Jacobsen, D., & Jacobsen, R. H. (2012). No longer invisible: Religion in university education. New York: Oxford University Press.
This book does not focus on Catholic universities, but rather the place of religion generally in any university. The authors address ways that “religion” (broadly defined) can successfully be incorporated on modern campuses. Their book is “not about the eternal truths of heaven, it is about the place of religion in the rough-and-tumble educational realities of the here and now”.
The authors state that:
“The question that has driven our research and reflection is this: How is religion present within higher learning, and how might educators maximize the cognitive, social, and personal dimensions of student learning by paying more attention to the inherently religious or spiritual dimensions of higher education?” (p. 5).
They note the proclamation of a 1998 conference at Wellesley College that “education itself … is a spiritual journey, an inherently transformative experience (p. 6). They also note the great diversity of religions among students and the negative consequences of religion, such as the September 11 attacks, as a further reason to engage religious dialog on college campuses.
The authors define “religion” very broadly, to include established religions, personal “spirituality” (p. 7) or simply an expression of “ultimate concern” about human experience (p. 13). Chapter two provides give a historical overview of American higher education in which “religion has moved from being central [primarily Protestant] to being marginal to being newly relevant” (p. 16). The pragmatic description of the secularization of education (the “privatization” of religion) and subsequent “pluriformity” (embracing many forms of religious belief) is readable and informative.
The discussions and examples of incorporating religion on campus is based on visits to many institutions and interviews with hundreds of students, faculty, administrators and chaplains.
Some interesting views are recorded, including the observation that younger faculty often were more interested in religion than older faculty, but less willing to discuss it publicly (perhaps because they were untenured?) and that many students saw “their professors’ hesitations about discussing religious and spiritual matters” as “odd” (p. 34). Many faculty were suspicious of religiously-affiliated colleges as oppressive and impinging on academic freedom, but (my observation), the previous observations suggest a somewhat similar concern at (presumably) secular institutions!
Some of the authors’ recommendations will be controversial from a Catholic perspective. Their first two “trail markers” are “spirituality (versus religion)” and “teaching about religion” (versus teaching religion itself)”, but I doubt we would argue with #3 “difficult dialogues” or #4 “big questions” (p. 36). They suggest six “sites of engagement”: religious literacy (about one’s own tradition as well as others), “interfaith etiquette” (interacting with those of other faiths), “civic engagement” (we would include social justice under this heading), “convictions” (matters of personal belief) and “character and virtue”.
Chapter 9 “Convictions” is of particular interest. It includes an account of student “development” (based on the work of William G. Perry) from dualism through relativism and finally – one hopes – a third stage in which “students transcend the confusion of pure relativism and take steps toward mature self-awareness and nuanced commitment”: Movement from one stage to the next involves “a personal crisis, a moment when it becomes apparent that one’s existing beliefs and convictions are no longer adequate” (p. 124). This sounds remarkably like Lonergan’s “intellectual conversion”. However, the authors note that many students today arrive at university “firmly established” in the second phase. “They know they are afloat, and they are looking for a firm place to stand … a firm compass for thinking and living. This is not so much a search for cognitive grounding as for something worthy of trust” (p. 125, italics mine). Yet many are unwilling (or unable) to reflect on who they are and what they believe; “they keep their core identities in an “identity lockbox” that is largely immune to change: (p. 126). This makes discussion and reflection on “big questions” difficult, but (the authors argue) it is our responsibility to tackle the challenge – including in the classroom, where “information and formation are intermingled” (p. 128). They stress the need for faculty to understand their own convictions and bring them into classroom discussion, which may include “advocacy”: for example “it’s not just ecology or biology; it’s saving the planet” (p. 133).
Overall the book is thought-provoking, and gives a broader perspective on perennial problems such as how to make a Catholic University “welcoming to all faiths” without losing its identity.
The authors conclude that religion, “has the potential to enhance higher learning and open up a range of questions about the world and the human condition that otherwise might never be asked” (p. 154), and that ignoring the “big questions” that religion engages is “patently irresponsible in an age when religion remains such a visible and influential part of public and personal life” (p. 157).
Questions
- Is the description of undergraduates arriving “adrift – looking for something to trust” without “cognitive grounding” applicable to our students? (GEM is very applicable here)
- Can we make a Catholic university “welcoming to all faiths” (or “pluriform”) without losing its identity?