ED 207 445

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

JOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

112, 014 394

Gallin, Alice, Ed.Purposes and Leadership.Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,Washington, D.C.81

54p.Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,Suite 770, One Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 20036

($2.00). -

Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education; v2 n1

Sum 1981

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.*Catholic Schools; *Church Related Colleges;.*CollegePresidents; *Governing Boards; Higher Education;Institutional Role; Religious Organizations;*Trustees

ABSTRACTPurposes and leadership in Catholic higher eduCation

are discussed to promote further dialogue among members of theAssociation of Catholic Colleges and Universities on institutional

roots, present institutional conditions, and future vision. Papersand authors include: Commentary on Bishops' Pastoral Letter onCatholic Higher Education (William J. Revak); The Secularization ofWestern Culture and the Catholic College and University (Jude P.Dougherty, Desmond. Fitzgerald, Thomas Langan, Kenneth Schmitz); TheCatholic College Presidency--A Study (Louis C. Gatto); Trusteeship in

the Church-Related College in the '80s (Richard T. Ingram); EmergingCorporate Models of Governance in Contemporary American CatholicHigher Education. (Martin J. Stamm). (CC)

************************************************************************ ReproduCtions suppli0 by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* . from the original document. *

************************************************)**********************

4/-1;74.-- .0' 1 f' 4 4,

liI

IMin

ED20 44

I

Association of CatholicColleges and Universities

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ChairRev Frederick McManusThe Catholic University of America

Vice ChairSr Catherine McNamee, CSJCollege of St Catherine

Immediate Past ChairSr Jeanne Knoerle, SPSt Ma.; -of- the -Woods College

terms to 1981Rev Michael Blecker, OSB

St John's. University, MNRev William Byron, SJ

University of ScrantonSr Mary Dooley, SSJ

College of Our Lady of the ElmsBro Raymond Fitz, SM

University of DaytonDr Frank Kerins

Carroll College

Terms to 1982Sr Magdalen Coughlin, CSJ

Mount St Mary's College, CADi John M Duggan

St Mary's College INDr Robert Gordon

University of Notre DameRev John O'Conna;40FM

St Bonaventure UniversityBro Stephen V WaV", CSC

Saint Edward s University

Terms to 1983Bro Patrick Ellis. FSC

LaSalle CollegeDr Joseph H Hagan

Assumption CollegeMr Clarence J Jupiter

Xavier University, LARev William C McInnes. SJ

Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universitiesfilev William J Rewak, SJ

University i f Santa Clara

ACCU Executive StaffAlice Gallen. OSU

Executive DirectorDavid M Johnson

Assistant Executive Director n0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURpOSE

IntroductionAlice Gatlin, O.S.0

Commentary on Bishops' Pastoral Letter on CatholicHigher Education

William I. Rewak, S . J 3

The Secularization of Western Culture and The Cath-olic College and University

;ude P. DoughertyDesmond FitzgeraldThomas LanganKenneth S c h m i t z . . . 7

LEADERSHIP

The Catholic College Presidency A StudyLouis C. Gatto .24

Trusteeship in the Church-Related College in the '80'sRichard T. Ingram .32

Emerging Corporate Models of Governance in Con-temporary American Catholic Higher Education

Martin J. Stamm . . . . . . . . ...... . . 38

Introduction

Amid the daily crises brought on by reduced fed-eral monies for student aid, ever present danger fromdeferred maintenance, and campus budget committeemeetings, our presidents are still fundamentally in-terested in the "purpose" for which everything elseis done. Serious conversation with many of them re-veals a deep-seated desire to make their institutionstrill: places of encounter between faith and culture.They have responded to the Bishops' Pastoral of lastNovember with positive and creative ideas about waysto increase the service offered by the Catholic highereducation enterprise to the Catholic community atlarge. The ACCU Board of Directors, in identifyingTask Forces for 1980-81 and 1981-82, has paid atten-tion to some very fundamental questions: Minoritiesin Catholic higher education: Values in Career-Ori-ented Education; Community Behavior on Catholiccampuses; Building a Community of Faith; questionsof sponsorship by religious communities; better ar-ticulation between the colleges and the Catholicschools. Our Neylan Conference ran three very suc-cessful conferences for Sister Trustees, dealing withbasic questions of mission, ministry, controlliau-ence, and trustee responsibilities and liabilities.

Reading through the various reports from theseactivities. one cannot but be impressed by the sericn.5commitment to Catholic higher education. On theother hand, there is a great deal of ambiguity as tothe ways in which the Catholic nature of the institu-tion can be expressed. Diversity is the fundamentalreality the given and what is needed is a unify-ing spirit which will strengthen our cofpo-rale- witnessas well as our political power in the arena of highereducation in America today.

In a talk given to the ACCU Peace and Justice

2

Education Conference held at Manhattan College,June 5-6, Rev. Peter Henriot, S.J. spoke of this decadeas a time of potential "refounding" of our Catholiccolleges and universities. The self-understanding ofourselves as the church, the community of Jesus'disciples, has been enlarged and clarified by the teach-ings of Vatican H and by subsequent explications bythe theologians and bishops as well as by the livedexperience of American Catholics. It is only logical,therefore, that the self-understanding of the Catholiccollege/university will have changed accordingly.Central to this is the importance of justice "con-stitudve" of the very life of the church itself. Othercharacteristics will be: ecumenical, responsible, com-munity-oriented, open to the Spirit; a church of andfor the world truly a world-church. One cannotreally come to a satisfactory understanding of the"mission" of a Catholic college/university unless onehas a ca6efully constructed position on what is to beunderstood by "Catholic." Many discussions flounderon the conflicting definitions of "Catholic" rather thanon the nature and purpose of a Catholic college.

It is my hope that by presenting in this CurrentIssues a number of papers which touch on questionsof purpose and leadership of Catholic higher educa-tion ACCU will be promoting further dialogue amongour members. Clearly, this is not a question that canbe settled once and for all. It requires each institu-tion's careful reflection on its own roots, its presentcondition, and its vision of the future. And it requiresour sharing these reflections with one another inhonesty and mutual trust.

Alice Gallin, O.S.U.Executive Director ACCU

.

COMMENTARY ON BISHOPS' PASTORAL LETTERON CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

William J. Rewak, S.J.

In November 1980 the Catholic Bishops of Amer-ica approved their first Pastoral Letter on Catholic

,igher Education.* The event itself is noteworthy,(plate apart from the letter's optimistic message, forwhile Church documents have been published byvarious groups representing higher education, andwhile the Second Vatican Council emphasized the im-portance of the apostolate of higher education, theAmerican Bishops as a group have not previouslyspoken to this issue.

Why should they now?Perhaps it is because Catholic higher education in

America, at the beginning of the '80s, is at a cross-roads, and it needs assurance that its cause is stillviable and that its motivation is still honorable. Itneeds assurance and support from its leaders.

The relationship between a university and r bishopcan often be a tense one. The emphasis, the consis-tent bent, of a scholar is toward freedom of con-science and freedom of investigation; the consistentbent of an ecclesiastic is toward authority. Both arenecessary. The Church, as an institution and as agraced group of people, cannot exist without either.It isbencouraging, therefore, that the Bishops shouldforMally announce their approval of our mission andtheir willingness to be of service to us.

We are, indeed, at a crossroads. Colleges in someareas of the country will undoubtedly suffer becauseof an increasingly smaller pool of college-age stu-dents. Inflation hrs caused tuition to skyrocket andprograms to be cancelled. Government regulationsand lawsuits now take a hefty slice of the budgetarypie.

There have been rumblings, too, that Catholichigher education is not really answering the mosturgent needs of our population. Such r imblingsoften heard within religious communities and duringmeetings of religious superiors turn to the wisdom,or lack of it, of investing so much money and man-power in a relatively few institution3. Cannot muchmore be done through .a large number of smaller anddifferent kinds of institutions that directly ministerto those caught in poverty and injustice? Isn't thatwhere the Church ought to be in the '80s1

Father Rewak is the president of the University of Santa Claraand a member of the Board of Directors of ACCU. This com-mentary was first published in Santa Clara Today (February1981).

Catholic Higher Education and The Pastoral Mission of theChurch, United States Catholic Conferenre, Washington, D C.1981.

3

The question is a real one. And it is often an agon-izing one. For not every organization within theChurch can do everything; choices have to be made,priorities have to be established. And there is nodoubt that the investment made in a university ismuch more inflexible than that made, for example, ina small house of community organizers. Such a com-mitment is not lightly made, for ;t cannot easily beunmade.

Given the economic difficulties; given governmentpressures; given the anguish over identity and pur-pose; and given the decreasing number of religiousmen and women available for their educational insti-tutions, it is understandable that the morale of thoseworking in Catholic colleges and universities has notbeen as sure-footed as it has traditionally been. Andit is further understandable that those outside theeducational establishment most particularly, super-iors of religious orders should not accept the mis-sion of higher education without question or withoutcareful evaluation.

Thus, the Bishops' Pastoral Letter is a timely one.What are its main points?

The first thing that must be noted is that it doesnot purport to speak about higher learning itself, thenature of the intellectual enterprise. It accepts as agiven the importance of that enterprise. White it doessay, therefore, that "the Catholic identity of a collegeor university is effectively manifested only in a con-text of academic excellence," its main purpose is tospeak about the pastoral dimension of a Catholicuniversity.

To head off any critics who might say the Bishopshave neglected the crucial issue the place of intel-lect within a faith structure the letter does refer tothe document, "The Catholic University in the Mod-ern World," that was published in 1972 by the SacredCongregation of Catholic Education. And the letterdoes establish, at the outset, that one of the three "in-dispensable" ways in which higher education servesthe Church is its effort "to bring reason and faith intoan intellectually disciplined and constructive encoun-ter."

While the letter does not expand on this issue, theBishops undoubtedly thought it necessary to assert it.And wisely so. For there is an anti-intellectual evan-gelism current in American religious thought: whathas learning got to do with being a follower of JesusChrist? One can, after all, do good for one's neighborand achieve salvation without knowing calculus orLatin or the iambic pentameter.

Our answer, of course, is that God and our neighborare served by the exercise of human powers, by theapplication of our talents to the eradication of injus-tice, by the slow, gradual growth in cultural aware-ness, by the contemplation yes, in leisure of thecreated world, and by the hard muscular work andintellectual work it takes to finish the work of re-demption

Intellect is to be served if foi no other reason thanthat it is an essential part of humanity. Not to exploreits possibilities would be presuming that God hadblundered.

The Bishops ha% e presumed God did not blunder,and their emphasis, rather, is how Catholic highereducation as faith community's can best serveits students.

First, they encourage Catholic institutions to beforthright in their identity: they should "continue tomanifest, with unmistakable clarity, their Catholicidentity and mission. . The Catholic identity shouldbe evident to faculty, students, and the general pub-lic."

This willingness to be open and clear about ourmission was not characteristic of Catholic higher edu-cation in the '605 and early '70s Some institutions, toacquire financial aid from the state, tended to down-play their identity Some others, to attract a pluralis-tic faculty, placed more emphasis on neutrality I4-ianon commitment to a religious tradition And others,to avoid the charge of provincialism and to competewith nationally-known universities, divested them-selves of the rhetoric, the parapliarnalia, and even thecontent of the religiously-inspired institution. Secu-larism, to some extent, was in the air. Those whohave survived that era have either maintained theiridentity at all costs or quickly reverted back toit

The Bishops' statement is a reminder that our valuelies in our determination to be what in fact we are.

Interestingly enough, while the Bishops place dueemphasis on the importance of identity and encourage"the recruitment and retention of committed and com-petent Catholic faculty," they are keenly aware thatthe "Catholic college or university can be a fertile

environment for ecumenical activity."Indeed, the campus seems a more suitable place

than any other for the kind of theological dialoguethat is needed in our world, and the letter presumesthat a Catholic university is an exciting, vital theologi-cal marketplace where faculty and students are in aconstant search for truth

Granted this atmosphere of a marketplace, the Bis-hops underline emphatically that "one of the principaltasks of a Catholic university, and one which it aloneis able to accomplish adequately, will be to maketheology relevant to all human knowledge and, re

4

ctprocally, all human knowledge relevant to theol-ogy."

They are uncompromising in their vision that theol-ogy is the cornerstone lf Catholic academic life. Theyare not speaking of holness, of spirituality, of goingto Mass every Sunday. They ore talking about theimportance of the scholarly pursuit of theologicallearning, and they applaud the improvement of theo-logical education since the Second Vatican Council.

We are always concerned about what distinguishesus as Catholic institutions. The Bishops say, ". . thedistinguishing mark of every Catholic college or uni-versity is that, in an appropriate academic fashion, itoffers its students an introduction to the Catholictheological heritage "

And they add, almost as an aside, "This is a moralobligation owed to Catholic students." Given the poortheological background of most of our students, thatstatement has some force and should make us reflecton how adequately we are fulfilling that obligation.

All Catholic institutions realize that the study ofreality, of the universe in which we live and move andhave our being, is incomplete without a study of thetranscendent and how that transcendent affects ourlives To be totally open to reality is to be open to thatwhich lies beyond touch and sight and hearing. Asthe Bishops put it, "A truly liberating and elevatingeducation is incomplete without the study of theologyor religion " Fortunately, we have moved beyond theCartesian world-view

Theology is, of course, the block over which theo-logians and bishops have often stumbled in the past.And if the relationship between a university and abishop is at times a tense one, it is mainly because oftheological research.

Scholars can be faulted for using freedom to excessand bishops can be faulted for using authority to ex-cess. The ideal would be a benevolent joining of thetwo functions to serve both the demands of truth andthe consciences of those people who are struggling atthe level of pre-evangeli7ation.

The Bishops, in a fraternal and commendable fash-ion, urge this union- "We encourage the universitiesto develop ways which will bring bishop and theol-ogian together witli other members of the Church andacademy to examine theological issues with wisdomand learning, with faith, and with mutual charity andesteem

In a telling quote from the document; "The CatholicUniversity in the Modern World," the Bishops recallthat we all need to work for that "delicate balance

. between the autonomy of a Catholic universityand the responsibilities of the hierarchy " This presentPastoral Letter goes a long way to.yard establishingthat balance

In a following section of the letter, the Bishopsstag unequivocally the centrality of the liberal arts:

.. we urge Catholic colleges and universities to pre-serve and strengthen the teaching of the liberal artsin undergraduate and pre-professional education"; andthey underline the importance of philosophical stud-

ies: "Without some philosophical grounding, bothteachers and students in all fields of study run therisk of superficiality and fragmentation."

They insist, further, that we "have the obligation

to study and teach the moral dimensions of everydiscipline," and that such a study is especially urgentin professional schools because, in a society as tech-nologically oriented as ours is, it is the professional

who will make decisions involving human values.And they repeat, from an earlier letter, the neces-

sity of educating for justice: "Students and facultyare encouraged to become personally aware of prob-lems of injustice and their responsibility to be in-volved in the social process."

What the Bishops, then, are obviously concerned

about is our curriculum. How does the curricularstructure of our schools communicate the heritageand the values of a Catholic education? Such a con-cern comes at the right time, for almost all inde-pendent colleges and universities are reevaluatingtheir curriculum. Most educators admit to a capitula-tion of authority in the '60s and early '70s whencourse requirements fell on rocky ground and thecurricular distinctiveness of Catholic institutions be-

gan to pale.Obviously, accrediting agencies did their part: they

became tougher, demanding more courses and moretime. And, indeed, some of the course structures ofthat era did need overhauling.

One of the big problems for the '80s, therefore, is

a curricular one. How do you prepare a student, espe-cially in the pre-professional schools, for entranceinto the work force and still adhere to the central im-portance of the humanities, of a value-oriented educa-tion? Some Catholic institutions Santa Clara is one

have a theology requirement because they are con-vinced the study of God and of our relationship toGod is at the core of reality. Should such a require-ment be expanded to include philosophy, as the Bis-hops suggest? How do you shape a curriculum, forfour different undergraduate schools, that will includethe practical study of ethics? Indeed, is the study ofethics possible without prior grounding in logic and

metaphysics?The medieval structure is gone. Have we another

structure to replace it?After voicing curriculum concerns, the Bishops

speak of our obligations to minorities, especially toHispanic-Americans The Church in America has al-ways been the "Church of the Immigrants," and im-migrants have traditionally found opportunities for

higher education in cur institutions: -Catholic insti-tutions should strive to respond to their legitimate

5

needs." But the Bishops reach out beyond Americanborders: ". .. an international point of view should beevident on the college campus."

As we move into the '80s, American private highereducation will have to find new sources of income toprovide more scholarships for minorities, and it willhave to discover ways to compensate for the sub-standard education that most minorities receive. Barioand ghetto schools are, for the most part, the mostnotorious scandal of our American educational sys-tem; and higher education will never be able to pro-vide the total answer. But it can without com-promising academic integrity provide support andan atmosphere of understanding and caring, and itcan provide programs that do compensate, in somepart, for the failure of many of America's publicschools.

We were all immigrants once. And we should takespecial care of those who are now trying to move intothe mainstream of American society.

Besides our human and moral obligation to ethnicminority groups, there is a practical educational ad-vantage for everyone in having as diverse a studentbody as possible a student body that also includesan international flavor. Homogeneity is seldom a vir-tue, variety almost always is. As the Bishops state it,the presence of international students "provides anopportunity for close association which makes pos-sible an increased appreciation of others' culture andpoint of view."

A predictably large part of the letter is devoted tocampus ministry and reflects the growing awarenessthat to isolate this ministry in one area of the campusis to misunderstand the nature of a Catholic collegeor university. The identity of such an institution can-not be the responsibility of one department, or of oneadministrator, of one specialized group a religiouscommunity, for example or even of a document.The identity has to be lived. Institutions are, basically,abstractions; if we call them "Catholic" or "Jesuit,"we mean that the people who form the institution liveby certain ideals and traditions and standards.

In this context, campus ministers are leaders and

facilitators. They can focus certain ministerial func-tions, they can coordinate activities and even be in theforefront when issues need clarification. They are theyeast for the campus, and their job is to teach all ofus students, faculty, and administrators how tobe, in our turn, yeast for our society.

As the Bishops say, "This office is badly degradedif it is regarded only as something like a bookstore orstudent union, some sort of a convenience for thosestudents who want a little religion on the side of theirhigher education."

In the past ten years, campus ministry offices havechanged radically. lay men and women have joinednuns and priests in an exciting variety of activities.

Ur)

Such changes have resulted, in most cases, in a re-vitalization of campus liturgical life, in a rediscoveryof the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises along with othertypes of retreats and in closer contact with theacute social problems that exist both on and off thecampus.

Campus ministry in higher education will continueits vitality in the '80s, but only it enough young menand women lay and religious are interested inits work. Most Catholic institutions are badly in needof campus ministers, and the prospect is not encour-aging. Perhaps we need to develop, within the insti-tution itself, a structure whereby our own studentsare encouraged and educated to enter this ministry.Thir has worked in some institutions; it will soon bea necessity for all.

Ulomately, if campus ministry performs its distinc-tive function, and if other members of the institutionreflect, in their own way, the identity of the institu-tion, the campus ought to be a real conanunity offaith; it is this community of faith the Bishops areencouraging and supporting. "No more fitting idealcan be sought," they say, "than to build a communitywhich encourages intellectual growth and which callsto and supports a personal religious commitment."

Other issues are touched on: the importance ofscholarly research ("Catholic scholars . . should ex-amine all the fundamental questions in human culture

6

with the highest degree of intellectual rigor"); the

openness to adult learning; encouragement to religiouscongregations ("It is important that the mission ofhighei education,, remain a priority among religiouscommunities"); the need for religioUsly-orientedteacher preparation programs.

All in all, the letter gives to the Catholic college oruniversity a blueprint for the '80s: a searching ex-amination of its curriculum, a willingness to shed thelast vestiges of provincialism, a rigorous adherence toacademic standards, and the formation of communi-ties in which young people may 7row in mature com-mitment, where they can "function effectively as the

future leaders of American business, government, cul-

ture and rel;gion."It might be noted that to all those who have spent

much time helping I.:, compose and to all those who

have studied our Goals and Guidelines, all theseissues sound familiar. Indeed, the letter does mirrorperfectly Santa Clara's own concerns about its educa-

tional mission. And we are not alone: most Catholic

institutions have geared up, through discussions andlong-range planning, to handle just these issues. Such

a confluence of sentiment is therefore an encourage-ment to all of us who are engaged in the mission ofhigher education.

It is also a sign of hope.

:31

THE SECULARIZATION OF WESTERN CULTUREAND

THE CATHOLIC COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITYJude P. Dougherty

Desmond FitzgeraldThomas LanganKenneth Schmitz

Catholic Higher Education

The modern college is indeed universitas studiorumin the breadth of subjects taught and in the degree ofits involvement in the students' lives. Far from beinga monastery withdrawn from-the world, struggling topreserve essential elements of an embattled tradition,the modern college is inevitably involved with almostevery aspect of the surrounding culture. What theCatholic college is and what it ought to be can there-fore be analyzed and planned only in the context ofthe society and cultufe in which it operates.

The authors of this report* are convinced thatNorth American society in the decades ahead willcontinue to need a wide-spread network of Catholiccolleges and universities of which 239 presentlyexist. They are needed as -both institutions of generalhigher education and special "think tanks" for theChurch. We say advisedly that a e society as a wholeneeds this, and not just the Church The Christiancommunity should not relax its conviction that, asmany students of society have observed, a commu-nity cannot long exist without a core of common con-victions, and that the core of common convictions inthis society, which historically have come from theChristian tradition, remain sound and ought to be de-fended both rationally and politically. The fact thatmany of them are under attack in this increasinglypluralistic time is no reason to lose heart. The tradi-tional convictions, if they remain true, have to bemore deeply understood in the light of the attacksMade upon them and defended in a way that will re-animate the consensus. A decent society can onlyremain healthy as long as sufficient cohesion remainsto permit discussion about common aims and there isa will to work in harmony and consort. The Catholicsystem of education, at all levels, forms students in

The authors constituted a committee of the American CatholicPhilosophical Society to study the plate of philosophy inCatholic colleges and universities. They are on the faculties ofThe Catholic University of America (Dougherty), the Univer-sity of San Francisco (Fitzgerald), and the University ofToronto (Langan and Schmitz).

This report was based on a study of philosophy programs inCatholic colleges and universities done for the AmericanCatholic Philosophical Society in 1979

7

the broad panoply of these traditional, once almostuniversally common, Christian and democratic con-victions, and encourages the kind of reflection onthem which helps sustain the national vision. In thisway, Catholic schools make a central contribution tothe well-being of the society.

That the Church, for its part, needs as much as itever did both a wide-spread network of colleges anda number of excellent universities, seems to us ob-vious. The Catholic tradition is an intellectual one. Itcreated universities as part of its perennial endeavorto continue the task of fides quaerens intellectum. Itcannot confidently entrust to the modern non-Chris-tian university the task of pursuing insight into thewhole of what has been revealed. It cannot even besure that secular universities will preserve and handon the full range of cultural fruits thus far achievedby the Catholic tradition. Moreover, Catholics can beformed into the tradition adequately and in meaning-ful numbers only by a committed community. Theteaching institution, the collegium, alone can unite theexpertise distributed amongst the various disciplines,provide a curriculum which offers systematically boththe methods of reading, analysis, and criticism andappropriation of the cultural resources which the tra-dition provides. At the same time, the student has tobe prepared, vocationally or professionally, to lead alife in society, where he will bring his talents to beatto influence those around him. In this way, he willmake his contribution to the society's growth in acohesive fashion consonant with his heritage.

Without a certain number of committed univer-sities, the Catholic college network will not long beable to maintain itself effectively. Large numbers offuture teachers for Catholic colleges can scarcely beformed in departments whose preoccupations leadthem to have little interest in issues vital to the

Catholic tradition, or worse, whose members espousepositions hostile to Christian faith. Moreover, think-

ers de.ive inspiration and help from like-mindedcolleagues with similar interests and concerns. Andmuch time can be lost when one has to adopt theinterests and the style of a community with very dif-

ferent orientations.Finally, where the local Catholic community is mak-

ing proper use of its Catholic colleges or universities,the intellectually and spiritually active elements in thecommunity discover a rich resource at their disposi-tion. just the presence of a library can be important.The organization of good quality seminars on moraland spiritual issues facing the community, the avail-ability of experts sensitive to the whole tradition whocan be called on to serve on school boards theseare things which affect the quality of the community'sspiritual and intellectual life. That is why it remainsimportant to foster a lively Catholic college, if pos-sible, in every city.

