HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Nov 4, 2005 8:58:58 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? O'Donovan, while a good friend and a great man, was essentially forced out of Georgetown due to his misjudgments regarding Georgetown's identity. Funding of GU Choice was a big one. You simply cannot, as a Catholic institution fund groups that support the moral evil of abortion and do not respect the sanctity of life. Second offense was the removal (and subsequent fight over the replacement) of crosses in the classroom. this should never have been an issue at a Catholic school. The biggest offense, one that was a major headline in the national media was allowing Larry Flynt to speak on campus. Flynt's opening line was something to the effect that the Catholic church has has us but the balls for the last 2000 years... That one threw a ton of alumni into a tizzy. That said, Leo, one on one, is one of the greatest men many of us know and he was caught in between the fight we all are addressing - how Catholic should Georgetown be... and, more importantly, what does that mean. If Leo wasn't such a great fundraiser for the university, he may not have been around for as long as he was. His fund raising abilities must go back to his cheerleading days at Iona Prep.
|
|
reformation
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,413
Member is Online
|
Post by reformation on Nov 4, 2005 9:50:55 GMT -5
My sense is that O'Donovan was removed because of poor decision making in general-he was basically not up to the task of running a major university --as far as being a great fundraiser, I don' think that's the case either--If you want to use Iona prep for a bechmark organiztion he probably did a good job, but if want to use any other elite university I think you're out on a limb.
As far as the tour guide goes he shouldn't have said what he said-we should fix it and move on
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Nov 4, 2005 10:12:54 GMT -5
Wow. First, I have never recieved any evidence at O'Donovan was "removed." Maybe you guys know something the rest of us don't. He had a fairly long tenure as president. Right? Second, if there was pressure for him to leave, it had nothing to do with Catholic identity and, as reformation says, everything to do with ineffective (horrible, actually) financial management of the university.
Just to echo some of the comments earlier, it seems to me that issues like Larry Flynt and Hoyas for Choice are not a question of how Catholic GU should be but rather how does the institution balance a commitment to free expression, learning, and scholarship, with the dogma of religous institution with which it is affiliated. All universities have orthodoxies, but in order to be a true institution of higher learning, great liberties must be granted for the criticism and challenging of the orthodoxies through student organizations, speeches, lecturers, etc. Remember Catholic doctrine is far from fixed and has shifted greatly over the years. For better or for worse, that does not happen without intense debate and, indeed, controversy.
|
|
HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Nov 4, 2005 11:45:20 GMT -5
Just to echo some of the comments earlier, it seems to me that issues like Larry Flynt and Hoyas for Choice are not a question of how Catholic GU should be but rather how does the institution balance a commitment to free expression, learning, and scholarship, with the dogma of religous institution with which it is affiliated. All universities have orthodoxies, but in order to be a true institution of higher learning, great liberties must be granted for the criticism and challenging of the orthodoxies through student organizations, speeches, lecturers, etc. Remember Catholic doctrine is far from fixed and has shifted greatly over the years. For better or for worse, that does not happen without intense debate and, indeed, controversy. I agree that a university must challenge the status quo. However, when a university, or any other institution gives the stage to any person to speak or communicate, there is an implication that what the person says has some grain of truth, relevancy, or wisdom. When giving the floor to someone like a Larry Flynt, Georgetown made the same implicit statement. Then for Flynt to come in and say, essentially that the church has enslaved all of us for so long and to say that everything Georgetown stands for is, in essence, wrong? Which one is it that Georgetown stands for? The morals it was built upon or allowing (and paying) someone to come to campus to beat those morals up. This is much different than having a politican come to campus and foster debate. This is about bringing someone in to kick you in the face and teach against all you believe in while you support while implicitly supporting it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 4, 2005 13:18:20 GMT -5
My two cents and I'm trying not to offend but to offer an opinion or two.
I believe the purpose of a college is to educate students by passing on the accumulated knowledge of the centuries. And, it is not to allow the students to "explore". Despite what they believe, persons just out of high school are unprepared with their knowledge and maturity to "explore". Post-graduate work is the arena for "exploring". I believe the purposes of a Catholic college, in addition to the above, are to educate Catholic students with the aim of preparing them for life centered around their relationship with Jesus in the Catholic Church; and, for producing "whole person" Catholic leaders of tomorrow. This is what should separate Catholic colleges from others.
