Negotiating Identity

Gallin, A. (2000). Negotiating identity: Catholic higher education since 1960. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

This “history” takes up where Gleason (1995) left off with the decline of “Neo-Scholasticism” and the attempts to modernize Catholic education post Vatican II.   The underlying question is “what makes a university Catholic”?  Gallin includes many historical examples from Catholic universities.  These long examples and the political details make this rather a heavy read (I confess I skipped over many of the details) but Gallin clearly shows the origin of many of our current challenges, especially the financial issues and – as indicated in the title – questions of identity.

One consequence of modernization was dispute about academic freedom between clerical and lay faculty, the latter arguing that to advance intellectually (and keep pace with secular institutions) discussion had to go beyond church teachings, question dogma and consider modern philosophical trends.  These “Young Turks … conceived their task as one of stimulating critical questions and suggesting new horizons of thought” (p. 10) rather than affirming known truths.  There was also conflict about institutional autonomy from Rome and membership in the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU; formed under Pius XII in 1949) which indicated the ambiguity over what constituted a “Catholic” University.

The 1960’s saw rapid growth in university enrolment, greater openness to other faiths (Ecumenism) by Catholic universities, emphasis on individual freedom and civil rights, and the expansion of student aid begun under President Kennedy.  It was a time of student protests, civil engagement, and the burgeoning Catholic social justice tradition.  By 1970 the “university’s image as an ivory tower was gone forever” (p.32).  The Land O’Lakes (1967) document helped “modernize” Catholic education but also moved it further from the church (or any external authority) and its traditions (see an interesting post on this)

The 1970’s saw more growth in enrolment, especially among part-time students and those seeking “practical” degrees; we see an early criticism of the modern problem where students see themselves as “consumers” (p. 49). The larger Catholic universities competed with the secular research universities for students and funding, while smaller institutions either stuck to their liberal roots or tried to find innovative “alternate degree paths” (and programs) for the new generation of students, including women and minorities.  This divergence hastened the end of a single “Catholic” identity for higher education.  However, there was a common movement to achieve “academic excellence” — and funding, much of which discouraged religious instruction and identity.  Gallin points here to an important distinction between US universities that held “moral development” as part of their role and European universities, which did not (in Newman’s tradition, intellectual development was their primary role).

A side effect of Catholic universities’ move toward “the mainstream” was pressure to pay salaries “on par with lay faculty” (something which has not happened for most of us!) while still trying to enroll disadvantaged and lower income students in the Catholic tradition.  Generally lacking endowments and often with limited state support, this created financial difficulties and “tuition-driven” economies, especially for smaller institutions.  Public disillusionment with higher education also contributed to the financial crisis which ultimately led to the failure or merger of many smaller institutions.

Gallin describes various congresses and debates (including a great deal of politics) that attempted to define “Catholic higher education”, culminating in Pope John Paull II’s 1990 Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which brought some unity of purpose despite difficulties in implementation (p. 180).  One positive development was increased support for departments of Catholic studies and social justice programs to reinvigorate the Catholic intellectual tradition and encourage critical interdisciplinary dialog. However, despite establishment of “Core” programs and attempts to reinvigorate teaching of the classics and theology, declining student enrolment and administrative support often led to reliance on poorly-paid (and sometimes poorly trained) adjunct faculty which tended to sideline these efforts.

Gallin concludes with “elements of the tradition” of Catholic colleges and universities taken from a 1995 symposium which include:

  1. Reason and faith are not seen as antagonistic or un-connected
  2. The tradition takes philosophy and philosophical reasoning seriously
  3. Challenging the belief that facts come in pristine form (the inference here seems to be “independent of meaning”)
  4. Resisting reductionism

Questions

  1. How can a Catholic university or college (especially a smaller institution) stay financially viable without large endowments OR continually raising tuition?
  2. Are the “elements” she concludes with rather vague? How might they be strengthened (bearing in mind the question above)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *