The Emerging Scholars Blog

Leon Kass

Each year, a senior scholar at the University of Chicago is chosen to deliver the Aims of Education address to incoming students. (An archive of the addresses since 1995 can be found online.) In 1981, Leon R. Kass delivered perhaps the best known of the addresses, “The Aims of Liberal Education.” After dismissing several other goals as insufficient as the fundamental aim of liberal education (i.e. as opposed to education for professional training), or as objectives that can be better achieved elsewhere, Kass proposes thoughtfulness:

What, then, could be left for the aim of liberal education if we exclude professional training, research and scholarship, general broadening and culture, the arts of learning, and familiarity with the intellectual tradition? I have already hinted at my answer: Not the adding of new truths to the world, not the transmission of old truths to the young, but the cultivation in each of us of the disposition actively to seek the truth and to make the truth our own. More simply, liberal education is education in and for thoughtfulness. It awakens, encourages, and renders habitual thoughtful reflection about weighty human concerns, in quest of what is simply true and good. (86-87, emphasis added)

Leon R. Kass, “The Aims of Liberal Education,” published in The Aims of Education, edited by John W. Boyer. Copies are pretty hard to come by – I could not find one for sale anywhere, so check your local library.

What do you think? Is thoughtfulness the aim of liberal education?

Photo Credit: U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics, via Wikipedia

Updated 10:12 AM: Fixed typo in title

As I read Stanley Fish’s Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal (NY Times Opinionator, 8/9/2010), two responses immediately came to mind.  What do you think?

(1)  I disagree that every sin is learned.  My own experience and that of raising my kids (and my own responses to raising them), indicate that there is something not quite right inside which influences our behavior unless grace is given to go an “unnatural direction.”  Note:  the Biblical story provides helpful perspective on this frustrating condition.  Below’s a quote representing Fish’s position:

Whenever it comes up plagiarism is a hot button topic and essays about it  tend to be philosophically and morally inflated. But there are really only two points to make. (1) Plagiarism is a learned sin. (2) Plagiarism is not a philosophical issue.

Of course every sin is learned. Very young children do not distinguish between themselves and the world; they assume that everything belongs to them; only in time and through the conditioning of experience do they learn the distinction between mine and thine and so come to acquire the concept of stealing. The concept of plagiarism, however,  is learned in  more specialized contexts of practice entered into only by a  few; it’s hard to get from the notion that you shouldn’t appropriate your neighbor’s car to the notion that you should not repeat his words without citing him. — Stanley Fish. Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal.  NY Times Opinionator. 8/9/2010.

(2) Not practicing plagiarism may be an one of the responses to How do we practice a faithful presence?

 Loading ...

InterVarsity president Alec Hill – who formerly taught law at Seattle Pacific University – has written an opinion column on Christianity Today’s website that offers some wisdom and insight on the CLS v. Martinez case (and I’m not just saying that because he’s my boss).

Like many other commentators, Alec wonders about the viability of an “all comers” policy:

It is difficult to imagine a large university like Ohio State adopting an “all-comers” policy. Student groups representing affinity groups such as sororities, Latinos, atheists, or the LGBT community would be required to admit anyone and everyone into their inner circles. Sororities, for example, would have to admit male students. The result would be chaotic.

Alec notes that, to his knowledge, only one university in the country has a policy like Hastings.

I strongly recommend reading the whole article – I was tempted to quote almost all of it! However, I’ll close with just one anecdote that Alec shares, illustrating why it’s important for colleges and universities to make room for minority viewpoints, even when the university administration doesn’t understand that viewpoint.

Recently, the president of a private liberal arts college became concerned about our chapter’s insistence that student leaders be committed to biblical standards of sexual holiness. When the chapter leaders came to his office—a student body officer, a star athlete, and the editor of the campus newspaper—he grasped the importance of keeping the chapter on campus.

Like I said, read the whole thing. Afterwards, check out my InterVarsity and CLS college Michael Schutt’s blog post on the ruling, too.

The American Flag parachutes into the middle of a NASCAR race. That's pretty American!

Happy Fourth of July! Er – make that, the Fifth of July. In the spirit of the holiday, let’s talk about the Bill of Rights.

Last week, I posted some links and quotes about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Click here for my initial post about the ruling.

What are your thoughts? How do you think this ruling will affect Christian organizations on college campuses?

As you might expect, CLS has a thorough summary, analysis, and lots of links. Though this comes from CLS, this perspective seems to be emerging as a consensus view:

The holding is very narrow, and applies only to the Hastings-style “all comers” policy, which does not exist at any other public university. This means that CLS v. Walker 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) is still good law. Walker held that a traditional non-discrimination policy may not be applied to religious groups who require a statement of faith from members.

For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that the ruling is “unlikely to end litigation” in the area of freedom of association, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination policies.

