Main Campus Executive Faculty » Reports and Documents » Response to Task Force
| Executive Faculty Response to the Task Force on Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit Identity |
|
The Executive Faculty's Response to the |
Preamble: The final report of the Task Force on Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit Identity represents the culmination of several years of hard work by faculty and academic administrators drawn from throughout the University. The value of the document arises both from the crucial questions it addresses about the nature of Georgetown as an academic community and from the thoughtful answers it proposes. Our task as an ad hoc committee of the Executive Faculty was to draft a response that reflects our sense—and the sense of a broad range of Main Campus faculty—about what should happen next as a consequence of the Task Force's efforts. We view such a response from Georgetown's faculty as crucial: while the final report may be a completion for the Task Force, it also represents the beginning of the next phase in which the University may commit significant resources, both of time and money, to realizing the recommendations of the Task Force. Before such a commitment takes place, the entire academic community needs to be heard from, both regarding the timing and priorities that guide any implementation, and regarding the very nature of the projects recommended. Thus we engaged the Task Force's final report not as such—final—but as one response to a set of serious questions that was meant to elicit, not an up-or-down, yea-or-nay reaction, but reactions that propose to refine and, in some cases, redefine the agenda. And as we worked we discovered that the final report, if approached from this perspective, is a document that yields readily to other proposals about how best to address the set of concerns it raises. In this preamble we emphasize several over-arching concerns that arise from or form the context for many of many of the specific comments we make below. First, we express our concern that aspects of the report's tone and substance have caused many among the faculty to begin to doubt the University's commitment to the fundamental principles of academic freedom and intellectual and cultural diversity. We do not believe that this was the intent of the Task Force; nevertheless, we express our own firm commitment to these principles. We also urge that no proposal in the report be understood, or implemented, in such a way as to limit anyone from full and equal participation in the life of the University. The diversity of Georgetown's current faculty is a testimony to the University's development of an intellectually free and inclusive environment as part of its elevated status over the last decade. We do not wish to see this change. Second, while we acknowledge the value of the Task Force's fundamental purpose--it is essential for the well-being of institutions of any type to examine their identity--we observe that discussions of identity are incomplete if they are not tied to an institution's sense of its entire mission, encompassing both its academic ambitions and its heritage. The final report is precise and focused in calling for initiatives that will reinvigorate and clarify Georgetown's commitment to its Catholic and Jesuit identity, but this very precision exposes how much the University needs a mission statement that articulates our common understanding of this heritage and identity and our sense of academic and communal purpose arising from this understanding. We support the closing suggestion of the Task Force that Georgetown University needs to articulate its mission and tie the discussion of its identity to the mission of the University. Many of our individual comments below seek to broaden the focus of the recommended projects. This broader context will be important for maintaining and developing the Centered Pluralism that laid the groundwork for the Task Force's final report. The document focuses on the Jesuit-Catholic dimensions of Georgetown's identity. The risk is that we may lose the delicate balance of pluralism that goes hand-in-hand with the Jesuit identity of Georgetown. We think that situating the conversation about the Jesuit identity in the wider context of the University's mission will help maintain the centered pluralism that has been so much a part of Georgetown's identity. Third, while we understand that the Task Force was specifically charged with recommending new projects and approaches to nurturing Georgetown's identity, we took it as our responsibility, wherever possible, to recast recommendations so that they mesh with work already being done, or to coalesce projects into one another so that the creation of new committees can be minimized. We had two reasons for this effort. First, time, as we all know, is a precious commodity, and the final report now spends it rather freely. It is not clear to us that some of the recommended new committees are necessarily the most compelling way of addressing the identified problem: for example, the fifteenth recommendation—calling for a committee to improve student life—seems to duplicate much that is already happening. Second, we believe that in so far as the recommendations of the Task Force are seen as growing from the many concerted efforts to address the University's well-being that have taken place in this decade, the initiatives of Centered Pluralism and the Task Force will be welcomed by the whole academic community as part of