The Purpose of the Academy

Hi everybody, I am tired of studying biochemistry right now, so I will have a few brief comments on the Barack Obama/Mary Ann Glendon affair.  

For those of you who don't know, President Obama is slated to give the commencement address at Notre Dame, and Professor Glendon was scheduled to receive the Laetare Medal, a high honor given to Catholic scholars or stewards (in some capacity--I am no expert on the award).  In any case, she decided to decline the award, saying that she was used as traditional token church traditionalist in counterpoint to the President's pro-abortion views.   Google it at your leisure.

Elsewhere, Patrick Deneen wrote:

While Glendon does not emphasize one direction that these statements could be taken, the tactic is clear and widespread: it is enough for Catholic institutions to have some voice on campus that "represents" the Catholic view, and the very presence of such a voice is sufficient both to signal the soundness of the institution's Catholic identity as well as permitting the inclusion of any and all non- or even anti-Catholic voices. It's as if what's being said is: "Don't worry about all that stuff that indicates we are not Catholic - we have Program X over here, or Professor Q over there." What this thin and bankrupt argument seeks in fact to obfuscate is the absence of an actual dominant and defining Catholic culture and governing philosophy on campus. What it seeks to veil is that a large number of "Catholic" institutions seek to be indistinguishable from their secular and disaffiliated counterparts with a light sprinkling of some Catholic program or symbols that purport to show their distinctiveness. Meanwhile - as the student guides of the campus tours at Georgetown always seek to point out to prospective students and their families - we all know that this school is not REALLY Catholic - ::wink-wink:: - so don't worry. It's all just for show.

This raises a good point about the greater question of the purpose of academia and intellectual pursuit.  Some will allege that providing a panoply of views within a particular institution is beneficial, in that we need to have free inquiry into a wide variety of ideas: ideas imposed by an institutional monoculture are not ideas at all, but propaganda.  Agreed.  But intellectual humility can be taken too far, and is taken too far in many circumstances.  When official promulgation of doctrine or ideas is silenced for the prevention of "divisiveness," we must ask what, in the end, is the pursuit of truth for?  Because if we hold that adhering to an idea, or thought, or belief is necessarily oppressive or hurtful, then academia itself becomes a contradiction.  

We must have the humility to admit we can be wrong, but we must also have the honesty to stand for something.  At some point, rationality cannot be the riddle of the Zen koan--a delicate balance of yin and yang, ever opposed, ever different, but always equal.

To clarify, in the setting of Catholic universities:  some will say that official doctrine is ipso facto oppressive and antithetical to thought.  Yes, I admit, it can be; truth imposed by fear or sheer rigidity does not cause agreement, but rather, acquiescence--later to be replaced by rebellion, when out of the shadow of the nun's icy glare, so to speak.  Persuasion is necessary.  However, the entire concept of education is that the young pupils must be built up by those who are older, wiser, etc.  The power differential between teacher and student must not be abused, but we must recognize that a power differential exists, but that this is not a problem in itself.  Too often, the concept that the young should rebel against their elders is upheld, citing abuses of traditionalism and authority, but this is to say their misuese implies they are by their very nature bad, when this is not so.  Yes, all societies and cultures have problems that require change and reform, but they also have things that should endure and be preserved, and reflexive spewing about the "damn kids on your lawn," or "crotchety, old codgers who know nothing" only spares us the hard work of asking us the hard questions of what must be kept and what must be thrown out.

To the point of intellectual pursuit in a Catholic university (or any with an official doctrine): again, free inquiry is desirable in its own right, but only to its proper extent¹.  At some point, if a university or organization is established under the premise that "This is true," then eventually, it must uphold that tenet.  Why?  Because again, if academia and inquiry actually matter because the truth is actually true, then when someone concludes tenet X or point Y, they have an obligation to fight for it.  You may say that this stifles debate, asking questions, etc, but remember, universities do not exist in a vacuum, but in the greater milieu of the culture at large, where there a plenty of other universities, groups, scholars, et al who will gladly disagree.  In other words, a university that vigorously defends its tenets is not squelching dissent, but engaging it.  If we cared deeply about debate and inquiry, we would see that anything less is not accomodation---it is abdication.

1.  Yes I know I am not asking the "hard questions" of what that extent is.  It's late, I'm tired, and I have to go review aminolevulinic acid.  If you have any ideas, that's what the comment box is for.