Legal scholar Eugene Volokh, in a New York Daily News editorial, thinks that the court made the right decision, but isn’t sure that the Hastings College of Law has:

I think this policy was unwise. Exclusionary groups bring special perspectives that can enrich discussion at the university. In practice, a self-described conservative Christian group will likely attract conservative Christian members even if the group must formally accept everyone. But it’s better not to rely on this tendency, and to instead let each group preserve its voice by excluding members who might undermine that voice.

InterVarsity’s official statement expresses concern that the ruling will affect campus ministry.

“Today’s decision is disappointing and will likely change the way we operate on some campuses,” said InterVarsity president Alec Hill. “However, whether our chapters are recognized as official student groups or not, we are confident that God will continue to be at work transforming the lives of students and faculty across the country. We plan to continue to minister at both public and private schools. As we have for the past seven decades, we will be responsible campus citizens and pursue Truth prayerfully. We will do so with civility, humility and biblical integrity.”

Adam Goldberg of the Student Press Law Center takes a dim view of the ruling, while SPLC’s executive director, Frank LoMonte, raises an excellent question in a blog post:

The question left after Monday’s decision is: Could a college refuse funding to a conservative or liberal student newspaper on the grounds of a “viewpoint neutral” rule that required all publications to present a representative cross-section of diverse student opinions? That the answer to that question is no longer unmistakably “no” illustrates why Christian Legal Society’s reasoning is cause for concern.

What are your thoughts? How do you think this ruling will affect Christian organizations on college campuses?

Please note: This blog does not represent any official positions of InterVarsity regarding this case. I don’t think that I offer any opinions or analysis of the ruling in these posts, but if I do, they are solely the opinions of yours truly.

Photo credit: Who else? Bristol Motor Speedway

Statue of Justice at the St. Louis U. School of Law

Just for clarification, any opinions or analysis below are solely those of me, Mike Hickerson, and do not represent the official positions of InterVarsity. InterVarsity’s official statement on the ruling will be posted at InterVarsity.org when it is available.

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 margin against the Christian Legal Society in its case, CLS vs. Martinez. Click here to see our earlier summary of the case. InterVarsity had filed an amicus brief supporting CLS in the case.

What is your reaction? Do you think this will hinder campus ministry?

I am most definitely not a lawyer, so I have no idea how this will impact InterVarsity’s ministry. Here is the central point of the ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, straight from the Supreme Court itself.

The all-comers policy [of Hastings College of Law] is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the RSO forum; it therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations.

The Court also ruled that, contrary to CLS’ argument but consistent with its earlier stipulations, the Hastings’ policy does not “target solely those groups that organize around religious beliefs or that disapprove of particular sexual behavior.” Additionally, the Court held:

Neither lower court addressed CLS’s argument that Hastings selectively enforces its all-comers policy. This Court is not the proper forum to air the issue in the first instance. On remand, the Ninth Circuit may consider this argument if, and to the extent, it is preserved.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion. Here’s a key selection, emphasis added:

The Court’s treatment of this case is deeply disappointing. The Court does not address the constitutionality of the very different policy that Hastings invoked when it denied CLS’s application for registration. Nor does the Court address the constitutionality of the policy that Hastings now purports to follow. And the Court ignores strong evidence that the accept-all-comers policy is not viewpoint neutral because it was announced as a pretext to justify viewpoint discrimination. Brushing aside inconvenient precedent, the Court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups—groups to which, as Hastings candidly puts it, these institutions “do not wish to . . . lend their name[s].”

This was a busy morning for the Court and for Supreme Court journalists, with three other rulings, including a major Second Amendment case, the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan, and the death of Justice Ginsburg’s husband. I have not seen any substantive commentary on the ruling. I will try to update this post as analysis becomes available.

What is your reaction? Do you think this will hinder campus ministry?

Updates: CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund have put out a joint statement concerning the ruling.

Here is Ted Olsen’s summary from Christianity Today.

The AP story quotes Justice John Paul Stevens comparing CLS to anti-Semitic and racist groups:

Stevens, who plans to retire this summer, added that “other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women — or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”

Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle also posted news articles about the ruling, which characterize the ruling as upholding “anti-discrimination policies” at universities nationwide.

However, David French of the Alliance Defense Fund has two blog posts about the ruling in which he suggests that the ruling is narrower than that:

As I read through the Supreme Court’s opinion, I’m struck by the profound narrowness of its holding.  Put simply, the Supreme Court upheld Hastings Law School’s policy that every student organization must be open to any student on campus.  This policy is known as Hastings “all-comers” policy, and as of the date of the oral argument in the case, we could not locate any other public university in the country with a similar policy.  In fact, in the more than 10 years that I’ve been arguing and litigating this issue on campus, I’ve never seen another policy like it.