It would be folly to count complacently, however,on the continued existence of even the present net-work of Catholic colleges and universities. A numberof manaces loom on the horizon. The severe demo-graphic decrease which will hit higher education inthe early eighties guarantees, by itself, the demise ofmany poorly-endowed small colleges, and announcesfinancial rases and even mortal danger for manypoorly-financed larger universities. With few excep-tions, the Catholic colleges and universities are dras-tically underfinanced. The Provost of one of the mostdistinguished Catholic universities recently opinedthat its budget would have to be increased 40%,were salaries, equipment, scholarships, and library tobe brought up to a level comparable to the ettersecular universities. The survival of many colleges willdepend in the 1980s on extraordinary sacrifice on thepart of the community at large. People are unlikely tomake great efforts for institutions which are vagueand confused about their objectives and their nature.

Yet, there are reasons why many Catholic institu-tions now find themselves disoriented, full of ten-sions, With elements of what should be a collegiumgoing off, in fact, in opposed directions. There aremany elements in the present cultural setting whichprovide powerful attractions in competing directions.The penetration of these elements into the Catholicinstitution, introducing further confusion, can cause adisorientation just at the moment the Catholic collegemust ask people to stand up and be counted.

There are three elements in the present situationwhich must be distinguished. One is the movement inWestern history away from the core-commitment ofChristian origin. Secondly, there is the phenomenonof accelerating social-economic-political-technologicalculture change, the enormity of which, by itself, suf-fices to challenge every institution to constant andvigorous up-dating and self-renewal. Finally, theCatholic college or university, even were it in a periodof slow change and even were it supported by majorelements in the society, would still face the responsi-bility of keeping alive intellectual and spiritual tradi-tion.

Each of these three different challenges affectingthe Catholic college and university shall now be con-

8

sidered in turn. Later in the report, particular facets ofthe problems arising from them will be examined inyet more detail.

Secularization

Catholics consider it a misfortune that society as awhole and many individuals in a high degree havebecome less aware of God, less devoted to worship-ping him in the ways He has vouchsafed us throughthe Church, and less sensitive to the sacredness ofman and nature precisely as coming from God's crea-tive hand. Still, no one should think that the processeswhich have contributed to this effect arc themselveswithout "redeeming social merit." On the contrary, isit not precisely the successes of technology, indus-trialization, liberalism, etc., which offer to so many achance to participate in the exercise of power?

The question of how "secularization" has acceler-ated in the West and of its origins and causes is avast and complex one over which serious studentsare badly di sided. Whereas a Toynbee will emphasizethe damage done the churches by the disgustingspectacle of the religious wars in the seventeenth cen-tury, a Heidegger will insist on the potential for nihil-ism inherent already in Plato's "metaphysical" separa-tion of the transcendent ground of all being from thethings of our experience. Although consideration ofthe Catholic college in the present North Americanscene demands attention to certain problems whichgrow out of one or another aspect of the secularizingculture, it is not necessary to get too directly involvedhere in the debate over the origin, extent, effects orultimate destiny of "secularization." It suffices fornow to point out certain pressures, from without andfrom within, which can potentially distance a collegefrom the Christian ideal of its tradition. The Catholiccollege is challenged to operate in a world decreas-ingly concerned with many of the things Christiansconsider most important, a world in which forms ofpower are being invented which the Christian per-ceives as potentially inimical to the dignity of manand as temptations to sin. Nevertheless, well thought-through, professional, and humanistic-religious edu-cation can actually contribute something important toone another. In this regard, it is less secularizationthe college has to fear than its own failure to thinkthrough both the positive potential of the new civili-zation and the question of what Christianity has tooffer.

Certain secularists are not just indifferent to reli-gion; they aggressively oppose it. The whole area ofinterpretation of the First Amendment of the UnitedStates Constitution as it pertains to "separation ofChurch and state," and as it has been applied tochurch-related schools and colleges is well explored

Tm'in the work done by the Center for ConstitutionalStudies at the University of Notre Dame.'

Rapid Social Change And the Need for a Plan

Related but nevertheless distinguishable is thesomewhat overwhelming phenomenon of socio-eco-nomic-political-cultural change, on a scale and withan accelerating tempo that knows no parallel in thewhole of human history. As an institution devoted tohelping society think through its problems and help-ing orient the young in the midst ot the excitementand confusion of modern society, all colleges findthemselves hard-pressed to stay abreast of what ishappening The Catholic college has an advantage inthis ht..,ause it appreciates its tradition which, reach-

ring back to its origins among the Hebrews and theGreeks, gives the Chrishan a perspective on the pres-ent situation Licking in those who think everythingworthwhile was inyPnted.only yesterday.

Still, %...e have to face the fact that the pace andextent of change is disorientating. It has bcccitme triteto point out that Q5 °0 of all natural scientists whohave ever lilked are presently at work. The burgeoningof world population is causing dislocations whichthreaten to lead to Vo/kerwiindhingen on a scale withthose that ushered in the "Dark Ages." We havecome to take cities of 14 million for granted cities

with populations like that of the yvhol of mediaevalFrance! Exponential growth in disp sable personalincome, the meteoric rise to positions of consid-erable power of large numbers of persons inade-quately prepared for the exercise of such responsibilityhas led to strains in personal life which provokedisorientation in the lives of children. The explosiononto the scene of the newspaper and the electronicmedia, provoking as they do new ways of perceivingthe world, and at the same time opening new pos-sibilities for manipulation all of these develop-ments pose challenges which the collegesfnust helptheir students understand.

Of course, change has always existed; institutionshave always had to adjust But when the change isso rapid and so widespread, confusion can reduce theinstitution's effectiveness. Those responsible for theintellectual life of the colleges can lose heart and takerefuge in professional activity isolated from the needsof the community, eschewing the tough questions.Or, professors can fail to produce at all. When oneobserves the lack of scholarly output on the part ofso many college professors, he is tempted to thinkthat more than heavy teaching loads is to blame. It istrue that some excellent teachers use their talents tohelp students in ways which do not always requireorignal scholarship But there remains a danger in

1 Philip R Moots and E M Gaffney, Jr , Church and Campus(University of Notre Dame Press, 1979).

9

failing to submit to the discipline of publication.Undergraduates cannot challenge inadequate andsuperficial thought as do journal editors and readers.

The college should stand out because of its levelof self-understanding. If the college and universityin our time is the place society has created to thinkthrough its problems, then it should show the wayby courageously attacking, in the finest spirit ofcollegiality, its own problems, and particularly thequestion what it itself, as a teaching and researchinstitute, is trying to achieve This, in our opinion,should take the form of planning of high quality, re-sulting in administrative structures which will assureboth that the plan is carried into practice and thatit is annually up-graded in order to keep in touchwith a rapidly changing environment.

We contend that the Catholic college is in a betterposition to plan than the secular college because, inpri ic:ple, it knows what it stands for. We say "inprinc:ple" because we are aware that two difficultiesrender the focus of this deterniination less than sharp.In many "Catholic" colleges, a good number of pro-fessor's are either not basically committed to passingon a Catholic tradition in any very definable sense ofthe term, or if they are, they find their own work(either because of the nature of their discipline orbecause of the way the curriculum is structured), infact, not relevant to any properly Catholic objective.In our survey of philosophy departments, some"Catholic" colleges replied that they judged "theCatholic philosophical tradition to be either of smallor of no relevance whatever to their teaching." Thechairman of philosophy in one large "Catholic" uni-versity replied that none of almost a dozen full-timephilosophers found the Catholic philosophic traditionrelevant to their teaching.

The second problem stems from the lack of deter-mined, courageous leadership in some institutions. It

may be inferred from the state of the philosophydepartments in come colleges, -is revealed by thesurvey, that some administrations have not been pay-ing close attention to the ideological development oftheir institutions. The assumption in saying this isthat philosophy is so central to the role of a college,that one can only conclude that where the Catholic

commitment to philosophy has been allowed to erode,benign neglect on the part ot the cetral administra-tion must have existed.

Of course, it is never easy to plan, even when the

faculty is largely committed to a satisfactorily ex-pressed set of goals, nor is it always easy to ad-minister even a small college according to the plan.

the last part of this report, we shall review the

problems which have arisen as governing structureshave become less authoritarian and faculty participa-tion (a meaningful reality in Catholic colleges a

radical change of very recent origin. While this is for

the most part a highly desirable development, onewnich makes collegial cooperation both possible andindispensable, it requires a new style and quality ocleadership Self-governance can become very burden-some the college can soon find that its major activityhas become the government of itself.

Nor should one ignore the fact that the art ofcivilized discussion is not presently at its peak Thisis one of the most .riking symptoms of the tnatatsebrought on by the massive and lightning changesthrough which our civiliza ion has been passing.Never has there been more need for disciplined, self-controlled, respectful discussion It would seem thatwhen pluralism reaches a certain point, basic thingsbecome almost impossible to discuss; there is no

longer a common lang_age in which to exchange dif-fering viewpoints Has the Catholic college com-munity reached that po nt? Probably not yet Re-

.cently a committee of six philosophers of quite variedbackgrounds, called together to work on an ill-defined,difficult topic, was able very qu-ckly to get on thesame wave-length, making possible discussion of themost delicate issues, "because," in the words of the

committee's Chairman, "of our common Catholicfaith 1 he members of that committee, althoughpresently pursuing distinctive philosophical paths,

were of a generation in which virtually c 1-yone re-

ceived a basic formation in the thought of StThomas All had read more or less the same pheno-menologists and existentialists. The pluralism amongthem, in other words, was still a moderate one, super-imposed over a fairly uniform base.

But what will the situation be in the .,. xt genera-tion' What will a Catholic student, coming out of adepartment which, in answer to our survey, describesits members as "most identifying with" no less thanthirteen different thinkers as diverse as Marx, Des-cartes, and lames, have in common w.th a studentcoming from another "Catholic" college, whose pro-

fessors ,dentify with "Hegel, ,Marx, and Sellars"?(Unless, of course, both have become good Marxistsat their respective institutions')

Attention should be paid in designing undergrad-uate (and, for that matter, graduate) educatoion to

make one of its goals the enhancing of the ability todiscuss The inability to listen carefully and to under-stand accurately whit another person is saying can be(in our experience) a major obstacle in the path ofplanning Students should be guided in learning theart of discussion through seminars.

Furthering the Tradition

The. .o.pichty and comprehensiveness of change inthe environment makes planning a life-necffsity Evenif v./e were living in an era of exceptional stability, theCatholic college would find itself confronted by abasic task that of contributing to the well-being of

10

the Catholic intellectual and spiritual tradition. A tra-dition, in being handed on from generation to genera-tion, has to be reincarnated by the new generation

The commitment of the young is going to depend inpart on their being able to perceive the tradition asresponding to their needs as they experience them.Even in the most placid centuries, these needs changein some respects and for that reason, expressions ofthe tradition have to he renewed, represented, propa-gated ever again.

But / re than that, the very nature of the Catholic

trarlitio. founded as it is in the command to spreadthe Good News and to help build the Kingdom, and inthe Old Testament- revelation that we arc to cooperatein renewing the face of the earth, calls us to open our-selves to the Spirit as we putsce our understanding oftile deposit of faith The only way the Catholic college

can transmit to its students the sense of the urgencyto work to transform the world is by showing that the

Spirit is indeed at work. A "Catholic" college caughtin routine, inspiration absent, is hypocritical in callingitself Catholic.

How can the American Catholic college set aboutbeing create e. The present situation, with its madlychanging environment and extreme pluralism, wouldseem to demand a high level of creativity. Indeed, one

cannot fault either the society or the college for lackof innovation But there is a vast difference betweenthe sort of genuine creativity which advances and en-riches the tradition perennially and a froth of individ-ualistic, ill-thought through, ephemeral effort; goingoff in many different directions at once. The dilemma

facing any institution in the present situation is howto foster creativity without provoking mere trash.

When the research efforts of an industrial corporationproduce nothing marketable, and when its manage-ment innovations bring about no increase in produc-tivity, this shows up on the "bottom 1, :" A few

years of : on-performance can bring about a com-pany's '1 mite, or at least a change in managerhent. Aschool, howe en enjoys a clientele that is often notterribly sure what to expect of the "product." Whereasthe school or college has a responsibility to a traditionto hand on certain principles, attitudes, skills, and

knowledg ", many companies are free to switch prod-ucts to meet chap ling needs and desires. The school,on the other hand, has the temptation of getting bywith oddy performance, because the students reallydo not know too well just what they have a right toexpect.

One way to foster creativity rather than mere inno-vation is through the process of loyal peer criticism.Filo, there have to be expectations, then there has tobe a liscussion and criticism Expectations: If there isin place in a college neither a planning procedure,which calls forth regularly careful expressions of therationale for what one is trying to do, nor any require-

ment for scholarship, the bulk of the faculty is notlikely to be very productive Criticism. No amountof discoursing to rapt undergraduates will oblige athinker to come face to face with the inadequacies ofhis thought. The dscipline of writing and sustainedprole onal discussion is necessary if the best is to bedrawn out of a faculty

Faculty colloquia, to which everyone is expected tomake a contnbution, should be a regular part of everycollege's activities These should grow beyond dis-ciplines, to become all-college activities, a source ofserious dialogue about problems confronting the com-munity The college would then be collegial It wouldfulfill its "think-tank" function more effectively. Andthe faculty would educate one another!

The American Context

A skeptic with respect to Christian convictionshas been forming among the Occidental intelligertiafor the last century and a half Nietzsche observedalready in the last century that Western culture nolonger possessed the spiritual resources which hadjustified its existence and without which he felt it

could not surviveWhat is more recent is that this loss of moral sense

has now made itself felt on the level of the commonman In more ways than one, we are children of theEnlightenment Views entertained in 18th and 19thcentury drawing rooms and in the academy of thatday have in our own lifetime entered the market placeVoltaire urged the eradication of Christianity from theworld of higher culture, but he was willing to have itremain in the stables and in the scullery Mill repudi-ated Christianity, but not the religion of humanitywhich he thought to be, from the voint of view of thestat^ a useful thing Comte was m benevolent inhis attitude toward Christian pray pite of hisdenial of all metaphysical validity .gious belief,he was willing to accept as a c.vic good the moral andritual traditions of Catholic Christianity Durkheimwas not so positive For him, a major task of the stateis to free individuals from partial societies such as thefamily, religious organizations, and labor and pro-fessional groups Modern individualism, Durkheimthought, depends on preventing the absorption ofindividuals into secondary or mediating groups.

On this side of the Atlantic, many of these ideaswere to find twentieth century expression in the phi-losophy of John Dewey In his educational philosophy,Dewey had no use for religion or religious institu-tions, whatever roles they may have played in thepast Religion is an unreliable source for knowledgeand, in spite of contentions to the contrary, even moti-vation Many of the values held dear by the religiousare wort' of consideration and should not be aban-doned, but a proper rationale ought to be sought for

11

those deemed commendable Through his critique ofreligion, Dewey sought not merely to eliminate thechurch from political influence, but to eliminate it asan effective agent in private life. Religion is deemedsocially dangerous insofar as it gives practical cre-dence to a divine law and attempts to mold personalor social conduct in 'conformity with norms whichlook beyond temporal Society.

An awareness of American intellectual history atthe turn of the century is not irrelevant At that verytime many ideas characteristic of the Enlightenmentwere 1-ncling adherents in the academic mainstream;the schools themselves were changing hands. At theturn of the century the land grant colleges were com-ing into being Lacking religious sponsorship or iden-tity, they tended to reflect the secular spirit. At it.esame time the older Protestant-founded colleges werelosing their denominational identity Whereas in thelast quarter of the 19th century nearly every majorchair of philosophy was held by an idealist whosephilosophy was a support for Christianity, 'by 1910the situation was reversed Nearly every chair washeld by a naturalist. The causes for the shift are com-plex Any explanation would have to take note of thewidespread confidence placed in the methods of thesciences, social theories emanating from Europe, thediscoveries of Darwin, end in the kind of biblicalscholarship which tended to place doubt on theuniqueness of Christianity. Though these ideas didnot have Immediate social or cultural effects, theacademy became cut off from its Christian parentage,coming to construe itself as a critic of established in-stitutions, not as the bearer of a tradition or culture.Science was identified with "critical" intelligence. Itsmethods were to be turned on everything heretoforeconsidered sacrosanct It took another generation ortwo before such critique was to reach the primary andsecondary schools

Until the close of the Second World War, the com-mon schools were largely Protestant Since the begin-ning of the republic, their Protestant character wasevident and taken for granted. It was because ofCatholic dissatisfaction with Protestant public schoolsthat the parochial school system came into being. Thatdissatisfaction plus the massive immigration of thesecond half of the 19th century made a dual educa-tional system possible. But in the post World War IIperiod, the Protestant character of the public schoolbegan to change. The' secular philosophy of the acad-emy began to make itself felt through a series ofdecisions of the Supreme Court 'le Court had alwaysappealed to the anti-establishment claims of the FirstAmendment, but it was now reading into that amend-ment outlooks which the Founding Fathers did notpress and which would probably have been contra-dictory to the views of most In the 1947 Everson vs.Board of Education decision, Justice Black decreed:

The establishment of religion clause of the Firstamendment means at least this. . . . No tax in anyamount can be levied to support any religious activ-ities or institutions, whatever they may be called, orwhatever form they may adopt to teach or practicereligion.

Though Everson upheld bus rides for parochialschool children, those hostile to religion were to quoteit time and again. Mc Cullum (1948) declared illegalreligious education in public school buildings; Englevs Vitale (1062) struck down prayer; AbingtonSchool Distrli., vs. Schempp (1963) outlawed biblereading, and the Committee fo- Public Education vs.Nyquist (1976) ruled illegal tuition reimbursementarrangements.

In thirty years, these decisions of the Court were,in effect, to secularize public education. Whereas theschools previously fostered basic Christian valuesthrough their traditions of common prayer, bible read-ing, textbooks such as the McGuffy reader, and thecelebration of religious feasts, those values ceased tobe explicitly fostered To be sure, the Court did notprohibit the teaching about religion or the reading ofsacred scripture as a form of literature, but there is nodoubt that Protestant Christianity has not only beenchallenged but removed as a positive influence. Manyobservers have found that it has been merely replacedby a secular humanism which, while ng.'a religion, isdefinitely an ideology.

Significant, too, is the Court's refusal, despite thePierce vs. The Society of Sisters decision in 1925 onthe prior parental right to educate the child, to allow

options with respect to schools unless parents arewillirkg and able to pay tuition in a non-state school.

Chiis c pher Dawson, commenting on the Americansysteni, as said, "The secular state school is an instrument of the Enlightenment."2 Insofar as the statepreempts education, the schools have become the seats

of a new ideology, the ideology of secularism. LeoPfeffer argues that a secular "state requires a secular

state school." He assures us that "the'secularizationof the state does not mean the secularization ofsociety."' But this opinion, as Walter Berns haspointed out, was not shared by Rousseau, for exam-ple, or by Washington, and Jefferson also had hisdoubts. Experience can be no guide here because wehave no experience of living under wholly secular

auspices It is only in our day that we have approxi-mated the secular state, the state that it is not onlyforbidden to aid religion, but in the United States andelsewhere, is also under constant pressure to severthe connection between laws and a morality that findsits origins in religious doctrine To quote WalterBerns, "If Pfeffer should prove wrong when he saysthat 'society' can remain religious though the state beindifferent to religion," it will be lett to our descend-ants to determine "whether Tocqueville was right

12

when he said that unlike despotism, liberty cannotgovern without faith "4 Other decisions of the Courtreflecting a secular outlook have permitted, in t40,name of freedom, the widespread introduciluil of por-nography, the abortion decision, and the casting asidethose conventions of decency that used to governpublic disclosure It is unfortunate that in recent yearspublic opinion has inevitably begun to follow thecourt. America, unfortunately, has become a con-formist society. It is very hard for an individual orsocial group to maintain separate standards of value

or independent ways of life The state's near monop-oly on education and the uniformity encourageci by

the media have produced decisive changes in Ameri-

can society.This scenario would suggest that if religious literacy

is to be achieved, it will be achieved without helpfrom and sometimes against the irterference of thestate. If it were once true, as Tocqueville reported,that all Americans regard religion as indispensable tothe maintenance of republican institutions, that claim

cannot be made today.Unfortunately, Catholic institutions themselves

have not escaped the drift toward secularism. Somehave modelled themselves after the secular state school,

a few have surrendered ties with ecclesial bodiesin an attempt to achieve state funding Yet there re-main a sufficient number of Catholics committed totheir tradition and determined to see it maintained to

support a network of Catholic schools and colleges.Recognizing that religion is required for civic goals,

that a Christian culture is conducive to a harmonioussociety, and that a Christian family and spiritaal liferequire support, many Catholics are prepared 'o pressfor fair treatment from the courts

Others have counseled what they believe to be aprudent course for Catholic colleges and universities

iris -ii-vis statutes and Federal regulations, advising

administrators not to pursue a distinctively Catholic

course, but to seek objectives only insofar as theyseem consonant with legal trends A too Catholic stu-dent body, an effort to maintain Catholic identity

through a predominantly Catholic faculty, are re-garded as invitations to hostile rulings on the part ofthe courts concerning eligibility for Federal funds and

tax exempt statusWhile conflict should not be invited, Catholic edu-

cators must reali'e that certain issues inevitably have

to be faced on the basis of principle Catholic educa-tors can elect to surrender, or they can maintain poli-

cies which wisdom would dictate and which still have

Christopher Dawson, Cr-Nis in IVe.,1 el 12 1 iiticatiori (NY S. heed

and Ward, 1961, p 22)Leo Pfeffer, Church, State and FteetiOm (Revised Boston,

Beacon I'ress, 1967, p 338)Walter Berns, The Furst Amendment and the Future Democ-

racy (NY Basic Books, ins , 1976, p 7)

+On

the support' or the people and legislative bodies,though perhaps not of the courts and the secularelite which the courts tend to follow.

The Church's need for an educated class has neverbeen greater To produce that class, its own centerswill have to be maintained and brought to high stand-ards While in many respects scholarship is a highlypersonal endea \.or, individual effort requires institu-tional support As we suggested ea-her, scholars re-quire like-minded colleagues and supporting disci-plines Moreover, we repeat our conviction that thekind of inquiry most needed by the Church is notlikely to be carried out in any programatic way withina secular institution True, individuals in many majorstate or private institutions contribute to the intellec-tual life of the Church, and their contributions areindispensable But their individual work is not thesame as a program or an institution, nor can theycreate single-handedly the intellectual inilieu in whichCatholic studies flourish The practice of recent dec-ades of sending Catholic young men and women r osecular universities for degrees in ecclesiastically-related disciplines needs reexamination It is not thatthose men and women have lost the faith, but it is thecase, more often than not, that they have been de-prived of the studies necessary to master adequatelytheir own tradition Their life-long interests tend toreflect those of their graduate schools and tend to beother than those which serve their own heritage andtasks

To deal with the secular mind without succumbing,one needs not only the faith, but sound and carefultraining in philosophy and theology. In mainta ningthat there is no evidence for the existence of God, thesecular outlook deprives belief of a rational founda-tion and, consequently, its credibility. It is a fideti.Christianity, eschewing the intellectual force in thetradition, which has had the most difficulty in main-taining itself in the modern -world except in the formof a radical evangelical fundamentolism, displayingthe fanatical tendencies of a sect. Catitern has notbeen handicapped in the same fashion. Its apprecia-tion of intellectual values has enabled it to deal withthe findings of modern science and witle attacks ofvarious forms of skepticism and positivism withoutslipping into fideism.

