Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reuben’s work examines development of the American university during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the roles of religion and morality. Her socio-historical analysis is dominated by the prevailing American Protestantism, and its focus is primarily larger research universities However, many of the trends that Reuben identifies affected the development of Catholic universities.
Reuben begins by explaining the traditional intellectual view of a “unity of truth” that encompassed “religious doctrines, common-sense beliefs, and scientific theories” (p.2). While religious truth was considered the most important, “intellectuals assumed that truth had spiritual, moral and cognitive dimensions”, that the three were ultimately in agreement, and that “the good, the true and the beautiful” were intimately connected. However, by the 1930’s, scientific or “objective” truth had assumed the greatest importance, while religious or moral “truth” was considered abstract, “emotional” and “value-based”.
A critical development here (and one which surely affected Catholic Universities) was the rapid expansion of knowledge and new “subjects” (notably in the sciences and social sciences), particularly in the early 20th century. Together with the growing number and diversity of students, this created a demand for broader, more up-to-date and diverse education that had greater “relevance” and “utility” in terms of future employment and useful contributions to society (an important aim of both Protestant and Catholic higher education). This put enormous pressure on university curricula, prompting numerous “elective” courses rather than a standard course of study, early subject specialization, and the expansion of science and social science studies at the expense of the humanities and religion. The associated pressure to hire better qualified instructors and specialists proficient in the “new subjects” rather than basing hires on religious affiliation (a tradition seen as holding back progress) reinforced the “modernization” of curricula in favor of the sciences, social sciences as well as technical and professional studies.
Reuben does not claim to fully explain the secularization of higher education, but argues that it was not a deliberate choice, but rather due to a complex interaction of factors. These included the failure of science to admit religious explanation (more than the reverse, although both were factors), the demands of university faculty for more autonomy (freedom from the constraints of religious dogma), a growing emphasis on scientific research and laboratory studies, declining student interest in the classics and religion, the separation of “objective” scientific knowledge from subjective, “value-based” religious belief and an emphasis on “scientific rigor and neutrality” (p. 189). She notes that “university reformers tried to modernize religion to make it compatible with their conception of science. Religion disappeared from the university because these attempts failed, not because university education neglected religion” (p.13).
Reuben’s history of the struggle to reconcile science and religion is fascinating, but an interesting sub-theme is the assumption that a key function of a university was to produce “moral” individuals (e.g. in 1901 “Columbia … intended that moral education would be an integral part of the new, expanded college curriculum” p 73). This seems to contrast early Catholic writers such as Newman and Ward who held that the primary aim of higher education was intellectual development (e.g. Ward: the “habit of virtue” cannot be taught, but is fostered by developing the intellect). There were, however those who seemed closer to the Catholic tradition. For example, Reuben quotes Gilman (University of Michigan) as stating “there is no better way known to man for securing intellectual and moral integrity than to encourage those habits, those methods, and those pursuits that tend to establish truth” (p.74)
An interesting sidelight of great relevance today was an argument to separate traditional “classical colleges” and “specialized schools” (akin to current vocational schools, but with the college education as a prerequisite), which never really took hold. Instead, the modern system of a number of “colleges” or “schools” within a single university took hold, particularly at larger institutions. While this was an attempt to accommodate the new demands of education, it has surely contributed to the lack of cohesion and “departmental silos” effect so often found in modern universities.
Among the many aspects of university development she discusses, Reuben also notes various efforts to establish “core curricula”, most notably at Yale. She blames failure on competing departmental and subject interests (faculty … “did not agree on what subjects constituted essential aspects of the curriculum”) and reluctance to teach “general education courses” (p. 240) and, most importantly according to Reuben, “they had begun to lose faith in the ideal of the unity of truth” (p.241).
Given the failure to “ground moral training in the curricula”, universities began to emphasize the influence of individual faculty as models and mentors. A rare quotation from a Catholic educator (Edward Pace of Catholic University in 1926) emphasizes the difference between “value-free research” and “value-laden teaching”, stating that (an educator) “may not be content with a manner of teaching whose results are at variance with his innermost convictions (p. 246). This idea of the faculty as moral educator and character-shaper gave rise to reservations about many faculty’s preoccupation with their own research and reputation at the expense of teaching (a problem later reinforced by universities’ preoccupation with faculty research grants and publications as the measure of worth). It also led to dissatisfaction with “specialists” – “students need instructors who can explain the connections between various areas of knowledge and help them make sense of the whole” (p. 248). The plea for hiring instructors and rewarding instructors based more on teaching quality than research and publication history certainly resonates today – especially when teaching loads typically prevent those very faculty from accomplishing much in the way of research and publication! But rather than give priority to faculty teaching and student mentoring (except at the graduate level), universities began offices of student services, voluntary faculty advisors, extra-curricular activities and “freshman life” orientations that many of us see today.
Note: For a subsequent article which summarizes key points of the book and more recent changes, see
Reuben, J.A (2005). Writing When Everything Has Been Said: The History of American Higher Education following Laurence Veysey’s Classic. History of Education Quarterly 45(3): 412-419.
Questions
- Has the changing role of “morality” that Reuben describes had a similar impact on Catholic Universities?
- Is it possible for a university to provide a traditional, intellectually and spiritually-based education AND meet the demand for professional career preparation and subject specialization?
- If it were feasible to more rigorously separate “vocational” from “university” training, would we be missing important educational opportunities (I am thinking particularly of health and medicine or business).
- Are our curricula “over-burdened”? Should we try to cover less material more in-depth, and if so, what should our priorities be?
- Do we over-emphasize research grants and publications over teaching (in hiring, tenure and promotion and other “reward