Update [ 5:00 PM]: Legal scholar Eugene Volokh appears to agree with David French that the ruling applies only Hastings’ “all comers” policy, and not to more common anti-discrimination policies.

As the final stragglers hold their commencements, student and faculty thoughts turn to summer. Later this week, the Midwest Faculty Conference begins at Cedar Campus. InterVarsity Faculty Ministry intentionally designed this conference to provide both intellectual engagement — this year’s main speaker is Ken Elzinga, and there will be seminars on Bach, Chesterton, and influencing the campus — as well as plenty of time for relaxation and refreshment. (BTW, the West Coast Faculty Conference begins August 1, and there’s still time to register.)

I’ve seen many friends on Facebook and Twitter preparing their summer reading, getting ready for academic conferences or research trips, or taking a brief break before summer classes begin. And, of course, there are lots of people moving — to new jobs, new schools, new families, etc.

 Loading ...

Do you have a set of must reads which you believe should lie at the foundation/base of a college education (i.e., American college education), no matter the institution, e.g., Christian college/university, community college, engineering/tech school (e.g., Carnegie Mellon University or MIT), Ivy League, liberal arts college, state university?  If so, what are they and why?  Below’s a recent email from a faculty friend regarding his alma mater, Harvard.

it’s sad but the harvard faculty could never approve anything like the “great books” program…they could never have a coherent view of what education is about, now that the “veritas” of the old harvard has been removed…a cafeteria approach is all that could reach a consenus in the recent revision of the general education requirements…they couldn’t agree or approve the wonderful suggestion of requiring one course in “faith and reason”  (broad guidelines, could even be taught by an atheist)…but too many faculty fussed and worried about any courses that involved that sloppy, unscientific thing called “faith”…St. Johns is one school that does have a “great books” program as the foundation of their liberal arts curriculum…and another school “st. thomas aquinas” (i think that’s the name) also has a similar curriculum…and the conservative “hillsdale college ” in michigan has a coherent liberal arts foundation (freshman take either greek or latin)…. [Follow-up email] … columbia university’s substantial, coherent core curriculum…harvard faculty would  never approve this  old-fashioned approach…consensus is impossible with them…  http://www.college.columbia.edu/core

In The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less (HarperCollins, 2005), Swarthmore Professor Barry Schwartz takes a few pages to highlight Shopping for Knowledge (pp.14-17):

1. the loss of general education requirements, in particular the capstone course which was intended to teach students how to use their college education to live a good and an ethical life, both as individuals and as members of society and 2. the purchasing of goods such as classes and degrees. … Now students are required to make choices about education that may affect them the rest of their lives. And they are forced to make these choices at a point in their intellectual development when they may lack the resources to make them intelligently.

Upon reflection, my education at Grove City College (1992-1996) began with a class to set the tone for college education but lacked a capstone course.  Furthermore, the core curriculum sought to teach values over the course of several years (6 classes, 1 per term for the first three years) drawing from compilations of readings and Building a Christian Worldview (W. Andrew Hoffecker, editor, P&R Publishing, 1986. Note:  written by a cross-disciplinary faculty team from the college).  Although there was not a focus upon the great books providing the core of College Education, the Good Book (i.e., the Bible) was given significant attention in all the classes (Note:  One of the core classes was a Bible overview).

Back to the question, do you have a set of must reads which you believe should lie at the foundation/base of a general college education (in the United States of America)?

And I guess that I have raised a second question, if must reads are not the center of a core curriculum are there certain principles at the foundation/base of a general college education (in the United States of America)?  Or is a core curriculum only possible in unique educational settings and the ability to assume a college graduate has read or considered certain materials a thing of the past (or possibly one that was only fulfilled in an ideal, distant past)?

Where did you find your megaphone? Who gave it to you?

This is the first of four guest posts from Janine Giordano, a graduate student and ESN member from the University of Illinois, on the topic of cultivating your voice and finding your audience while in graduate school. When she is not teaching, she spends most of her time working on her dissertation, Between Religion and Politics: The Working Class Religious Left, 1886-1936.

I exchanged Facebook posts recently with a Christian friend who is an excellent scholar and an excellent union organizer. Her father is a prominent pastor, and she obviously has very similar gifts in shepherding and public speaking. She can move a crowd to cheer at a rally for higher education in a way that seasoned pastors usually only dream for, and she is always, quite naturally, bringing new leaders into the fold. It has always bemused me that her church, like mine, would never permit her a place in the pulpit. Kerry and I have had many discussions of gender and the Church; they usually climax in a fiery exchange of affirmations for the other’s frustration with American churches’ unwillingness to recognize women as fully gifted people.