The Catholic world-view is woven out of threadsthat are cultural and philosophical as well as biblicaland theological. The appropriation of this traditionrequires centers of learning where these componentsand their attendant disciplines, especially history andlanguages, are represented in a competent and signifi-cant way There is no shortcut to wisdom and no sab-stitute for it. Social science ,annot replace historyand philosophy Learning theory or clinical psychol-ogy is no substitute for metaphysics. Courses offeredunder title. such as "Population Problems," "Human

Ecology," and "Group Behavior "' ought to supple-ment, not drive out, Greek and Roman History or theHistory of Medieval Civilization. In the last decade,the tendency to substitute the social and behavioralsciences for traditional disciplines has accelerated.This has had a detrimental effect for two reasons.One, the social sciences come laden with conclusionsimply'ng assumptions that take a very sophisticatedmind to evaluate, but the social science courses havemost often been substituted for the philosophy whichwould render that necessary evaluation possible. Asecond reason is the value of their conclusions to themoral sciences. There is little knowledge gained fromcontemporary social science of the sort bearing onfundamental moral issues which is all that new. Basicmoral truths and principles did not have to await the19th century for discovery. But the student is leftwith the impression that everything is in flux, andthat all that is important was aiscovered in the lastthree years

A further issue is the activist direction some train-ing takes The heavy emphasis on social service andcounseling at the expense of other disciplines repre-sents an imbalance. The Church's mission includesboth the prophetic and the pastoral. In an age whenthe state has undertaken massively to care for thepoor, the sick, and the aged through its almost omni-present welfare programs, it seems strange so to em-phasize social activism that the prophetic, doctrinalrole of the Church gets neglected at the very momentpeople are seeking intellectual leadership.

Another propensity which might be reexamined isthe tendency to substitute techniques of counselingfor first-order learning. Much of the personal malaiseencountered in the pastoral order is the direct out-come of social ills that have to be addressed at theroots As Dawson once remarked, the secular levia-than is vulnerable only at its brain, Only through itsintellectuals will the Church be able to counteract thephilosophical and ideological forces behind the secularmovement. It is important to influence the king aswell as to shelter the beggar. There are fewer in needof "counseling" when social structures are in order.Judging from some Church-sponsored programs, con-temporary Catholics seem more bent Jn picking up thepieces than in turning off the engine of destruction.

University Integrity and Its Maintenance

A university community is not unlike the humanbody in that self-maintenance is possible only withina narrow range of conditions. Body temperature mayvary within a few degrees, but ,no more than that;atmospheric pressure does not leave much room fordalliance either above or below the earth. We areassuming, of course, that the university really hasspecifiable goals and that it seeks to maintain itselfin being.

13

is

At the heart of a university are both the peoplewho compose it and the principles by which theychoose to regulate their activity. It is foolish not totake into consideration the moral character of a candi-date for faculty membership. When a scholar becomesa member of a university faculty, he becomes part ofa collegium, a coflegium that he will in due coursecome to influence, whose tone he will help to estab-lish Both Plato and Aristotle taught the unity of thevirtues. If a man is devoid of courage, there will beoccasions when he will betray the ideals of the group.If he does not have his passions under control, his

actions will in time affect his productivity and reliabil-ity

Defects in perspective show up as the years go by.

The young assistant professor who in the beginning

of his career may make his contribution primarilythrough teaching will in due course be called to mem-bership on committees and governing boards not only

within a department, but in the university and per-haps in the community as well. If his nwn perceptionsor fundamental outlock differs from those of thesponsoring body, he will inevitably contribute to thechanging of the official outlook. Examples are not hard

to find If he personally is not convinced of the valueof a liberal education, specifically of the need to study

Languages, the need fo know history, philosophy andtheology, these convictions will manifest themselvesas he votes on institutional policy. Similarly, the re-laxed attitude of some in sexual matters will influence

their vote on policies governing student life. Others

may vote against their convictions or assume a per-

missive attitude because they lack the courage or theintellectual conviction to defend a course of actionthey know to be proper

It is often argued that a plurality of views is re-quired if dialogue is to produce truth, that all sides on

any question ought to be represented in a universityThis would be a strong point if there were only one

university. But where universities have been founded

out of every conceivable ' ackground and collectivelyrepresent every major ideology, there is no danger of

suppressing diverse viewpoints in the society Thereal danger is rather that certain traditions may not

' hove the resources needed to maintain themsel) es.The danger is not lack of plurality but lack of unityin any one institution so that it may represent well itstraditions in the broader context. Only if Christianitycan maintain itself at a suitable intellectual level willit have an important influence on society Certain

religious bodies may renounce social and cultural in-fluence, but Catholicism has never been numberedamong them. Strong universities, clear as to mission

and purpose, are the best hope for maintaining

Catholic intellectual influence.At the heart of a Catholic university lies the convic-

tion that there is a wisdom carried within the intellec-

tual traditions of the Church. The function of the

Catholic university is consciously to appropriate thosetraditions, criticizing and developing them. To appro-priate the tradition is to make one's own the best thathas been produced since the Apostles, as well as theclassical learning which added its unique tone. A mind',o trained and enriched is able to think clearly aboutthe new, the critical, the technological. It is not sup-posed that all students are called to a life of directservice to the Church or to a life of scholarship, butall are called to a basically responsible life of themind. Recognizing this, the first task of the Catholiceducator as he clarifies his own intellectual perspec-tive, is to help others see and judge respons'bly. Notall that is inherited is good. Some minds, authors orfigures are of greater value and deserve greater re-spect Judgment is required, but that judgment itselfmust be formed in response to tie richest materials

provided by the tradition.While institutional integrity requires the exercise of

care in the making of appointments, it also commitsthe university to certain principles, not the least ofwhich is the principle of academic freedom. Once the

work of a scholar has been judged to be of sufficient

merit to warrant appointment, he is entitled to be leftalone to pursue his professional work, wherever itmay lead, without fear of institutional interference.That commitment is understood to be permanent, oncean appointment with continuous tenure is awarded.Only the individual's flagrant disregard of institu-tional standards can sanction removal. This is the

chief means by which an academic institution guaran-tees to the scholar a requisite autonomy in the search

for and teaching of truth. It is recognized that thescholar requires a certain job security if he is to speakand publish without fear of sanction. The practice ofawarding permanent tenure diminishes the possibilityof action against a scholar when his professional workleads him to a position which might be regarded asdubious within the academic community by the spon-soring body or by society as a whole. While the princi-ple may be less than absolute, it must be firm enoughto hold even in the face of eccentricity and error. Theconditions for free inquiry are of such importance thatthey must be maintained even in the face of someabuse.

It is a widely-accepted principle, acknowledged by

the American Association of Univ,!rsity Professors,

that church-related institutions may specify certainconditions for continuous appointment, providedthese are antecedently and publicly stated. It is alsoacknowledged that any limitation of academic free-dom must be essential to the religious aims of theinstitution. Catholic institutions need not fear theenunciation of purposes which ale distinctive, norneed they be reluctant to demand fidelity to thoseprinciples agreed as aims.

14 I1 -fN 1

In America and Canada professional associationshave been diligent in their defense of the principle ofacademic freedom; detailed procedures have beenwidely adopted to deal with alleged infringements.Little attention, however, has been given to the otherside of the equation, that is, to the maintenance ofinstitutional identity. Given the happy reality of aca-demic freedom in North American universities, insti-tutions concerned with retaining their traditionalidentity must exercise the greatest possible care at themoment of hiring. At that point, the university owesthe candidate nothing more than a fair consideration,without bias on the basis of sex or :ace, but withgreat concern for commitment to its tradition, forgeneral moral integrity, and, of course, scholarlycompetence It is easier and fairer not to hire then tofire six years later when tenure is denied. But eventhere the institution must remain firm if events haveproven the optimistic judgments at the time of hiringto have been wrong Unfulfilled scholarly promise,unconcern for the tradition, or poor behavior on thepart of one called to educational leadership each ofthese is reason why the college must not weaken itselfby incorporating such a person for thirty years. Thevery visible pain caused the unsuccessful candidatefor tenure is offset by the less immediately visible butnonetheless real suffenrg of a generation of studentsand colleges who are deprived of a healthy, coherentcollegium through inclusion of too many unsupportiveor indifferent members.

Staying Catholic

Secularization is a basic kind of institutional change;staying Catholic is a specific kind of institutional du-ration Secularization means a shift in which factorsessential to the life of an institution pass from a reli-gious hegemony and character to a non-religious one.Staying Catholic, on the other hand, means the main-tenance of a certain kind of religious presence. Thissurvival requires more than dogged continuation.Being Catholic in the present situation and, indeed,being Christian or Jewish or religious in some othersense calls for the development of the religiouscharacter of the institution, a creative continuation ofits resources. This in turn requires an understandingof the process, forces, and motives of secularization,especially as they bear upon one's own institution.

Secularization may shape institutions that are neu-tral, or tolerant, or positively indifferent, or evenopenly hostile to the role religion might play in thelives of its own members. Moreover, the inFtitUtion'sattitude toward religion affects its own dealings withother institutions and with the larger society. These,indeed, can serve as symptoms It may be that a

nominally Catholic institution could have secularizedwithout noticing it if its overriding concern has be-come preparing students for the professions

15

S

General, Formal Factors of institutional Changeand Permanence

The pressures for change often come to an institu-tion from without, but the change must itself beeffected within the institution through its acquies-cence to the pressures. The transformation of an insti-tution by the substitution of a different set of goalsand character comes about by a shift of one or morefactors within the institutional life. The chief ones are:(a) leadership, (b) policies, (c) decisions; (d) objec-tives, and (e) spirit They are important singly and intheir interrelation

(a) Leadership If leaders, who are otherwise con-scientious and able, fail to understand the institutionalobjectives and values in concrete ways, then no mat-ter how sincere their general and verbal commitmentis, they will fad to translate these objectives andvalues into policies and decisions that are consistentwith each other and compatible with the institution'scharacter Their effective commitment will be con-fused, hesitant or impulsive in a word, unreliable

with grave consequences for the institution. Yetpeer pressure, comparative ranking with other institu-tions, poor financial support, recurrent crises, anddaily routine can easily occupy the whole of the timeand energy available to the leadership. Under thepressure of inherent tendencies, demands, and events,even strong leaders may become almost wholly ab-sorbed in short range problems and immediate solu-tions Or they may be driven to mistake conformitywith other prestigious institutions for a distinctiveacademic quality of their own. Sometimes ambitiontempts a leader to try to leave his imprint upon theinstitution by setting up a "pet" project, which mayleave the institution unnecessarily burdened with anew drain on energy and funds that distract it fromits primary objectives An effective leadership, more-over, must recognize its appropriate successors, mustprepare them as far as possible, and must prepare theinstitution for the transition to new views and newinitiatives. Failure to provide an institution with legiti-mate heirs will almost certainly introduce into posi-tions of influence persons who are either ineffectivein realizing the objectives of the institution or evenopposed to them

(b, c) Policies and decisions If policies are unclear,inconsistent, or incompatible with the objectives andvalues of the institution, then centers of power willdevelop that are at odds with the institution's charac-ter and its unity Such conflicting power structurescan also come about through a series of apparentlyunrelated decisions that in their sum commit the insti-tution to incompatible and even conflicting directionsA continuing reflection is needed to monitor all im-portant decisions and policy changes, especially thoseof appointments. This can be embodied i.in a planning group, provided it includes the provost

and the division heads But enlightened effective com-mitment needs more than brain-storming and general

reports. Effective planning requires detailed studies ofalternatives. The planners must have full access to allrelevant information; they will need to secure infor-mation not routinely available. They must reviewprevious policies and decisions and assess their impact

upon the institution Undoubtedly, these planningpractices are well-developed in many non-academic

institutions; however, the rapid expansion of the uni-versities in the 1950's and 1960's may have momen-tarily obscured the reed to develop similar practices.But the contraction of the universities in the 1970's

and 1980's calls for a more effective use of shrinkingresources Deliberative, methodical planning will haveto receive the highest priority, and time will have tobe wrenched from other duties in order to exercisethis principal responsibility of leadership. Whatever

the size of the constituency polled and/or the final au-

thorizing body, the planning group needs to be small.

The interests cf all parties within the university mustbe taken into account, but that need not require theiractual representation in a "cabinet." The complexityof institutions today has not lessened the value of theintuitive leader, but it does call for an effective delib-

erative review of policies and decisions. This mostimportant task of planning cannot be delegated to a

committee that is peripheral and consultative, butmust be done by the appropriate chief executiveofficers at every level.

(d) Objectives A diffused and pervasive shift in theobjectives of an institution may be brought about un-

intentionally and imperceptibly by leadership, policies,

and decisions. The many pressures may be gradual

and by no mans obvious An effective :nstitutionalreflection built Into all planning and policy-makinggroups within the institution can help to make themvisible The general discUssions about the meaning of

a Catholic collet: and about the advantages of a lib-eral education, so popular in the fifties, often enough

failed to come to grips with the actual situation of thecolleges As discussions of principle, some were super-ficial, others profound. Still, little attention was paid

to the distribution of effective centers of power withinan institution, and in the larger society. What weneed, undoubtedly, is something like Bacon's "middleaxioms," but they were notoriously hard to discover.

We need a middle term that joins general ob'ectives

to specific policies and particular decisions, "t ctics,"

as it were. Intuition and prudence are indis nsable

and they involve a large element of genius nd art,

but much more method can be brought to b ar uponthe translation of general objectives into ins itutionallife.

These tactical mediations will vary with differingtypes of institutions However, it 's possible to draw

up a general instrument which addresses the types of

16

consideration that ought to go into a methodical insti-tutional reflection. In addition to devising such an

instrument for its own institution, leadership has the

more basic responsibility of developing within itsinstitution a habitus and a locus for continually rais-ing the question of the compatibility, of policies and

decisions. Planning and critical review of Divisions'ability to meet objectives must become truly part ofthe "institutional culture" of the university or college.

In an age that is no longer simply traditional, institu-tions need to become self-conscious. Present boards

of review in some Catholic colleges and universitiesmay achieve some consistency of self-knowledge, butthe need for definite improvement and especially on-going review is called for. Failure to do so pay com-proms? the chance of a college or univeristy to sur-

vive as a Catholic institution.(e) Spirit and atmosphere. If the preceding factors

are effectively present, the atmosphere will reflect theinstitutional objectives, and the auxiliary support willhave considerable immediate effect. A spirit will ani-mate the institution with a deeper and richer source

of life. If, on the contrary, the four central factors areineffectual, both atmosphere and spirit will eventually

evaporate, and the institution will cease to be Catholic

in any real and significant sense."Atmosphere" is at once something hard to define

and yet singularly important in a college. The spiritof staff and students contributes to it. There is either

a certain warmth, or there isn't, a certain earnestnesseither makes itself felt, or an air of matter-of-factness,

or, worse, indifference or lethargy hangs over theplace. People are either open, co-operative, eager towork together, or they are holed-up each in his own

office, except when they suspiciously eye one another

across committee tables. The administration, desirous

of the right atmosphere, cannot legislate spirit, orwarm, helpful attitudes. But through inspiring pol-icies, thoughtful, considerate procedures, and out-standing personal example they can hope to bring out

the best in staff and students Spiritless buildings,

dirty surroundings, poorly-kept grounds all expressmediocrity, suggesting something less than adequate

concern. Tasteful buildings do not necessarily costmore than ugly ones, but they do require Pnorethought and sensitivity. And of course it costs moneyto keep up grounds, but an institution people really

care about can usually find the means. (Is it even be-

yond the realm of the possible that a cooperative of

students who loved the college might work voluntarily

to keep the place clean and flowering?) The presence

oil campus of prayerful. beautiful, well-attendedliturgy speaks out loudly. So, too, do activities which

demonstrate the college's concern for the widerworld. We do not mean simply tbat staff and students

should jump on every band wagon, but a deep com-

mitment to certain long-range projects applying the

spirit to the crushing problems facing the communityand mankind in general is a witness to the college'smeaning. The Catholic college of its very nature iscalled to witness. It does this in action and atmos-phere.

On Catholic Duration

Most of the foregoing remarks apply in some de-gree to academic institutions generally, and certainlyto Christian, Jewish, and ;,they religious institutionsWe need to refine these general considerations if theyare to take account of the institutional needs of insti-tutions of higher learning that are Christian in theCatholic manner. The Catholic investment in educa-tion at all levels arises out of the deeply-rooted con-viction that the life of intelligence must make anindispensable contribution to the spiritual life and toa fully human life, that the life of intelligence is theprincipal concern of institutions of higher learning(though not only of them), that there is a differencebetween sectilar and religious institutions of higherlearning, between religious and Christian institutions,and between non-Catholic and Catholic Christian in-stitutions. The latter difference is no longer as undis-puted as it once was, and it is not easy to defend thisdifference without a clear sense of the objectives of aCatholic institution as such. Insofar as it must reflectthe realities of its situation, and insofar as Catholicshave come to experience the positive contribution ofother religious communities, the task of determiningthe sense of being Catholic cannot be approached ina s.elf-righteous or exclusive spirit. Fortunately, it isnot necessary to depreciate others in order to appreci-ate Catholic education. Catholicism is not "sectarian"but rather resolutely open to the truth wherever it ismanifested. Appreciation of Catholic intellectual tra-ditions is pursued in order to draw upon and developthem with a view to understanding the contemporaryworld and to helping in the formation of a contem-porary Christian spirit, intelligence, and characterthat can be effective in the society.

Catholic traditions are :landed down by the teach-ing faculty and made available to students and teach-

ers alike in the curriculum. The curriculum does notonly form students' intelligence; it is often an impor-tant instrument in enabling a teacher to grow in hisown understanding of the Catholic intellectual tradi-tions because through it he is encouraged to teachthem. But the traditions are also lodged in the library,which only needs to be used. These are the chief fac-tors contributing directly to the life of intelligence ina Catholic university or college.

There are also other very important supporting fac-tors, not necessary perhaps to the survival of a Catho-lic university, but required for its well-being. Learn-ing does not thrive on work and discipline alone. Itfeeds also upon ritual, play, freedom, leisure, and

silence. It is through these that its members will beenabled to experience transcendence as well ds under-stand something about it, perhaps gaining a foretasteof that eternity to the service of which a Catholicinstitution is committed.

Tfe Catholic intellectual traditions need to be cele-brated in academic exercises and on other formaloccasions. These celebrations are dramatic presenta-tions of the meaning not on'y of the universityitself but of the great intellectual traditions whichit serves. Moreover, if a university does not rememberits heroes, even perhaps with ritual panache, it maysoon forget that heroism is possible, arid sometimesnecessary, in the life of intelligence. Supportive, too,is the unintrusive presence of the iirch on campus,a ministry that can meld ethical and social principleswith religious realities, and awaken this meld in thecultural setting, in fellowship, sacrament, prayer, andsocial action, but above all, in the free discussion ofeverything in relation to what is ultimate. Moreover,it can carry on th:.-.4 talk under the stimulation ofCatholic intellectual traditions. Of course, talk aloneis not enough. The Catholic university must also showitself to be both rational and Catholic in its own insti-tutional life, that is, in its treatment of itr members,and in its own interaction with other institutions andwith the larger society.

Its intellectual presence will manifest itself in manyways: in informal conversation between teachers, stu-dents, and others, in the publications of its facultymembers, in the activities of learned and professionalassociations; on more or less formal and public oc-casions, such as, lectures, seminars, and conferenceshosted by the university and including scholars,Catholic and non-Catholic, from within the universityand beyond it. An effective Catholic university or col-lege will be further distinguished by the Catholicintellectuality of its alumni, and will realize an activeCatholic intellectual presence in the larger societythrough authorship, artistic activity, and throughleadership of various kinds. They will ccntributeCatholic intellectual elements and dimensions to thediscussion of issues that engage the whole society,not at the cost of professional quality, nor as specialpleading, but with respect for the canons of rational-ity.

On Catholic Intellectual Traditic is

Over its long history, Catholic intellectual life hasmanifested a remarkable plurality of knowledge andopinion within a shared faith. Just what that sharedfaith is has been debated in assembly, council, chair,and pulpit, with the officers of the Church finding itnecessary to intervene from time to time. Within aremarkable diversity, the limits of acceptable faithhave generally been maintained. Within those limits,intellectuals in the Church have drawn now upon one

previous thinker, now upon another, some have urgedone aspect of a great question, some another; somehave exploited one method or science, some another.Most of the effective traditions have been embodiedin communities, some in religious orders, others inschools A few have gathered about a single outstand-ing figure Some have received official blessing, othershave not

All of this diversity ought to tell us that we cannotproceed as though an intellectual tradition in Catholi-cism is something obvious The Catholic universityshould actively examine the question of Catholic in-tellectual traditions, seeking to determine how nowone tradition, now another, meets specific or changingneeds. In the past century, Thomism has receivedespecial favour from Church authorities, but it shouldthrive even better in the free exchange that both ex-hibits the scope and depth of various Catholic intel-lectual traditions and also relates them to currentquestions and challenges

Some of these traditions arise out of profoundspiritual experience and practice, so that their intel-lectuality is stamped by that spiritual authenticitySome arise reflectively out of a faith that goes forthto meet contemporary issues with rational methodsand expectations so that their intellectuality is stampedby their more or less "scientific" (toissenschafthch)spirit. Others arise mori immediately out of affectiv-ity and social concern so that their intellectuality ex-hibits a pragmatic sensibility Most traditions have amixture of these and other qualities Neveitheless, ifthe term "Catholic intellectual traditions" is not toremain a mere place-holder for arbitrary variables, anattempt must be made however controversial to

express w hat is common to these intellectual tradi-tions One might speak even of an underlying Catho-

lic intellectual tradition within which various sub-traditions interplay

These Catholic intellectual traditions are gatheredtogether in the Church -in- the -world after the mannerof an on-going "conversation" that forms a commun-ity of the living and the dead, not unrelated to thecommunity of saints, living and dead. As in everycommunity, it is easy to pick out certain great con-versationalists around whom the conversation tendsto resound the Greek Fathers, St. Augusti"P ofHippo, St Anselm, Abelard, St Bonaventure, St.Thomas Aquinas, Blessed John Duns Scotus, Williamof Ockham, Dante, Pascal, Newman the list is longIn mire recent times, the conversation goes on withMaritain and Marcel, with Teilhard de Chardin, withthe brothers Rahner and von Balthasar, with GeraldPhelan, Gerard Smotr"James Collins, with Geach andAnscombe, with Austin Farrer, C. S. Lewis and Ches-terton, with so,:ioiogists such as Peter Berger, DavidMartin, historians such as Christopher Da,vson andJohn Tracy Ellis, with anthropologists such as Mary

18

Douglas, physicists such as Louis Leprince-Rinquet,and biologists such as Cuvier and Pasteur, with essay-ists such as Belloc and Peguy, poets such as Hopkinsand Claudel, and with novelists such as GrahamGreene and Heinrich Boll, Mauriac, Bernanos andWaugh. A veritable embarras du chmx i The problemis not one of choosing, but of knowing how to choose

well To be sure, Catholic intellectual traditions shouldnot make up the whole content of the curriculum of aCatholic university, but are rather to be its leaven,context, and basis. The task remains, of course, ofrelating these traditions to other important elementsof university learning and life, and of relating thewhole to the life of the Church and the larger society.Now it is the common interests shared by the Catho-lic intellectual traditions the common tradition thatunderlies them that should form the basis forchoosing and integrating these traditions with otheraspects of learning and with life itself.

All Catholic intellectual traditions are expressionsof "faith seeking understanding." Throughout its his-tory, the Church has experienced recurrent insistenceupon the will and upon feeling, in the form of volun-tarism and legalism, of Romanticism and Fideism.Still the broad and firmly-rooted importance of intel-lectuality marks off the Catholic experience from cer-tain forms of Protestant experience. Indeed, alwaysthe sponsor of networks of lower schools and acad-emies, the Church is also the mother of universities,a fact we perhaps need to remember whenever thenotion of a "Catholic university" is under attack.Conscious of her indebtedness to the ancient schoolsof the Empire and borrowing from the centers oflearning in Islam, especially the great Al Acar inCairo, the Church was the principal sponsor of thegreat medieval universities.