In functioning as a Catholic college, the primary mission should be the presentation of what Catholic beliefs are, and why Catholics hold those views. The "what" is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "why" by studying the references in the Catechism which are from Scripture, Council documents and other recorded Catholic tradition. If a Catholic college is unwilling to pro-actively present Catholic beliefs and defend them, they cease to be a Catholic college. Students are free, of course, to accept or reject the Catholic teaching but they are at least given the information from which to decide.
If students don't want that type of education, there would be many other colleges available.
|
|
HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Nov 4, 2005 13:36:33 GMT -5
EASY ED FOR NEXT PRESIDENT OF GEORGETOWN!
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Nov 4, 2005 13:38:13 GMT -5
Ed - Nobody should be offended by that, but I do take issue with a couple of points as they pertain to our alma mater:
(1) GU is not merely a college; it is also a university. In fact, half of all students at GU (roughly 6,000) already have bachelor's degrees. Furthermore, arguably the primary function of the modern university is to produce scholarship, not simply to educate undergrads. And, while I agree that many students who are just out of high school are not capable for free-form exploration, GU attacts many very advanced undergrad students who are capable of taking off the training wheels pretty early. (2) If the purpose of the "Catholic college" is to educate "Catholic students" then what the heck is GU doing? Only 1/2 of the student body identifies itself as Catholic (and significant # of those are not practicing Catholics). This doesn't account for the fact that Catholics constitute a minority of the faculty and an even smaller percentage of graduate students. (3) Only a tiny fraction of courses, faculty output, and student work has anything to do with Catholic teaching. That can't possibly be the primary focus of any institution that calls itself a university.
This is not to criticize what you have presented as your model for the Catholic college. I only wish to point out that GU is not now and never will be anywhere near that. And, unfortunately, I think you model would force any Catholic university to choose between being a world-class university and "Catholic."
|
|
HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Nov 4, 2005 13:56:15 GMT -5
And, unfortunately, I think you model would force any Catholic university to choose between being a world-class university and "Catholic." That would be to suppose that Catholicism, and the further study thereof, is somewhat divergent from the world and therefore, Catholicism is fundamentally flawed in some way. For a Catholic that beleives wholly, the top Catholic college will, one day, be the pinnacle in learning and scholarship.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 4, 2005 15:46:11 GMT -5
Ed, spoken like someone who thinks an 18-year old can't think for themselves. Have you ever known anyone who lived their life through other people's opinions? You learn by trial and error -- and the people who truly make a difference in this life are rarely those folks who are willing to be force fed.
Practically speaking, what you want is a brainwashing clinic. Count me out.
Anyway, the Catholic tradition has a long history of intellectual thought and challenging tradition. It is a slow process, and the Vatican proper often ends up being the last to acknowledge, but as far as I know, the Vatican no longer claims the Earth is the center of the Universe, the planet is flat, Hitler was okay or that women are property to be owned by men. It no longer believes that you can buy your way into heaven.
In shaping the whole person, it is ridiculous to believe that majority of intelligent people -- even a minority -- will not have questions or thoughts that differ with official doctrine. Faith is not strong unless tested, and putting that off until "Post-graduate" studies is a delay of timing with no basis in logic or fact. Why not put it off until you are sixty? It should be addressed when the questions come up. Intelligent people are insult when they are dictated to.