We usually remind each other that we are not alone and we ought to keep up the fight, but it had been a long time since we spoke, and this time it was different. I began my jeremiad as usual, but she sighed—with understanding but an air of more hope than I expected, even craved—that she had pretty much found other megaphones these days. In the past several months, Kerry has successfully worked with our city government to make some changes in criminal justice protocols; she has led our graduate student union to a better contract—both as our rallying speechmaker and as our lead negotiator with the University of Illinois. She is even working now on getting the police in town to get a better work contract of their own. This time, her affirmation to me was not to keep on fighting my church but to find another. She even pointed out a suggestion.

I looked at this last message in disbelief. “Join another church?” I wondered as I brushed my teeth. Last year I finally left my church of four years after fighting a long, losing battle for the opportunity to teach adult Sunday School. I wanted to engage the adults in my church with the history of the Christianity in the United States so very badly, and kept thinking that if I exposed more and more of the hypocrisy of their rules (for example, that I could teach Religious History at the local seminary, or the local university, that I could sing my message at church, that I could teach the same content to ANY of them if they were under thirteen, by their own rules!) then they would change their convictions about me, even if not about all womankind. Read the rest of this entry »

Even across three generations, the love of MacBook is the tie that binds.

Last week, Tom and I, along with about a hundred other InterVarsity Graduate and Faculty Ministry staff, traveled to Techny Towers Bookstores and Conference Center for our annual staff meetings and training. For the past several years, our GFM team has been journeying through the Four Core Commitments of GFM, with teachers like Scot McKnight, Gordon Smith, and Andy Crouch. As I mentioned on Friday, our teacher this year was MaryKate Morse, George Fox professor and recent author of Making Room for Leadership. Our theme: Serving across Generations on Campus Together.

As part of our training, we participated in intentional listening to colleagues from other generations – uninterrupted time for each other to express our thoughts and feelings about our own generation and others.

One sign of the times: during our worship, I had the good fortune to sit near a couple of older staff who sung hymns in four-part harmony, a magnificent part of our Western church heritage that is rapidly being lost. As I tried to take a note about this later on my iPhone, the spellcheck didn’t recognize the word “harmony.” Read the rest of this entry »

Read and discussed On The Pursuit Of Excellence: Pitfalls in the Effort to Become No. 1 (Richard H. Bube, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol 39, 1987, pp. 67-76) as part of an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s Faculty Ministry Catalyst Workshop.  Below is the conclusion of the article.

Profound issues are raised in dealing with the pursuit of excellence. A person’s entire world view is involved in responding to these issues, and Christian perspectives may frequently be quite different from those of the secular world. First, there is the question of what constitutes excellence. A common secular response is to regard excellence as the state of being better than anyone else. Competition between people is the framework in which excellence is defined, and the achievement of excellence requires, in the last analysis, being recognized as No. 1. The Christian perspective sees excellence rather as the state of being of the highest quality as measured by the standards of God. There is no necessity for superiority of one person over others, and no particular virtue in being labeled No. 1.

Second, there is the question of how excellence is judged. In a secular framework, excellence is judged by the opinions of other people. In particular areas some direct quantitative measure of excellence may be agreed upon, but this also represents the opinions of those constructing the quantitative measure. The Christian perspective measures excellence against the standards of God. In fact, it begins with the recognition that no one is by nature excellent before God, but that by His grace in Jesus Christ and by the power of His Holy Spirit, we may serve Him to His glory in all that we do. The opinions of other people may indeed be helpful in guiding a person in the pursuit of excellence, but they do not constitute the final decision.

Third, in a secular perspective excellence can be viewed by considering one part of life at a time. A person may be judged to be an excellent physicist at the same time that he is judged to be a complete failure as a husband and father. People are rewarded for maximizing areas of excellence in life without taking any special care for other areas in which failure results. Excellence is task-related, and there is little vision of excellence in all of life as a major goal. For the Christian, excellence in all of life is the goal. Excellence in specific aspects of life is to be maximized only insofar as such maximization is consistent with the minimization of unfaithfulness to responsibilities, broken relationships, failed commitments, and insensitivity to others’ needs.

If an academic institution chooses to follow directions laid down by the secular perspective, it becomes quite a different place than if it had followed the Christian perspective. The deliberate choice to become No. 1 enters a university on a treacherous path scattered with many pitfalls. Individuals concerned for the quality and effects of education should carefully consider the implications of this choice.

Questions/Recommendations:

1. How do you pursue excellence?
2. Do you pursue excellence in all or only part of your life?
3. Is excellence a too culturally laden term for a follower of Christ to use?  If so, what term would you propose?
4. Note: As time permits, please take the opportunity to read the whole article, available here, and pass it along to some friends/colleagues.  Then find the time to chat about it via email, on-line, or over coffee/lunch sometime over the course of the next several months.