Here are some comments that I emailed in, in response to a request by the University of Notre Dame's Core Curriculum Review Committee. They connect with and echo things that various MOJ-ers have said and thought about over the years, and I thought they might be of interest:
[It] seems to me that the University of Notre Dame, given its aspiration and its vocation to be the world's great Catholic research university, should be proud, and not afraid, to affirm that there are indeed things that a student who graduates from a great Catholic research university should know. It seems that, in some quarters, it is thought unfashionable, nostalgic, or reactionary to insist that there really are things -- propositions, names, dates, facts, arguments, hypotheses, etc. -- that an educated person should know, and should know as *true.* We cannot think critically and well, after all, if we don't know enough to know what we should be thinking critically about. The move at many universities, including the ones I attended, away from "core" curricula and courses to all-elective programs is often defended as liberating, but I think this move, if taken too far, is a mistake. A Catholic research university, even one with students as gifted and accomplished as ours, should still embrace proudly the responsibility to make sure our graduates not only know how to do certain things but also *know* certain things. And, as Richard Brodhead (the past President of my own alma mater) suggested, Notre Dame should not worry too much about doing what other top-tier research universities are doing, at least when it comes to questions about the relationship between the University's interesting and distinctive -- and interesting *because* distinctive -- character, on the one hand, and its decisions about the curricular content and moral formation, on the other. We already have a Princeton and a Duke (and an Ohio State and an Illinois), and others like them, but there's really only one Notre Dame.
What those things are is, of course, a question the Committee is considering and answering that question is difficult. My point here is just that, in my view, a university like ours should have a Core Curriculum and it should care, at least to some extent, about the content of what is actually conveyed in required or requirement-satisfying courses, and not just those courses' general area (e.g., "history", or "philosophy"). If we are not willing to attend, at least to some extent, to the content of, say, the courses that satisfy the Theology, Philosophy, and History requirements, then it is arguably more difficult to justify the requirements themselves. It is important not just that our graduates have taken a "history" course, but that they be conversant -- at the level we want citizen-leaders to be conversant -- with the basic outline of American history and of (speaking very broadly) the story of the West. It is worth saying, I think, not just that students should take two courses in "theology," but also to say that students will be familiar with the teachings, history, traditions, and sacred texts of Christianity. This is not because our mission is to do remedial catechesis, but because part of our proposal to the broader society, as a Catholic research university, is that Christianity is not only true, but also worth knowing about.
I realize that this way of thinking about the questions might sound a little dated. We talk now more in terms of "competencies" and, to be sure, there are many such competencies that we want to help form in our graduates. My suggestion here is simply that the competencies and skills should not crowd out or substitute for the content; it is important that a student know how to think critically about a text like "The Brothers Karamazov" (or the Gospel of Mark) but it is no less important that they know about, have read, (texts like) "The Brothers Karamazov" (or the Gospel of Mark).
Prof. Bainbridge is providing nice updates and reports from the "Catholic Social Thought and the Law" seminar he's teaching. (Lucky UCLA students!). Here's one on "Usury." Check it out!
Mirror of Justice is not a jobs-postings site, but I thought this one might be of special and particular interest:
The Catholic Benefits Association (CBA) has had substantial success in providing a means for Catholic employers to provide health care coverage consistent with Catholic values. It and its subsidiary, the Catholic Insurance Company (CIC), are searching for their first Chief Executive Officer. With almost 700 member employers providing healthcare coverage for their 70,000 covered employees, the CBA and CIC seek a Catholic person who can build and manage a team dedicated to providing quality, competitively-priced, morally-compliant health care benefits for Catholic employers. In addition to excellent leadership, marketing, and management skills, the successful candidate should also have substantial experience working with employer health plans, health benefits analysis, or group health insurance. He or she should have a heart for the Catholic Benefit Association’s mission explained atwww.lifeaffirmingcare.com. Those interested in applying should contact Joan Rennekamp at[email protected] or 719-386-3009.
Is here (HT: Robert Imbelli at dotCommonweal). A bit:
Fidelity to the Gospel of life and respect for life as a gift from God sometimes require choices that are courageous and go against the current, which in particular circumstances, may become points of conscientious objection. And this fidelity entails many social consequences. We are living in a time of experimentation with life. But a bad experiment. Making children rather than accepting them as a gift, as I said. Playing with life. Be careful, because this is a sin against the Creator: against God the Creator, who created things this way. When so many times in my life as a priest I have heard objections: “But tell me, why the Church is opposed to abortion, for example? Is it a religious problem?” No, no. It is not a religious problem. “Is it a philosophical problem?” No, it is not a philosophical problem. It’s a scientific problem, because there is a human life there, and it is not lawful to take out a human life to solve a problem. “But no, modern thought…” But, listen, in ancient thought and modern thought, the word “kill” means the same thing. The same evaluation applies to euthanasia: we all know that with so many old people, in this culture of waste, there is this hidden euthanasia. But there is also the other. And this is to say to God, “No, I will accomplish the end of life, as I will.” A sin against God the Creator! Think hard about this.