So then the first characteristic of the Catholic faithis its high respect for the intellectual contribution.But this faith that sets out to understand is a faithrooted concretely in historical events The historicalnature of the faith has been sometimes obscured byan excessively rational mode of expression, andGnosticism is a constant danger This makes it im-perative that there be a continuing critical discussionof the very nature of intelligence and of the intel-lectual life. The historical events, moreover, havebeen quickly institutionalized so that the institution,rooted above all in the apostolic origin of the epis-copal office and modelled initially upon the Roman

, Imperial administration, has sponsored the univer-sities which in turn have shaped the Church as aninstitution, cementing the pursuit of learning into thevery life of the Church and the Western culture whichit sponsored. The institution has developed and be-come part of the character of the faith itself: it is afaith with a sense of the importance of a strong insti-tution with well-defined offices. It has understood the

Institution to he not simply able to be dissolved intothe community, nor is It simply the functional ar-rangement or an association, but a body with a sanc-honed, transcendent mandate. In concert with its

non-Catholic sister, the Catholic university ought toprovide society with the appropriate services essentialto society, but it should be able to avoid sinking intothe endless demands that it merely run errands forthe society and its immediate needs. Moreover, it neednot fall back upon a purely negative role of critic Ithas both a transcendent origin and a trans-social gozl,and must rise to issues that are at once more basicand more permanent If Catholics are really catholic,then their universities ought to stand out for theirpreoccupation with things that really matter Oneshould expect to see much attention given to seriousphilosophical and theological thought, but also thepursuit of wisdom in literature, the arts, along withthe kind of social concern that lifts man up from themorass of daily problems In addition to contributingto the physical and mental works of mercy, to thedevising of systems for the solution of comprehensivesocial problems, the Catholic university should fosterspintual works of mercy as well It ought to find con-genial a kind of idealism that cuts through and be-

, yond the more diffuse goals of meeting various andshifting social needs The state articulates its aims(the human good) only in a rudimei.tary way TheChurch has a mission to preach a gospel and has aclearly and fully-articulated purpose The Catholicuniversity must be associated with its parent body,then, in a more determinate way, and must seize will-ingly the articulation already set forth by its sponsor.It must then participate in a joint work that arises outof the relationship between the determinate meaningoffered by the Church and its own pursuit of mean-ing The secular university has a less determinate re-lationship with the state Yet it, too, must recognizeand meet the professional and vocational needs whichthe state levies upon the university

The Catholic faith emphasizes a continuity of mis-sion so that it tends to be traditional as distinct from.evolutionary where the latter term means the de-liberate suppression of the past This has nothing todo with being politically conservative. Righty-formes'intelligence never acquiesces to rank injustice, just asit is circumspect about lumping on ideological "band-

wagons Perhaps a Catholic university needs to beradical, conservative, and progressive like any univer-sity worthy of the name The Catholic faith is foundedupon ultimacy so it goes to the root (radix), its tradi-tionalism is not an embalming process or a reactionto change, but a recuperation and renewal of whathas been accomplished of value in the past. It is pro-gressive because it must recognize and develop thatpast in new forms to meet always new situations.

For these reasons, Catholic faith seeking to under-

stand itself needs historical perspective more perhapsthan most religious faiths do, and more perhaps thansecular institutions do Arising out of the incarnationof Jesus Christ, the mission of the Church is the pro-gressive incorporation of the whole of mankind intothe mystical body of Christ. History in its manyforms, therefore, is called upon to play an extremelyimportant part in the Catholic university. Indeed, itsImportance is implicit in the very phrase, "Catholicintellectual tradition and traditions "

As a religious faith, Catholic faith also roots itselfr- the disclosure of ultimacy There is, then, in Catho-lic intellectual traditions a concern for ultimate ques-tions, meanings, and truth There is the question ofthe source of the existence and order of the universe.Catholic faith has understood itself as affirming astrong doctrine of the Lordship of God in and throughChrist, an affirmation that includes a doctrine of crea-tion and a profound respect for the beginning ofhuman life There is the question of the "whence"and "whither" of human life, and of the relation ofethical values to the order of the universe There arequestions about the reality of freedom and its relationto evil and to good, of its limits, and about the natureand grounds of authority. Questions, too, about therelation between contemplative wonder and effectiveprazts, and the ways in which the understanding offaith can lead to constructive and deterrent actions.But, since religion is not only the concern for theultimate but also concern for everything in the lightof the ultimate, questions arise about how the dis-closure of ultimacy permeates all existence, how itaff ?cts our relationships with others, with nature, withourselves, and with God. These questions of ultimacycall for exploration in poetry, literature, and the arts,and for methodical investigation in philosophy andtheology. So that to history must be added philosophyand theology as the primary modes of enquiry thattogether explore the paradox of an institutionalizedcommunity rooted in history and committed to trans-cending it.

Because of the comprehensive scope of the intel-lectual interest that grows out of Catholic faith, oneshould expect, in addition to the traditional emphasisupon the liberal arts, philosophy and theology, astrong emphasis upon inter- and cross-disciplinarystady, not only in the humanistic fields, but in thescientific and technical ones as well. Because of theethical demand that is inextricable from Catholic faith,one should expect a strong emphasis upon the rela-tion of what is studied to moral values, personal,social, and ,nstitutional. Because of the importance ofritual, one should expect an understanding of non-verbal forms of symbolic meaning, and also (para-doxically) new understanding of the word in a post-literate society And because of the spiritual light thatcharacterizes Catholic faith, one should expect its in-

tellectuals to exhibit a certain "distance" that not evenhistory alone can give, not a "distance" that removesthem from their situation, but one that carries thembeyond its surface vagaries, one that transcends theimmediacy of the situation.

Along with the manifold needs of a modern educa-

tion to which it must minister with freedom anduncompromising standards, a Catholic university orcollege should place at its ordering center a compre-hensive and ethically sensitive emphasis upon institu-tion and community. upon historical perspective andeternity, upon ultimacy and transcendence, uponword and silence.

Some Challenges to the Curriculum

Throughout this report the case has been made forthe distinctiveness that should characterize Catholicuniversities and colleges. Nowhere should this be feltmore strongly than in the curriculum and in theemphasis given certain questions in research.

In this, the concluding section of our report, wewould hope to contribute to the focusing of debatewithin the Catholic intellectual community on somecentral questions of curricular design and on certainissues requiring an effort of reflection and research bythe Church s intellectual establishment. To this end,we shall pose a number of questions and throw out afew suggestions for discussion for each of the majorcurricular areas within what is traditionally called

"the liberal arts" and the sciences.

Theology and Religious StudiesIn our view, a distinction should be drawn between

theology, religious studies, and catechesis. The Catho-lic college should be involved in all three. Is not adifferent kind of preparation needed for the futuretheology specialist on the one hand, and the generalstt,dent, seeking to deepen his understanding of hisCatholic tradition and to prepare himself in a generalway to lead the life of an enlightened and responsibleCatholic, on the other? Catechesis presupposes a the-ology of some sort, but is not its concern, rather thanbeing centered on advancement of tilt xience as such,focused on the need of the student for a certain inte-grated understanding of the essence of what is handeddown by the tradition and of ways to live the Christ-

ian life in the contemporary setting? Then, too, theCatholic's need for a mature understanding of his owntradition is in turn distinguishable from the need, onthe part of any educated person, for a general under-standing of Le phenomenon of religion the properobject of the discipline of religious studies; and, inthis era of planetary civilization, for a sympatheticunderstanding of the major religious traditions in-fluential in the world a proper object of religiousstudies. If a case can be made out for every student'sideally being exposed both to an adequate program of

20

catechesis and for the need for some religious studies,would it not then follow that in order to make bestuse of the limited time available in the student's pro-gram for both catechesis and religious studies, a care-fully thought out, co-oidinated program must be de-

veloped?What should be the exact goal and the content of

the catechesis part of such a program? Should thestudent be introduced to the study of Sacred Scrip-ture? Is it proper to set out to teach Sacred Scripturein a way that will enhance the student's love and re-spect for it as God's Word, in a way that will en-courage him and equip him for a lifetime of personalstudy of and reflection on the Holy text? Ought notthe student be helped to develop a sense of the de-velopment of doctrine? Is there not an episcopal re-sponsibility to encourage the adequate teaching ofessential doctrine? To this end, might the fostering ofa national catechism, as was done by the Dutch Bis-hops, not offer some focus to theological reflection onthe problems of catechesis? We are not suggestingthat ar y college be bound to base its catechetical pro-gram on such a catechism. But obviously the univer-sities should play a vigorous role in its formulation,criticism, and constant revision. It would then beavailable as a guide and inspiration for individual

colleges.In religious studies, how can the sense of religion

be communicated, and the student deepened in hisappreciation of liturgical and other symbolic forms?

What other religious traditions should he study? Ifin-depth study of a single foreign tradition were tobe preferred to a necessarily superficial survey of allmaim traditions, on what basis would the choice oftraditions be made? Availability of qualified teachers?

The need to know better one's immediate neighbors?The predominant traditions in the world at the mo-ment? How can the teaching of other religions beused to help the student appreciate more fully hisown Catholic tradition?

In the teaching of theology to future specialists arid

to candidates for the priesthood, can one solve thedi:emma of the need for a certain unity of approach

in order to achieve a degree of formation, given theextreme pluralism of theologies characteristic of theage? The same problem confronts the philosophers.Is it necessary, in order to teach someone to thinktheologically, to subject him to a formation throughextensive familiarization with a particular method oftheology? The authors of this report do not wish toimply that they have the answer to this question. We

make no secret of our worry that students exposed toonly a smattering of a number of different methods

of theology (or, for that matter, different philoso=

phies) may emerge with a bundle of rich impressionsbut no ability for rigorous analysis or sound con-struction themselves. Are there not dangers to the

0 r,4

limmimmimimmommin

unity of the Church if students are not equipped totalk to one another because of an education that istoo impressionistic. But, on the other hand, if eachhas learned only one method or language, he may beunable to communicate effectively with any one whohas net been initiated in that method or language. Thetheologians themselves are hampered in their quest toachieve a community of reflection by the pluralism inphilosophy which has contributed to the variety oftheological explorations. The condition for renderingthis pluralism fruitful is a modicum of common un-derstanding. In both Catholic theology and philoso-phy, the period of exhilarating exploration, with peo-ple probing in all directions, calls for a renewal ofOa, will to unity on the part of all of IA. This will takethe form of a renewed effort to translate technicalvocabularies for one another, to enter into one a --other=s horizons of interpretation, and together tosearch for sharper focus on the perennial essentialsof the faith One conserves by becoming more de-voted to recowring and nourishing the roots Someunity is imperative in education, since a bunch ofcourses does not a curriculum make. The word itselfsays the courses must somehow "run along with oneanother."

Philosophy

In an earlier discussion paper ("Is a Catholic Phi-losophy Department Possible?," published in 1978 asan Occasional Paper of the Association of CatholicColleges and Universities, Washington, D.0 ) we

made clear that we do not take the above questionsand remarks as an invitation to return to the dayswhen the Church sought to achieve Intellectual unitythrough the exclusive systematic teaching of thethought of St. Thomas. Throughout this report wehave stressed thitytholicism has always been char-acterized by the existence within orthodox CatholicChristianity of a multiplicity of traditions, one of thegreatest being that of St. Thomas himself. It wouldbe a disservice to the student and to Catholic thoughtgenerally to turn out generations of students believingthere has been but one adequate way of thinkingtheologically and philosophically. Moreover, the stu-dent needs to be prepared to confront the issues andto learn from the methods of post-Kantian and otherrecent philosophies.

If we are correct in this important judgment, thenthe question confronting Catholic philosophy depart-ments is rather like that confronting the theologians:How, irP the limited time available in the undergrad-uate curriculum, can one help the student to thinkmethodically? Could a curriculum ever be organizedthat would at once 1) introduce the student to thereality of a plurality of ways appropriate for thinkingphilosophically about reality as illumined by Catholicfaith, 2) equip him to understand the challenges of

21

post-Kantian and more recent thought; and at thesame time, 3) offer some formation in some way ofphilosophical thinking? Are there more or less ap-propriate ways of philosophical thinking, given acommitment to reflect on the world as illumined byChristian faith? (Thomists and Marcelians alike wouldcriticize, for instance, logical positivism as a way ofapproaching the world And a debate is raging overwhether or not Marxist analysis can be "redeemed"from a materialism that demands atheism as a neces-sary correlate. Some theologians are leery of the "pres-ent fad of "process philosophy," contending that itsbasic premises arc incompatible with the Catholiccommitment to the absolute transcendence and omni-potence of God. Others see it as a challenging pos-sibility ) Is it not time for Catholic philosophers, asa community, to be examining this question with aview to their implications for the curriculum? Perhapsthe work of the Committee on Teaching of the Ameri-can Catholic Philosophical Association should be di-rected towards a national effort to reach some con-sensus on the design of workable undergraduatecurricula, both programs of specialization and morelimited minor programs for inclusion in general liberalarts

Christianity and Culture

An important goal of the Catholic college should beto interest the student in and equip him to informhimself about the rich traditions Christianity has de-veloped as it interacts with many cultures. This is abroader aim than catechetics' endeavor to introducehim to the heart of the Catholic tradition throughHoly Scripture and the teaching of doctrine. It is amultidisciplinary undertaking, making use of her-meneutic:, al, history, and socio-political-economichistory If conducted with coherence and depth, sucha program raises serious issues, which will demandthat the student call on his philosophical and theologi-cal formation to advance his understanding of theproblems that arise as Christianity works in the worldwithout being of the world.

Several colleges have experimented with fairlyelaborate programs of "Christianity and Culture" acone way of structuring a Catholic liberal arts cur-riculum Some of the issues dealt with in a typicalChristianity and Culture program are the following:

(a) Christian symbolism. The nature of symbolismas such; Jewish and Christian symbols in the inspiredScriptures; the history of the development of keysymbols in theology, liturgy, literature, and art; prob-lems posed by modern interpretations and develop-ment of symbols.

(b) Art and architecture as expressions of theChristian vision and as settings for and instrumentsof the liturgy, and as ways of communicating theChristian message and of Christianizing the milieu.

(c) Literature, especially literary exploration of

Christian themes from the great world of super-abundant symbol, like the incomparable Divina corn-media, to the profound psychological investigationsof a Bernanos or a Graham Greene. Much of the triPhthat has been discovered by focusing the light ofrevelation to illumine every facet of human existenceis to be found outside the great works of theologyand philosophy To reveal to the student the existenceof such a treasury and to equip him with the tools forreading a vast panoply of Christian expression is oneof the finest services a Catholic college can render itsstudents.

(d) Socio-pol tico-economic history of Christian-ity's creation of institutional and social forms as it hasgone about the task of perpetuating itself and oftransforming societies and cultures. The multitude ofmonastic forms, Christian educational institutions,the evolution of Church structures, guilds, the mis-sions, all the aspects of the problem of Church-staterelations in a welter of very different political-eco-nomic situations. These former present occasions forreflecting on the problem of Christianity's relation tosociety. -

These and similar topics investigated by such a pro-gram are unlikely to receive in the secular universitythe sort of sustain -d attention we, as Catholics, be-lieve they demand. Are they receiving all of the atten-tion they deserve in Catholic colleges? We ourselveshave no way of knowing. But might it not be advis-able for the Catholic college to experiment with some-thing like a "Christianity and Culture program" as away of pulling together z core of religion, theology,literature, art, and history :purses intended to presentthe traditions in a coherent way and to iaise for thestudent the vital questions of immanence and trans-cedence, cultural orientation, Christianization of theworld, etc ? We would be pleased to hear from thosecolleges which have been experimenting in this waywith co-ordinated Catholic curricula

The Soc'ial Sciences

(a) Economics and political science Given the re-ality of homo oeconomicus and the staggering prob-lems of unbalanced development, the feeding ofexploding populations, the varying promises and per-formances of the different socio-political-economic-ideological systems, is not the church confronted byan urgent responsibility as well as being in a uniqueposition to help think these critical matters through?The Church is wedded to no one system. While it isbound to condemn aetheist materialist Marxism, ithas, by virtue of Christ's teaching, a deep sense ofthe need to protect the poor and therefore a naturalsympathy for all who sincerely work to overcomesuffering. At the same time, she recognizes in thepassion for liberty and the concern for human dignity

22

which have been espoused by the Western liberaltradition a reality with deepest roots in Christian con-viction about man, for all the anti-clericalism andexaggerated individualism that accompanied the"bourgeois revolutions." With her experience of everykind of human society, her great scope of vision born

of fidelity to an ancient tradition of mankind, and herstructure, which permits her to provide a forum forall of humanity, the Church is in a unique pos on tofoster fresh thinking about world problems. TheCatholic university is a place where this should go onand should make maximum use of its facilities tospark a higher level of debate, a better quality of

analysis of world problems, a deeper understandingof the human dimensions of the conflicts and chal-lenges facing us. Are American Catholic universitiesdoing their share to understand what has provenliberating of creative impulses in the American ex-perience, and in comprehending the failures of theWestern system? Are our efforts at understandingthe various experiments, loosely called "socialist," asfrequent and sophisticated as the situation calls for?

Are we at the forefront in problems of development?Are our students being challenged by these greatissues of our time? Have we dorie everything that canbe done systematically to prepare the Maritains andJohn Courtney Murrays of the next generation?

(b) Sociology. The vast Catholic community of

North America has to know what is happening toitself factually, and then must seek to understand the

dynamics of its interaction with other communities.This requires adequate empirical sociological researchand development of sound social theory. Can thegeneral sociological community be counted on to pro-vide all that is needed? Is the American CatholicSociological Association, the disbanding of which theauthors learned with surprise, really no longer neces-sary?

in(c) Psychology The Catholic traditions holdcommon some quite fundamental and definite viewsof human life These can suggest directions for re-search by focusing areas of concern for researchers.Moreover, psychology can contribute much to a

deeper understanding of contemporary man, and themelding of a Christian concern with the skills ofpsychotherapy can become a channel of health and amission of mercy. Moreover, Catholic philosophy ofman and psychology can profit from one another,though in such a co-operation the all too commonisolation of overspecialization in departments must beovercome before much interaction can take place. TheCatholic university should be exemplary in such co-operation.

The Physical and Biological Sciences

The wider recognition given the Christian originsof modern science, the presence of Catholics in the

8) r40 t.)

ElolmollmomilM=IMMMIN

forefront of science from the sixteenth century untiltoday, and the strides made by Catholic universitiesin fostering scientific research make it unnecessaryfor Catholic universities to apologize to anyone justbecause their generally difficult financial circumstancesdo not make it easy for them to mount across theboard programs requiring expensive laboratory equip-ment. TM does not excuse them from providing ex-cellent education as to basic sciences It is imperativeto make the effort that Catholics are widely presenton the inside as debates rage over the potential appli-cations of the new science.

Conclusion

In all of this, there is implied an urgent need on thepart of the Catholic intellectual community for anover-all strategy. This strategy should direct the re-sources of the community, while respecting the diver-sity and freedom of its institutional and individualmembers, to encourage the development of thinkersin the various fields --- thinkers who will address thequestions the Catholic community as a whole need tohave researched. These questions and this researchought not to be understood in a sectarian or parochialinterest but, while contributing to the needs of theCatholic community as a whole, should also con-

263

tribute in no small measure to the general society atlarge. Nevertheless, a high measure cf these contribu-tions will undoubtedly be distinctive and recognizedas su,h. Several efforts have been made in the pastto initiate discussions that might lead to such over-allplanning. Earlier efforts to co-ordinate Catholic grad-uate schools and their research disclosed little willing-ness to cooperate and a tendency for each to continueon their own as though resources were limitless. Weknow very differently today. Such cooperation '-quires precision in focusing the questions that sz din need of research. These questions are often inter-disciplinary, and the extreme isolation imposed byour departmental structure impedes the adequateformulation of the questions. Even within sharplydefined fields we have not been especially good atcooperative research. There are exceptions, of course.Theologians and canon lawyers have made goodstrides toward cooperative endeavours. Within phi-losophy, we have tried to remedy the isolation withinthe field by the modest efforts of the Committee onResearch of the American Catholic Philostiphical As-sociation We are encouraged to learn that new initia-tives are under way. We think that every Catholicuniversity has the highest stake in such an enterprise.

THE CATHOLIC COLLEGE PRESIDENCY A STUDYLouis C. Get()

The genesis of this study began with the Associa-tion's Committee on College Sponsorship. Initially,the study was intended to survey only the lay presi-dents of Catholic institutions of higher education inan effort to learn more about them, their professionalpreparation, the selection process involved in theirappointment, their initial expectations both positiveand negative as well as the realities of those ex-pectations. As the survey instrument was refined,

sections dealing with administrative achievements, in-stitutional strengths, institutional areas of concerns,and relationships with the Sponsoring Religious Body

were added.At this point, the Committee decided that the study

would be more significant by an expansion to includeall presidents of the ACCU membership.

The first survey instrument was mailed to the 211ACCU members in the summer of 1979 with a fall

due date. The response was quite encouraging: 116replies in varying degrees of completeness were re-ceived. Considering the omprehensiveness of therequested information approximately 140 itemsthe high return rate seemed to indicate that the studywas perceived as having value.

In an attempt to increase th,.. ,:idity of the survey,

a second or "reminder" questionnaire was mailed tothl entire membership in the late fall of 1979 witha January 28, 19fA0 return date. After a somewhatextensive cross-checking of key or suspicious items,

a number of duplicated replies were eliminated, leav-ing 146 valid responses. Last summer and fall some20,500 items of information were tabulated andcategorized by presidential type female religious,male religious, lay male, and lay female. These are

the results.

Current President/Predeces,or

The first item on the questionnaire attempted toidentify the respondent and the respondent's pre-decessor, first by sex and, secondly, by life stylethat is religious or lay.* This latter information wasintended to provide an early clue as to whether therehad been some shift from a religious to a lay pr c -dent or a return to a religious ch'.4 executive.

Of the 146 replies, 80 are male and 66 are female.

By life style, the vast majority are religious 64

females and 50 m.,es. Of the 32 lay presidents, 30are male. Most of the religious presidents are mem-

Dr. Gatto is the president of Marian College."Religious" here includes all priests, brothers, and sisters.

24

bers of the SRB (Sponsoring Religious Body) as weretheir predecessors.

No shift from religious to lay president or thereverse can be discerned among the institutions cur-rently having male religious chief executives. How-ever, two of the presidencies now occupied by malereligious had previously been occupied by femalereligious.

On the other hand, there is a somewhat significantmovement among institutions presently headed byfemak religious. At least 12 colleges have movedback from lay presidents to Sisters.

Among those institutions having lay presidents, 17have had lay predecessors while an additional 12have, with the pres-nt presidential tenure, passedfrom religious administration.

The usual trivia emerged in the early part of thestudy. For example, with the exception of two femalereligious AO chos.. not to disclose their age, the agespa:. of eie,1...cnts ranged from 35 to 71. Memedian for female religi, is was, at the time of thesurvey, the highest of the three basic categories54.5 years of age. The median for male religious was52 while that of the lay presidents was the lowestat 49.

The states producing the greatest number of presi-dents are New York (24), Illinois (17), and Pennsyl-vania (15). In all, 33 states and Washington, D.C. arerepresented among presidential birth places. Five

presidents are foreign born.A substantial majority of the presidents (72) have

been in office five years or less. With female religious,the median for presidential tenure is abot.. five and

one-half years. For male religious, it is almost sixyears; and for lay presidents it is only three and one-half years. The longest time a president has been inoffice is 28 years.

The most frenuent route to a college presidency isvia the provost, academic vice-president, or academic

dean's route (34). Executive positions such as presi-dent, acting president, executive vice-president orassistant to the president constitute the second mostfrequent entry (27). The third largest number camedirectly from the faculty (21).

While these are the more common presidential en-trees, chief executives came from high school ad-ministration, congressional staffs, boards of trustees,religious councils, professional agencies, the activeministry, as well as virtually every adminis 'trative postto be found on a college campus. In all, some 51 dif-ferent positions were held by the presidents prior to

2"

their current appointments Most had some facultyexperience.

