Abortion Advocate Pick Ignites Catholic Fury

Abortion highlighted in a dictionary with a pink marker.

Notre Dame is being accused of hollowing out its own Catholic pro-life identity by elevating an abortion-rights advocate into a prominent leadership role.

Story Snapshot

Notre Dame has confirmed that Susan Ostermann will become director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies on July 1, 2026.
Ostermann’s prior published advocacy for abortion access is the central reason critics say the appointment clashes with the university’s stated mission.
Faculty critics say requests to rescind the appointment were denied, and the dispute has been raised to the university’s Board of Fellows.
Notre Dame says leadership must align with its Catholic mission while also defending Ostermann’s academic credentials and insisting its commitment to the sanctity of life remains “unwavering.”

Appointment Sparks Mission-Integrity Dispute at a Catholic Flagship

The University of Notre Dame announced that Susan Ostermann, an associate professor in global affairs and political science, will lead the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies beginning July 1, 2026. The controversy is not about the institute’s subject matter, but about what Notre Dame signals when it selects leaders. Critics argue the appointment conflicts with the university’s publicly stated pro-life identity, while administrators frame it as an academic leadership decision within a Catholic research university.

The timing adds fuel to the backlash because the appointment follows years of debate over whether elite institutions that advertise religious commitments actually enforce them when hiring and promoting. Notre Dame’s situation matters beyond campus because it functions as a national reference point for Catholic higher education. For many alumni and families, this is less a single personnel decision than a test of whether mission statements mean anything when they collide with cultural and political pressure.

Ostermann’s Public Abortion Advocacy Is the Core Flashpoint

Public reporting points to Ostermann’s record of published arguments supporting abortion access as the central reason the appointment drew immediate criticism. Those writings included claims that criminalizing abortion causes harm and that abortion access is “freedom-enhancing,” alongside earlier commentary disputing the moral status of early-stage embryos and criticizing pregnancy centers. Critics say these views are not a minor disagreement, but a direct conflict with Catholic teaching that Notre Dame repeatedly says it upholds as institutional policy.

The dispute also revived an earlier episode from December 2022, when then-president Father John Jenkins publicly stated that an essay associated with Ostermann’s abortion arguments did not reflect Notre Dame’s “views and values.” That history is now being used by opponents to argue that leadership appointments should not contradict what the university itself previously labeled outside its values. Supporters of the appointment, by contrast, emphasize that a university can reaffirm its official doctrine while allowing faculty to hold different political positions.

Administration Defends Credentials While Reaffirming Pro-Life Commitments

Notre Dame’s defense has leaned on two parallel claims: Ostermann’s academic qualifications and the university’s continued institutional commitment to life. University statements have described her as a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar suited to the institute’s interdisciplinary work. Notre Dame has also stated that leaders must be “guided by and consistent with” the Catholic mission and has reiterated an “unwavering” commitment to “the sanctity of life at every stage,” seeking to separate leadership performance from personal advocacy.

Ostermann has responded by saying her role is to steward the Liu Institute’s mission within the university’s larger mission, not to advance a personal political agenda. She has emphasized “academic freedom” and a “plurality of voices,” positioning the directorship as administrative and scholarly rather than ideological. For skeptical observers, the problem is that leadership posts inevitably shape priorities, hiring, programming, and institutional tone. For defenders, the statement is a promise that the institute will remain focused on research and education.

Faculty Pushback Moves Toward Governance Channels

Opposition has not been limited to outside advocacy groups. Reporting indicates that senior faculty members asked the administration to rescind the appointment and were denied, a detail that raises questions about how much internal dissent matters in Notre Dame’s governance. Emeritus professor William Miscamble has said the president appeared reluctant to overrule top academic leadership and that the matter was brought to the Board of Fellows, the body often viewed as a safeguard for mission and oversight.

What remains unclear from available reporting is how the Board of Fellows will respond, what tools it may have to intervene, and whether there is any formal review process before July 1. The university has not publicly indicated a reversal. That uncertainty leaves donors, alumni, and Catholic families watching for concrete follow-through rather than carefully worded statements. If Notre Dame’s leaders insist the pro-life mission is central, critics argue the university must show how that standard applies in real leadership choices.

Why This Fight Resonates Beyond Notre Dame’s Campus

Notre Dame’s critics point to a broader pattern of disputes over public identity, including previous controversies involving high-profile honors and campus cultural programming, to argue the university has drifted from its Catholic commitments. Administrators and supporters counter that a global research university must maintain scholarly breadth while preserving an institutional ethos. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute—an appointment was made, critics objected, and the university defended it—but the meaning of “Catholic mission” is the heart of the argument.

For conservatives who have watched institutions bend to elite cultural expectations, this episode looks like another example of values being treated as branding instead of boundaries. At the same time, the reporting available does not establish how Ostermann will run the institute in practice once she begins the role. The next major checkpoint is July 1, 2026, when the directorship becomes official and Notre Dame’s assurances about mission alignment can be judged against decisions, programming, and leadership choices.