Furthermore, Faith is an intensely personal thing. I can't imagine it is strong when someone tells you what to believe.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 4, 2005 15:50:07 GMT -5
Hilltopper, you made the point very clearly that Georgetown is not now a Catholic college. To me, that's a disgrace. You will also note I gave what I consider to be the purpose of a college, being careful not to use the term university. It's the post-graduate part of the university that, in my opinion, is the place where "exploring" should take place. Also, I do not expect any current student or recent graduate to agree with my assertion that persons straight out of high school are not prepared, from a knowledge and maturity standpoint, to engage in "exploring". I certainly would not have when I was that age. Finally, Georgetown can become my "model" university again, given the right leadership. It can not happen overnight but it was that in the past and can be that again.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Nov 4, 2005 16:06:44 GMT -5
I'm glad Gerogetown is not Catholic. [EDITED] I'm more glad that GU dorms still look out on to an all girls Catholic high School. mmmmmmm...gentiles.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2005 1:15:13 GMT -5
My two cents and I'm trying not to offend but to offer an opinion or two. I believe the purpose of a college is to educate students by passing on the accumulated knowledge of the centuries. And, it is not to allow the students to "explore". Despite what they believe, persons just out of high school are unprepared with their knowledge and maturity to "explore". Post-graduate work is the arena for "exploring". I believe the purposes of a Catholic college, in addition to the above, are to educate Catholic students with the aim of preparing them for life centered around their relationship with Jesus in the Catholic Church; and, for producing "whole person" Catholic leaders of tomorrow. This is what should separate Catholic colleges from others. In functioning as a Catholic college, the primary mission should be the presentation of what Catholic beliefs are, and why Catholics hold those views. The "what" is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "why" by studying the references in the Catechism which are from Scripture, Council documents and other recorded Catholic tradition. If a Catholic college is unwilling to pro-actively present Catholic beliefs and defend them, they cease to be a Catholic college. Students are free, of course, to accept or reject the Catholic teaching but they are at least given the information from which to decide. If students don't want that type of education, there would be many other colleges available. I totally disagree with your vision of undergraduate education. As someone involved in post-graduate education...I can tell you there is NO EXPLORATION. Post-graduate education is a time of intense focus and specialization. There is no more meandering. No more whimsy. Basically, school is your job and your subject matter is your career. You don't stray from your field much at all. Therefore, you require an open period of exploration prior to post-graduate work that allows you to explore the possibilities and run the gamut of academia. The beauty of the undergraduate experience is packing one semester with russian lit seminars, classes on horror films, political history of the middle east, etc. It should be a time of expression and exploration. You are becoming an adult and finding your way. bla bla. The basics you speak of, rote learning, classic curriculum and such should have been tackled in high school...
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Nov 5, 2005 1:46:04 GMT -5
Well, in easyed's world, I sure as heck wouldn't have come here, since Jesus ain't my thing. I'm very glad that Georgetown hasn't decided to become the religous seminary that he seems to want.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 6, 2005 17:29:00 GMT -5
My two cents and I'm trying not to offend but to offer an opinion or two. I believe the purpose of a college is to educate students by passing on the accumulated knowledge of the centuries. And, it is not to allow the students to "explore". Despite what they believe, persons just out of high school are unprepared with their knowledge and maturity to "explore". P I appreciate your intention "not to offend". I will do the same. That said, I don't believe I could disagree with your statement above more completely. To me, the whole point of a college education is to explore. And to learn how to think for oneself. To learn how to analyse issues. To learn to understand others -- individuals, philosphies, religions & cultures To learn to analyse one's own beliefs, not simply to parrot what one has been taught. Blindly buying into the accumulated wisdom of the ages does nothing to strengthen the individual or to teach him/her how to make good decisions in their own lives. Making historical information available, teaching how it was discovered, and enabling students to evaluate for themselves... that is what a college education is all about to me. While I was at GU, I had very few Jesuits as professors. But there were a couple who taught philosphy and theology brilliantly by refusing to fall back on dogma. Instead, they presented various viewpoints and ways that humans around the world understand life -- that was an education. I always thought Jesuits are so deeply involved with education because they believe that exploration, questioning, examining, evaluating and understanding are the most critical skills a person - be he/she 18 or 81 - can possess. And I thought the Jesuit educational philosphy was to learn by exploring. That is how I viewed my time at GU then, and how I look back on it now. And a college that welcomes a wide variety of students -- of various religious, ethnic, racial, and national backgrounds -- is bound to impart a more well-rounded educational experience because of the wide variety of viewpoints that would encourage.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,737
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 6, 2005 17:51:24 GMT -5
I can't buy the simple approach that a college education is primarily to explore. If it were, parents should save the $40,000 a year and buy their kid a pair of 90 day Greyhound bus passes and let them really explore.
An online dictionary search tries to define education as "teaching and learning [of] specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, good judgement and wisdom. Education has as one of its fundamental goals the imparting of culture from generation to generation." The Catholic Church is a singularly unique conduit to accomplish this, with a 2,000 year foundation coupled with 500 years of Jesuit critical thinking and objective review.