Seventy-five of the individuals came to their presi-dencies from other institutions while sixtv-seven werepromoted from within. The overwhelming majority oflay presidents (28 of 32) assumed presidencies at dif-ferent colleges and universities.

As would be expected, most of the presidents (115)hold a doctorate of some type. One is a M.D , one aneducation specialist, twenty-five are masters, and twoare bachelors

The institutions producing at least five presidentsare Catholic University (17), Fordham (10), St. Louis(7), Michigan and Not D-me (6 each), and I olaof Chicago (5) In total 58 American and 12 foreigninstitutions are represented as conferrers of the presi-dent's highest degree

The academic discipline of the greatest number ofpresidents is Education with its related concentrations(37), followed by Theology/Philosophy (22), English/Literature (15), and Histe7y (13). At least 34 academicareas form the professional background of the report-ing presidents

In an era which F. 'ces significant emphasis on con-tinuous professional development, it is interesting tonote that 54 of the presidents indicate no formal ad-ministrative preparation as received through intern-ships, workshops, institutes, seminars, etc. Of thosereporting such participation, the organization mostfrequently cited as the sponsor of experience is theAmerican Council on Education (36). University-based programs particularly Harvard (34) andprofessional seminars (28) follow in order of fre-quency A majority of he presidents have Panicpated extensively in these developmental activities.

Twenty-eight of the laymen are married with 4 6children each Actually, the family size ranges fromone child to twAve

One of the laywxren is married She has one childAll of the lay presidents are Catholic, a situation

that wo..ld not have been true several years ago withsome of the reporting institutions

Presidential Selection Process

The next five items on the survey focused on thecircumstances leading to the presidential search, theprocess of selecting the president as well as the indi-vidual's motivation in accepting a presidential appoint-ment

It should be reassuring to know that the possibilityof dying in office 's, according to this study, veryremote. Only one presidential search was necessitatedby death.

Four searches resulted from an institutional desireto return to a religious president This shift, however,was more than offset by five institutions that desired

25

a meve to a lay president The reasons for thesechanges will be presented later.

Only five non-renewals of a previous president'scontract were reported. But this number might begreater because nine searches were prompted by theend of a specifically mandated presidential term. Sincerespondents were permitted to check more than onecircumstance lead to their appointments, there issome overlapping inthis section of the survey.

Somewhat consistent with the relatively short pres-idential tenure reported earlier is the fact that only 18predecessors of current chief executives had retired.

The vast majority of presidential searches (109)were the consequence of resignations. Of these, 30former presidents returned to teaching; 16 assumeda lesser administrative position; 13 left education;eight moved to another presidency, and 38 resignedfor a variety of "other reasons," such as health, SRBreassignment, and leaving the priesthood.

Finally, three presidents were founders of their col-leges, therefore, the normal circumstances leading toa presidential search were non-existent in their cases.

If the data collected in this study is correct, it is thejob that seeks the individual rather than the reverseOnly 19 presidents admit to having applied for theirpositions including one who entered her candidacyonly after discovering that no woman was being con-sidered Prior service to or association with an institu-tion was instrumental in focusing the attention of theselection process on 30 successful candidates. An ad-ditional 72 presidents were initially approached byeither the institution or the search committee. SRBdirective resulted in eight presidential selections whilean additional three presidents emerged from trusteeor search committee ranks Many of the respondentsprofess that they had little early interest and, in fact,had to be encouraged to become a serious candidate.

The selection process that followed the identifica-tion of potential presidents was, as expected, varied.Unilateral appointment by the SRB is recorded 19times. An additional 11 such appointments by a Boardof Trustees are reported. In these 30 instances, thereis no indication of any consultation with or recom-mendation by any type of search, advisory, or selec-tion committee. Only one lay president was appointedin this "dosed" manner.

On the other hand, consultation with a committeewas a factor in four appointments by SRB and 25 bya Board of Trustees. Actual committee recommenda-tions were followed by the SRB in four selections andby a Board of Ti ii.,tees in 80 cases. It is possible, ofcourse, that some or all of the consultations had, inreality, the effect of a recommendation.

When asked to providr the composition of anycommittee that may have been instrumental in theselection process, the current presidents indicated thatin eight appointments the committee consisted of

only SRB members, in one selection only the trusteeswere represented, and in 11 other cases the commit-tee's membership was restricted to the SRB and theBoard of Trustees Coupled with the 28 replies thatleft this question blank, thereby suggesting no cc.n-mittee involvement, it appears that the selection pro-cess was fundamentally in house" for 48 or vir-tually one-third of the 146 presidents. As might beanticipated, only two lay presidents were involved inthis relatively controlled procedure. By contrast,thirty-two or one-half of the female religious presi-dents were selected in this manner.

The other 98 res ses revealed broad committeerepresentation stitutional constituencies. In addi-tion to the S :Land the trustees, the most commoncategories of

:andmembership were faculty,

students, and alumni/ae. However, administration,staff, and community leaders were not uncommon inthe composition of a number of committees.

After the identification of those with presidentialpotential, the screening process and ultimate selectionof the prime candidate, it remains for that individualto consummate the entire procedure with an affirma-tive reply. Yet the study has already demonstratedthat many of today's presidents were somewhat re-luctant candidates Moreover, there probably is not acollege chief executive who at one time or another hasnot questioned the rationality of accepting a presi-dency This is especially true if one has left the secur-ity of a tenured position or the esteem of a scholarlyreputation at another institution. To trade the comfortof the familiar for the uncertainty of the unknownrequires determined motivation even in Academe.Why then does an individual do it? In an effort to findanswers, respondents were asked to indicate their pri-mary and as many secondary motives as were appli-cable in their decision to accept a presidency.

Loyalty to the SRB dominated the primary re-sponses. Commitment to the SRB ranked the highestwith 56 listing it as their primary motivation and 41giving it as a secondary consideration. Closely asso-ciated was obedience to the SRB with 25 primary and

17 secondary reportings. Inevitably, these repliescame from the religious presidents although a few laypresidents listed SRB commitment (five primary andthree secondary) and obedience (three secondary)among the factors influencing their ultimate accept-ance of a presidency.

However, the motivation receiving the most fre-quent mention was "professional challenge." Onehundred and four individuals cited it as either primary(26) or secondary (79). "Professional advancement"ranked as primary for nine presidents and secondaryfor 30 chief executives.

Despite the fact that 32 lay presidents were in-cluded in the survey, only five cited Vatican II's em-phasis on more lay participation as a major influence.

26

But as a secondary consideration, it appeared 10 times.If the replies are accurate, personal prestige and

financial considerations were of little consequence inthe decision to accept the presidential summons. Onlyone individual a religious president gave pres-tige as a primary motivation. Twenty-six cite it as asecondary influence. No one claimed financial rewardsas a primary factor, but it was a secondary motive for18 presidents.

Most of those identifying prestige and financial re-wards as secondary reasons for assuming a presidencywere lay This is not to say, however, that these werethe majority lay motivations. In reality, professionalchallenge received the greatest number of lay rank-ings 13 primary and 16 secondary. Professionaladvancement ran second with six primary and 17secondary citations.

Among the other motives listed were two primaryand four secondary indications for a "commitment ofa religious who is not a member of the SRB," Linesecondary for "career change, ' and 21 primary and10 secondary for a variety of "other" considerations.Of these, virtually all involved commitments to the

institution, the Church, higher education, Catholiceducation, and God. The one primary motivation thatvaried from the pattern was an unabashed "commit-ment to a woman president for a woman's college."

Anticipation and Reality

Every individual approaches a new position withcertain perceptions and anticipations. The extent towhich these concepts coincide with reality is directlyrelated to the ability of the individual to evaluatewhile being evaluated. In an attempt to judge the suc-cess of the presidential selection process in conveyingan accurate institutional impression thereby lessen-ing the likelihood of surprises after the fact presi-dents were requested to identify those areas whichthey perceived as institutional strengths or positivepersonal motivations when they accepted their topadministrative appointments They were then askedto indicate the reality of those anticipations. The sameprocedure was used to ascertain initial negative per-ceptions and realities. Individuals were cautionedto respond only when certain of their original expec-

tations which admittedly were difficult to recon-struct. Eight general areas were specified SRB rela-

tions, trustee relations, campus personnel relations,academic programming, accreditation, finances, per-sonal considerations, and comprehensive campusissues.

Collectively 4421 responses were recorded. By anapproximate four to one ratio (3516 to 905), anticipa-tion corresponded to reality. Positive impr2ssionswere confirmed in 2712 instances while negative an-ticipations were judged as valid in 804 cases. Dis-appointments positive anticipations and negative

realities occured 429 times while pleasant surprisesnegative anticipations but positive realities were

indicated in 47b recordings.Therefore, presidential satisfaction, if measured by

a high correlation of positive anticipations and reali-ties, seems to be the norm throughout most of theareas surveyed in this segment of the study. Thegreatest satisfaction was registered for the contributedservices of the SRB, trustee governance philosophy,cooperation by the carry-over administrators andstaff, academic acceptance of the new president, stu-dent relations, institutional mission, accreditation ex-periences, and surprisingly student recruitment.At least 90 presidents indicated these fac of insti-tutional environment as positive realities.

On the other hand, those areas in which the nega-tive predominates include fund raising cooperation bytrustees, faculty evaluation pro:edures, collective bar-gaining, deletion of unproductive academic programs,endowment, faculty/staff salaries, individual privacy,personal scholarly activities, federal regulations, andcompetition with the public sector.

Institutional Strengths/Concerns

Closely related to the correlation of anticipationsand realities were inquiries regarding evaluations cfinstitutional strengths and areas of concern. The pres-idents were next requested to supply three of each.

The most frequently mentioned strength was thequality or reputation of academic programs. This waslisted by 85 presidents, including 24 of the lay presi-dents. Next in seqnenc was the dedication or qualityof the faculty and staff (72), followed by some aspectof Church-relatedness (67). Other strengths of somesignificant mention were campus facilities, location,and size (42); financial stability (30); sense of com-munity (28); and pubic /community support (22).,

A case might be made for combining potentiallyrelated items. For example, if faculty and staff dedi-cation is interpreted in terms of community identity,then this institutional quality becomes the most uni-versal strength. In a like manner public/communitysupport might well be a factor of financial stability

Next in descending order of citation were institu-tional adaptability and alumni, both at 15; trustees(14); enrollment (13); student quality (9); and campusadministration (6).

Of these tabulations, it is interesting to observethat enrollment is extremely low in the listing eventhough student recruitment was claimed by approxi-mately two-thirds of the presidents as a positive real-ity of their new professional affiliation. This apparentinconsistency is further illustrated by the results ofan inquiry concerning major institutional concerns.Problems of enrollment recruitment, retention,competition, declining pool of potential applicants,etc., ran second only to the financial apprehen-

27

sions of the presidents. Granted, enrollment relateddifficulties were a distant second 74 listings as

compared with 180 admissions of budgetary worriesbut a runner-up, nevertheless. On the other hand,

it should be noted that the financial total was inflatedby some respondents' simply repeating "finances" a.their three concerns.

Faculty/staff problems placed third in the problemsweepstakes. However, a number of the 36 citationsin this category were actually financially related. Forexample, declining SRB members constituted one-fourth of the total. In contrast, personnel problemsthat would normally be anticipated seldom appeared.Tenure was listed only three times, faculty accounta-bility twice, and productivity and evaluation onlyonce each.. The next three areas of concern in descending fre-quency were facilities (22), public relations (20), andcurriculum (18). But again these categories were per-meated by worries related to the institution's financialhealth such as maintenance, rehabilitation, and under-utilization of facilities; retrenchment and excessivecourses, and community support. This interminglingof items with monetary ramifications tends to validatethe observations of several chief executives that allconcerns are in the final analysis rooted in an institu-tion's financial stability.

Next in sequence of mention was the concern ex-pressed by ten presidents relative to the location oftheir institutions. An urban environment was char-acterized as a concern by six presidents while threecited their rural setting as a problem. The tenth chiefexecutive lamented the close proximity of the institu-tion to the SRB.

This dilemma of perspective was probably to beexpected. Academe is not immune to the "grass isalways greener" syndrome. One interesting responseviewed an identity as a women's college to be an asset,but "single-sex credibility" to be an institutionalconcern.

Other areas of concern reported at least twice in-clude internal governance (9), SRB/Trustee relations(8), federal regulations (6), the development office (4),athletics and long-ringe planning (3), and campuslife, parochialism, and work load (2). Twelve itemswere mentioned once. Among these were several thatordinarily might have been expected to be major con-cerns campus tension between liberal arts andprofessional programs, faculty-student ratio, campusalienation, and the integration of traditional and non-traditional students.

Institutional Data

Several questions on the survey were devoted toeliciting some current and historic institutional data.According to the response, the typical Catholic insti-tution was orginally founded as a single-sex college

by a religious order in the second half of the nine-teenth century. It is now an undergraduate, coeduca-tional college with an enrollment under 1000.

Of the 136 institutions for whicn data was pro-vided, only 36 institutions remain segregated by sex-- 34 women's and two men's colleges. One of thewomen's colleges permits male commuting students.Ninety of the current 110 coeducational institutionsrepresented in the survey began us single-sex colleges:historically 48 were exclusively male while 42 werefemale. Three additional coeducational institutions arethe result of mergers involving single-sex colleges.

According to the profile of the typical institution,the history of Catholic higher education in this coun-try is actually a chronicle of the foresight and thesacrifice of religious orders which founded 120 of theinstitutions included in this study. In nine otherfoundings, including one merger, religious orders col-laborated with dioceses. Dioceses by themselves wereinstrumental An establishing only a dozen colleges anduniversities. A parish, a diocesan priest, a cooperativereligious-lay effort, and the American hierarchy arecredited with the creation of the four remaining insti-tutions that provided information.

As indicated at the beginning of this paper, 32 ofthe responding presidents are lay. At least 12 addi-tional institutions have with the installation of theircurrent chief executives passed from lay administra-tion. In an attempt to determine any possible patternto the transfer of authority either to or from lay presi-dents, the survey questioned the rationale for such achange.

Among the lay replies, seven questionnaires simplyignored the inquiry Three indicated "unknown,""unclear," or "varied reasons," for the change to alay president. Four stated that there apparently wasnot a suitable SRB candidate available at the time. Sixfelt that a decision had been made to appoint the bestqualified indixerlual regardless of religious or laystatus.

Closely associated with the "best" candidate theoryare several more specific answers. Better leadershipand management skills were reported by three presi-dents. Another three identified the SRB belief t' .it alayman could relate better tr. business as the deter-mining factor while two presidents expressed theiropinion that considerations for external relations,especially in the area of community and financial sup-port, was the real motivation for the shift to a laypresidency.

Two replies saw the change in terms of a post-Vatican II emphasis on lay participation. One of thesefurther speculated that in light of Vatican II, a laypresident might have been viewed as the saviour ofan institution in trouble.

Another lay president evaluated his appointment asa compromise necessitated by the merger of a dioce-

28

san college and a religious order's college for women.The final reply suggested that the change was prob-ably an institutional reaction against his predecessorwho "thought he was running a seminary."

Of the dozen replies from presidents of institutionsthat had returned to religious control, only two gavethe "best" candidate rationale for the change. Anothertwo speculated that the switch was motivated by theavailability of a qualified religious, And a fifth simplyattributed the reestaolishncat of a religious presi-dency to the "desire of the Trustees."

All others spoke specifically of lay presidential fail-ures. Some were insensitive, administratively incom-petent, or lacked an institutional commitment. Otherssimply did not meet the fund-raising expectations oftheir Boards. In general, these comments tend to sup-port the opinion of the one respondent who attrib-uted his lay presidency to the hope that a laymancould salvage a troubled college.

Institutional Changes/Achievements

In an effort to ascertain the impact of current lead-ership, the questionnaire included a request for infor-mation regarding institutional changes or achieve-ments that have occur:ed during the respondent'spresidential tenure. If the replies are accurate, it issafe to conclude that the contemporary president ofa Catholic institution of higher education is far froma simple "caretaker."

A comprehensive litany of accomplishment was re-cited, despite the fact that the median presidentialtenure is approximately five years. Although quitediverse, the replies were relatively easy to categorize.The largest number (202) comprised governancemodifications, adaptations or reorganization Generalimprovements in board effectiveness, campus admin-istration, and public relations were most frequently

cited 35, 33, and 32 respectively. These were fol-

lowed by the advancement of a shared governancemodel and the development of long-range planning,20 each Sixteen other areas of administrative innova-

tion were enumerated.Academic programming accomplishments consti-

tuted a distant second with 129 entries. Half of theseinvolved the implementation of new degree concen-trations

Financial stability specifically debt reduction and

increased success in fund-raising -- meiited 118

citationsOther areas of achievement receiving some fre-

quency of menti an were improvements in enrollment(64), facilities (55), Church-relatedness and facultyrelations (31 each), and campus morale (10).

Several items were unique, such as the transfer of

a lav,, rchool to the public sector and the preparationfor a possible institutional relocation. Some 13 presi-

,Jx

dents either did not reply or indicated that theirtenures were too brief for any valid appraisal.

SRB Relationships

A section devoted to SRB relationships was the last

to be incorporated as the design of the survey instru-ment was finalized by the committee. It was logically

assumed that no study of the Catholic College Presi-dency could be complete without examining to someextent the campus relationships of the SponsoringReligious Body. Consequently, the presidents wereasked to assess the four significant ways by which the

SRB's campus presence is reflected: they are (1) phys-ical ownership; (2) presence of members on the ad-

ministration, faculty, and staff; (3) fiscal support,including contributed services; and (4) public endorse-ment and/or .dentification.

In regard to the current ownership, 65 respondedthat it is, in fact, a strong reality. At the oppositeextreme, 47 claimed that SRB ownership does notexist in any formal sense. For five presidents, owner-ship was real but weak; and for nine, it was at bestnominal.

A strong campus presence of SRB members wasrecorded in 110 replies, while it was reported as non-existent on only one campus. SRB presence wasjudged to be real but weak by 20 presidents and

nominal by only three.Contrary to the complaints that are frequently

voiced whenever presidents assemble, 95 institutionsappear to enjoy strong fiscal support by the SRB.Only six replies indicated no aid. For 24 respondents,financial help is real but weak. It is nominal for anadditional six presidents.

Public endorsement and/or identification is a posi-tive reality on 101 campuses. It is absent at only oneinstitution. As a weak reality, it is found at 15 col-leges and universities. It is evaluated as nominal by 11

chief executives.Next the presidents were requested to predict the

status of the four SRB relationships at the end of thenext decade. A few foresaw some hope of strengthen-ing them. Among these, public endorsement led with

36 replies, followed by 21 who felt the presence ofSRB members would improve, 15 who predicted anincrease in fisca; support, and 10 who believed owner-ship would be a stronger reality by the end of the1980's.

The status quo was predicted in ownership by 55respondents; in presence of SRB members by 49; infiscal support by 45; and in public endorsement by72, the largest number of replies in this section of the

survey.A rather significant number (57) believed that SRB

presence in terms of faculty and staff would beseverely reduced. Likewise, 53 viewed a similar fate

for SRB fiscal support. Ownership and public endorse-

r

ment fared better with only six and seven presidentsrespectively seeing a reduction in these associations.

Nominal 1990 campus reflections of the SRB rela-tionship were reported in two replies for ownership,in three for SRB member presence, in eight for fiscal

support, and in four for public endorsement and oridentification.

Finally, the termination of the SRB as a campusentity was predicted by a few presidents owner-ship (3), SRB member presence (1), fiscal support (2),and identity (2). In general, the lay presidents ap-peared to be slightly more optimistic in responding tothis entire section than were their religious counter-parts.

Presidential Assessment and Renewal of Appointment

Considering the importance, complexity and ex-pense of a presidential search, it was only appropriateto attempt a determination of the evaluative systemthat should on some regular basis monitor presiden-tial effectiveness and, hence, verify the success of theselection process.

Eighty of the presidents responded in the affirma-tive when asked whether a procedure for the assess-ment of their performance existed. However, of these,many indicated that the evaluation is at best informalor simply assumed in their annual reappointments.

Only 57 respondents serve under a specific term ofoffice ranging from 1 to 10 years. The most com-mon term is five years in length followed by a term ofthree years' duration. Virtually all terms seem to be

renewable at the pleasure of the governing board.

Conclusion

Part of the rationale for this study was based onthe assumption that the profile of a Catholic college

presidency might possibly vary depending on the

classification of the chief 'executive as religious, lay,

male or female. Several substantive differences havealready been noted such as selection process, motiva-tion, and attitudes toward future SRB relationships as

well as those of a superficial nature age and tenure

in office.Other contrasts that emerged include the fairly

apparent. For example, it is only logical to assu,nethat the presidents with academic preparation intheology/philosophy would be primarily religioul,mostly priests, and that those taking a more circuitous

route to a presidency would generally be religious.Both assumptions proved to be correct, for whateverthe correctness is worth.

Ironically, an occasional variance was totally un-expected as in the case of negative SRB anticipationsand realities. It would normally be assumed that ifProblems existed in this area, they would more likely

be encountered by lay presidents. The opposite

29

3c)40I

emerges in he study. Proportionately more religiouspresidents than lay _reported negative experiences.This finding probably helps to explain the aforemen-tioned lay optimism regarding future SRB associa-tions.

Sex stereotypes are not entirely absent in the resultsof this study. As a case in point, no female herds anall male institution or any of the 48 coed inse cationsthat had been initially established for men only. Onlyone lay male president is to be found at the remaining

30

female colleges By academic discipline, woman moreproportionately dominate the humanities and thesocial sciences. With the exception of mathematics,men dominate the natural and physical sciences.

In most aspects, however, there is relatively littleto distinguish lay and religious responses. The careersof Catholic college presidents are remarkably alike.As individuals, they share most of the concerns, chal-lenges, successes, and failures of modern a ademicadministration.

)

I ) r11 t i

TRUSTEESHIP: INTRODUCTORY NOTES

During the past few year.; the responsibilitiesof trustees of our colleges and Universities havebecome a focus of several meetings. It was one of theareas discussed at the National Congress of Church-Related'Colleges and Universities at Notre Dame inthe simmer of 1979. It became a target of the effortsof the Neylan Conference, a group of colleges spon-sored by women religious, in its program for 1980-81.At the inter-denominational session of our AnnualMeeting in February 1981, a major address was givenby Mr. Richard T. Ingram of the Association of Gov-erning Boards. In the meantime, Dr. Martin Stammhas completed a doctoral dissertation on the subjectThe New Guardians of American Catholic HigherEducation: An Examination of Lay Participation onthe Governing Boards of Roman Catholic-AffiliatedColleges and Universities and has now given us a fol-low-up article on "Emerging Corporate Models ofGovernance in Contemporary American Higher Edu-cation."

The papers by Ingram _ad Stamm are printed inthis issue of our publication. I would like to prefacethem with some remarks about the three seminarsrun by the Neylan Conference for Sister - Trustees,since the high level of participation in those seminarsindicated a strong interest in the questior.

Sister-Presidents of our 107 colleges sponsored bywomen religious were asked to identify Sisters fromtheir own community who serve as trustees of theircolleges. At the same time, through cooperation withthe Leadership Conference of Women Religious, weinvited the major religious superiors to attend theseminars and to invite Sisters who ,ere on Boards ofTrustees of their institutions. At the first seminar,held in Philadelphia, March 5, r e had 125 in attend-ance; in Chicago on Marc} 25, we had 97; and inOmaha on April 29, we had still 40 others. The livelyinterest in the discussion confirmed our view thatthere were many unresolved issues.

From these meetings we conclude that Sisters whoare trustees of their own institutions constitute a widespectrum of knowledge and sophistication. The form,f their corporate relationship to the college variesfrom explicit legal and financiai responsibility to total

legal and financial separation of college and commu-nity. More than anything else, it is probably thischanging pattern of relationship that has caused manyquestions to surface: how shall we exercise our re-sponsibilities to both college and community? howcan we influence an institution we no longer control?how is our mission as a religious community to belinked to the mission of the college? is higher educa-tion a viable ministry in this time and place? what dothe needs of the times and the Gospel message call usand our Sisters to here and now?