Over at Crux, John Allen has a wide-ranging and interesting interview up with Chicago's Cardinal George. Among other things:
He spurns the entire left/right dichotomy, calling it “destructive of the Church’s mission and her life.”
“For us, the category that matters is true/false,” he said. “I reject the whole liberal/conservative deformation of the character of our lives. If you’re limited to that … then somehow or other you’ve betrayed your vocation as a bishop and a priest.”
Other highlights of the interview:
- George denies being a culture warrior, and says he “deeply resents” suggestions he’s not as passionate about social justice and the poor as his successor.
In the Spring of 2007, I taught a course on "Catholic Social Thought and the Law," and Cardinal George was generous enough to join the class for a session and for dinner. He is now, as Allen puts it, "fighting for his life" against cancer, and I hope we all are praying for him. I was also struck by this:
From my perspective, I’ve seen myself for a long time as engaging culture. Engagement is not warfare. I know that’s less dramatic to say, and people like to have drama, but calling it ‘war’ deforms what I’m about. It really denigrates my motivation, and I resent that. I’m not trying to beat anybody up at all; I’m trying to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, which I have an obligation to do. Maybe there are times I could it more skillfully, or in a way that seems less abrasive. Of course, there are some people who think it’s abrasive as soon as you say, ‘I disagree with you.’ There’s not much I can do about that.
Read the whole thing!
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Prof. John Witte (Emory) has posted a (natch) excellent essay, "The Shifting Walls of Separation Between Church and State in the United States." Here's the abstract:
This article analyses five distinct understandings of separation of church and state in the American founding era of 1776-1812 and the continued influence and manifestations of each of these five understandings in current American constitutional law. The last section argues that separation of church and state is a valuable constitutional ideal, so long as it is used prudentially not categorically, and so long as it remains balanced with other founding principles of religious freedom.
One of my very first publications, as a law professor, was a short Green Bag review of what was then (in 2000) Witte's new book, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment. I have been learning from him ever since!
Friday, November 7, 2014
I thought many MOJ readers would be interested in this new book, "The First Amendment and the Business Corporation," by Ron Colombo (Hofstra). From the OUP:
The role of the business corporation in modern society is a controversial one. Some fear and object to corporate power and influence over governments and culture. Others embrace the corporation as a counterweight to the State and as a vehicle to advance important private objectives. A flashpoint in this controversy has been the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the fundamental rights of freedom to speech, religion, and association. The extent to which a corporation can avail itself of these rights goes a long way in defining the corporation's role. Those who fear the corporation wish to see these rights restricted, while those who embrace it wish to see these rights recognized.
The First Amendment and the Business Corporation explores the means by which the debate over the First Amendment rights of business corporations can be resolved. By recognizing that corporations possess constitutionally relevant differences, we discover a principled basis by which to afford some corporations the rights and protections of the First Amendment but not others. This is critically important, because a "one-size-fits-all" approach to corporate constitutional rights seriously threatens either democratic government or individual liberty. Recognizing rights where they should not be recognized unnecessarily augments the already considerable power and influence that corporations have in our society. However, denying rights where they are due undermines the liberty of human beings to create, patronize, work for, and invest in companies that share their most cherished values and beliefs.
As Paul Horwitz discusses here, and Michael Helfand does here, a wrongheaded and unnecessary initiative was adopted in Alabama on Tuesday. Read Paul's and Michael's posts for yourselves, but this, from Paul's, seemed worth highlighting:
There is very little good news about the passage of this amendment. But there are two glimmers of hope. The first is that the measure was loudly and clearly opposed by a variety of faith groups--predominantly black and predominantly white, evangelical and non-evangelical, and politically conservative and liberal. I was hoping that the opposition of the Christian Coalition, for example, would be enough to fracture the reflexively conservative vote in this state and kill the amendment. It was not to be. But it is a positive thing that these groups opposed the amendment. They understood full well that the intended target of the measure was Islamic law, and still opposed it.
In that sense, as I wrote in this paper, this is an important effect of decisions like Larson v. Valente, which erects a bar against sectarian preferences in laws burdening religion, and which was relied on by the Tenth Circuit in striking down the first-generation anti-sharia amendment in Oklahoma. A legislature that cannot aim its laws at a particular sect is faced with the choice to either drop the measure or to apply it to everyone, regardless of which sect they belong to. That creates political coalitions among the faithful, so that, say, the Christian majority is willing and eager to band together with the Muslim minority to oppose the generally applicable law. That's what happened in Alabama. Although it wasn't enough, it was still a pleasure to see.
