Ward, L. R. (1949). Blueprint for a Catholic university. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co.
This is a good example of the Catholic response to the growing secularization of higher education and the difficulties that Catholic colleges (particularly in the United States) faced in maintaining their identity and purpose. Ward argues that “merely trying to keep up, not get behind” (p. 7), particularly in terms of standardized testing and accreditation, has resulted in dismal “mediocracy” along with a siege mentality in which “simply to keep the faith” rather than moving forward became an end in itself. He observes that “Merely being not non-Catholic, merely saving the faith, merely making not-bad men, is aiming at mediocrity and at best achieving it” (p. 8).
Ward challenges claims that only Catholic universities provide a complete synthesis of knowledge (echoing Newman’s ideal university), arguing that many suffer a kind of “confused anti-intellectualism”. The central question of his book is “what ought a Catholic university to be” (p.10), and (in some contrast to Newman), how that aim might best be achieved.
After describing the “Crisis in Catholic Education” (chapter one), subsequent chapters provide a history of universities from medieval times, noting that “there is no evidence that the medieval universities were set up to form guilds, to form character as a direct object, or to make money. They were set up for intellectual purposes” (p.61). His contention that the primary purpose of a university must be intellectual (“to train minds”) along with the fundamental premise of freedom for learning (related to what we now think of as intellectual freedom) is echoed throughout the book.
The Renaissance revival of humanism and the subsequent emphasis on rhetoric rather than logic created an atmosphere in which “eloquence became the real object of learning, and with eloquence were associated courtesy and elegance of manners” (p.72). By the 1600’s, university education – especially in England — was mainly directed toward forming “gentlemen”. However, the reformation and rise of the Protestant assertion that “Man is essentially corrupt … neither his intellect nor his will is to be trusted” promoted anti-intellectualism where “Faith takes the place of both intellect and will” (p.75) and “piety and propaganda began to be the ends of learning” (p. 77). Ward contends that this had a profound effect on “the theory and practice of Catholic schools”, most notably the “loss of the ideal of wisdom” (p.78). The implication is that this was the beginning of their decline, confusion and lack of direction. It was complicated by the rise of modern science and the sidelining of both the humanities and religion, which culminated in a situation where universities offered “a confused set of studies: science, classics, a pious Protestantism with little faith in in wisdom, and a pious Catholicism still asserting wisdom and a supernatural wisdom” (p.83). Ward notes that these are three elements essential to higher education: classics, science, and wisdom – but how to put them together effectively?
Ward’s statement on the specific end of a Catholic University (chapter 5) is deceptively simple: “a Catholic university is the home of the intellect as Catholic” (p. 97). He means that Catholic theology must have primacy (agreeing with Newman that theology is the highest science) and that it is pivotal to all other branches of study, including sociology and all of the arts and sciences. Thus Catholic universities aim for an “adequacy of knowledge” which is impossible in universities that lack the “higher science” of theology (p. 104). We are naturally oriented toward truth and goodness, but “they are not there before us like grass before the nose of a cow”, we must develop the habit of going toward them. This “habit of virtue” cannot be taught, but fostered by developing the intellect. Similarly the “habit of understanding” cannot be taught, but we can “make our knowledge of it more conscious and explicit” (p. 119). *Praxis folks will no doubt consider this in relation to Lonergan’s GEM.
So what has gone wrong? Ward offers some insights, one of which is profoundly relevant today: economic determinism – “Parents send their children to college because they wish them to make more money than dad made” (p.152). (In today’s culture we might replace the latter simply with “to make money” or “to get a job that pays a living wage”). He sees this as part of a “dessicated American sociology”, a lack of vitality, too much individualism and a depersonalizing emphasis on colleges being “progressive and efficient” (p.337). Not only has this malaise flowed into Catholic universities overall but into Catholic theology itself, partly due to the long-engrained defensive and “keeping up” mentality described in chapter one. Theology, he insists, must regain its place as a living, relevant and vital science.
Although Ward repeatedly stresses the primacy of intellectual development as the goal of education, he makes a plea for “college as Christian community” and student involvement in Catholic practice, including attendance at Mass (p.334) to counter individualism and commercialism. But he warns against an isolationism of Catholic colleges that breeds stagnation. Conferences and interaction with secular (and better-endowed!) schools can help mutual learning. Ward also calls for careful recruitment of faculty of “academic quality” who engage “at least part time [in] great classical books, great classical experiments” (p.368). While this was largely directed toward the running of Catholic schools by priests, monks, and nuns, we can see the contemporary application to non-academically trained administrators.
Like many writers of his time, Ward is rather long-winded and somewhat repetitive, but his style is unpretentious, almost conversational, and very accessible to a non-specialist. My ultimate reason for choosing this book above an array of others was that I quickly became engaged after randomly browsing a few sections. Note to myself: history of libraries p. 29-30
Questions
- Is Ward correct in suggesting that Catholic Universities suffer from “a siege mentality” and a perceived need to “keep up with” secular institutions?
- How do we make Catholic theology more relevant, living, and vital?
- Is striving to involve students in “Catholic practice” viable given the diversity of our students today?
- Similarly, what about his call to recruit faculty who “engage with the classics”, particularly given the current emphasis on “marketable research” (see Hough in Griffin & Hough, 1991 and Collini 2012). What about the growing trend to appoint secular administrators?
- Seeing a university education as a means to make money, “economic determinism” and the “professionalization of education” are even more prevalent now than in Ward’s time. Is it possible to reconcile this socio-economic reality with a more classical, value and truth-based education?