|
Post by highlandparkhoya on Nov 2, 2005 17:14:36 GMT -5
Today I recieved a phone call from one of my little brother's friends who visited campus this past weekend. When I talked to him about the school one of the things I highlighted was our Jesuit/Catholic traditions, especially in Georgetown's role in educating the "whole man." After his tour he informed me that the tour guide had said, "Georgetown is not really a Catholic school." Is there any control to what they tell prospective students. Denying our identity is the worst thing a representative of the university can do. As for me, I am extremely disappointed and embarrassed.
Title changed to reflect topics beyond that of tour guides.--Admin
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Nov 2, 2005 17:28:28 GMT -5
That's outrageous! I had friends who were Protestant who gave tours and were proud of the Catholic tradition. You can have your opinion about whether Georgetown is "really a Catholic school" on your own time, but this should not be coming out of the tour guide's mouth.
Someone should find out this guys/gals name...
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Nov 2, 2005 17:45:29 GMT -5
Oh come off it. I wasn't a tour guide, but if anyone asked me, you better believe that's what I'd say. I suppose it depends on your definition of what a "catholic school" is, but I think the large majority of students experience Georgetown's catholicism only in having a few stray crosses around campus and some aging (but mostly excellent and humanistic) jesuit profs. Where I'm from (the upper west side of manhattan) the first question I get about Georgetown was "isn't it REALLY catholic?" Now, never having gone to, say, Catholic University, I have little reference. But, in general, it's about as catholic or islamic or jewish or wiccan as you want it to be. Seems to me like a pretty honest answer, if one I wouldn't specifically include in the school tour.
Also, what's anti-catholic about any of this? Did he say, "no, thank god! In fact, we all root for Satan in The Exorcist! Damn you Judge Alito." Because otherwise, he's just giving his honest opinion. Maybe that's not what tour guides are supposed to do (I have no idea), but it's hardly anti-anything.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 2, 2005 17:46:26 GMT -5
I'm guessing that training on campus guides is not particularly strenuous. Nor are there any real controls. I'm sure errors occur all over the place. It is unfortunate, but the fix is probably pretty substantial. Probably worth doing, tho.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Nov 2, 2005 17:50:40 GMT -5
What he should have said is, "It isn't Catholic, it's Jesuit."
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Nov 2, 2005 18:14:45 GMT -5
It's one thing to say "In my opinion, it's not really a CATHOLIC school" and another to say definitively "Georgetown is not really a Catholic school." (Former, you're right...should've said "a Jesuit school")
Anyway, I may be Catholic but I'm still a secularist. And I understand the pressure to de-emphasize the religiousness of Georgetown when pressed by someone who is afraid it might be too much for them (it won't be, we all know that). But I'm sure the University would cringe to hear what the tour guide said. For every student in that pack that was worried about it being too religious, there were probably two parents who were worried it wasn't religious enough.
I've always opted for the "it is as religious as you want it to be, it is a Jesuit school." I think that is a fair characterization that honors both our tradition of Jesuit education and respect (and inclusivity) of folks from other faith traditions.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Nov 2, 2005 21:21:28 GMT -5
When I was a tour guide, I used the explanation that SoCal and nyc referred to--it's as Catholic or not Catholic as you want it to be...just depends on how much (or little) you want to get out of it. I tended to be one of the tour guides that stuck pretty close to the script though, so I don't know if that says anything. The one thing I'll say is that the way I'd bring it up (if I recall, between the John Carroll statue and inside of Healy) was usually pre-emptive, so I never got asked the specific question that often. Follow-ups sometimes. For the record, the "training" for Tour Guides is pretty good IMO--unless it's chaged in the last 3 years. First of all, the application process is a two-parter, with a written part and then an interview if you make the first cut. Pretty small admit rate in the end actually. The main part of the interview, at least when I did it, was being asked sample "tough questions" you'd get on a tour. The big three? Alcohol, security on campus (I was applying right after 9/11)...and GU's religious identity. So in theory, they know who's got their head on straight wrt those types of questions. I always found it was nice to be personal with your answers...in the "well, let me tell you what my personal experience has been with alcohol...but that's not everybody's..." kind of way. In the end, there's some Tour Guides who prob. should be coached a little more, b/c even though that script is pretty darned detailed and they're constantly monitoring stuff, you're still out there by yourself, and, despite our school's reputation , not everyone's ready to be a press secretary and handle tough questions. Still though, the "Excuse me, why is that drunk young man passed out in the kiddie pool at 10am on a Wednesday not wearing any pants?" moments are some of the best ones on a tour.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,735
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 2, 2005 23:20:04 GMT -5
Georgetown's equivocation of its Catholic heritage is a losing proposition all around. What is there to fear in clearly stating Georgetown's place at the leadership of Catholic (not just Jesuit) education? What, will the Ivies stop taking our phone calls? Faith without works is dead, so to speak, but works without faith is incomplete, too. Perhaps a related lament is where the visible leadership of the Jesuits is going in all this. Not a single Jesuit serves as dean, much less a vice president. Outisde of Campus Ministry, no S.J.'s are part of the Univ. administration: www.georgetown.edu/home/administration.htmlSo where is the next Edmund Walsh, the next Royden Davis, or the next Tim Healy that can lead from the pulpit as well as the boardroom? If the Jesuits don't take the lead in making the Catholic faith an indispensable part of the Georgetown ethos, who will?
