I would like to begin this post by thanking Mark, Rob, Amy, and Rick for their posts regarding the ARALS conference at Baylor. It is clear that all of them have something important to say about “Catholic” and “Jesuit” legal education.
I shall begin this post with two anecdotes. The first is from the Cecille B. DeMille film, “The Ten Commandments.” When rumor stirs that the Hebrews have a deliverer in their midst, Pharaoh Sethi (aka Sir Cedric Hardwicke) tells his son Prince Rameses (aka Yul Brynner) to bring back this deliverer—but he makes a qualification: if the hero is but a myth, bring him back in a bottle; but if a man, bring him back in chains. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Is Jesuit legal education a myth or not? Is it something that can be placed in a bottle and located on the shelf of a museum? Or, is it real and must be placed in chains for safe keeping? What is to be written about it? And, then, what can be done about it?
The second story is rooted in the essay co-authored by John Breen and Michael Scaperlanda “Never Get Out’a the Boat: Stenberg v. Carhart and the Future of American Law.” In their illuminating work, John and Michael identify a crucial issue that American judges, for the most part, having been dodging since Roe v. Wade was decided over thirty-three years ago. As John and Michael state, “the Court avoids the embarrassment of such a failed argument (the truth about nascent human life, etc.) by ignoring the issue altogether.” John and Michael present the reality about nascent human life being human which many judges avoid acknowledging; therefore, they only have to deal with a myth.
And what about Jesuit legal education? Is the truth about it being ignored as well?
To put it another way: has Jesuit legal education become a myth? Or has its reality been ignored by those closely associated with it? Perhaps the better question might be this: is the reality, in fact, a myth? As I begin to address these issues in a preliminary fashion, I’ll be getting out of a boat of sorts to offer some initial thoughts.
As Rick notes, Mark is on to something quite important about the reality and the myth of Jesuit legal education. Do “tired formulae” constitute the reality that is really a myth that can be put into a bottle? What makes Jesuit legal education and, therefore, a Jesuit law school, the presumed situs of this education, distinctive from any legal education and any law school that has a clinic, offers jurisprudence courses, requires ethics, claims to be diverse, stands for justice, and prepares “people for others”? What law school of today, regardless of its affiliation, is without all these attributes? I am most grateful for the valiant work that Amy and Greg do in this name of Jesuit legal education. But, when all is said and done, what remains today about the institutions with which they are affiliated: a myth or a reality?
Will this question and those related to it be answered only when answers are supplied to underlying issues? If so, what might these issues be? Mark once again is on to something: are faculty, students, and administrators fearful of giving the Catholic and therefore the Jesuit perspective a privileged position? If there is fear of giving any position a privilege, might we scrutinize those law schools that do not claim this privileged position but, in reality, cultivate other privileged positions while at the same time denying alternative views to the privileges that they welcome? Perhaps the answer is that Jesuit is quite different from Catholic? But is that explanation an ineffective or incoherent one? I suggest that it is.
Avery Cardinal Dulles said it well some seven years ago when he talked about education that asserts to be humanistic (in the Christian sense of humanism), Catholic, and Jesuit. He elaborated at length on his understanding of what it means for a university to be an institution of higher education that claims to be humanistic and Catholic. When he spoke of it being Jesuit, he said only this: to be Jesuit is to intensify its Catholicity. And then, he sat down. Can the same be said of Jesuit legal education in the United States today?
But this leads me raise another issue. How does Cardinal Dulles’s accurate statement reflect on Jesuit legal education? Again Mark is on to something when he properly argues that the Catholic/Jesuit environment needs to be open to discussion, to ecumenical dialogue, and to diversity; however, this does not preclude or is it antithetical to a bold assertion that the institution is unapologetically Jesuit and therefore Catholic. With regard to the latter element of diversity, I have learned a great deal about that in my first year at a Pontifical university in Rome. The diversity here amongst faculty and students makes the diversity claimed by American institutions of higher education look pale in comparison. Genuine diversity goes beyond cosmetics; it goes to heart and soul and mind. The fact that a Pontifical institution is Catholic does not make it any less catholic. Its Catholicity and its catholicity are not myths; they are reality. Of course, this diversity is nurtured in an environment where the Catholic perspective is privileged. In spite of this reality, the atmosphere is accepting, non-threatening, and non-offensive. I wonder if the same can be said about those institutions in the US which claim to offer Jesuit legal education?
One final remark for this posting—this one from the Gospels of Mark (12:1-12), Matthew (21:33-46), and Luke (20:9-19): Jesus reminds us of the man who planted the vineyard, and the difficulties he faced when he sent his servants to collect his share of the harvest. They were mistreated or killed by the tenants. Finally, when the owner’s son was sent (the owner thinking the tenants would respect him), the tenants killed him, too, erroneously believing his inheritance would then be theirs. Well, the owner did not appreciate that, and then he did a little pruning in the vineyard. Today’s law faculty members are not tenants of the owner but neither are they the owners of the vineyard who have the final say about the institution. Rick points out in his response to Mark that a variety of ways exists to approach Catholic legal education. Interestingly none of the examples he cites are Jesuit. I wonder if these vineyards of the Jesuit variety might be objects for evangelical pruning about which Archbishop Miller spoke when he visited Notre Dame last October. But one should not focus solely on this as the only outcome because one needs to have the hope of Amy and Greg to which Mark refers. After all, there is always time for reform and salvation as the vineyard owner of the Gospel accounts demonstrated on several occasions—until the time runs out and one must account for his or her stewardship…
Well, another day is on the horizon, and it is time to get back into the boat. RJA sj
Saturday, April 1, 2006
I appreciated very much Mark's post about Jesuit legal education, and John Breen's critique of it. Mark nails it:
But we must not delude ourselves with reassuring platitudes about different paths and different missions. There must be some ground minimum of engagement with Catholicism present before a school can call itself "Catholic." It is simply not enough to talk about "justice," or "diversity" or being a "man for others" unless some meaningful flesh is put on those bones.
