Pro-Abortion Pick Ignites Notre Dame Firestorm

Notre Dame is facing a credibility crisis after naming a vocal abortion-rights advocate to a leadership post at one of America’s most prominent Catholic universities.

Quick Take

Notre Dame announced in January 2026 that professor Susan Ostermann will lead the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies starting July 1, 2026.
Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades publicly opposed the decision on Feb. 11, saying the role is a leadership appointment that must align with Catholic mission.
Student and alumni groups say the move undermines Notre Dame’s pro-life identity and damages trust with faithful Catholics.
Notre Dame argues Ostermann is academically qualified and says all leaders are expected to act consistently with the school’s Catholic mission.

Notre Dame’s leadership pick triggers a fight over Catholic identity

University leaders announced that Susan Ostermann, a Notre Dame associate professor who joined the faculty in 2017, will become director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies on July 1, 2026. The appointment immediately drew backlash because Ostermann has publicly advocated for legal abortion—directly conflicting with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. The dispute is not about a classroom lecture; it is about whether a Catholic institution can place a public abortion advocate in an administrative leadership role.

Notre Dame defended the selection by emphasizing Ostermann’s academic credentials and interdisciplinary work, describing her as a “highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar.” The university also said leaders at Notre Dame operate with the “clear understanding” that decision-making must be guided by and consistent with the school’s Catholic mission, while reaffirming commitment to “the inherent dignity of the human person” and “the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann, for her part, said she respects the university’s institutional position.

Bishop Rhoades: Administrative leadership is not just “academic freedom”

On Feb. 11, 2026, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne–South Bend issued a formal statement expressing strong opposition to the appointment and urging Notre Dame to reverse course before July. His central argument draws a line between protected scholarship and institutional leadership. Rhoades emphasized that appointing a director is an administrative decision with public institutional meaning, not merely an exercise of academic freedom, and he invoked Church guidance for Catholic universities.

The bishop’s critique also focused on specific public claims attributed to Ostermann’s abortion advocacy, including statements about post-abortion emotions and criticism of crisis pregnancy centers. He argued those kinds of assertions are incompatible with the responsibilities of a leader at a Catholic university, where leadership signals what an institution stands for. Rhoades also pointed to Ostermann’s association with the Population Council, which he described as an organization promoting abortion internationally, heightening concerns about mission alignment.

Students and alumni say the move feels like institutional betrayal

Student opposition has been direct and personal. Notre Dame junior Lucy Spence said she felt “betrayed” by the decision and described the appointment as a slap in the face to women on campus. Pro-life student leaders echoed that concern in statements calling for rescission, arguing the appointment conflicts with what Notre Dame publicly claims to teach and defend. Alumni and donor-aligned voices also weighed in, warning the controversy could damage Notre Dame’s reputation among Catholics nationwide.

One reason the backlash has traction is that critics see a pattern, not an isolated dispute. Ostermann previously co-authored a widely criticized article on abortion policy with former Notre Dame professor Tamara Kay. Kay later left Notre Dame for the University of Pittsburgh after controversy surrounding her abortion advocacy, a recent example frequently cited by those arguing the university already knows how volatile these questions become. That history makes the current leadership appointment feel, to critics, like a deliberate test of boundaries.

“Ex corde ecclesiae” becomes the dividing line for governance

The dispute repeatedly returns to “Ex corde ecclesiae,” Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution on Catholic universities, along with U.S. bishops’ implementing norms. Supporters of Bishop Rhoades’ position argue these principles require fidelity to Catholic doctrine, especially in roles that represent the university. Notre Dame, meanwhile, presents its position as consistent with both academic excellence and Catholic mission, asserting that leaders are expected to operate within the school’s values regardless of their personal policy activism.

What remains unclear in public reporting is whether Notre Dame trustees or senior administrators will reconsider the appointment before it takes effect. Bishop Rhoades said there is still time to “make things right,” but as of Feb. 11 the university had not signaled any reversal. For Catholics watching elite institutions drift from their stated principles, this fight functions as a measurable test: whether “Catholic identity” is a guiding standard in leadership decisions—or simply branding used when convenient.

Backlash Grows Over the University of Notre Dame's Appointment of Pro-Abortion Professor
https://t.co/RvYrZoDxq8

— Townhall Updates (@TownhallUpdates) February 11, 2026

With July 1 approaching, the outcome will shape more than one institute’s leadership. A reversal would show that donors, students, and bishops still have leverage when Catholic mission is on the line. Keeping the appointment would reinforce a different precedent: that public advocacy against core Church teaching can coexist with high-level administrative authority at a flagship Catholic university, so long as the institution frames the issue as academic qualification and internal policy expectations.