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 3, 2005 16:17:20 GMT -5
Fifty years ago, no one could have imagined anyone saying, "Georgetown is Jesuit, not Catholic." The two were absolutely inseperable. Yet it's undeniable that the Jesuits have become so modernist as to abandon their mission of running Catholic universities. Sure there are a few good orthodox Jesuits here, but they are the exception, not the rule (just look at all the questionable actions of our last Jesuit president, Father O'Donovan). So when a tour guide says that we're not really Catholic, they're not really being untruthful. For a lot of Gtown students this is great, for some of us it's a great tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Nov 3, 2005 16:24:25 GMT -5
Five of my seven years at GU were during the O'Donovan administration. I can't say I remember him doing anything that was "questionable"--although I remember hearing about some controversy earlier in his tenure. Anyone care to enlighten me?
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 3, 2005 16:27:06 GMT -5
During his tenure, he funded a pro-abortion group and was subsequently called to the Vatican and reprimanded. Plus, he allowed crucifixes to be taken down from the classrooms. Those are the two major ones that come to mind.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 3, 2005 17:34:18 GMT -5
1) Funding a pro-choice group is obviously a Catholic no-no, but you say it as if O'Donovan was running an abortion clinic on campus. I think you need to look at it from O'Donovan's viewpoint. The University was funding a student group. I think it is good policy for University not to censor its students in what they choose -- and I'm sure the University would fund an equal pro-life group. Part of college is allowing people to encounter new viewpoints and choose what they want to be in life. This is REAL education, not dictation of what you believe. You can say they aren't Catholic, but I disagree: the Catholic religion does not tell you not to question things. What I will say is that what you are asking for is hardly a University -- it is a place that tells you what to think, not teaches you to think.
Also, please don't say anything is undeniable -- that's hyperbole. There are many ways to look at religion and it is ridiculous to be absolutist about something as hard to comprehend as a higher being. Catholicism has always had a level of intellectualism at its higher levels that many fundamentalist religions don't.
2) I still can't believe the people that whine either way over crosses in the classroom. It is like people who make school prayer, "under God" in the pledge, or flag-burning, an issue. Get a life! (Though if I had to decide, I'd have them in there. You chose to come to a Catholic college, so live with it).
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,853
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 3, 2005 18:55:40 GMT -5
The thing I don't understand about the crucifixes is the reason for removing them from some buildings, and leaving them in others. I personally think they should be in every classroom, but I wonder if there was any reason for leaving them in some of the buildings.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Nov 3, 2005 20:00:12 GMT -5
DFW or joehoya, could someone spell out just what it means to want Georgetown to be more true to its catholic roots? Would that entail bringing in a more catholic student body? More jesuit profs (I don't know where you're going to find them.)? Is it just the symbolism of the crucifixes that's important? Is it the political stuff, like becoming tougher on gays and abortion? Seriously, I don't understand. But I certainly understand that this would be tremendously unpopular with most of the student body. I had friends in the KOC, and that sort of thing who would endorse all of this, but it's a heavily minority view, and it's a heavily political view. It seems to boil down to wanting GU to buy into all the areas where the catholic church is conservative, as opposed to the great tradition of progressive eductation in the jesuit order.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 3, 2005 22:17:03 GMT -5
It seems to boil down to wanting GU to buy into all the areas where the catholic church is conservative, as opposed to the great tradition of progressive eductation in the jesuit order. Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't remember any of the pro-Catholic groups arguing Georgetown needed to do more to help the poor, or sick. I don't remember them arguing for decent wages for the mentally disabled Marriott workers that were taken advantage of. But, man, crosses in the classroom!
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,735
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 3, 2005 22:50:57 GMT -5
DFW or joehoya, could someone spell out just what it means to want Georgetown to be more true to its catholic roots? It's a good topic and I'll try to answer this in more detail over the weekend. Not at all--and you may want to check your sources on that progressive tradition, at least in the political sense. For most of its history the Jesuits were such a conservative, loyalist order that they were dubbed "the Pope's shock troops" by Protestant critics. It is only in the era since "Instruction on the Social Apostolate" and liberation theology that the Jesuit leadership has been linked with progressive causes.
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 3, 2005 23:07:32 GMT -5
First of all, one of the most important roles of a Catholic university is moral education (this is what the term cura personalis really signifies). Thus, since the Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil, the university must refrain from doing anything to support this evil. The use of student funds to benefit the pro-"choice" side was a particularly egregious violation of Catholic moral teaching. That's why O'Donovan was summoned to Rome.
