Gleason, P. (1995). Contending with modernity: Catholic higher education in the twentieth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
This book covers “the historical development of American Catholic higher education since 1900” (vii). While it is primarily from a Catholic perspective, Gleason places this development in a broader educational and ideological context. The introduction provides an historical overview that is developed in great detail in later chapters.
The introduction explains a key issue: nineteenth century Catholic “colleges” generally combined secondary and post-secondary work as a seven-year continuum, rather than being two separate levels and types of institutions. The Jesuit tradition was the most influential (Georgetown, founded in 1787, was the oldest American Catholic college), with curricula based on three successive “stages”: humanistic, philosophical and theological (p. 5). Classic languages were considered the core of the program, which also included mathematics and “natural science” (natural philosophy) and some modern languages, geography and history. College and “preparatory” levels were gradually separated in the 1880’s to conform to the structure of non-Catholic colleges, but the mind-set of a continuum and a prescribed curriculum of traditional subjects continued well into the twentieth century.
Gleason give a history of the Catholic University of America (opened in 1889) as an example of the ideology of Catholic educators’ response to “new currents I the world of learning” — including a greater emphasis on science and empirical knowledge — which they saw as challenging the Catholic faith (p. 7). There was controversy between Catholic conservatives who wanted to maintain and emphasize traditional teaching and liberals (“Americanists”) who wanted to integrate what was “good” about the new leaning (such as the drive for free inquiry to deepen understanding) into Catholic education. Gleason argues that the broader controversy over “modernism” — “efforts to synthesize the Catholic faith with contemporary modes of thought” — had little immediate effect on American education beyond CUA because the controversies were primarily among theologians that were rarely read outside seminars and that institution (p. 12-13). However, when Pope Pius X denounced modernism in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) the CUA was driven to demonstrate orthodoxy through a “modernist crackdown” (p. 14) that included purging libraries of supposed modernist texts. Some later authors referred to the Vatican’s anti-modernist vigilance as “an intellectual reign of terror”, but Gleason notes that the strong endorsement of Thomism (the teachings of Thomas Aquinas) led to a revival of “medieval history and culture” or “Neoclassicism” in Catholic higher education which persisted for the next half-century and contributed to a “Catholic Renaissance” during that period (p. 17).
In the first chapter, Gleason gives a cogent summary of the “organizational challenges” for Catholic educators that precipitated modernization, and which together “constituted a veritable revolution which reshaped American higher education” in the last quarter of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th (p. 21). These included:
- Free public high schools
- Increasing college enrolment (including women)
- The breakdown of the classical curriculum, new fields of study and demand for electives
- The rise and dominance of research universities
- Professionalization of learning
- Standardization and assessment bodies
- And later (p. 27-28) demand for women’s colleges
He expands on the problem of mixed “boys and men” in Catholic colleges (the combined prep school and college structure), financial weakness (lack of state funding and dependence on tuition), reliance on clerics with lack of proficiency in non-classical subjects as instructors, and abundance of small, isolated institutions. Another challenge was the growth of religious instruction and establishment of Catholic chapels, centers and clubs at secular universities. These all contributed to increasing numbers of Catholic students choosing to attend secular colleges and universities. Part of this was disparagingly referred to as “social climbing” among a new generation of Catholics, but Gleason points to the weakness of Catholic colleges and parents’ desire to “prepare their sons to earn a livelihood” (p. 27; girls were still largely excluded from Catholic colleges) as the main reasons for this trend. In an age of increasing government oversight and “academic counts” (credits), Catholic colleges also found it difficult to demonstrate that their students were adequately “prepared” for secular medical schools, law schools and post-graduate study, or had met the educational standards for high schools and college entry introduced in the late nineteenth century (this “accreditation” system spread to colleges and universities around 1913).
Note: the introduction of the “Carnegie Unit” (a year of study devoted to a subject) in 1905 was designed to ensure “standards” for high schools (e.g. a student had to have completed 14 units to be admitted to college) drew criticism as “a shift from qualitative to quantitative measures of a student’s progress” (p. 35).
Gleason describes the formation of the Catholic Educational Association in 1904 as a move to meet demands for standardization and unification which took until about 1920 to take hold (slowly and often reluctantly!). Curricula were modified to adopt the “semester hours” system with more subjects and electives rather that a strictly subscribed course of study, three degrees (A.B, B.S and Ph.B) were introduced, and in the (still dominant) Jesuit colleges, “an outsider of recognized eminence” could be hired to teach in specialities without qualified Jesuit instructors (p.60). Enrolment in Catholic colleges expanded, especially after World War I; “professional” studies (notably law, medicine, dentistry and pharmacy) saw the most rapid increase (p .82). Catholic Women’s Colleges also expanded after Catholic University of America established “Sisters’ College” to prepare women teachers in 1911 – a fascinating history of Catholic colleges for women is included in chapter 4).
Expanding on the introduction, Gleason sees the “Scholastic Revival” or “Neo-Scholasticism” (recovery of the classics, notably Aquinas) leading to an “intellectual revival” of Catholic education between WWI and the Second Vatican Council (1962-5). The purposeful integration of faith and reason and emphasis on “the mind’s capacity to arrive at objective truth” were favorably contrasted with the “subjectivism, pragmatism and relativism” (and short-term materialism) associated with modernity” (p. 118-119). In 1929, there was a clear “Catholic Philosophy of Education” based on Neo-Scholasticism as a “philosophy of life” synthesizing “natural truth and supernatural revelation (p. 120). However, anti-Catholic feeling, which climaxed in the 1950’s, after a period of society’s linking Catholicism with Fascism begun during the Spanish Civil War and the (1947) separation of “church and state” (p. 263). Catholic colleges came under fire for having poor educational outcomes, too many competing (and underfunded) schools and too much emphasis on morality.
The rapid decline of Neo-Scholasticism in the 1950’s was complex, but included problems with the way it was taught (too much reliance on text books and memorization), disagreements about interpretation and the relationship between philosophy and theology, and growing focus on individual freedom (and academic freedom) that was at odds with church dogma. Spurred by the changes of Vatican II, there was a gradual “acceptance of modernity” (at least in its more positive aspects) which led to “an identity crisis for Catholic education” (p. 318). Gleason sums this up as “the crisis is not that Catholic educators do not want their institutions to remain Catholic, but they are no longer sure what remaining Catholic means” (p. 320). In closing, he calls for a “rationale for the existence of Catholic colleges and universities as a distinctive element in American higher education” (p. 322).
Questions
- Should we “bow to the inevitable” that the battle against modernity is fruitless in practical terms?
- If the “battle against modernity” has failed, is there still a way to make Catholic education relevant and viable in the modern world (i.e. can we be “modern” AND Catholic?)
- If so, are there principles that might have to be sacrificed (and if so, what are they?)
- What strengths do we have to draw on that appeal to students (and parents)?
- Should Catholic colleges and universities stop “competing” and start “cooperating” for the greater good?
- What has changed since this history ended in the mid 1960’s?