Side by side with these fundamental and basicallyreligious concerns, are many other practical questions:how should Sister trustees be chosen? to what extentcan we expect them to serve on Board committeesdealing with finance and fund raising? what is theirperception of the lay trustees with whom they colla-borate? car they continue to subsidize these institu-tions? where will future personnel come from for thisministry?

While many of their concerns sprang, no doubt,from the fart of their membership in a religious com-munity it was equally clear that many of them werecommon to other sponsoring religious bodiespriests, brothers, dioceses. It was also evident thatsome of these concerns should be shared with laytrustees who desire the future well-being of our insti-tutions as much as religious do. Trusteeship of insti-tutions of Catholic higher education may well be oneof the most important areas for truly collegial en-deavor by lay and religious members of the church.In most of our institutions there is opportunity forecumenism on the level of the trustees. There is also anew recognition of the contribution that lay trusteesshould be making to academic and residential aspectsof campus life as well as the contribution religiouscan make to fund raising and development. Where atrue spirit of mutual cooperation exists between layand religious trustees we are likely to find a viableand dynamic church-related institution.

ACCU hopes to sponsor other programs for trust-ees in the coming year. Meanwhile, these papers will

keep the question alive.

3.;31

TRUSTEESHIP IN THE CHURCH-RELATEDCOLLEGE IN THE 130s*

Richard T. Ingram

French poet Paul Valery once remarked that "thetrouble with our times is that the future isn't what itused to be." For higher education generally, viewedfrom 1981, Valery is right. For independent highereducation, particularly the church- related college, hemay be too right. The future is centainly not what itused to be.

All the same, I find the topic assigned to me thisafternoon delightfully intriguing. Implicit in it is thesuggestion that the practice of trusteeship in the cur-rent decade will be somehow different from the last.I accept the implication and would like to explorewith you some hypotheses about the future. Theviews are my own and should not be attributed to theAssociation of Governing Boards.

Do we have reason to be optimistic or otherwiseabout how the practice of trusteeship has changedand will change? Are our boards stronger in theirmembership and performance than they were a decadeago?

I am convinced that the past decade or so hasbrought tremendous improvements in the competenceof persons who are invited to accept trusteeships, intheir understanding of the roles and responsibilitiesthey bring to their trusteeships (or can be helped toacquire), and in the performance of governing boards.Of course there is room for improvement. But I thinkwe agree that, in contrast to the Fifties and earlySixties, the Seventies witnessed a renewed sense ofpurpose among boards of trustees in ali sectors ofhigher education. These improvements were largelythe result of adversity especially student unrestand the beginning of economic downturn. Trusteeswere thrust into the spotlight, often a harsh one.Presidents began to reexamine their attitudes towardtheir boards resulting in a combination of apprehen-sion and hope which continues to this day.

In many ways, the nation's church-related collegeshave experienced the most dramatic of all changes inthe form and practice of trusteeship. In the relativelyshort history of higher education in the United States,it is only in the most recent of years that we have wit-nessed less dependence on the clergy for board mem-bership and policy determination. Although issues of"control" continue to be discussed within the denomi-nations as the meaning of church and college partner-

' First delivered as an address to an inter-denominationalmeeting, February 4, 1961.Dr Ingram is the Executive Vice President of the Associationof Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

32

ship is explored, there seems to be increasing agree-ment on at least two matters:

First, the preponderance of qualified lay or non-ordained trustees on the boards of church-relatedinstitutions is not only desirable, it is essential,for reasons that are both obvious and subtle.Secon::, governing boards must have the author-ity necessary to fully discharge their responsi-bility and commitments to both college andchurch.

The Church-College RelationshipRobert Rue Parsonage reminds us all of the dangers

of attempting to interpret or generalize about church-college relationships.' He wrote recently that:

I'. more than seven hundred colleges and uni-

versities in the United States claim to be church-related, religiously affiliated, or Christian-orientedinstitutions; similarly, perhaps seventy-fivechurches, denominations, religious orders, andchurch boards and agencies acknowledge sponsor-ship, support, or other forms of relationship tocollegiate institutions (p. 110)."

He renders us all a service by urging that oversimpli-fications of distinctive differences within this sectorbe avoided, along with any notion of presenting an"ideal type" of institution or, by implication, an ideal

type of governance arrangement between the spon-soring church organization and the college. Mr. Par-sonage's point is, of course, an extremely valuable one

lest we forget the import of differences in history,tradition, and purpose or mission among religious

bodies differences that deserve understanding,respect and accommodation.

Although my purpose today is not to explore thecomplex issues of church- college relationships, it is

uscr ul to acknowledge Parsonage's observation that:I'

. . . churches and their colleges are challengingone another to clarify their respective roles and tostrengthen their mutual accountability. In somecases the challenge has resulted from feelings ofestrangement; in other cases it has been a signalevent establishing a new level or kind of relation-ship. As a res-ilt, a number of denominations have

' Robert Rile Parsonage, "Church-College Relationships: Shap-

ing a Faithful and Viable Future," in Church and College: AVital Partnership (Volume 2: Mis.ion A Shared Vision ofEducational Purpose), National Congress on Church-RelatedColleges and Universities, 1960, pp. 105-130.

3,5

.1.

written or revised statements of philosophy, state-ments of relationships, and covenants (pp 117-118). ""

I can only assume that these new understandings haveoften helped to clarify questions of ownership, therole of the college's governing board, the rationale forvesting trustee selection in any authority other thanthe governing body itself, and the role of any othercorporate body which may function as a kind ofintermediary between the governing board and spon-soring church organization. In short, there needs to becontinuing attention to the question of "Who is incharge?" and to the important but sometimes for-gotten distinction between "influence" and "control."

I share the conviction of those who maintain thatthere is no single model governance arrangement forthe church-related college. But I also have strongfeelings about some vital principles and practices oftrusteeship ..ihich, it seems to me, neither violate thenatural beauty of collegiate diversity nor the reason-able expectations and obvious rights of sponsoringchurch organizations. We have learned a great deal inrecent years about how trustees' volunteerism inhigher education can and should work. And as weanticipate a decade of nasty weather for our institu-tions, few can disagree with the conclusion that build-ing and maintaining an effective governing boardshould be a major priority first for the president andthe board itself.

The Responsibilities of the Governing Board

A quick review of the governing board's responsi-bilities may be useful at this juncture Joh.i W. Nason,former president of Swarthmore and Carleton Collegeand good friend of AGB, lists twelve key roles :2

1. Appointing the President2. Supporting the President3. Monitoring the President's Performance4. Clarifying the Institution's Mission5. Approving Long-Range Plans6. Overseeing the Educational Program7. Ensuring Financial Solvency8. Preserving Institutional Independence9 Enhancing the Public Image

10. Interpreting the Community to the Campus(and vice-versa)

11. Serving as a Court of Appeal12. AssesSing Board Performance

Traditionally, of course, boards largely limitedthemselves (or were limited by their chief executives)to preoccupations with financial management andfund raising, aside from presidential appointment and

...

2 John W. Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board,"in Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, RichardT Ingram, Ed., (San Francisco Jossey -Bass, 1980).

naming buildings. But this psychology shared bypresidents and trustees alike for so long has changed,will change, and must change. Dr. Nason's list israther sobering, especially when we consider thatthere are many boards of trustees that still meet onlytwo or three times annually. There remain boardswith inactive or ineffective committee structures,boards that are too large (or sometimes too small),boards with the wrong mix of members with regardto their backgrounds and skills, boards whose meet-ing agendas are filled with minutiae, boards with .in-active or obstructionist members who somehow man-age to be reappointed or reelected term after term,and boards whose executive or finance committeesassume powers which should be reserved for theboard.

Many, perhaps most, presidents are perenniallydisappointed with their board's prowess in giving orraising funds, and it is indeed a fact that trustees areusually capable of doing much more along these linesthan the record shows. I am convinced that the majorreasons for poor performance on this important di-mension of trusteeship include one or more circum-

stances assuming that the development office is

well staffed and organized and that the president hasadequate fundraising skills:1. The trustees may not be invited to share in the

really significant policy issues confronting the in-stitution issues which go beyond budt,et andfinance. As a consequence they do not feel them-selves to be really part of an enterprise whichdeserves a greater investment of their time, energyand money when they have it or can get it.

2. The trustees may feel that a small inner group ofboard members usurps the rightful prerogativesof the board itself. This is an especially acuteproblem for boards which have become too lawand cumbersome

3 The trustees may feel that their decisions will besecond-guessed by another, higher authority.There seems to be a growing impatience amongsome church-related college boards whose powersare limited and actions are subject to review byanother corporate body.

There are many reasons why we might be disap-pointed with the performance of our boards. And cer-tainly there are a number of delicate issues involved

in attempting to correct any one of the problems justmentioned. The moral seems to be twofold, however.First, really competent, influential and busy peopleare discouraged from taking their trusteeships seri-ously if they do not feel adequately informed, or feelthat their collective decisions do not really count;second, the risks involved in cultivating an effectiveand informed board, insofar as their possible inter-ference in administrative matters is concerned, are

33

36

considerably less than what may happen to our insti-tutions without greater trustee participation in far-ranging policy questions.

It seems to me that, if a board of trustees is ex-pected to properly function as a true governing board,it should have tl _ final authority to:1. Select and appoint the president2. Approve budgets and monitor their implementa-

tion3. Determine its own membership needs in terms of

backgrounds, skills and diversity necessary to en-sure its effectiveness as an organization

4. Identify and cultivate candidates who meet thecriteria established by the board to fill vacancies

5. Select its officers, assess their performance, andensure their reasonable rotation

6. Approve new academic programs, and approvetheir reduction or elimination consistent with theinstitution's mission as it shall determine (or rec-ommends, as the case may be).

Boards which do not have these powers should notbe considered "governing" or what Martin J. Stammcalls "independent corporate" boards.3 Ralher, theymight be called "dependent corporate I. is" or"managerial boards." The point is that we L, knot ex-pect boards to be held accountable in terms of theresponsibilities normally expected of governingboards if they do not have the authority to keep theirown houses in order.

The 1980s promise to be a challenging time for usall. Degrees of freedom will be fewer, tolerance levelstighter, and margins for error narrower, especially forsmall colleges. Those institutions that have (or canregain) flexibility in responding to Their problems andopportunities will fare the best. This is not a time forambiguity in answering the question "Who is in

charge?" There has never been greater need to stream-line governance structures and to place greater "trust"in trustees and presidents and they in one another.

The President's RoleThere is considerable concern at the Association of

Governing Boards with what seems to be an increasein presidential turnover. If the average time in office

is dropping now, what are the prospects for the restof the decade when higher education': milieu is ex-pected to worsen and the president's job becomeseven more difficult?' In the Middle States Associa-tion's region alone, more than sixty chief executives

'Martin J. Stamm, "Catholic Education's New Lay Trustees,"in AGB Reports (Washington, D C : Association of GoverningBoards, Sec temuer/October, 1979).4 As reported in 1977-76 by the National Center for EducationStatistics Education Directory, Colleges and Universities, theaverage years in office of chief executives in independentcolleges and universities was between 7 and 7.5 years.

34

left their positions last year.3 AGB intends to look atthe reasons for this problem and explore possiblesolutions.

We all know how difficult, misunderstood, and un-appreciated the president's job really is. I hope how-ever, that Harold W. Stoke's reflection of his ownpresidency is exaggerated. He said "being a collegepresident was like a small boy walking a high picket

fence thrilled, but in constant danger of being im-paled."6

It is virtuallyCiMpossible to distinguish betweenpresidential znd board leadership when there is anatmosphere of mutual faith, trust, and support. Thebest of all possible worlds is a strong president whohas, or can help to build, a strong board. High turn-over among chief, executives at any institution is asymptom of a problem in he governing board itself.Clearly, the chief execute. e has a key responsibilityto build and maintain an effective board whose mem-bership is competent, whose organization is sound,and whose performance is beyond criticism.

An able board welcomes aggressive presidentialleadership in guiding its education and development.But the key to success does depend on several fac-tors. The president must have a reasonable attitudeand a sensible game plan along with a good boardchairman. A good president and a good chairman,working in concert, can tame lions.

As I look at the president's role I see four dimen-

sions:First, the chief executive should ask for a mandate

from the board to design and implement a programof trustee development with its help. Along with this,he or she must reconcile any natural apprehensionabout what a successful board development programmight mean to his or her sanity as the trustees askincreasingly tough questions..

Second, given the heavy demands on the president'stime, it is easy for this priority to be pushed aside.More presidents could benefit from listening to thecries of their fundraising officers and to seek staffhelp in moving board development activities to the

front burner.Third, too many presidents think short-term rather

than long-term in designing programs of trustee edu-cation, and they fail to look for resources especiallyfrom outside their institutions. An annual workshopor retreat which builds on its predecessor seems tome to be essential, and we should remember the roughtranslation from scripture: "You can't be a prophetin your own kingdom." A credible spokesperson from

Annual Report of the Executive Director, Commission onHigher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges andSchools, 1980.

Quoted in Joseph F. Kauffman, At the Pleasure of the Board(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1980),p. 9.

()ry

outside can say much more than you can %Oen itneeds to be said. (1 hope that you know about AGB'sBoard-Mentor Service and how it can help you andyour board to conduct a self-study as one early ele-ment in such a program.)

Fourth,, boards and presidents should make time tob4 candid'obout what they expect from one another.Although this is best done at the time of presidentialappointment it is seldom done or done well. It is,in any case, something that requires periodic atten-tion through the president's and chairman's initiative.

Aside trom trustee continuing education and self-renewal programs, the chief executive should ensurethat: 1) solid orientation programs __for new trusteesare in place; 2) the board's bylaws are kept currentand revised when necessary to accommodate an effec-tive committee system; 3) the board periodically con-ducts a self-study of its membership,' organi,ztionand performance; and, 4) most importantly, the boardand president have a voice in the trustee selectionprocess. (I will return to this latter point.)

Presidents and trustees alike can find some solidand delightful counsel in Donald E. Walker's book,The Effective Administrator.' Although he is presi-dent of a public institution in Massachusetts, some-thing we should not hold against him on eitheraccount his little volume is excellent reading and Icommend it to you. Here are two excerpts from hissection on trustees, just to whet the appetite for more:

"Boards operate most effectively where the presi-dent and the board share realistic conceptions ofthe nature of the university and have generallyfavorable views of the people within its walls.Similarly, trustees function best when they assumethe institution is healthy; the assumption that pa-thology exists calls forth pathologies. It seems al-most bromidic to say, but trustees must respect theinstitutions they serve ... (p. 131).",'.

. . the distinction between policy and manage-ment will never be completely resolved if the boardis active and interested in the affairs of the univer-sity, What constitutes administration and what con-stitutes policy will be continuously negotiated bythe administration and the board....

Parenthetically, I have an impression that trusteesare more tempted to dabble in day-to-day manage-ment where the institution is well run. The trusteesof campuses with obvious problems see the dis-array. Sensing the hazards of casual interference,they often stay at a distance for fear of causingexplosions. But in institutions running smoothly,trustees sometimes develop the tantalizing feelingthat all they need to do is reach out and give mat-

? Donald E. Walker, The Effective Administrator (San Flan-Cisco: Jossey Bass, 1979).

ters a little push . . . of course, it is never that sim-ple (pp. 131-132)."

President Walker also gives us some one-liners thatring true. For example: "The marriage of power andinnocence that is sometimes found in trustees cancreate problems (p. xii);" and "Macho fantas s onthe part of trustees create problems for a pre ident,who is pushed into intemperate and confronts ionalbehavior (p. 133)." And he reminds us of some ad-vice attributed to Robert utchins when he wasasked, "What single piece o dvice would you giveto presidents?" Hutchins supposedly replied, "Take atrustee to lunch."

proving Trustee Selection

he expectations we hold for trustees are first andforemost dependent on the individual competencies ofthe men and women who serve. Among the more than700 church-related colleges and universities, the vari-ety of approaches employed to identify, cultivate,nominate, and elect or appoint candidates to trustee-ships is enormous. Given this enormous diversity itis axiomatic, however, that in some quarters the jobis being done very well and in others very poorly.Much more attention must be focused on the struc-tures, policies and procedures which govern trusteeselection. Church leaders, denominational executives,trustees and chief executives should candidly discussoptions for improvements.

The issues of trustee selection in private and pub-lic institutions were addressed recently by an inde-pendent National Commission with the support of agrant to the Association of Governing Boards fromthe Carnegie Corporation of New York. Two separatereports are available from AGB, but I would like toshare with you some of the highlights of the 14recommendations for independent and church-relatedcolleges and universities.8 (A summary list of the 14recommendations was published in the November/December issue of AGB Reports). I would also liketo add a few points from my own perspective.

The Commission strongly recommends that everyboard of every independent institution have a stand-ing Committee on Trustees with broad responsibili-ties, including the continuous assessment of theboard's membership composition. Included in itscharge is: 1) development of a statement of trusteeresponsibilities for board adoption and periodic re-view; 2) consultation with alumni and denominationalbodies including any appointing authority; 3) assess-ment of the performance of board officers and thoseeligible for reappointment or reelection; 4) oversight

s Recommendations for Improving Trustee Selection in PrivateColleges and Universities, National Commission on Collegeand University Trustee Selection (Washington, D.C.: AGB,1980).

ciitii?=*-:.

of orientation programs for new trustees; and 5)screenirrof candidates for nomination. To these wemight add responsibilities for planning programs ofcontinuing trustee education, including periodic self--studies.

It seems to me that hief executive should staffthis committee and t at it should be recognized as themost important instrument fbr the long-term develop-ment of the board. The president and the committeeshould be alert to evidence of volunteer fatigue, amalady present on even the best of governing boards.If certain trustees have repeatedly declined opportuni-ties to accept special assignments, frequently missboard or committee meetings, or seem to be disinter-ested or otherwise preoccupied with other interests,it may be time to part company. The most commonshortcoming of most nominating committees in myview is their failure to contend with the difficult anddelicate, but essential, job of dealing with tired trust-ees...Aside from a certain kind of presidential cour-age, able board and committee chairpersons are neces-

sary to face these decisions foresquare. I believe thatmany boards have become too large and unwieldy inpant because of the need to compensate for ineffective

trustees something akin to treating the symptomrather than the cause.

'The Comission also recommends that:

1. "When the sponsoring religious body nominatesr selects some (or all) of the trustees, the Committeen Trustees should be consulted. . . ." (from Recom-endation 2)

2. "No trustee should serve more than 12 consecutiveyears on the board but should be eligible for reelec-tion after a one-year sabbatical.

a) Terms should be three or four years.b) There should be an established bylaw provision

I for termination of a trustee whose performancefalls short of expectations.

4 c) Criteria should be established for election toemeritus or life status for trustees who have servedseveral terms. This designation should not be con-ferred automatically but should be reserved for

those who serve with distinction... (from Recom-

mendation 9)

3. "Boards of church-related institutions should inelude a substantial number of lay (or non-ordained)members." (Recommendation 10)4. And, neither faculty members nor students shouldbe voting members of the governing boards of insti-tutions where they are employed or enrolled. (Recom-mendations 11 and 12) t

Incidentally, the published report also includes anillustrative board profile for use by the Committee onTrustees or Nominating Committee to assess theboard's membership composition, a Code of Conductand a statement on trustee conflict of interest and

36

i

disclosure all of which can be adaj 'd, of course,to fit your institution's reeds.

Before moving on to some hypotheses about thefuture of trusteeship, let me close this brief review oftrustee selection with the suggestion that we must do

a much more thorough job of screening candidates.The Commission report offers some specific sugges-tions, but the moral is simply that we should spendmuch more time than we do in reviewing candidatequalifications including their performance on othervolunteer boards. Is it not foolish that we shouldtypically expend less than one percent of the effort intrustee selection than we spend on president selection?

The Future of Trusteeship: Some HypothesesWhat changes can we anticipate for college and

university trusteeship in the Eighties? Will the RipVan Winkle who has seemed to awaken help all of usto deal with what Stephen K. Bailey calls "the climatefor a competitive orgy" resulting from the demo-graphic and economic downturn?' Will trustees in allsectors distinguish themselves in this decade as neverbefore? Will governing boards provide their chiefexecutives with the support they need to do theirjobs? My conviction is that they must and will.

If you agree with me that tremendous strides havebeen made by trustees and presidents to regain asense of purpose and partnership, is it not realistic toassume that the trend begun in the late Sixties andearly Seventies will continue? I accept the psychol-ogists' dictum that "the best predictor of future be-havior is past behavior."

Let me offer six hypotheses which reinforce what Iconsider to be a realistic scenario for the boards ofindependent higher education, including the church-related college:

Hypothesis One: Trustees and presidents will in-crease the number of regular board meetings eachyear

There will be widespread recognition that three orfour meetings annually are simply inadequate to coverall the bases.

Hypothesis Two: Board standing committees willfunction more responsibly by recognizing that theyshould carry the bon's share of the board's work.

Bylaw revisions will be more substantive, especiallyby clarifying more adequately the responsibilities of

board committees.Hypothesis Three: Board and standing committee

meeting agendas will be strengthened, especially with

regard to reviewing all institutional policies.The policies currently guiding our colleges were

adopted for the most part when times were better and

° Stephen K Bailey, "What Price Survival?" AGB Reports,Washington, D C : Association of Governing Boards, No-vember/December, 1980), pp 6-12.

different circumstances prevailed. Revisions of exist-ing policies and the need for new policies, e.g., onfinancial exigency, are badly needed. (On the needfor review of faculty tenure and financial exigencypolicies, I commend an article by Kent M. Weeks,"When Financial Exigency Justifies Dismissal," in theNovember/December, 1980 issue of AGB Reports.)

Hypothesis Four: Where ambiguities persist in

some institutional settings with regard to the respon-sibility and authority of the governing board therewill be renewed efforts toward clarification.

Hypothesis Five: Boards will undertake seriousself-stud.es of the quality of their membership, or-ganization and performance on a periodic basis

Hundreds of institutions have already undertakensuch activities using the AGB criteria and its Board-Mentor Service, or other approaches, with consider-able success,

Hypothesis Six: Trustees with the encouragementof their presidents will organize themselves into sep-arate state organizations for the purpose of influenc-ing public policy debates.

This wi:1 be a very new enterprise for the inde-pendent sector where organizing trustees seems to bemore difficult for a variety of reasons. I am aware ofonly one organization of independent college and uni-versity trustees in the nation and that is in NewYork. By contrast, there are more than 16 state asso-ciations for tax-supported institution trustees and re-gents, particularly for community colleges, and weexpect this number to increase. My own probablynaive hope is that some brave soul in some state willtake the initiative with others to form a new statecoalition of all trustees and regents in the public andprivate sectors on the AGB model at the nationallevel. In the meantime, however, it seems to me thatindependent institution presidents can do much morein their own state organizations to involve theirtrustees with matters of public policy.

Incidentally, AGB has just initiated a public policyprogram for its member chief executives and trustees.Its primary purpose will be to keep the membershipbetter informe,. on federal and regulatoryagency initiatives which affect higher education. Onmatters which clearly affect higher education as awhole as, for example, threats to the charitable de-

duction or governmental takeover of accreditationclearly would we hope to involve influential trust-ees in their resolution. In the meantime, AGB will,

with your help, attempt to aid trustees to understandhow federal policy is made and where they may havean occasional role in its determination. We will workvery closely with other associations, of course.

Before closing, permit me one additional digressionwhich may interest you. AGB is working for the firsttime with the chief executives and trustees of thesome 200 theological schools across the country Un-der a grant from the Lilly Endowment over the nexttwo years, we will be conducting several activitiesdesigned to strengthen the membership, organizationand performance of their boards. In addition to self-study materials, a Handbook of Seminar, Trustee-ship, and a series of regional meetings, AGB will de-velop a separate Board-Mentor Service similar tomaterials and services available to its college and uni-versity members. Our primary audience will be thoseseminaries and theological schools which have theirown governing boards. Because many of you haveformal and informal ties to these unique institutions,we thought you would want to know about this. Ifyou want more detail or would like to lend yourcounsel, please let us hear from you.

