public letter to Governor Jeff Landry expressing their disapproval of Landry's efforts to expand the ways that death-row prisoners can be executed. “How can we,” the filmmakers wrote, “continue to conduct business within a state that contemplates the implementation of execution methods reminiscent of history's gravest atrocities?”

Governor Landy wants the Louisiana Legislature to pass a bill that would add electrocution and nitrogen gas as approved methods for killing condemned prisoners. I’m surprised he didn’t add fentanyl to his list. A hundred thousand Americans died from fentanyl overdoses last year, and no one complained that fentanyl is a painful way to die.

Of course, the morality of capital punishment doesn’t hinge on finding more humane ways to kill people. The guillotine, which extinguishes life instantaneously, probably inflicts less pain than electrocution, but that doesn’t make decapitation a morally acceptable method of execution.

Governor Landry is a Catholic, and as Robert Mann pointed out in a recent blog essay, the Catholic Catechism states the Church’s opposition to capital punishment, calling it “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Even before the Catechism was amended in 2018 to stiffen the Church’s opposition to the death penalty, Pope John Paul II expressed his disapproval. In a homily delivered in St. Louis in 1999, he said this:

A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

In short, the Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment is not an arcane and obscure snippet of Catholic dogma; it is an inextricable part of the Church’s affirmation of human life and human dignity—as is the Church’s opposition to abortion.

In my mind, Governor Landry, a good Catholic, is bound by his faith to oppose the death penalty in Louisiana, just as he opposes abortion.

57 people on Louisiana's Death Row
Image credit: NOLA.com

We don’t know nothin' about no diversity. LSU rebrands its DEI agenda.

As reported by Robert Mann on Something Like the Truth, his blog site, Louisiana State University recently rebranded its DEI agenda. For those of you living under a rock, DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. 

Last Friday, LSU President Bill Tate alerted the staff and faculty that its Division of Inclusion, Civil Rights, and Title IX has a new name: the Division of Engagement, Civil Rights, and Title IX.

Why the name change? LSU obviously took this action to counter mounting opposition to the university's DEI agenda in the state legislature. The university hopes to stave off criticism of its diversity program by simply changing the name.

LSU president Bill Tate explained the action differently in an email message. Unfortunately, me no speakie gobbledygook, so I am unable to translate it for you. I’ll quote part of the message; you can translate it yourself.

Engagement is defined in several ways. We use two forms of the definition. For us, it represents a two-way process that enables change on both sides. To fully deliver on the promise our flagship offers, we must engage with each other to exchange views and experiences and share potential solutions to our most pressing challenges. Second, engagement reflects a serious commitment. We must commit to find[ing] ways to translate our discoveries and talent to serve and elevate the state and its people.

What the hell does that mean?

I draw these conclusions from LSU's diversity-and-inclusion shuffle:

First, LSU is not revising its DEI agenda; the fact that it has switched from using the word inclusion to engagement does not alter the university's obsession with race and gender.

Second, President Tate's word-salad justification for the change was probably written by the university's attorneys, which tells us that the lawyers are now running the university – not the academics.

Finally, LSU‘s rebranding of DEI shows that its leaders are cowards. If they’re fully committed to DEI, why change its name? 

As I just said, I think the change was motivated by the fear that the conservative state legislature and Louisiana’s new governor will clamp down on LSU and perhaps cut its funding to punish it for its flirtation with DEI--higher education's current obsession.

LSU wants to pursue its DEI agenda without alienating its funding source. As Robert Mann observed, the move was dumb and ham-handed.

In addition, the change is a transparent act of obsequious cowardice and a sure sign that LSU has lost its way.

We don't know nothin' about no diversity.