Whenever we get into this discussion, everyone tends to get hung up on the question of numbers and percentages. Scholars (rightly) don't like being told by an outsider to their field who counts as best qualified to work with them in their academic specialty. Then there is the problem that not all Catholics have a faith that informs their professional work.

There is a solution, that I would like to propose, one that can get around "nose counting" and that can also be attractive. In his first encyclical, REDEMPTOR HOMINIS, John Paul II said that man is the way for the Church. And Fr Hesburgh has famously said that the university is where the Church does its thinking. Well, it seems that there is a program here. The University of Notre Dame should be the place where the human person is central, where the human being—image of God, destined for eternal conversation with the Creator (Gaudium et Spes, 19), who, as the only creature that God has willed for its own sake, finds himself only in sincere gift of self (GS, 24)—should be the object of our study and service.

In other words, the University of Notre Dame can and should become a center for Christian anthropology. JP II showed us a lot about how this can be done. Certainly such study involves our philosophy and theology departments, but it also involves other disciplines: Psychology (where Darcia Narvaez is doing good work) and business (We can admire Carolyn Woo), and also the 'hard sciences—especially biology. We also have the CSC, where students get 'hands-on' experience of service. In other words, we already have many of the elements, which can be formed and directed and amplified.

Vision and mission are critical. We, the Church, have inherited such a vision from John Paul II, and his successor is doing everything he can to further it. Well, we can too. Notre Dame can and should be the place where any good scholar who wants to study and promote the authentic dignity and destiny of the human person will want to come and work. Such scholars will, more often than not, be Catholic.

That's for now. I have lots more I could say.

Let me say preliminarily that I hope we will hear a good deal of the "lots more" that you could say. I now turn to what you have said.

While I am far too uninformed to speak intelligently about the program you propose -- I am most assuredly, to use your words, "an outsider" to this field -- it certainly sounds appealing. At the same time, as a practical matter it strikes me as being such an original and potentially transformative proposal that it is a good deal less likely of accomplishment than fulfillment of the existing Mission Statement requirement of a "predominant number of Catholic intellectuals." To be sure, there might be established a "center" of some sort dedicated to the type at thisof study you outline, but this would simply be a surrender of the goal of a fully and a sturdily Catholic institution.

To be sure, there are, as you suggest, objections, some legitimate, to a standard based on "numbers and percentages." But, to borrow from Winston Churchill, while it is seriously flawed, it is the best there is. That is doubtless why the University adopted it, as did Pope John Paul II, with whose work you are so intimately familiar. The alternatives, e.g., a "critical number," all suffer the fatal defect of a degree of elasticity and subjectivity so great as to make Catholic identity whatever those in charge say it is.

A word about scholars who "don't like being told by an outsider to their field who counts as best qualified to work with them." First, we are talking about the President, the Provost, the Deans, and the Chairs, who are not so very far "outside." Second, as a general rule we are not talking about the selection of individuals, but rather a category. Third, academic freedom is one thing while setting fundamental policies respecting the composition of the faculty is quite another. Wth all respect, if faculty resent being held to such policies, I suggest it is an ill-founded reaction. I note that the Final Report of the Colloquy for the Year 2000 (the University's strategic planning document) said that "all who participate in hiring faculty must be cognizant of and responsive to the need for dedicated and committed Catholics to predominate in the number among the faculty.” What, I wonder, has happened to that?

Let me say preliminarily that I hope we will hear a good deal of the "lots more" that you could say. I now turn to what you have said.

While I am far too uninformed to speak intelligently about the program you propose -- I am most assuredly, to use your words, "an outsider" to this field -- it certainly sounds appealing. At the same time, as a practical matter it strikes me as being such an original and potentially transformative proposal that it is a good deal less likely of accomplishment than fulfillment of the existing Mission Statement requirement of a "predominant number of Catholic intellectuals." To be sure, there might be established a "center" of some sort dedicated to the type at thisof study you outline, but this would simply be a surrender of the goal of a fully and a sturdily Catholic institution.