Now, note what Mark is not saying -- e.g., that an authentically Catholic law school must take an embattled and defensive stance, or adopt a narrow and sectarian focus, or never host speakers with certain objectionable views, etc. All he is requesting, it seems to me, is that we put "flesh . . . on the bones" for which those who draft the promotional literature for Catholic law schools (and universities) too often settle. There is, as I understand him, plenty of room for diversity even among "fleshed out" Catholic identities (St. Thomas is not Ave Maria, for example, but both are engaging in important and valuable ways with the project of building a distinctively and meaningfully Catholic law school).
Mike S. referenced the "movable feast" that has been the MOJ-and-friends road show in recent days, at St. John's and now at Baylor. My deep regret about missing both of these events, and the wonderful fellowship and learning that, it appears, was enjoyed by all, was lessened a bit by the roundtable conference yesterday at Notre Dame that was my reason for missing the feast-events. The Notre Dame Law School hosted a dozen or so guests, from all over the country, for a three-session examination of Steve Smith's new book, "Law's Quandary." If you have not read the book, you really should; as Michael P. wrote, a while back, it "sings." We had provocative and helpful discussion papers from Larry Solum, Joe Vining, and Brian Bix, and some very stimulating conversations.
Here, by the way, is Justice Scalia's review -- a friendly critique, I'd say -- of Smith's book, from First Things.
Here is an Op-ed I wrote, which appeared today in Oklahoma City's newspaper, "The Oklahoman." I thought it might be of interest.
"My fellow Oklahomans, I am confused. I thought this was a “red state” - a place
where families, hard work, and courage are valued. I thought Oklahoman’s understood that our
rights and duties emanate from God. But,
then I read State Senate Bill 1769 and House Bill 3119, which call for the
state to use its resources to hunt down hard working people trying to provide
for their families.
These bills require state and local government employees to
verify the immigration and citizenship status of every person they come in
contact with. These employees must report
the names of those who cannot verify their status to federal immigration
authorities. Failure to do so is a crime. And, those who cannot “produce proof of U.S. citizenship or valid documents or a visa” are to be jailed.
The authors of the legislation suggest that “illegal
immigration is causing … lawlessness.” But,
most undocumented non-citizens are “lawless” only in the sense that they are
evading the broken federal immigration system. They are lawless in the way that Jean Valjean was lawless in Les
Misérables, stealing bread to feed his family.
Our federal immigration system needs repair. It currently leads to the creation of a
shadow population living in fear and subject to exploitation. They cannot fully develop their talents to be
used for the benefit of family and community, their only crime – risking life
and what little money they have to be able to provide for family. As a nation, we need to find a way to stop
undocumented migration.
As Oklahomans, how do we respond? Do we respond like Inspector Javert who spent
his whole life – his resources and creative energy – in pursuit of the bread
thief Jean Valjean? Or, do we respond
with mercy the way the Bishop did when Valjean was first released from
prison. Will we play the part of the
sheep or goats as depicted in Matthew’s rendering of the last judgment? Will we welcome the stranger as we listen to
the words of Christ: “whatever you do
for the least of these, you do for me”? Javert’s quest destroyed him. He
couldn’t live in a world of mercy and love. And, we know what happened to the goats!
If we truly believe that Biblical values provide the
foundation for our public policy, if we reject the strict separationist
arguments so frequently heard in some quarters, then we must live those values
consistently. In Leviticus, God says,
“when an alien resides among you in your land, do not molest him,” remembering
that you once were aliens. In the New
Testament, Jesus’ followers are instructed to love their neighbor as
themselves.
Fortunately, the Senate sponsor of HB3119 has withdrawn it,
realizing it is too harsh. Unfortunately, the bills’ proponents continue, like Javert, on their mission
to hunt down the Jean Valjean’s of modern day Oklahoma. Let us together work to fix our broken federal immigration law, but let
us do it with a deep seated love for our undocumented neighbors."
I know the movable conference feast has moved from St. John's (last weekend) to Baylor (this weekend), but I wanted to add one more "thank you" to the list of "thank you's" due at the end of a wonderful experience at the Jurisprudential Legacy of John Paul II conference last weekend. After the closing liturgy a week ago Friday, David Gregory took a group of us down to the Catholic Worker House in Manhattan (where Dorothy Day started the Catholic Worker movement) for a poetry reading. Thank you David. It was a wonderful evening. And, I continue to thank God for the radical Gospel commitment of those who live and work with the homeless, the downtrodden, the addict, and the alcoholic.