our collective desire to make Georgetown the best it can be. Finally, we wish to flag prominently a concern which needs much more careful reflection. As will be seen, we endorse the Task Force's proposals on targeting hiring as commensurate with both what Georgetown is and what it wishes to be. We are troubled, however, with the proposed plan for recapturing the faculty lines given out in this manner, once the original holder, whether a Jesuit, a woman, or a minority, leaves. Departments and programs build a curriculum upon faculty to whom they feel a commitment, but if they know that a targeted hire may only be on loan, so to speak, they may be reluctant to make such a genuine commitment. We do not have an ideal solution but suggest that there must be a more careful balance maintained between the two compelling needs in conflict here: targeted hiring can help Georgetown build a strong intellectual community; departments and programs, however, will be strongest and most coherent when they can build upon the strengths of all their members. In what follows, we address the recommendations of the Task Force not in the order in which they appear in the final report, but in blocks that allow us to highlight what we believe to be the central concerns. I. On the recommendations about targeted hiring initiatives At separate points in the final report, the Task Force calls for focused hiring initiatives to serve different objectives: Regarding a stronger Jesuit presence: 3a. Georgetown should create an endowed fund to support both academic and non-academic positions for Jesuits. (8); Regarding a better sense of community: 11. Georgetown should maintain a ready pool of funds for the recruitment and hiring of women and racial and ethnic minorities to the faculty. (21). And regarding a better intellectual climate: 7. The President should create a University-wide committee responsible for facilitating conversation and coordinating action about mission-centered hiring in schools and academic departments. (16). We agree with the need for Georgetown to have priorities with regard to hiring, especially the hiring of faculty, that are commensurate with its heritage and academic aspirations. We think such funds are vital, particularly to facilitate hiring Jesuits, and agree that Georgetown's commitment to its Jesuit identity should be signaled by a special endowed fund. Thus recommendations such as the first two above strike us as on the right track. It is when these two are brought into closer proximity, however, that we can see more clearly the aims of each: each calls for a kind of affirmative action that, if handled properly, will promote the intellectual strengths of the University and its tradition as a Catholic and Jesuit institution, especially that part of the tradition that encourages excellence, rigor, and intellectual openness. The danger is, however, that these hires, whether of Jesuits, women, or minorities, occur as impositions by the administration and thus create ill will within and among departments and programs. Thus, we agree that affirmative action within the normal recruitment process of any given department or program seems the best route for any of these targeted hires. When opportunities present themselves to recruit exceptional candidates, then hiring must be done through extraordinary means and in exceptional timing, but if there is a vigilant University committee, as we believe there should be, these kinds of hires should be the exception. In this context we also think that the Jesuit Community should take a greater responsibility, first, in the mission to hire Jesuits as faculty, by coordinating information about promising Jesuits elsewhere and alerting academic units about them. Second, the Community should develop careful subsequent mentoring for young Jesuits in regard to their priorities as they advance in the tenure process. Too many, we fear, are not given the kind of guidance—particularly concerning service—that will best ensure their success. The Task Force calls for a particular method of maintaining funds for these hiring initiatives: 3b. Funds that have been allocated by the University to schools and departments specifically for the purpose of enabling them to hire a Jesuit should be retained for that purpose at the time of the Jesuit's departure or retirement; as appropriate to academic needs and the availability of qualified Jesuits, these funds should be used to make comparable appointments in the same or other schools or departments. We fear that difficulties will likely arise in maintaining the level of funding, whether in the pool for Jesuit hires or for women and minorities. The Task Force describes the ideal situation in which salaries are retained for only targeted hiring. It may not always be possible, however, to recoup the salary from a vacated position after departments have built up programs or created other circumstances in which that position remains essential. In such cases, decisions should be made through normal processing, and the administration should be sensitive to the programmatic concerns of the department. Finally, we believe that these first two categories of targeted hires, which promote an environment that both affirms a Jesuit heritage and also welcomes the intellectual vitality of diversity, create the proper context for addressing "mission-centered" hiring (Rec. 7). If the University sets about a systematic conversation about targeted hiring intended to promote its intellectual well-being and traditional