Last night I read a blurb about Harvard President Drew Faust's remarks at the 2012 Baccalaureate Service, and her comments intrigued me enough that I went back and read them in their entirety. There are some thoughtful insights contained in what she said, to be sure, but I'm struck by the awkwardness of attempting to inspire graduates without any vision of transcendent meaning underlying the universe:
There are roughly 120 million 21-year-olds in the world. There are some 1,551 of you who will get degrees today. There is one of me who arrived here against similar odds. That is how we know the deck was stacked. No matter how hard we have worked or how many obstacles we have overcome, we are all here in some measure through no cause of our own. It started for most of us by being born into what one scientist calls the “legacy world,” the small fraction of the Earth’s population that receives the benefits of fossil fuels. After we passed through that lucky portal there were others. Our parents, our schools, our friends, our health, financial aid, a Maurice Sendak book. Predecessors who fought for access to education. Someone who plucked us up out of nowhere and guided us, or a random event that turned our heads, or moved our hearts. Now here we are, filling this church, inhabiting the ancient vestments of higher learning and all they represent, partly by pure chance, by the imperceptible updraft of inexplicable luck.
The truth is, we are not hardwired to recognize this. We tend to assign a meaning, a logic, even to things that are random or fortuitous.
I don't deny the relevance of "pure chance," though, as a Christian, I'm reluctant to identify its particular imprint with any confidence. What is troubling, though, is the apparent degree to which the recognition of sheer luck as an animating force in our lives precludes a meaningful sense of vocation. Not that it precludes a theological shout-out, though:
Perhaps because I am standing here in an imitation of a Puritan minister’s robe, I find myself thinking of what Harvard’s founders would have called “God’s free grace.” Good fortune is not something we have a right to, but something given to us that we have no claim on. We do not earn grace by being better than others, or even by being good. It is bestowed, on any one of us at any moment.
I know the Puritans did not embrace a Catholic understanding of grace, but I'm not sure that they would equate grace with sheer luck. A gift from God has a foundation in God's love; luck derives from nothing but blind chance.
In her conclusion, President Faust reminds students that "when you acknowledge luck, you recognize your connection to those who did not have the same opportunities." I'm all in favor of recognizing our connection to those who did not have the same opportunities we've had, but I don't get there by paying homage to "luck." How does focusing on random chance bring meaning to my world, much less a degree of meaning that brings my relationship and accountability to others into relief? We are related to others, and accountable for each other, but not because the world is governed by sheer randomness.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Get Religion, not surprisingly, has can't-miss analysis of the media's coverage of the recently concluded Fortnight for Freedom.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Brian Tamanaha's "Failing Law Schools" is now available for purchase. Orin Kerr offers a nice synopsis, as does Bill Henderson. This is an important book.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Leslie Green has posted a new paper that may be of interest to MoJ readers, The Nature of Limited Government. The abstract:
This paper explores moral limits on state action: their sources, character, and stringency. It explains what is special about the liberal tradition: there must be a protected sphere of action, and governments must respect legality. It argues, against Patrick Devlin, that the possible absence of absolute moral reasons against intrusion in a sphere is consistent with justified absolute positive limits on government intrusion. It argues, against John Finnis, that the fact that some associations (e.g. churches or marriages or universities) intrinsically valuable ‘common goods’ does not entitle them to immunity from government regulation. It concludes by suggesting why certain ‘natural law’ moralities have been considered unreasonably intrusive, for they neglect the significance of moral fallibility for limited government.
