{"id":111,"date":"2018-05-12T16:55:31","date_gmt":"2018-05-12T20:55:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/?p=111"},"modified":"2018-05-12T16:56:14","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T20:56:14","slug":"critical-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/2018\/05\/12\/critical-challenges\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"

Newton, R. R. (Ed.) (2015).\u00a0American Catholic higher education in the 21st century: Critical challenges<\/em><\/a>. Chestnut Hill, MA: Linden Press at Boston College.<\/p>\n

\"\"This edited volume contains papers from a 2013 symposium that discussed four critical issues in Catholic higher education:\u00a0 strengthening the Catholic intellectual tradition; personal and religious formation of students; the relationship of Catholic colleges to the Church; and preparing future leaders of Catholic post-secondary\u00a0 institutions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Four papers are particularly relevant.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0In the introduction, William Leahy S.J.<\/strong> (president of Boston College) notes that \u201caccording to Catholic educational theory, collegiate training should enrich students personally and spiritually, and not concentrate solely on intellectual development. Consequently, in addition to academic knowledge, Catholic post-secondary institutions sought to transmit Catholic traditions, values, and principles, hoping to influence their students and the wider society\u201d (p.vii).<\/p>\n

Describing the decline of Catholicity (modernization) in the 1970\u2019s, Leahy notes that recently hired faculty and administrators (who often were not Catholic) were not sufficiently given \u201cthe opportunity and resources to appreciate\u201d the Catholic heritage (p. ix), and nor were students. He also notes the growing trend for senior administrators, including presidents and deans, to be lay people who are often unfamiliar with Catholic theology and had little understanding of their institution\u2019s mission when appointed, which makes it difficult to provide \u201can appropriately Catholic vision and clear decisions for their schools\u201d (p. xii).<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 David O\u2019Brien<\/strong> (Holy Cross) gives a succinct and readable history of American Catholic higher education which is a very good overview, including summaries of both Gleason and Gallin and the challenge of \u201cAmericanization\u201d.\u00a0 Most is familiar, but an important point is that today 230 Catholic institutions are competing <\/em>for students, faculty and donors, there is no overall unity. \u00a0However, O\u2019Brien is more positive than many (including Leahy) about the efforts of many Catholic colleges to adapt and integrate Catholic values and practices with modern academics (what he terms \u201cliberation\u201d).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In practical terms of the development process O\u2019Brien emphasizes the \u201cparallel curriculum\u201d of retreats, service programs, international exchanges and so on that afford time for reflection and are often described by students as \u201clife-changing\u201d, the core curriculum that embodies the two framework elements (based on a Christian view of reality) and integrating reflection into all curricula to promote growing self-awareness and integration of learning.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Brien also discusses the challenges of \u201chiring for mission\u201d and (this is particularly relevant for Praxis<\/em>) recommends \u201csubstantive faculty and staff formation programs\u201d organized around mission (p.57) and that the mission be clearly articulated and strongly supported by higher administration.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 \u00a0Appleyard\u2019s paper<\/strong> on student formation also provides historical background, and offers a two-part framework for formation in modern Catholic universities:<\/p>\n