community, there can be a place in that conversation for other sorts of hires which support either the former or the latter--or both. The phrase "mission-centered" may sound alarming to some, but Georgetown is already home to a number of highly-respected colleagues whose scholarship falls within what we take to be our "mission" as it relates to our heritage. Judicious hiring, such as the Philosophy Department's recent decision cited by the Task Force, would only expand that group. The call now is for the question to be addressed on a regular basis, and we think it prudent, especially in the context of promoting the overall intellectual strength of our faculty. We have a number of concerns, however, about the recommendation on mission-centered hiring and how it may be interpreted or implemented. We would first stress our understanding of the Task Force's language: it does not call for any faculty member's personal beliefs to be at issue in any hire, nor does it set anything like a quota for the number of faculty who address Catholic issues in their teaching or research. Furthermore, we are convinced that the term "mission-centered hiring" itself can be interpreted in many different ways. In the absence of a clear mission statement for the entire University, as well as a strategic plan to implement the mission, any discussion of mission-centered hiring remains problematic. In that regard we comment on the fact that two of the three recommendations quoted above either call for or depend upon committees for their oversight (3a depends on an expansion of a committee on Jesuit hiring that already exists; this expansion is called for in recommendations 2a & b). We recommend combining them and adding the issues in recommendation 11, so that one University committee exists to plan for all targeted hiring. These would include the efforts to recruit Jesuits and to increase the presence of women and minorities among the faculty; they would also address other hiring efforts that seem particularly well suited to support Georgetown's heritage. II. On the recommendations about the Center for Catholic Social Thought On pages 10-12, the Task Force calls for the creation of a new research center with the following recommendations: 4a. Georgetown should establish a research Center for Catholic Social Thought devoted to the exploration of the contributions, relevance, and influence of Catholic social thought in contemporary problems of public life. 4b. Georgetown should create a set of endowed faculty positions—we suggest six—for scholars in a variety of academic disciplines who are respected for their knowledge of Catholic social thought and their ability to apply it to current issues. The scholars would hold joint appointments in the Center and the relevant school and/or department. We agree with the Task Force that centers at "the best research universities" can "attract scholars of the caliber necessary to achieve worthwhile results and in enabling all those who have an interest in a subject to collaborate effectively" (10). We nevertheless believe that the Task Force's conceptualization may be too narrow. We suggest instead that an emphasis on Catholic social thought be made central to a more broadly conceived Center for Religion and Social Thought. We agree with the rationales outlined by the Task Force that highlight GU's special qualifications for housing such a center (11). But we feel that the excellence and influence of such a center can be best served by situating Catholic social thought in the context of other religious traditions that affect public affairs. The benefits of "combining scholarly erudition with spiritual imagination of people of faith" would be enhanced by addressing issues of "the widening income gap," "human rights," or "nuclear proliferation" (11) in a comparative context, for example, the ways Catholic social thought intersects with other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu attitudes towards these issues. Such a perspective highlights the differences and similarities as well as the benefits of each of these religious traditions and their relationship to social thought. The Task Force itself felt this need for a multiplicity of religious perspective (10); we want to see such an emphasis pre-eminent. This Center could become the focal point and to some degree the coordinator of rich collaborative work with institutions and programs already flourishing at Georgetown: the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, the Center for Christian and Muslim Understanding, even the undergraduate interdisciplinary program in Social & Political Thought, Catholic Studies, the future Jewish Studies programs, might all benefit from the vigor and energy of a new center. Such a Center, conceived as a prominent site for exchange among various faith traditions and public policy concerns, would enrich interdisciplinary discussion, highlight Catholic thought, and be the focal point on campus, in Washington, and the nation for religion and social policy. (Footnote 1) We agree with the second recommendation concerning this new center: a significant initiative such as this requires the infusion of distinguished senior scholars. We would recommend, however, that Georgetown attract not only scholars whose focus is upon Catholic thought but also those who focus on other individual faith traditions or on comparison among such traditions. III. On the recommendation about an Institute for Jesuit Pedagogy The Task Force addresses another area of the