To be sure, there are, as you suggest, objections, some legitimate, to a standard based on "numbers and percentages." But, to borrow from Winston Churchill, while it is seriously flawed, it is the best there is. That is doubtless why the University adopted it, as did Pope John Paul II, with whose work you are so intimately familiar. The alternatives, e.g., a "critical number," all suffer the fatal defect of a degree of elasticity and subjectivity so great as to make Catholic identity whatever those in charge say it is.

A word about scholars who "don't like being told by an outsider to their field who counts as best qualified to work with them." First, we are talking about the President, the Provost, the Deans, and the Chairs, who are not so very far "outside." Second, as a general rule we are not talking about the selection of individuals, but rather a category. Third, academic freedom is one thing while setting fundamental policies respecting the composition of the faculty is quite another. Wth all respect, if faculty resent being held to such policies, I suggest it is an ill-founded reaction. I note that the Final Report of the Colloquy for the Year 2000 (the University's strategic planning document) said that "all who participate in hiring faculty must be cognizant of and responsive to the need for dedicated and committed Catholics to predominate in the number among the faculty.” What, I wonder, has happened to that?

[My "Subject" line here reads like a line from Aretha Franklin's back-up group]

First of all, I don't want to argue with you. I agree that the U of ND should live up to its mission statement. In fact, as an adjunct with much less pay than regular faculty, I'd be delighted to see that mission statement turned my way!

The problem we face is that hiring decisions in American universities are the province principally of the academic departments, which guard them fiercely. This control of hiring an promotions is the essence of academic freedom, as that is understood in this country. (I realize, of course, that this freedom is not necessarily related to the freedom of inquiry and expression that we all thing academic freedom means.) We had a real dust up here at ND a few years back over Fr Malloy's decision to hire Fr Baxter to the Theology Dept. Fred Freddoso's personal website tells the story, and I refer you there (http://www.nd.edu/%7Eafreddos/baxter.htm). Fr Malloy was able to force the issue because Baxter was a CSC, and the University President has the right to insist on the hiring of CSC's under certain conditions. However, he was still accused of 'interfering' and violating the prerogatives of the department.

The point of all this is that if the top officers of this school—the President, Provost, Deans, et al.—were to intervene in departmental hiring decisions, we would see a battle royal. When it gets down to the psychology or English or biology department, then the President of the University is an "outsider." Their intervention would provoke a crisis, possibly with many faculty leaving or threatening to leave. On the other hand, if those in charge won't insist on implementing a "majority Catholic" hiring policy, then there won't be one. However, if they do, then they could expect major upheavals, which would probably short-circuit that ambitious goals of the latest fund-raising campaign.

What I have in mind is a vision that will complement our efforts to increase Catholic faculty. A center might be a good thing, but it might not. Centers can become isolated and encapsulated, as it were. We need JP II's personalism to become thematic around the university. Perhaps what I want is more like a movement than an institution, something that we can structure hiring around.

Whether what I have said can really 'work' I have no idea ... except that JP II worked while he was alive. I know that there are departments here that actively resist Catholicism and would doubtless resist and resent what I have in mind.

As to the majority of the faculty and the demands of the Mission Statement and Final Report, I doubt that they take them seriously.

Your stark characterization of the issue is bracing: “If those in charge won’t insist on implementing a ‘majority Catholic’ hiring policy, then there won’t be one. However, if they do, then they could expect major upheavals, which would probably short-circuit their ambitious goals of the latest fund-raising campaign.” While one can hope that the faculty would take insistence on adherence to the Mission Statement in good grace, some elements of the faculty, at least, might very well, as you say, react in a less than pacific way. And perhaps it would take longer to burnish the schools’reputation as a research institution. But the price of avoiding those risks would be, as you also say, failure to meet the Mission Statement’s test of Catholic identity. In other words, the result would be the loss of any legitimate claim to be a Catholic university under the test the University itself has laid down. It is a Deuternomic choice with the future of the University at stake, and it is presented to those in governance right now. Let us pray that they do better than did the Israelites.