In Conclusion

I am convinced that trustees are ready to react re-sponsibly to the needs of church-related higher edu-cation as never before. But I am also convinced thatwhether we fully use these precious resources is al-most entirely up to you, the chief executives. Theylook to you for direction, for substantive if not excit-ing meeting agendas, for assignments beyond the callof duty. Trustees like anyone else will only do whatis asked of them. We can, should and must ask more.If the risk in doing so is really the possible creationof a meddlesome monster, as some may believe, whatis the risk of not challenging them? Somehow wemust break away from the self-fulfilling prophecythat "trustees simply do not have the time to give."They do, and they will.

The act of trusteeship is an expression of love forhigher education, a commitment to the search fortruth. And for the trustees of church-related highereducation, there is the added opportunity to expresstheir love of God, their commitment to the teachingsof their church. The womeii and men who serve onchurch-college boards surely feel a responsibility wellbeyond that shared by trustees of non-sectarian insti-tutions. I believe that through your leadership theywill express the full limit of theirs.

EMERGING CORPORATE MODELS OF GOVERNANCEIN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CATHOLIC

HIGHER EDUCATION'Martini. Stamm

The institutional governance mechanisms of theRoman Catholic system of higher education in theUnited States remained stable from colonial timesuntil the mid-1960's.2 From 19E3 to 1965, the Twenty -first Ecumenical Council in Rome outlined a programof "aggiornamento" or spirit of renewal for theChurch worldwide 3 While confirming the importanceof formal educatior t all levels, the Council articu-lated a new role for the religious institutes and orders,defined a new partnership between clergy/religiousand the laity in the Church's educational, medical,social service, and religious activities, and urged thatChurch-sponsored or Church-affiliated organizationsadjust thei, governance forms and structures to reflectmore clearly current social norms and modes.'

Dr Stamm is Director of Educatio a! Placement at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania.1 This paper is derived from part of an overall inquiry intothe evolving role of the laity on the governing boardif ofRoman Catholic higher educational institutions See Stamm(1979c), which is available from University Microfilms, Inc.,of Ann Arbor, Michigan. It was funded by AGB as part of itsTrustee Leadership Program under the auspices of the LillyEndowment2 See Power (1972), Russo (1964), Sanford (1965), Tasch (1953),and Messersmith (1964).3 The complete texts of all documents from the Twenty-FirstEcumenical Council, commonly called "Vatican II," can befound in Walter J. Abbott's Documents of Vatican 11 (AmericaPress New York City, 1966) The aim of Vatican lI's renewalinvolved a complete re-examination and updating of theChurch and its apostolates, calling for a new apostolate sensi-tivity to the variety of local societal customs, mores, andpr4t4ces.

Universally, Vatican II recognized the specific skills and per-spectives which laymen and laywomen could contribute to theChurch's activates and missions, and its documents called fora new partnership of energy and laity, a partnership in whichthe laity would be equals in all activities except for thosewhich are strictly ecclesiastical in nature In combination withits mandate guidelines for the modernization of its religiousinstitutes and with its reaffirmation of the importance of highereducation to the Church's organizational purpose and mission,

ocan II demanded in essence a reversal of old and funda-mental American Catholic practices and attitudes, and the"aggiornarr,e.nto" of the Twe.ity -First Ecumenical Counca wasthe origin of a new era in Catholic higher educatipn in theunited States By its advocacy of sensitivity to cultural normsand practices and by invitation for full, equal participation ofthe laity, Vatican II had laid the groundwork for the accept-ance of layperso.is into upper echelon governance structuresof Catholic affiliated and sponsored colleges and universitiesAs has been shown by Stamm (1980), lay involuerrnt oncollege and university governing boards had been minimaluntil the mid-1960's

For the documents vc:iich pertain most directly to this paper,see inAbbott (1966) the following: Petfectae Cantatis (Decreeoi. the Appropriate Kenewal of the Religious Life), Presby-terorum Orchts (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests),and Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate ofthe Laity).

38

Thus, the broader light of Vatican H's declarationsforced a redefinition of the relationship between theChurch and its religious congregations/orders and thecolleges and universities with those religious instituteshad founded and sponsored in the United States. Thisspirit of change combined with many vial mov,ments and political forces in the 1960's and early1970's to provide an environment in which the laiciza-tion of Catholic higher educational governing boardsbecame an acceptable and logical innovation.'

To accommodate the inclusion of 'aypersoris in thegovernance structures of these American colleges anduniversities required changes in the corporate .govern-ance systems of those institutions. ,Newer forms ofgovernance emerged as religious and lay leadersexplored various avenues by which laymen and lay-women could assume responsible roles oi, he govern-ing boards. While it has been shown that 93% o: allboards of trustees of Catholic higher educationalinstitutions of 1977 had incorporated lay votingpresence,' it is equally significant to examine thecurrent corporate governance structures which pro-vide the basis for that participation. As Catholiccolleges and universities traditionally were governedby all-religtc is governing boards,' it is important toexamine what governance systems have emerged inresponse to the laicization movement and to examinethe uniformity of that system. Have these collegesadopted the standard American uni-cameral form ofcorporate governance in which there is a board oftrustees exercising all corporate functions unilaterallyand independently? Or have these institutions initi-ated other forms of college/university corporate

governance?As it is the purpose of this paper to examine the

contemporary formal governance systems of Aineri-can Catholic higher educational institutions, discus-sions of the organizational informal governance anddecision-making patterns is inappropriate. Likewise,the benefits and liabilities of the governance modelswhich resulted from this analysis will not be debatedhere although such discussion continues today.

' See Stamm (1979c) for an examination of these trends andmovements as they pertain to laicization of governing boards.Laicization is defined as "the process of incorporating lay-persons into a previously all-religious or all-clerical grcay oractivity " It is not to be confused with "secularization" whichconnotes the dilution or elimination of a religious purpose,mission, or identity.See Stamm (1979a, 19796)

7 See footnote 1 foi sources.

4

Rather, this discussion focuses only on the internalcorporate governance system of institutions as onedistinct component of the total, complex formal rela-tionship between the institution and its SponsoringReligious Body' Consequently, reversionary titleagreements, property lease arrangements, and otherside-bar legal understandings were not considered inthis analysis, although they do directly affect in pro-found ways institutional decision-making and policyformulation. This paper whose data are extractedfrom a more comprehensive study of the laicizationprocess which was sponsored by several professionaleducational associations and supported by nationalCatholic higher educational leaders° will confineits mission to documenting the various corporategovernance systems existing currently at Catholiccolleges and universities in the United States asevidenced in formal institutional governance docu-ments.. Like non-educational corporate entities, Americancollege and university corporations normally exercisepowers for the organization relative to the articles ofincorporation, the institutional by-laws, the selectionof corporation members, selection of the institution'spresident or chief executive officer, acquisition of newproperty and assets, disposition or alienation ofcorporate property and assets, -dissolution of thecorporation or changing the corporation's mission andpurpose, and exercising other fiduciary powers, likeborrowing/loaning money for institutional purposes.American higher educational institutions uniformlyfulfill these functions independently and unilaterally,restricted only by local, state or federal law/statute,by internal guidelines and procedures, or by otherlegal agreements which the corporation may adoptand ratify. Therefore, content analysis of institu-tional charters, by-laws, and other governing docu:ments was the central research methodology utilized.

The governance models which emerged from thisinvestigations were formulated on the basis of threedeterminations: (1) Is the corporation designated anddefined as the legal, official corporate governing entity

of the institution? (2) Does this corporate entity fulfillall of primary functions as listed in Figure i accordingto institutional by-laws, and if so, are these functionsperformed unilaterally by the corporate entity or doesit rely on agreement or concurrence on some issuesfrom another corporation or governance entity inorder to implement any or all of its corporate author-ity? (3) Where does the corporate authority andpower lie within the structure of the corporation asoutlined within the institutional governing docu-ments? Analysis of governing documents from the134 institutions according to these fundamentalquestions revealed that in 1977 there were three basiccorporation governance systems within AmericanCatholic higher education, forming eight fiindametitalgovernance models.

The Sponsoring Religious Body, a term commonly utilized tomean the religious order of men or women, the religiousinstitute, or the diocese which founded, administered, andconducted the college or university since its founding. "SRB"has become a common abbreviation within Catholic highereducational circles, and is used in this paper frequently.The Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Uni-

versities in Washington, D.C., provided 2unds for this diLser-tation study as part of its Trustee Leadership Program under

Ithe auspices of the Lilley Endowment, Inc. Acknowledgementis hereby made to Dr. Richard T. Ingram, Vice-President ofthe AGB, for his encouragement and support of this investi-gation.

Special gratitude is extended to three individuals who pro-vided vale ble support at various stages of this inquiry: Rev.Msgr. John F. Murphy, Executive Director of the Associationof Catholic Colleges and Universities, Rev. Theodore M. Hes-burgh, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame, andSr. Jeanne Knoerle, S.P., President St. My-of-the-WoodsCollege and former President of t ACCU Board of Directors.Unquestionably, their letters o endorsement for this studyresulted in the significant r nse from Catholic higher edu-cational institutions.

Assistance with the questionnaire irstrument was furtherprovided by Dr. William B. Castetter, Professor of Educationat the University of Pennsylvania; Rev. John E. Brooks, S.J ,President of the College of the Holy Cross; Dr. MargaretHealy, Treasurer of Bryn Mawr College; Sr. Mary George

S.H.C.J., Trustee of Villanova University and Gwyn-edd Mercy College; and Dr. James Gallagher, President ofMount Aloysius Junior College. The investigator wishes toacknowledge their counsel in this effort.

41139 4"'

O

FIGURE 1: SELECTED PRIMARY CORPORATE FUNCTIONS OF AMERICAN

HIGHER EDUCAtIONAL CORPORATIONS'

SELECTED FUNCTIONALCORPORATE AREAS CORPORATION POWER AND AUTHORITY

Articles of Incorporation: Can amend, alter, revise, or dissolve articles of incorporation.

Institutional By-Laws. Can amend, alter, revise, dissolve, or develop the institutional by-laws.

(Selection of Corporate Has authority to self-perpetuate the membership of the Corporation, can estab-

Members: lish criteria for such selection and can designate the nature, term, and limitations

of corporate membership.

Selection of Institutional Can select and determine the institution's chief executive officer or president;

President: can determine processes, criteria, and time frame of such selection as well asprescribe responsibilities and rights of the office.

Disposition/alienation of Can make and implement all decisions relative to the disposition, alienation, or

Corporate property and donation of all corporate assets.assets:

Acquisition of newCorporate propertyand assets:

Dissolution of the 1Corporation

Borrowing/LoaningMoney:

Can unilaterally acquire, purchase, or lease any new property or tangible assets

for the Corporation.

Can make and implethent all decisions relative to dissolution of the Corporation;in some states, may even make and implement decisions relative to the specificdisposition of Corporate assets upon dissolution of Corporation.

Can make and implement decisions regarding the borrowing of money or loaning

of money on behalf of the Corporation.

'Developed by the investigator, sources utilized are the AGB's Model Bylaws for Independent Colleges (1977), Herron (1969),Rauh (1959), and Henderson (1967)

CURRENT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MODELS

Three major corporate governance systems wereevident from the data gleaned from institutional by-laws and charters. The first group were institutionswhose corporate governing bodies served in thatcapacity , elanve to a number of organizations, notmerely the college or university. In reality, the colle-giate governance system was therefore a corporatesuL- system of the larger scope of the corporation.This grouping comprised Model A of the eight gov-ernance modelsiwhich resulted from this study

The second,governance system incorporates thoseinstitutions which were defined as distinct legalorganizations. They were able to fulfill all corporatefunctions on behalf of the college/university andwere empowered by institutional by-laws to do sounilaterally and freely. This governance system, theindependent corporate system, revealed a group ofsix governance models, varying in degree of structureand form as well as the locus of corporate authorityand power.

The third major identifiable corps ate governancesystem comprised those corporations which werelegally defined as the college /university's governingcorporation. However, these institutional governing

40

bodies were required explicitly by their by-laws toseek the approval, concurrence, or agreement fromanother independent corporation in order to fulfill

one or more of their primary corporate functions.These corporations were semi-independent governingentities, and they comprise Model C of our eight

governance models.

Model A: Corporate Subsystems--- -

The corporate subsystem model existed at threeinstitutions responding to the survey.'" The governingbody for the college, referred to as the "corporation,"was not unique to the educational institution, for thiscorporate entity served simultaneously as the corpo-rate governing body for several institutions, each

incorporated within the parent corporation. Theparent corporation was the corporate entity for theSponsoring Religious Body, the religious communityor congregation which had founded and conductedthe college. The exercise of corporate powers for thecollege/university was merely one of the Board's areas

'" Information for this study was obtained with the promiseof conficleCtiality Therefore, this paper cannot identify nordescrite individual institutions which provided data anddocuments.

4 u

of corporate decision-nuking and governance, ball-ing corporate functions for the religious institute andfor several of its apostolic enterprises" includingelementary/secondary schools, hospitals and medicalclinics, and other social service activities. This modelof governance was found at two institutions (oneliberal arts college and one junior college) which weremaking the transition from an institution for reli-gious /clerical pre-professional education to an insti-tution which would also train laypersons. A thirdinstitution, a junior college, already was educatinglay students but remained within the SRB's corporategovernance structure.

Models B1-B6: Independent Corporate Systems

The independent corporate systems varied con-siderably acr-2:ding to governance structure, govern-ance form, and distribution of corporate powers,although they all were distinct, legal corporations,capable of fulfilling unilaterally all primary corporatefunctions examined. As a result of their variations,however, six different variations of governance result,including the most common model for non-Catholichigher education in the United States.

Mode; h1

this corporate governance model is the ..cost fre-quently accepted form of celltge/university gcvern-ance. This independent corporation is governed by asingle corporate group (called the "corporatio,-,""board of trustees," "board of regents," etc j whichexercises the power to implement decisions of all

primary corporate functional respo.,,ibilities. Individ-ual participants -within the governing board sharecorporate pcwer by virtue of their memoership iothe collectivity; :ndividualty they can no exercise

any corporate function. Be,ause all corporae primaryfunctions reside within the single governing group,this form of independent corporation is uni-cameral.Model Bi is generally regarded as the standard onefor American colleges and universities.

The independent, um-cameral corporate system wasfound at 80 of the 134 institutions in this study; itwas the predominant model in use it 1977. Most ofthese institutional governing bodies did specify mem-bership requirements for Cie SRB relative to the

governing board, but there were no specific powersreserved to them, and both lay and religious/clerical

board members hared in the exercise of corporateresponsibility.

Model B2

The first of five bi-cameral models of governance,this corporation was distinguishable by a corporatesole serving as the upper echelon governing entitywithin a two-part governance system. The corporate

sole was the administrative executive of the SRB ofthis liberal arts college (only one was discovered tohave this model of governance in 1977), and wasofficially the "corporation" of the college/university.Certain primary corporate functions, however, weredelegated to a lower-echelon governing body calledthe "board of trustees." The corporate sole was nota member of the board, and so the corporate soleremained separate from he board, but retaining theauthority of the college corporation at all times. Thistwo-tier arrangement in essence reduces the board oftrustees to a managing role, extensively void of

corporate power and authority unless given by thecorporate sole.

Model B3

A bi-cameral mode, this model of corporation gov-ernance again involves a corporate sole as the upper-echelon of a two-part college governance system. Itis unique from the previous Model B2 in that thecorporate sole is also a member of the lower echelongoverning board. In this way, the corporate sole notonly is empowered with all corporation power ulti-mately, but also exercises within the lower-levelgoverning body those powers which the corporate-soledelegates, bequeaths, or shares with the governingboard.

Model 133 was in evidence at two institutions inthis study. In the first, the corporate sole was theadministrative executive' of the Sponsoring ReligiousBody. While the by-laws articulated the corporationas separate from the board of trustees in powers, theymandated that the corporate sole participate as avoting member of the board. At the other institution,the entire membership of the sponsoring religious

institute acted together as the corporate sole. In thisinstance, the administrative executive (or religioussuperior) served as the representative of the corporatesole on the lower-echelon governing body. The cor-porate sole, however, was empowered as the legal"corporation" of this college community.

Model B

Like Models B2 and B3, this mode of corporationgovernance is two-tiered; there is an upper- echelon

" Apostolates are those activities or services which the SRBconducts as part of its organizational mission, goal, andpurpose Many SRB's are engaged in several different ones;for example, only SRB's may conduct a college/university,several hospitals, elementary/secondary schools, homes forthe retired and aged, etc , simultaneously." The administrative executive of the SRB may be referred toas one of the following. Superior, Provincial, General, or somesimilar title Th,7. individual is responsible for the administra-tive leadership of the SRB and chairs the major 5RB adminis-trative council. In the case of the diocese, the local bishop orordinary would be considered as the administrative executiveofficer

41

4;

governance entity and a lower-echelon body to whichis delegated, shared, or bestowed one or more of theprimary corporate functions. However, unlike theformer models, the upper-level corporate entity iscomprised of a group of corporate members, not asingle individual or corpora EE sole. These corporatemembers, hcnyever, can exercise corporate authorityonly as a group; the individual corporation membercan not. The corporate group's membership remainsseparate from the subordinate governing body.

While there were twenty-four instances of thisform of bi-cameral independent corporation govern-ance system (representing 18% of all Catholic collegesand universities in this study), they all varied con-siderably in terms of the distribution of corporationprerogatives and power between the uppir and lowerechelon governing bodies. Most often, the "corpora-tion" reserved complete power to exercise the cor-poration's primary responsibilities of disposition oracquisition of property or assets, altering the purpose/mission of the institution, and amending the articlesof incorporation of the college/university. In many

instances it was the upper echelon governing bodywhich selected and appointed members to the sub-ordinate governing group. Wide variation was evidentamong the twenty-four institutions relative to thedistribution, delegation, and sharing of other corpo-rate primary functions between the two governing

bodies.

Model 85

Implemented at 10% of all Catholic colleges anduniversities in 1977, Model B5 of governance likewisepresented a bi-cameral form of corporate structure.However it is distinguishable from Model B4 in thatthe upper echelon governing body is accorded somedegree of formal representation on the lower-levelboard. There were variations in the extent to whichthe corporation was represented on the subordinatebody at these institutions. And again, there weredifferences in the extent to which certain primarycorporate functions were delegated to or shared withthe lower-level governing body by the upper echelongroup.

FIGURE 2: MEMBERSHIP CONFIGURATIONS OF INDEPENDENT BI-CAMERAL CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS IN AMERICAN CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION, 1977

MODEL B2

MODEL B4

corporatesole

governingboard

corpot ation

.. governingboard

MODEL B3

MODEL B6

corporate sole

governingboard

MODEL B 5

42

corporation

governing board

corporation

governingboard

Model B6

Similar to the two previous models of governance,Model B6 is a two-tiered governance system, withboth an upper and lower level governing body. Like-wise, the superior group delegates or shares with thelower body authority and power over one or more ofthe primary functions performed by the educationalcorporation. The uniqueness of this model is, however,that the entire membership of the upper echelon boardsimultaneously is mandated to be voting participantson the lower-echelon pverning board. In this way,the corporation determines the extent of corporatesresponsibility for the board and then shares in theexercising of selected powers.

Model C. Semi-Independent Corporation Systems

The Model C sub-set of corporate governancesystems represents those college or university cor-porations which were ascribed with all the character-istics of a legal corporate entity. However, unlike theirIndependent counterparts, they were prescribed byinstitutional by-laws to seek formal approval orconcurrence from some other corporation (other thanthe college or university) in order to perform one ormore of the primary corporate functions. In this sense,these corporations weresemi-independent.

Nine institutions were governed by this kind ofsystem In most instances, the SRB members of thecorporate governing body were appointed by theSRB corporation; in this way, these boards lost some

of their corporate independence. In two instances, anydisposition or acquisition of property on the part ofthe educational corporation necessitated approval fromthe SRB corporation.

1

FREQUENCY OF CONTEMPORAgYGOVERNANCE MODELS

An analysis of all 134 institutions revealed atcertain of the eight models of governance sy emswere more frequently in practice at American Cat olichigher educational institutions in 1977. As Table 1indicates, the independent uni-cameral corporate sys-tem 7redominated nationally, with 60% of all Cath-:,lic institutions utilizing this model of governance;it should be noted that this model represents theconsidered standard model of governance for secularprivate colleges and universities in this country. Theeighty Catholic institutions with this corporate gov-ernance system represented large and small universi-ties, liberal arts colleges, and one junior college.

Bi-cameral corporate governance models werefound at nearly one-third of all Catholic educationalcorporations. Of the five bi-cameral models, the B4Model (a distinct corporate body with a distinctgoverning board serving as the lower echelon corpo-rate governing body) was found to be at 24 institu-tions, representing 18% of the total institutionalpopulation in this study. The B5 Model, in which thecorporate group's membership overlapped with themembership of the subordinate board of trustees,

TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNANCE MODELS IN AMERICAN CATHOLICHIGHER EDUCATION, 1977

MODEL

A

B

DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE OFTOTAL SYSTEMS(n= 134)

Corporate Subsystem

Independent Corporate Systems

B1 Um-cameral

B2-B6 Bi-cameral

B2 Distinct Corporate Sole

B3 Corporate part of Board

B4 Distinct Corporate Group

B5 Corporate Group partially part ofBoard

Bo Corporate Group within Board

C Semi-Independent Corporate Systems

3 2%

122 91

80 60

42 31

2

24 18

14 10

1 1

9 7

TOTAL 134 100%

43

4

was employed at one-tenth of all responding institu-tions. BI-cameral systems with a corporate sole hadbeen established at only 2% of these colleges and

universities.Semi-independent corporate systems existed at nine

colleges and universities, representing 7% of the

Catholic higher educational institutions in this in-quiry. Corporate subsystems accounted for only 2%of all institutional governance systems in 1977.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS

The results of this study revealed some significantand important conclusions for Catholic highereducation in this country, for the impact of theTwenty-First Ecumenical Council on American Cath-olic colleges and universities as well as other elementswithin the American Church, for the Americanizationprocess of these institutions and the formal Churchstructure in this country, and for an emerging role

for the laity in the governance of Catholic collegesand universities at the board of trustee level.

The overwhelming majority of Catholic collegeand university corporations had by 1977 been sepa-rated from the legal corporate structure of the SRB

which had founded, administered and sponsoredthem. The impact of this separate incorporationa departure from the previous norm, as most Cath-olic institutions had been perceived as extensions of

the SRB corporation until this century lies in theconformity of American Catholic colleges and univer-sities with the mainstream of American highei educa-tion The notion of separate incorporation has beenthe accepted standard for both secular and otherreligiously sponsored colleges and universities.

The developing models of corporate governance,in the context of the Ecumenical Council and the

resultant laicization of these governing systems,represent unequivocal attempts on the part of theSRB's to balance their long-standing interest andcommitment to these institutions with Vatican Ii'sdirectives regarding lay involvement, conformity tosocietal norms and practices, and importance of thehigher educational enterprise in the life of the ChurchWhile two other factors may have accelerated or ini-tiated the laicization process within Catholic collegeand university governing boards (namely, (1) the real

need for substantial new funds as donations to theinstitutions which lay trustees could generate, and(2) the perceived availability of government funds

which necessitated a careful interpretation of church/state issues by a "de-clericalization" of the institu-tion's governance strucoist and relationship to theformal Church), nonetheless, a renewed role for thelaity in American Catholic higher educational govern-

ance is attribu,able to a theological emphasis from theSecond Vatican Council. The models which cur-

44

rently exist reflect the on-going commitment of theSRB's to remain in service to these colleges anduniversities while simultaneously adjusting to the

ideals of Vatican H.These models, which incorporate lay presence

(see Appendices of Related Data from Study), reflect

a movement within SRB's generally to adopt VaticanII's ideals of service to the community. With theexceptions of the bi-cameral models, these governancestrictures indicate new initiatives on behalf of theSRB's to return to such service and to be relieved

gradually of the total administration of their aposto-lates. Not only may they be returning to their original

purpose and function of service, but SRB's generallyseemed to be avoiding the acquisition of additionalunnecessary and unessential property through theestablishment of separate and independent educationalcorporations.