As for the mission of a Catholic university, it is the discovery of the truth. A commitment to the truth necessarily involves the rejection of certain "viewpoints." All points of view are not equally valid, as the relativists would have us believe. And if you don't think there are undeniable truths of the Catholic faith, you don't know much about the Catholic faith.
The crucifix, as the primary symbol of the Christian faith, deserves a place of prominance in any Catholic institution of learning. There certainly should be one in every classroom. Lobbying for the continuation of this tradition does not preclude involvment in other causes.
And while our more "progressive" students are feeding their own egos by yelling really really loud about how much they love the poor and disadvantaged, groups like Mother Teresa's Hoyas and the Knights are actually serving the poor week after week. When it all comes down to it, actions, whether good or bad, speak louder than words.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 4, 2005 1:18:34 GMT -5
Joe,
Couple of thoughts:
While I understand entirely why the Church would oppose such funding, I can also see O'Donovan's point of view. I think a lot of our difference in opinion stems from my second point below, which seems to be a difference of opinion about how you educate.
I certainly believe there are absolute rights and wrongs and a prime reason I went to Georgetown was the focus on morals and ethics. I wanted to study ethics, philosophy and theology, and was afraid that as a business major at another University, I would never get the chance. I just don't think there is value in dictation of those things.
What value is there in someone reaching the right conclusion for the wrong things? There is some, I suppose, but attempting to eliminate opposing points of view is both practically and philosophically wrong. In the former case, attempting to eradicate dissenting opinions is impossible, and the attempts to hide other points of view tends to cause people to distrust your own. On the philosophical front, you are not creating a moral person if you are not testing them; you are not creating a moral person if you are merely dictating what they should write on their papers. Religion and Ethics and Morals are highly personal items. People must come to their own philosophy themselves for it to have any staying power (or, in my mind, mean anything at all).
The crucifix -- no arguments there, but again, in my years it was a constant issue. Just can't get that worked up over it. Then again, symbols have rarely carried much weight with me. Crucifix or no in the classroom doesn't alter my religious beliefs.
As for the final point, you need to check yourself. The comment: "And while our more "progressive" students are feeding their own egos by yelling really really loud about how much they love the poor and disadvantaged..."
Wow. Thanks for politicizing the issue. I love how you blanket every "progressive" student as an egomaniac who really doesn't care but just wants to feed their own ego. Every single one. Excellent. Way to go. Actions do speak louder than words, and I'm willing to bet those students who camped out in protest of fair wages during my four years did most community service work than those who protested crosses in classrooms.
Maybe I did the same when I commented on the crosses in the classrooms; but I'm well aware that some of those folks do other things that help folks. Still, I find it hard to rally behind such an issue.
But I find your attitude pathetic. Like the rest of this country, you are ready to insult and blanket anyone because they don't agree with your political views. Why not debate individuals honestly? Just like the guy on the other thread who called all Democrats racist. Just quality.
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 4, 2005 2:12:39 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to insult anyone. However, I'm troubled by the liberal notion that we must first and foremost pressure government and institutions like Georgetown to do more for the poor and needy. This seems to be the crux of your assertion that "I don't remember any of the pro-Catholic groups arguing Georgetown needed to do more to help the poor, or sick." Perhaps they didn't. But many pro-Catholic groups help the poor and sick themselves instead of waiting for some bureaucracy to do it for them. You seem to want to set up this false dichotomy between defending Gtown's Catholic identity and furthuring social justice.
I don't have a high opinion of those who seek to accomplish their aims through protest. While some of the living wage people might have sincerely cared about the plight of the workers, I think most just looked at it as a fun way to relive 60's campus activism. Just my impression...I could be wrong.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 4, 2005 3:10:47 GMT -5
I think you're wrong, but I can be wrong as well. And what you say is offensive; this blanket statement that anyone who disagrees with you really doesn't care -- they are just egomaniacs who are using the cause to feel like hippies. Amazing that you weren't trying to insult with that. And amazing that you can say something to that effect without realizing how ludicrous it sounds. But that's okay because all conservatives are selfish bastards who like to disguise their greed with moral platitudes and self-righteous blathering. (Get the point?)
My point is simple: there were many people protesting in my time crosses in the classrooms or other things. But many of those same people never seemed to care about other things that Catholics should care about: whether the poor or needy, or protesting that our country did nothing to help stop war or genocide in other nations.
I do not dispute that many pro-Catholic groups help the poor and needy, however my experience with many of those groups as a sometime volunteer rarely led me to believe they gave one iota about crosses in the classroom.
I am not sure what you mean by false dichotomy. I am not sure how Georgetown can be Catholic if it is not interested in furthering social justice. After all, isn't that a key part of being Catholic? Am I missing something? If being Catholic is protesting the bureaucracy, as you put it, to outlaw abortion but not protesting the buraeucracy to outlaw capital punishment, intervene in say, the Sudan, or stop killing people itself, help care for the poor, mentally disabled, etc., well...color me some other religion.
The issue I've seen from the other side of the wall is calling themselves Catholic or Christian because they are politically conservative. Personally, I think if you truly are Christian, it is extremely hard to fit either party in today's US.
|
|