Is a liberal arts education for everyone?

David Warren, "Universities: Who Needs 'Em?" (InsideCatholic, August 23, 2010):

... But what I find more interesting, in reading accounts of the mediaeval universities, is the speed with which they allied themselves with Bishops against Pope, with Court against Church, with Law against Spirit, and, when they were being spiritual, with the spirit of secession in all of its instinctive and demonic forms.

Conversely, they were from their beginnings the flag-bearers of bureaucracy and regulation....

More deeply, by freeing students from the oversight and discipline of religious orders, and then creating a class of professors out of former students, the mediaeval universities were formulating a new kind of man -- the public intellectual, quite full of himself -- the sharp edge of whose intelligence would be honed to serve adolescent dreams of power and control, with endless voyages into "pure theory."

One hears the echo through the ages of Benedetto Gaetani, papal legate and future Pope Boniface VIII, gone to Paris in 1290 to express the exasperation of the Roman Curia -- not only with the intensely meddlesome political posturing of the university, but also with its venal attachments to worldly vested interests. To a professoriate flouncing their reputation for the "higher" education, Gaetani cries: "It is all trivial!"

And to the smug looks on many hundred faces, he declares: "We are called by God not to acquire learning to dazzle mankind, but to save our souls!"

Now -- please -- I am not against learning, and to some degree, not even against learning as an end in itself. Nor am I actually against universities, in principle; or at least, not yet. But I would like to wonder aloud if the time is not approaching to pull the fiscal plugs on all of them, and start over from the monastery again.

This is food for thought, especially in light of the talks to which we were recently treated by Fr. Joseph Koterski, S.J. (Fordham) at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. One of the more interesting things he did was to question whether most Catholics need any theology at all, let alone philosophy. Rather, what they need is catechesis and spiritual formation. He contrasted the "learnables" with the "developmentals," suggesting that the latter have been overly neglected in our culture -- especially (but not only) secular culture. Of course, he added, seminarians need the "learnables" too, and even theology and philosophy -- but perhaps not in the way they're often taught, where they are taught apart from the practical concerns of the "developmentals."

In one sense, I think that the value of the liberal arts has been unduly marginalized in modern times by disciplines with demonstrable utilitarian value -- professional programs in business, computer science, engineering, economics, physical therapy, nursing and restaurant and hotel management come to mind. By contrast, the problem with liberal arts disciplines is that they have no demonstrable utilitarian value -- things like literature, history, art, philosophy, and theology come to mind. Further, since the only kind of value recognized these days seems to be utilitarian value, the liberal arts are generally assumed to be valueless. What is not recognized, as Josef Pieper would be quick to point out, is that some things have value for their own sake, as ends in themselves. To understand the nature of human beings and the real world has considerable value, even if it has no demonstrable utilitarian value. Knowing who we are, where we came from, and our purpose in life, is important in itself, even if it doesn't get us a job or earn us any money.

Having said that, I firmly agree with the premise that a liberal arts education may not be for everybody, anymore than everyone is called to the priesthood or to a career as professor of philosophy. What every everyone needs for his salvation, however, is a proper catechesis in order to be formed in the knowledge and service of our Lord Jesus Christ through His Church (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church). What everyone needs to be more fully human, furthermore, is something that Mortimer Adler spent the last half of his life promoting, which is a basic grasp of the common wisdom of philosophy, not philosophy as a specialized discipline, but philosophy on the level of commonly accessible concepts by which to understand and talk about the world and human nature (see his Aristotle for Everybody).


[Hat tip to J.M.]

Foreclosure of homes and philosophy departments

Homes are being foreclosed at a fearsome rate these days, and it begins to look as though academic departments and programs are a similarly endangered species. I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the termination of the German Department at the University of Southern California, and on May 5, I noticed in The Chronicle that the University of Florida was terminating its doctoral program in Philosophy.

The university, confronting a substantial cutback in state appropriations, has announced that it will lay off 20 faculty members, among other steps, to reduce costs for FY2008-9. As part of this retrenchment, President Bernie Machen has also proposed reducing undergraduate enrollment and cutting back on research expenditures, as well as eliminating some degree programs.

I gather that other Florida universities are reacting similarly to dire state budgetary situations. Many states are experiencing exactly the same financial difficulties, and passing through their problems to public institutions of higher education.

Source: Stan Katz, "The Unity of Philosophy" (The Chronicle Review, May 14, 2008).

[Hat tip to E.F.]

Latin is dying, but liberal arts education isn't?

A thoughful reader sent me a link to a very interesting article about the dying knowledge of Latin within the Church. The article is by Malcolm Moore in Rome, for the Sunday Telegraph, and entitled "Pope's Latinist pronounces death of a language" (Jan. 27, 2007).

Latin has for years been derided by recalcitrant students as a "dead language," of course. Now, however, the Pope's top adviser on Latin has reluctantly joined their ranks, it seems:

"It is dying in the Church. I'm not optimistic about Latin. The young priests and bishops are not studying it," said Fr Reginald Foster, 68, a Carmelite friar who was appointed the Papal Latinist 38 years ago by Pope Paul VI.

He said priests were no longer compelled to study Latin at seminaries, and now found it impossible to read vital theological tracts.

Fr. Foster goes on to make some interesting observations, such his speculation that the Holy Father has no intention of implementing his motu proprio. Some of you may recall a discussion of these views over at Rorate Caeli sometime ago, the upshot of which was to cast into doubt not the motu proprio but Fr. Foster's credibility at that point.

My interest in this article does not concern Fr. Foster's reference to the motu proprio, but his reference to the dying of Latin in the Church. He does go on to suggest some ways of staving off utter illiteracy in Latin for the moment. He makes some interesting observations, such as that "You do not need to be mentally excellent to know Latin," and "Prostitutes, beggars and pimps in Rome spoke Latin, so there must be some hope for us."

But my main thought is this: Why single out the dying out of Latin for this unique attention? Granted, it's a problem. But isn't it simply symptomatic of a much larger problem -- namely the dying out of the light of knowledge of the traditional liberal arts altogether?

I have long scandalized my students who come to class with their cell phones, i-pods, MP3 Players and state-of-the-art lap top computers by telling them that we inhabit a new dark ages. Of course, they're incredulous. It's not only Latin that's dead, however. It's math, history, German, French, literature, social studies, etc. This isn't to say there aren't occasional students to be found enthusiastically majoring in these subjects, but they're exceptions. Nerds. Delightful nerds, not the norm. The norm are those majoring in "Exercise science" (I'm not kidding), "Communications," or "Education" -- and the less said about the majority (not all) of those gravitating toward these majors, the better.

In a survey conducted amoung our students (Culture Quiz, June 30, 2006), most knew who "Paris Hilton's former best friend was, who had an on-again, off-again relationship with Adam Goldstein (AKA D.J. AM)," and most could answer correctly who the newest American Idol was, but hardly any could correctly answer questions about literature, classical music, or even politics.

Even among the more serious students, majoring in Business, Occupational Therapy, and Nursing, few students state that they have a habit of reading regularly or can remember the last book they read that was not assigned for a class.

Latin is dead? Well, I'm sad about that. I would encourage Latin as a prerequisite for all liberal arts learning. Greek as well, I suppose. But the liberal arts are dead too. Ask a student where Paris is, and you'll likely get an answer assuming you meant Paris Hilton.

[Hat tip to J.M.]