University's intellectual life with the following recommendation: 5. Georgetown should establish an Institute for Jesuit Pedagogy designed to teach and study Jesuit educational method and values. (13) We agree with the underlying premise of this recommendation—that while the University justly deserves its reputation for excellence in teaching, it nevertheless does not pay enough attention to the systematic cultivation of best educational practices (12 & Supplement 4, p 3). This finding accords with other recent studies of Georgetown's intellectual life which identified a need for examining how we teach now and how we might improve in the future. These earlier studies have also called for some sort of standing body of faculty and administrators dedicated to studying and sharing pedagogical insights with the faculty. We can also agree with particular perspectives called for, such as those on ethics and values in education (13). We are reluctant, however, to endorse without further comment the emphasis being placed on the Jesuit tradition. While we appreciate the desire to celebrate the Jesuit commitment to excellent teaching, we think that the proposed name for the institute is frankly alarming to many and simply confusing to others. On the one hand, many of the educational ideals claimed for a specifically Jesuit approach to teaching are simply good pedagogical practice that anyone committed to student learning would espouse. On the other hand there is a danger in trading in clichés (e.g., cura personalis, contemplation in action) as they can all too easily support the status quo and prevent genuine innovations in teaching. Finally, such a name may generate a sense that its purpose is unrelated to the fine efforts of Georgetown's non-Jesuit faculty to be excellent educators. We support instead a more inclusive understanding of the University's teaching mission, one that is reflected in a different name: an Institute on Excellence in Learning & Teaching. (Footnote 2) Thus we envision an institute that serves as an inclusive institutional home for fostering excellence in teaching and learning within which the kinds of opportunities and challenges that are unique to Georgetown as a Catholic and Jesuit institution can then be substantively addressed. Many intellectual and pedagogical innovations now involve bridging disciplinary boundaries, reexamining the canon of educational materials, reaching out to a diverse student body, connecting formal education with the work-place and the community, using to greatest advantage a wide array of technological resources, and devising approaches to assessing learning outcomes that are commensurate with these new learning goals and environments. (Footnote 3) The Task Force raises a number of these issues throughout its final report as being important to Georgetown: an institutionally well anchored and well connected institute could act upon them with rigor and focus. Supplement 4, on the proposed institute, outlines an ambitious agenda for any new body asked to study best teaching and learning practices. As our comments above suggest we would like the charge to such a new body to de-emphasize "Jesuit" practices and take on the more global emphases we have sketched here. We also see this newly conceived institute as a perfect place to put into effect another important recommendation of the Task Force: 12. The President's office should convene and support a series of faculty seminars on the role of diversity in the design of curricula both to discover new curricular initiatives and to signal to women and minority faculty, as well as the world at large, the University's commitment to creating a truly inclusive academic community. (22) IV. On the recommendations about Georgetown's undergraduates: The Task Force is right to identify need-blind admission as crucial for maintaining a diversity and intellectual rigor among our undergraduate students that is commensurate with Georgetown's identity: 9. Georgetown should remain staunchly committed to providing full financial aid, in keeping with need, for all successful applicants to the undergraduate programs. This is a recommendation that we strongly support. Since financial aid is not always enough, however, to attract qualified undergraduates from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we concur with the Task Force when it suggests the development of strategies for actively recruiting these students (20). We also agree with encouraging service as part of every student's education. The Task Force recommends achieving this through a highly distinguished and selective society of first-year students: 10. Georgetown should create a service-oriented scholars program for first-year students [Pedro Arrupe Scholars]. We would encourage the President to consult with the faculty-led initiatives already underway to promote students' involvement in service, to see whether this is the most effective format. V. On the recommendations about the mission of the University Chaplain The Task Force makes four recommendations to support or enhance the work of Campus Ministry: 8. The Jesuit Community, in cooperation with the University Chaplain, should develop an ongoing educational program to provide members of the wider University community (faculty, students, and staff) with opportunities to learn about the University's current identity and mission in light of its own history and that of the Society of Jesus. 