Newton, R. R. (Ed.) (2015). American Catholic higher education in the 21st century: Critical challenges. Chestnut Hill, MA: Linden Press at Boston College.
This edited volume contains papers from a 2013 symposium that discussed four critical issues in Catholic higher education: strengthening the Catholic intellectual tradition; personal and religious formation of students; the relationship of Catholic colleges to the Church; and preparing future leaders of Catholic post-secondary institutions.
Four papers are particularly relevant.
1. In the introduction, William Leahy S.J. (president of Boston College) notes that “according to Catholic educational theory, collegiate training should enrich students personally and spiritually, and not concentrate solely on intellectual development. Consequently, in addition to academic knowledge, Catholic post-secondary institutions sought to transmit Catholic traditions, values, and principles, hoping to influence their students and the wider society” (p.vii).
Describing the decline of Catholicity (modernization) in the 1970’s, Leahy notes that recently hired faculty and administrators (who often were not Catholic) were not sufficiently given “the opportunity and resources to appreciate” the Catholic heritage (p. ix), and nor were students. He also notes the growing trend for senior administrators, including presidents and deans, to be lay people who are often unfamiliar with Catholic theology and had little understanding of their institution’s mission when appointed, which makes it difficult to provide “an appropriately Catholic vision and clear decisions for their schools” (p. xii).
2. David O’Brien (Holy Cross) gives a succinct and readable history of American Catholic higher education which is a very good overview, including summaries of both Gleason and Gallin and the challenge of “Americanization”. Most is familiar, but an important point is that today 230 Catholic institutions are competing for students, faculty and donors, there is no overall unity. However, O’Brien is more positive than many (including Leahy) about the efforts of many Catholic colleges to adapt and integrate Catholic values and practices with modern academics (what he terms “liberation”).
In practical terms of the development process O’Brien emphasizes the “parallel curriculum” of retreats, service programs, international exchanges and so on that afford time for reflection and are often described by students as “life-changing”, the core curriculum that embodies the two framework elements (based on a Christian view of reality) and integrating reflection into all curricula to promote growing self-awareness and integration of learning.
O’Brien also discusses the challenges of “hiring for mission” and (this is particularly relevant for Praxis) recommends “substantive faculty and staff formation programs” organized around mission (p.57) and that the mission be clearly articulated and strongly supported by higher administration.
3. Appleyard’s paper on student formation also provides historical background, and offers a two-part framework for formation in modern Catholic universities:
- Valuing empirical and professional disciplines but “intentionally plac[ing] these into conversation with religious accounts of human existence” and
- Seeing the development of young adults as “a work in progress that includes spiritual as well as intellectual and social dimensions” that can be influenced by pedagogy (p. 47).
He notes that this framework must apply to those of all faiths (or no faith). Citing Lonergan, he sees the ultimate goal as creating conditions where all can engage in conversations about the “shared lasting human good” and how to bring it about (p. 48) and “this conversation should be the distinctive intellectual characteristic of a Catholic college or university” (p. 49).
4. James Heft’s paper on leadership in Catholic Higher education is interesting because it focuses on what Catholic university presidents think (mostly based on a survey that is summarized as an appendix). He notes that many have little theological training; hiring priorities for presidents focus more on fund raising and management skills. Other challenges to “the Catholic dimension” of a university that presidents reported include a lack of faculty contributions to the mission, dominance of science (lack of integration/understanding between science and humanities – Lonergan’s “specialization”), commercialization (focus on finance), and disparate views on what a Catholic institution should be (conservative” vs. “liberal”).
Heft stresses the relevance of Newman and recommends that president’s read his work, especially his views on the importance of the humanities and theology, student formation, and relations with the Church, and that they be familiar with the history and “ongoing conversation” of the Catholic intellectual tradition. He offers suggestions on “hiring for mission” and (like O’Brien) recommends mission-oriented workshops and retreats and funding for mission-related research and events (e.g. a faculty forum on the Catholic Intellectual tradition).
Appendix
One significant finding from the appended survey of presidents on student formation is that lower socioeconomic indicators (e.g. number of Pell grants) are associated with less student participation in religious retreats and other voluntary mission-based programs – presumably because more students have to work during their time at university. Another comment was that “today’s world does not afford students the time needed to focus on how to live a life” (p. 133). The same may be said of faculty; the survey emphasizes lack of faculty understanding and support of the Catholic mission and think it impinges on their academic freedom.
Questions
- The selected essays seem to emphasize a “top down” (way of heritage) approach, including the role of presidents in promoting the Catholic mission. How important is support “from the top” (higher administration) relative to “grass roots” support from faculty?
- Almost all of the essays begin with a discussion of history (the third functional specialty). Should we be offering a course or seminar in the history of the Catholic intellectual tradition for faculty and administrators? What would this involve?
- How can we give students more opportunity to reflect and focus on “how to live a life” without sacrificing academic preparation?