The existing models generally bring the layper-son into a position of parity with the SRB clergy andreligious relative to responsibility for the Catholichigher educational enterprise in this country. This isespecially true in the uni-cameral, independent cor-porate system. While less so in the bi-cameral models,the extent of lay involvement and responsibility forthe national Catholic college/urty system is

enhanced through these models which replace for-merly all-religious or all-clerical models, most ofwhich were corporate subsystems.

With 60% of the institutions adopting a model

of governance (independent with one governing board

to serve as the corporate entity) equated, v.ith themajority of private institutions in the United States,the movement towards Americanizing the Church'shigher educational institutions in this country appearsdefinite.

The study revealed that 40% of Catholic colleges

and universities had not adopted the standard, ac-cepted governance model as of 1977. The remaining40% were divided among several varying governancesystems, indicative of a lack of consensus on an

alternative which might serve equally as well. Overall,the division among all eight governance models stillIndicates a lack of definite consensus among Catholic

colleges and universities, although the movement is

towards the independent uni-cameral models.

The lack of consensus in governance systemmodels may further reflect a lack of consensus within

the Catholic higher educational establishment regard-ing institutional mission. Formerly, these institutionswere perceived as an integral part of the Church'smissionary effort in the United States, intimatelywoven into the fabric of the Church. The Catholicityof these institutions was profound, precise, and defi-

nite, and the former governance systems of thesesystems reflected that definite institutional mission.The growth of independent uni-cameral corporations

with lay trustees (whose presence in 1977 rangedfrom 34% of total voting board membership to 89%)makes less visible the Catholicity of these institutionsat the upper echelon governance level. The newseparateness between formal Church SRB's and thecollege/university corporation thereby intimates theneed for a different concept of the Catholicity of theseinstitutions which_accounts for their degree of inde-pendence from the formal ecclesiastical structures ofthe American Church and its various religious insti-tutes, orders, and congregations. In this regard, thebi-cameral models and the corporate subsystems re-flect a closer formal relationship between Church andinstitution, but the division of institutions into eightcorporate models may reflect the uncertainty in defin-ing the Church's relationship to these educationalorganizations in terms of institutional mission andCatholicity.

While laypersons were found to be voting mem-bers of 93% of all Catholic college and universityboards of trustees in 1977, the impact of lay presenceis moderated by bi-cameral governance structures,semi-independent corporate systems, and corporatesubsystems. For while laypersons may be membersof institutional boards of trustees, their impact islessened if nearly 2 of every 5 governing boards doesnot possess unilateral, independent corporate author-ity, power, and responsibility; the significance of theirpresence is diminished if nearly one-third of thosegoverning boards function within narrow parametersperscribed by another corporate entity.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

In summary, then, these models reflect a continuedcommitment on the part of religious on.lers and insti-

4 5

tutes to remain active in the governance of AmericanCatholic higher educational institutions. At the sametime, these models ir.timate that the SRB's whoinitiated these governance changes are seeking todiscover the best way by which to create a newpartnership with the laity for the governing responsi-bility of Catholic colleges and universities.

Yet, the selection of a particular model may haveextensive implications for the institution and for theSRB. Some implications may be relating to: (1) thedegree of SRB legal liability and accountability forthe colleges, (2) the ability to solicit funds from gov-ernment and other secular sources, (3) the clarity ofrole definition for trustees and corporate memberslay and SRB, (5) the ability to attract able andcommitted SRB a d lay trustees as well as to demandtheir best effo4s on behalf of the college or univer-sity, and (6) the extent to which the SRB's traditionis incorporated into the inissicn, complexion, andfuture development of the institution. Similarly, theform of the corporate governance may: (1) symbolize(a) the degree of SRB acceptance of the principles ofVatican H, and (b) the extent of SRB commitment tothe academic integrity of the institution, and (2)reflect further the SRB's perception of its own roleand mission within the post-Vatican H AmericanChurch.

Since the structure of the institutional governancesystem may have profound effects on both the SRBand the cellege or university, it seems apprdpriate thatany governance model be examined carefully andperiodically to insure its continued facilitation ofSRB and institutional goals and aspirations.

APPENDIX A:LAICIZATION OF AMERICAN CATHOUCHIGHER EDUCATIONAL GOVERNINGBOARDS IN 1977'

DEGREE OFLAICIZATIONIN 1977

ALL INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNINGBOARDS IN THIS STUDY (n=130)

LAICIZED BOARD OFTRUSTEES: One ormore voting trusteesis a layman orlaywoman

NON-LAICIZED BOARDOF TRUSTEES: Novoting trustee isa layman or laywoman

TOTAL

TotalPercentageof Total

120 92.44%

10 7.56

130 100.00%

'Data for this table are taken from all institutional responseswhich presented complete analysis of board composition for1977. This combined set of respon .es comprises 119 responses

(which provide complete historical data regarding boardcomposition) as well as 11 additional responses which pre-sented only 1977 board composition information.

46

APPENDIX B:DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENTAGESREPRESENTING LAY 11 RUS i7.7 PRESENCE OFTOTAL BOARD VOTING MEMBERSHIP ONALL LAICIZED BOARDS IN 1977'

PERCENTAGEREPRESENT:NGLAY TRUSTEEPRESENCE OF TOTALBOARD MEMBERSHIP

NumberCumulativeFrequency

CumulativePercentage

10095-9990-94 1 120 '00.0085-89 3 119 99.17

80-84 12 116 96.67

75-79 15 104 86.67

70-74 7 89 74.17

65-69 14 82 68.33

60-64 13 68 56.67

55-59 12 55 45.83

50-54 8 43 35.83

45-49 16 35 29.17

40-44 10 19 15.83

35-39 6 9 7.50

30-34 2 3 2.50

25-29 1 .83

20-24 1 1 .83

15-1910-14

5-90-4

' Data for this table are taken from all 130 institutionalresponses which presented complete and accurate informationrelative to board composition in 1977; this table presents laypreseace on the 120 laicized boards from the total group.

;

APPENDIX C:HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LIN TRUSTEE PRESENCE IN RELATION TO NATIONAL TRUSTEE

POPULATION: 1900-1977

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF CHARTEREDINSTITUTIONS TRUSTEE POPULATION OF CHARTERED INSTITUTIONS

DATETotal CharteredTo Date

Number of LaicizedBoards to Date

NationalTrusteePopuiationThat Year

Number of LayTrustees inNational TrusteePopulation

Percentage ofTotal PopulationRepresentingLay Trustees

1900 35 1 216 2 .63%

1920 52 3 346 14 4.05

1940 83 6 .577 27 4.68

1950 94 7 687 24 3.491

1960 108 9 822 46 5.60

1965 114 24 982 121 12.32

1970 117 83 1,593 783 49.15

1977 119 110 2,...:82 1,483 62.26

' This drop in the national lay trustee population and the percentage of the national trustee population which that lay population

represents is accounted for by one Institution. This eastern institution had been sponsored and founded tv a diccese; however,

in the 1940's the bishop asked a religious congregation of men to assume control and sponsorship ui the institution. When this

transition was made, the heavily lay trustee board was reconstituted into an all- clezi.ai board with all trustees being members

of the newly controlling SRB.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, %salter M. (ed.) The Documents of Vatican II.New `lurk America Press, 1966.

Alexander, Kern and Erwin S. Soloman College and Uni-veisity Law. Charlottesville, Virginia. Michie, 1972.College and University Law: 1976 Supplement. Char-lottesville, Virginia Michie, 1976.

Baldndge, ; Victor Academic Governance. BerkeleyMcCutchan, 1971a Power and Conflict in the Uni-versity. New York John Wiley, 1971b.

Barry, Colman J. The Catholic Church and GermanAmericons Milwaukee: Bruce Press, 1953. "TheGerman Catholic Immigrant Pp. 188-203 in T.McAvoy (ed ), Roman Catholicism and the AmericanWay of Life Notre Dame U ..versity of Notre DamePress, 1960. "The German-American Catholics Re-visited." Paper presented at the conference session,"German Catholics in America," of the Forty-FirstInternational Eucharist Congress, Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania. 7 August, 1976.

Baum, William M. "The religiously-sponsored college oruniversity, a sign and cause of reconciliation." Occa-sional Pipers on Catholic Higher Education, Vol. 1,No 1, (July) pa. 7-12, 1075.

Burns, Gerald P. Trustees in Higher Education: TheirFunctions and Coordination New York. IndependentCollege F.ind of America, 1966.

Carrier, Hervo "Does the Church really need Catholicuniversities?" National Catholic Educational Associa-tion College Nnisletter 35 (June): 1-6, 1973.

Cogley, John. "The future of an illusion" Pp. 291-306 inN. McCluskey (ed ), The Catholic University. AModern Apprusal Notre Dame University of NotreDame Press, 1070. Catholic America Garden City:Doubleday, 1973.

Connelly, James F History of the Archdiocese of Phila-delphia VVynnewood Roman Catholic Archdioceseof Philade.phia, 1976.

Corson, John J The Governance of College and Universi-ties New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960

Davis, Junius A ar.d Steve A. Batchelor. The EffectiveCollege and L!riversity Board A Report of a NationalSurvey of Trustees and Presidents. Research TrianglePark, North Carolina. Center for Educational Re-search and Evaluation of the Research TriangleInstitute, 1974.

DeWane, E. Thomas The Relationship Between Religiousand Educational Attitudes of Reorganized and Tradi-tional Boards of Roman Catholic Institutions ofHigher Leann, g Unpublished doctoral dissertation.The University of Chicago, 1970

Domes, Reinhart R "Deutschsprachige Katholiken in derNeuen Welt: De Kampf der Einwanderer urn dieErhaltung ihre, Glaubens and ihres Volkstiims."Paper presented at the conference session, "GermanCatholics in America," of the Forty-First EuchaiisticCongress, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7 August, 1976.

Donovan, George F. "Organization and administration ofRoman Catholic higher education A study of 14selected groups." Pp. 174-230 in J. C. Messersmithfed.), Church-Related Boards Responsible for HigherEducation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1964. Vatican Council II - Its Chal-

48

lenge to Education Washington, D C.. The CatholicUnivorsity of America Press, 1967.

Eells, Walter Crosby. "Boards of control of universitiesand colleges " Educational Record 42 (October) :336-342, 1961.

Ellis, John Tracy. "The American Catholic and the Intel-lectual life Pp. 315-357 in L. J. Putz (ed ), CatholicChurch U S.A. Chicago. Fides, 1956. Perspectives in

American Catholicism, Benedictine Studies. Baltimore:Helicon Press, 1963. Catholics in Colonial America.Benedictine Studies. Baltimore Helicon Press, 1965.American Catholicism. Second Edition. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1969. "A tradition ofautonomy?" Pp. 206-270 in N. McCluskey (ed.), TheCatholic University' A Modern Appraisal. NotreDame University of Notre Dame Press, 1970.

Farwell, E D. "The future of church-related colleges:Implication of 'Tilton vs Richardson.' " Liberal Edu-

cation 58 280-285, 1972.Fichter, Joseph H. "The Americanization of Catholicism."

Pp. 113-128 in T. McAvoy (ed ), Roman Catholicismand the American Way of Life. Notre Dame Univer-s.ty of Notre Dame Press, 1960.

Gannon, Ann Ida. "The future of the Church-related col-

leges- The impact of Vatican II." Liberal Education 58(May) :272-279, 1972.

Gleason, Philip. "Academic freedom and the crisis in

Catholic Universities." Pp. 33-59 in E. Manier andJ. Houck (eds ), Academic Freedom and the CatholicUniversity. Notre Dame: Fides, 1967a. "AmericanCatholic higher education A historical perspective."Pp. 15-53 in R Hassenger (ed.), The Shape ofCatholic Higher Education. Chicago- The Universityof Chicago Press, 1967b.

Godard, James N. "Federal aid and the governance ofchurch colleges." Cutient Issues in Higher Education

(July) .242-244.Could, Samuel B. "Trustees and the university commu-

nity " Pp. 215-228 in J. Perkins (ed ), The Universityas an Organization New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Greeley, Andrew M. The Hesitant Pilgrim: American

Wardafter the Council New York Sheed and

1966 The Catholic Experience An Interpreta-tion of the History of American Catholicism. GardenCity Doubleday, 1967a. "Myths and Fads in CatholicHigher Education." America 117 (November). 541-548, 1967c. From Backwater to Mainstream, A Profileof Catholic Higher Education. Now York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Grennan, Jacqueline. "Freeing the Catholi: college fromJudicial control by the Chuich." low nal of higherEducation 40 (February) 101-107, 1969.

Guilday, Peter The Life and Times of John Carroll, Arch-bishop of Baltimore. New Yoi;, The EncyclopediaPress, 1922.

Guitton, Jean. The Church and the Laity New fork:Alba House, 1965.

Hartnett, Rodney T College and University Trustees:Their Backgrounds, Roles and Education Attitudes.Princeton. The Educational Testing Service 1969. TheNew College Trustee. Some Predictions for the1970'5 Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

"Trustee power in America Pp. 25-38 in H. Hodg-kinson and L. R Meeth (cds.), Power and AuthorityTransformation of Campus Governance. San Fran-cisco. Jossey-Bass, 1971a. Trustees: Backgrounds,roles, and educational attitudes." Pp. 124-149 in J. V.Baldndge (ed.), Academic Governance. Berkeley:McCutchan, 1971b.

Hassenger, Robert. The Shape of Catholic Higher Educa-tion Chicago: The University of Chicago Pres.;, 1967.

Healy, Timothy S. "The emerging role for Catholic highereducation." Fordham 8 (Apnl-May).10-23, 1967.

Henderson, Algo D. The Role of the Governing Board.Washington, D.C. Association of Governing Boardsof Universities and Colleges, 1967. "The role of thegoverning board." Pp. 98-123 in J. V. Baldridge (ed.),Academic Governance Berkeley: McCutchan, Ber-keley: McCutchan, 1971.

Henry, Edward L. "Problems involved in developing a laypartnership with religious orders in operating Catholiccolleges." Paper presented at the second meeting ofmidwestern Catholic college presidents, Mercy Col-lege, Detroit, 11 December, 1973.

Herron, Orly R The Role of the Trustee Scranton. Inter-national Textbook, 1969.

Hesburgh, Theodore M. "The challenge ahead." Addresspresented at the Dinner Session of the Annual Meet-ing of the Counc'1 of Protestant Colleges and Univer-sities, Los Angeles, 16 January, 1967a. "Service Thegreat modern prayer." Address presented at NorthManchester, Indiana. 12 June, 1967b. "The vision ofa great Catholic university in the world today." Ad-dress presented at the Special Convocation Com-memorating the 125th Anniversary of the Founding ofthe University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame. 9 De-cember, 1967c. "The mission of the Catholic univer-sity in the modern Conference of the InternationalFederation of Catholic Universities." The CatholicUniversity of Lovanium, Kinshasha, Zaire, 1968a.Thoughts IV. Notre Dame- University of Notre DameAlumni Association

Hodkinson, Harold L. and L. Richard Meeth (eds) ) Powerand Authority Transformation of Campus Gover-nance San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

Hoewischer, Harry E "Regis College Pp. 137-149 in I.Russell and A. Ayres (eds ), Academic Administra-tion: Case Studies in the Liberal Arts College.Washington, D.C. U S. Government Printing Office,1964

Jencks, Christopher and David Reesman. The AcademicRevolution. Garden City Doubleday, 1969.

Kerr, Clark "Governance and functions." Pp. 108-121 inS. Graubard and G Ballotti (eds ), The EmbattledUniversity New York George Braziller, 1970.

Leckie Robert. American and Catholic: A Narrativehistory of their Role in American History. New York:Doubleday, 1970.

Maida, Adam J. Ownership, Control and Sponsorship ofCatholic Institutions. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Cath-olic Conference, 1975.

Manier, Edward and John H. Houck (eds) ) AcademicFreedom and the Catholic University. Notre Dame:Fides Publishers, 1967.

Markham, James J. The Sacred Congregation of Semi-naries of Studies. The Catholic University of America

0 9

Canon Law Studies. Washington, D.C.. The CatholicUniversity of America Press, 1957.

Martorana, S. V. College Boards of Trustees. Washington,D.C.: The Center for Applied Rese h in Education,1963.

McAvoy, Thomas T (ed.) Roman Catholicism and theAmerican Way of Life. Ncire Dame: University ofNotre Dame Press, 1960.

McBride, Katharine E. "The role of trustees." Journal ofHigher Education 30 (November) .432-435, 1959.

McCluskey, Neil G. Catholic Viewpoint on Education.Garden City: Doubleday, 1959. "The new Catholiccollege." America 21 (March):414-417, 1967. TheCatholic University A Modern Appraisal. NotreDame University of Notre Dame Press, 1970.

McGrath, Earl J. "The control of higher education inAmerica." Educational Record 17 (April) 259-272,1936 "Why have Lay Trustees?" Paper presented thatthe Loretto Heights College Conference on the Gov-ernance of Catholic Institutions of Higher Education,Loretto Heights, Colorado. 9 February, 1968. "Whoshould have the power?" Pp. 187-205 in H. Hodgkin-son and L. R Meeth (eds.), Power and Authority:Transformation of Campus Governance. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. "The pastoral message andthe Catholic college." National Catholic EducationalAssociation College Newsletter 36 (June):1, 9-14.

McGrath, Earl J. and Ge-rald E. Dupont. The Future Gov-ernance of Catholic Higher Education in the UnitedStates. Pamphlet. Winooski: St. Michael's College,1967.

McGrath, John j "Faculties (Canon Law)." New CatholicEncyclopedia 5 786-787, 1967. Catholic Institutionsin the United States: Canonical and Civil Law Status.Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Universiy of Amer-

Ica Press, 1968McKenzie, John L. The Roman Catholic Church Garden

City Doubleday, 1969.McNamara, Robert F. "Trusteeism in the Atlantic states,

1785-1863 " Catholic Historical Review 30 (July).134-155, 1944 "Trusteeism." New Catholic Encyclopedia14.323- 325,1967.

Melville, Annabelle M. John Carroll of Baltimore: Founderof the American Catholic Hierarchy. New York:Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955.

Messersmith, James C. (ed.) Church-Related Boards Re-sponsible for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:U.S Government Printing Office, 1964.

Moots, Philip R. and Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr.Church and Campus, University of Notre Dame Press,1979.

O'Grady, Joseph P. "Control of Church-Related Institu-tions of Higher Learning." Journal of Higher Educa-tion 40 (February) 108-121, 1969.

Pattillo, Manning M., Jr., and Donald M. Mackenzie.Church-Sponsored Higher Education it the UnitedStates. Washington, D C.: American Council on Edu-cation, 1966.

Perkins, James A. The University in Transition Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1965. The University asan Organization New York McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. "Size and composition of corporate boards:The organization and its environment." Administra-tive Science Quarterly 17 (April): 218-228, 1972.

d

"Size, composition, and function of hospital boardsof directors: A study of organization-environmentlinkage." Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (July):349-364, 1974.

Power, Edward J. Catholic Higher Education in America:A History. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1972.

Putz, Louis J. Catholic Church U.S.A. Chicago: Fides."The ascetical aspects of the role of authority in theadaptation of the religious community for the aposto-late." Pp. 67-116 in Schlitzer (ed.), Dimensions ofAuthority in the Religious Life. Notre Dame: Univer-sity of Notre Dame Press, 1966.

Rahill, Peter J. The Catholic in America. Chicago: Francis-can Herald Press, 1961.

Rauh, Morton A. College and University Trusteeship.Yellow Springs: The Antioch Press, 1959. "Thetrustees for higher education A survey report." AGBReports 11 (January):3-25, 1969a. The Trusteeship ofColleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill,1969n. "Internal organization of the board." Pp. 229-243 in J. Perkins (ed.), The University as an Organi-zation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Reiss, Paul J. "The Catholic college: Some built-in ten-sions." Pp. 253-274 in R. Hassenger (ed.), The Shapeof Catholic Higher Education. Chicago: The Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1967.

Religion as An Occupation: A Study irt the Sociology ofProfessions. Notre Dame: University of Notre DamePress, 1961. "The sociological aspects of the role ofauthority in the adaptation of the religious commu-nity for the apostolate." Pp. 1-66 in A. Schlitzer (ed.),Dimensions of Notre Dame Press, 1966.

Russo, Mother Mary. "The College of New Rochelle."Pp. 49-65 in J. Russell and A. Ayers (eds.), AcademicAdministratioa: Case Studies .n the Liberal ArtsCollege. Washington, D.C.: U.S. government Print-ing Office, 1964.

Schinebeeckx, Edward. "Problems and promise." Pp. 58-73 in N. McCluskey (ed.)., The Catholic University:A Modern Appraisal. Notre Dame University ofNotre Dame Press, 1970.

Schlitzer, Albert L. (ed). Dimensions of Authority in theReligious Life. Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press, 1966.

Sheerin, John B. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity ofVatican Council II. Glen Rock; Paulist Press, 1966.

Shields, Curran. Democracy and Catholicism i.. America.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.

Shuster, George N. Catholic Education in a changingWorld. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,1967. "Reflections on Newman's Idea." Pp. 104-117in N. McCluskey (ed.), The Catholic University: AModern Appraisal. Notre Dame, Indiana: University

b of Notre Dame Press, 1970. "German Catholic

50

Journey to America." Paper presented at the con-ference session, "German Catholics in America," ofthe Forty-First International EUcharistic Congress,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7 August, 1976.

Sokolich, A. Canonical Provisions for Universities andColleges. The Catholic Universit of American CanonLaw Series 373. Washingt , .: The CatholicUniversity in America Press 1955,

Stamm, Martin J "Catholic Education's New LayTrustees." AG', Reports 21 (October): 19-25, 1979a."The Emerging Lay Guardianship of American Cath-olic Higher Education." Occasional Papers on CatholicHigher Education 5 (July):25-30, 1979b. The NewGuardians of American Catholic Higher Education:An Examinition of Lay Participation on the Gov-erning Boards of Roman Catholic-Affiliated Collegesand Universities.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Pennsylvania, 1979c. The Laicization ofCorporate Governance of Twentieth Century Ameri-can Catholic Higher Education. Unpublished paperdelivered at the 1980 Annual Conference of theAmerican Education Research Association, 7-11 April1980, Boston, Massachusetts, 1980.

Stanford, Edward V. "Functional boards of trustees forthe Catholic college." Catholic Education Review 59(February):102-107, 1961. A Guide to Catholic Col-1le9g6eAdministration. Westminster: Newman Press,1965.

Stritch, Alfred G. "Trusteeism in the Old Northwest,1800-1850." Catholic Historical Review 30 (July):155-164, 1944.*-

Swindler, Leonard. "Catholic colleges: A modest pro-posal." Commonweal 29 (January) 559-562, 1965.

Tasch, Alcuin W. Religious Constitutions and Interna-tional Control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.The University of Chicago, 1953.

Tavard, George H. Catholicism U.S A. New York: New-man Press, 1969.

Tead, Ordway. "The role of the college trustee today."Educational Record 44 (July) 258 -263.

Trent, James. Catholics in College. Chicago: The Univer-- sity of Chicago Press, 1967.

Wakin, Edward. The Catholic Campis: RepresentativeAmerican Catholic Colleges and How They Vary.New York: MacMillan, 1963. "How Catholic is theCatholic college?" Saturday Review (April 16):92-94,105, 1966.

Walsh, Johr E. "The university and the Church." Pp. 103-122 in E. Manier and J. Houck (eds)., AmericanFreedom and the Catholic University. Notre Dame:Fides Publishers, 1967.

Zwingle, J. L. The Lay Governing Board. Washington,D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universi!ies

and Colleges, 1969.

1111.1111111,

NOTE

ACCU will sponsor an afternoon's workshop on the

special concerns of trustees in Catholic colleges and

universities. It will follow the Association of Govern-

ing Boards' National Trustee Workshop which is

being held at the Hyatt-Regency, Cambridge, Mas-

sachusetts, October 5-6, 1981. The ACCU special

session will begin with luncheon on October 6th

and will conclude before 6:00 p.m. Dethilyas to

speakers, panels, etc., will be forthcoming in a special

mailing.

0 -I