It seems to the evidence is clear on the following points, all of which demonstrate that President Lyons’ justifications for her decision hold no water:

1. The CCTC is an academic unit of USD and its mission includes and has always included open, inclusive, rigorous and critical engagement with aspects of the Catholic intellectual, social and cultural traditions.

2. Prof. Tina Beattie’s signing of the letter in the Times did not constitute dissent from official church teaching.

3. Even if had done so, USD’s policies on academic freedom should have protected her against President Lyons’ decisions.

4. There was no ‘honorary’ status to the planned attachment of Professor Beattie to the CCTC.

5. There was no attempt to consult or communicate with the CCTC director before this decision was taken.

6. President Lyons has refused to admit any wrongdoing or error in any of this and has repeatedly ignored requests that she apologize to those most affected by this, along with the wider university community.

Basically it boils down to the fact that there was no justification for President Lyons’ decision – none of the reasons she provides stands up to scrutiny. Each one falls apart. If there was no dissent, end of story, whether the visit was honorary or not. If not honorary, end of story, whether there was dissent or not (according to Pres. Lyons’ own logic in later statements). Even if one or all of her reasons did contain any truth, USD, WASC and AAUP policies would still mean the decision was wrong.
The most alarming aspects are the following:

1. President Lyons allowed someone else (a USD faculty member) behind a veil of anonymity to influence her decision. The campaign against Prof. Beattie’s visit was in fact part of a campaign to undermine the CCTC and its present staff – a long-running campaign. It is certain the previous director of the CCTC has been involved in this sorry affair.

2. President Lyons also clearly allowed extremist groups and individuals to influence her decision, alongside right wing donors, alongside diocesan personnel.

3. President Lyons felt she had the right to ‘make up the reasons’ justifying her decision as she went along.

4. President Lyons did not consult the people most affected by her decision and gave no thought to the impact all this would have upon them nor upon the Center and its future.

5. President Lyons felt she had the power unilaterally to change the mission and role of the Center after the fact of her decision, without consultation, in order to justify her decision.

6. President Lyons’ decision and statements in effect removed the academic freedom of the Center and its Director after the fact of her decision, without consultation, in order to justify her decision. This despite repeated statements and assurances about the academic freedom of the Center and its director given to the director before and since he took up the post.

7. President Lyons’s decision and statements removed the academic status of the Center and its Director after the fact of her decision, without consultation, in order to justify her decision. This despite repeated statements and assurances about the academic status of the Center and its director given to the director before and since he took up the post.

8. No university President has the right to pick and choose when to adhere to their own university’s policies, WASC policies and AAUP policies and when to ignore them. President Lyons, in these actions, believes otherwise and that she can, when it suits, ignore and flout USD policies, WASC policies and AAUP policies.

9. President Lyons had repeatedly made counter-factual statements about the Center, its role, mission and work and about its Director after the fact of her decision, in order to justify that decision.