I thank you for the link to the Fr. Baxter case materials. I had known of this episode, but not of the availability of this comprehensive documentation and analysis by Professor Freddoso. It is a revelatory event, but there is a difference in kind between a Presidential directive to grant tenure to, or hire, a particular individual, on the one hand, and less direct measures to enforce a hiring policy, on the other. Surely the President and the Board and the Fellows have not been somehow stripped of the authority to take such actions as are necessary to secure the Catholic identity of Notre Dame, and they must be wise enough to employ effective measure short of themselves doing the hiring. The President or the Provost in his stead must make the final decision, to begin with, and it takes no great imagination to see how this authority could be used to great effect. Then there is the power of the purse, on the reward side of the ledger, that comes into play, for example, in creating additional positions in a department. The Provost’s Committee, chaired by Father Sullivan, is examining the question of how to bring qualified Catholic scholars to the school, and we can hope for constructive recommendations there. How best, for example, to make use of the work that Father Sullivan has been doing in identifying promising Catholic prospects. I don’t suggest there would not be turbulence even so; but protesting against a President doing the hiring himself is scarcely the same as protesting against a President insisting that the Mission Statement standard be met. That is, insisting that Notre Dame remain a Catholic university.

If your vision of Notre Dame as a center for Christian anthropology can gain traction it would be a wonderful development, of course. The project is outside our mission, but you have my prayerful hopes for its success. Our and your efforts are plainly complementary, with each benefiting from the success of the other.

I'd like to say a word about faculty, a thought that has been on my mind for a couple of years now, but which is seldom noted. I think it might shed some light on the faculty end of this discussion.

It seems to me that most professions have a characteristic temptation or sin. For performers, it would be vanity. In the business world it is probably greed. Politicians have to win, no matter what the game. Pro football players have to deal with rage. For professional academics it's pride. Look at who we are. To be on a faculty at a major university you have to have written at least one book (your doctoral dissertation) and a bunch of articles; most people are intimidated by trying to write a 10-page paper. You can read and regularly use a couple or three foreign languages; most people have trouble recalling their HS French or Spanish. On campus you get treated with great respect: "Hello, Professor." "May I ask you a question Dr.?" Your old friends and neighbors are aware that you must be very smart and some will mention this. And you are. You know lots of things that ordinary people are only vaguely aware of, if they know them at all.

Instead of lots of material compensation (although a prof at ND can make a pretty decent livelihood), you work for reputation, which is based mainly on publication. You need to get published in the best, most prestigious journals. When you do, your hope then is to get cited by others. (We ALL check through articles in our own fields to see if we're getting quoted. It was a personal thrill for me to discover that a European medievalist recently spent 1-1/2 pages of his book on transcendentals disagreeing with me.) It doesn't matter so much if you are well known or popular. You want the recognition of your peers, and this especially in the form of using your thoughts. We all dream of writing that seminal article or book that gets commented on and argued about for the next two years. (I had an interesting conversation over ten years ago with a prof here at ND. I commented that I had just finished reading Fr McBrien's "Catholicism," to which this professor commented, "Why would you do that to yourself?" Mc Brien, it turns out, seems not that well regarded as a scholar. He has different fish to fry.)

So our thing, our characteristic sin is pride. (JP II alludes to this in Fides et Ratio.) The internal pressure one feels as a professional scholar and academic is to belong to, to be accepted by the academic community, to be recognized as a significant player in the intellectual scene.

I'm not saying that we are all full of pride, any more than that all business people are greedy or football players are wife-beaters. But the temptation is there as an ongoing thing to which most of us are far more susceptible than we might ordinarily admit -- even those of us in a Catholic university.

I offer this as a kind of sidelight on the discussion of Catholic faculty.

I strongly believe that ND being a strong orthodox Catholic institution is far more important that being a top 20 Newsweek university. To sell our souls for academic excellence or academic "freedom" is an atrocity. True freedom lies in following Christ and His teachings, which are handed down through Tradition by the Church and through Scripture as guarded and preserved by the Church. If professors at ND want to be free of the burden of being at a Catholoc University, let them take their credentials and go to Berkely or Princeton or some other academic beacon. If we slip a little, so be it. We have saved the soul of the university. I do stronly believe that if we were to make a strong Catholic statement that leading scholars like a Scott Hahn or others would flock to ND and maintain or even improve on its standing in academics.
Bob Smith 68' 74'