The open question is whether Georgetown is taking advantage of this resource, or simply it letting it run its course within its gates.
|
|
reformation
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,413
Member is Online
|
Post by reformation on Nov 6, 2005 18:06:22 GMT -5
DFW, what type of specific changes are you recommending
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,737
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 6, 2005 20:24:18 GMT -5
The main point is that I don't want to see Georgetown, in its aspiration to be "The Ninth Ivy", adopt an Ivy-like attitude to religion.
Case in point: what would you think about attending a school whose mission statement reads as follows: "The aims...are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion set forth in the teachings and character of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; to advance learning in all lines of truth; to defend scholarship against all false notions and ideals; to develop a Christian love of freedom and truth; to promote a sincere spirit of tolerance; to discourage all partisan and sectarian strife; and to render the largest permanent service to the individual, the state, the nation, and the church. Unto these ends shall the affairs of this University always be administered."
Sounds a little politically incorrect, doesn't it? Is this the mission statement of Liberty University or something? Actually that is the mission statement of Duke University...or at least, it was. It's been since sandblasted to a new, religion-free and PC-friendly version which reads, in part, "The mission of Duke University is to provide a superior liberal education to undergraduate students, attending not only to their intellectual growth but also to their development as adults committed to high ethical standards and full participation as leaders in their communities...and to promote a deep appreciation for the range of human difference and potential, a sense of the obligations and rewards of citizenship, and a commitment to learning, freedom and truth."
Whereas Duke has largely abandoned their religious heritage, Georgetown should build its traditions.
Granted, I neither expect nor advocate Georgetown turn back the clock, nor become some sort of weird sedevacantist outpost. Similarly, Georgetown will never be Steubenville, a school which places the mandatum at the top of its educational purpose and which orders an oath of fidelity from its faculty.
But why not take advantage of Georgetown's birthright as the founding Catholic University in these United States and stake a claim as the home for the preeminent Catholic minds in the nation, committed to both faith and works?
For example, why not create a world class, graduate-level institute in Catholic Studies, housed in the historic Quadrangle buildings that sit vacant today? When I say world-class, I mean that people in the Church would begin to look at it the way diplomats look at the SFS. It would involve a goal of $25M+ in the new capital campaign to build a highly competitive postgraduate program, recruiting the top canonical professors in the world, endowing partial scholarships for 50-100 priests and religious a year from around the world (not solely Jesuits) to spend two years on campus earning a graduate degree, then taking that Georgetown experience and education with them around the world.
It's a bold plan, but one which would reenergize the faith discussion within higher education.
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 7, 2005 9:57:31 GMT -5
All good points, DFW. It astounds me how many people adopt this notion that "the search" is all that matters. Apparently, it is simply "intolerant" to claim that the purpose of the university is to impart truth, since this necessarily involves the rejection of falsehood. I've never heard anyone suggest that Geogetown should dogmatically impart Catholic doctrine to its students (or "explorers," as some may prefer). However, the Catholic faith must certainly be central to the mission of a Catholic university. If you want to never encounter Catholicism (or God for that matter) in four years of college, I'd suggest you go to Harvard.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 7, 2005 10:26:53 GMT -5
I have no prolems with that idea, DFW. I do have an issue with what joehoya refers to as "dogmatically impart Catholica doctrine to its students" which has been recommended several times just on this thread. And I have a real problem with those who take the step from making Georgetown a Catholic University to a player in politics.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 7, 2005 17:11:03 GMT -5
I can't buy the simple approach that a college education is primarily to explore. If it were, parents should save the $40,000 a year and buy their kid a pair of 90 day Greyhound bus passes and let them really explore. Posted by joehoya07 on Today at 10:57 ... It astounds me how many people adopt this notion that "the search" is all that matters. Apparently, it is simply "intolerant" to claim that the purpose of the university is to impart truth.." ----------------------------- What amazes me is how people who say they are concerned about the education imparted at Georgetown could so blithely belittle those with whom they disagree. Maybe it is just the difference between the Business School and the College of Arts and Science. In areas like Literature, Philosophy, History, and more, heck even -- or maybe especially -- Physics, one thing that everyone learns is that "truth" is relative at best, subjective at worst. One more reason why "exploring" and "learning how to think for oneself" are such critical issues. Clearly, our understanding of education is widely divergent. My exposure to Jesuits at GU led me to believe they view education the same way I do... in the broadest possible terms. Maybe the Jesuits I met were the exceptions.
|
|