17. The University Chaplain, in collaboration with the Office of Campus Ministry, should create individual Faith Councils for all of the various religious traditions to be composed of students, faculty, staff, and appropriate ministers from each of the faith traditions. The University Chaplain should also create an Interfaith Council. 18. The University Chaplain, in conjunction with the Theology Department, should develop an ongoing program of lectures and seminars which will include an interfaith focus as well as sections designed for each faith tradition. 19. The University should commit itself to an expanded chaplains-in-residence program that would see Jesuits or other chaplains in increased function and numbers and therefore much more available to students and staff. While we support any feasible proposal that enhances the effectiveness of Campus Ministry, we have a particular concern with the eighteenth recommendation. We do not approve of the manner in which it singles out just one academic department and discipline as an appropriate body to address the work of the University Chaplain and Campus Ministry. We would encourage the Chaplain to invite suggestions for the seminars envisaged here from all academic units, many of whom might have appropriate proposals. VI. On other recommendations: 1. Georgetown should commit itself now to maintaining the size of the Jesuit presence in the University, and the faculty in particular, at least at the current level. This recommendation appears uncontroversial in setting a philosophical goal for Georgetown, but we call for further reflection what seems to be the underlying principle. It seems that Georgetown's claim on the best Jesuits from everywhere in the country, without regard to the needs of their original provinces or other Jesuit institutions, rests on the University's goal of being the premier Catholic and Jesuit institution of both research and higher learning in America. We wish to be certain, then, that this is indeed part of our mission. 6. Georgetown should create a role for the Department of Theology in graduate education. We have no objection to the Theology Department taking a role in graduate education but we think that such initiatives must be developed in the Theology Department itself. We also think that the department and the administration should accompany any such planning with on-going discussions about sources for funding. 13. The President's office, along with academic executives and deans, should design and implement formal programs for identifying and attracting, with funding, the most academically promising women and minority undergraduates for its graduate educational programs. We endorse the recommendation, but encourage the President's office to leave this task to the office of the Provost, in conjunction with the Graduate School's Executive Council. 14. The President's office should prepare and publish an Annual Report on the Advancement of Diversity at Georgetown. We share the interest of the Task Force in publicizing the University's efforts at promoting diversity, but believe that an annual report may be too frequent. We suggest instead a three-year cycle; we also believe that such a report should include comparative data from our peer institutions or other national sources. 15. The Provost should create a standing Committee on Main Campus Life to devise and execute programs to enhance the quality of campus life, to increase student-faculty interaction, and to promote the aim of civil discourse and conduct. The Task Force's concerns about the quality of student life are shared by others who have recently studied the well-being of our University community, and if this route is judged by the new Provost and the Dean of Student Life to be the most effective means of maintaining on-going efforts to promote the best in students' lives, we have no objection. We would reiterate, however, the concern we expressed in the Preamble about the proliferation of committees. 16. Georgetown should actively and publicly affirm its Catholic identity in publications, in orientations for new members, and in retreats and ceremonies which evoke both participation in and expression of Catholic spirituality. As we noted in our preamble, we believe that such an emphasis upon Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit tradition is rightly part of the University's larger academic mission. This recommendation, however, must be publicly balanced by the inclusiveness called for by Centered Pluralism. 20. Georgetown should create an Ethics and Business Conduct Committee to advise policy-makers on issues concerning the governance of the University and the management of its business affairs. Prominent among its activities, this committee should evaluate and monitor implementation of administrative policies with respect to ethical and moral treatment of employees. Reaching these ideals would be significantly facilitated by establishment of an office of the ombudsperson as was recommended to the President in spring of 1996 by both the Main Campus Executive Faculty and the Faculty Senate. In Conclusion: The final report of the Task Force proposes ambitious—and expensive—ways and means for Georgetown both to affirm its religious heritage and to pursue its academic promise. To illustrate the problem we append a preliminary summary of the resources required by the five major resource-intensive recommendations. Thus we confront finally the obvious question: what should be the President's and the University's priorities in taking up these proposals? We suggest the following:
|
 |