<p>
</p>
<p>Is this a fair representation of ND’s administration – torn between following the secularity of prestigious universities in America and following the Catholic church, but ultimately siding with the former?</p>
<p>I think this is completely reversed.</p>
<p>A lot of people would say that that assessment is more congruent with Monk Molloy’s tenure as President of the University. His approval rating wasn’t exactly sky-high - like the quote states, he seemed to be more interested in advancing the academic aspect of ND at the cost of its religious identity.</p>
<p>Fr. Jenkins, on the other hand, has been very well received, and the general vibe is that he holds the Catholic character of ND as more important.</p>
<p>I’m totally with you, kevdude. Monk Malloy was precisely as described above. In my opinion, Fr. Jenkins is destined to be known among the greatest presidents in Notre Dame history–determined to be the best in everything, while proudly embracing Catholic identity. That being said, even though Monk was undoubtedly more of a secularist and it was time for him to move on, he was exactly the man the university needed at the time he came in. </p>
<p>There were a few jokes on campus in the old days… One was that the only adjustment Ted Hesburgh made to co-education was the plumbing system. The other is that the only difference between God and Fr. Ted was that God was everywhere, and Fr. Ted was everywhere but Notre Dame. He did great things to bring Notre Dame to prominence, but was woefully out of touch with student life, at a time when student life–and the culture in general–changed dramatically. Title IX brought women onto the campus, but the university wasn’t really ready for them. </p>
<p>Monk Malloy was rector of Sorin back in 1980. He was known as the one priest on campus who didn’t regard the small number of women on the now-co-ed Notre Dame campus as upstarts or hussies. Sorin masses were always packed, including plenty of women. Afterwards, Monk would host any who wanted to come for after-mass fellowship. The women on campus felt truly welcomed there–Monk listened to them, and treated them as if they had every right to be there (believe me, that was quite rare from priests in those days.) He was also a highly popular theology professor–his classes were known both for being among the most challenging on the campus, as well as the most compelling.</p>
<p>Seeing the campus now, with one a soon-to-be-junior, the other an entering freshman in the fall, Monk’s legacy is evident. It is an infinitely more healthy environment for students–Monk Malloy did wonders for campus life.</p>
<p>Now, it is Fr. Jenkins’ turn to add his own mark–which is restoring the glory not only to the football program, but to the Catholic identity of the university.</p>
<p>I also agree, that was Monk and things are now starting to swing in the right direction, though some things Fr. Jenkins has said (such as just trying to keep the current level of Catholic professors, not increase the number) worry me.</p>
<p>A long time ago Father Hesburgh and other leaders of catholic education convened in Land o’lakes, Wisconsin to discuss the balance between religion/academics. This resulted in this well known manifesto that many institutions took to heart:
</p>
<p>Monk turned the university into nothing much more than a football school to what it is today, a top 20 university. the school has done this while retaining a catholic identity, something other schools (i.e. georgetown, bc) have failed to do. </p>
<p>I always got the impression that Monk was an amazing president, and that Jenkins had a very tough act to follow after he was appointed. i wonder why our viewpoints on him are so different.</p>
<p>Here is my opinion on Monk, and it is only mine, but you know how it goes. Monk did do a great job at improving ND’s ranking, and if that is your definition of success, then he succeeded. However, while I like being ranked high, I think there are many things that are more important than the rankings. A large part of ND’s mission, in my view, is to be the Catholic alternative to schools like Yale, Duke, Princeton, Harvard, etc. and I believe that it was that for years when Catholics couldn’t get into said schools. However, Monk looked at what our peers were doing, like Georgetown, and focused on improving rankings. We lost a lot of Catholic professors, and while we got some great professors, we lost a lot of the Catholic atmosphere. Monk folded on “academic freedom” issues like the Queer Film Festival and the Vagina Monologues, which do not belong at any university which is truly Catholic. You can get those at Duke, Princeton, Yale, etc, but ND is the ALTERNATIVE, it shouldn’t be one of the bunch. Monk made us less Catholic IMO. Monk also lost track of the fact that we are a big sports school, and did everything he could to try to prove that we weren’t a football school. Football suffered for years and it is because Monk was convinced that you couldn’t have a top university which also was a big football school (this is just my view, I have little to back this up).</p>
<p>So yes, Monk raised our US News rankings, but at what cost? Perhaps I am the only one who remembers this but ND used to ignore these rankings, not even sending them information. ND was focused on its mission and didn’t care to conform to what US News or our peer institutions wanted us to be. A lot has changed since then, and sometimes I think we are more Duke than traditional Notre Dame. There is nothing wrong with being different, we just are becoming less different, and I worry about what cost.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I still love ND and think it is a great Catholic school, but I think work needs to be done to fix some of what Monk has done. I think Jenkins is doing this, and almost came through on the VMs. Yes, I know that you may like them, but if our school is truly going to be Catholic we can’t have them! We just have to decide what we want to be, an elite university (I am convinced if we lost football and our religious ties tomorrow we would be close to the top 10, again, my view) or do we want to be Notre Dame? Notre Dame can still be great, and should be great, but it has to do it in the right way.</p>
<p>I think Jenkins is doing it in the right way. He is trying to increase the number of Catholic professors we have by actively recruiting them. What I mean is we are not discriminating those who are not Catholic, but if you are Catholic and are good then he is going to go after you strong. He just got a great economics professor from Maryland doing this, and I expect soon we will have many more top Catholic scholars. It proves that you can keep the Catholic identity and get some of the best professors in the world, it doesn’t have to be a trade-off like Monk made it.</p>
<p>Those are just my views from my 3 years at ND, take them for what they are worth, but I did live through some of Monk.</p>
<p>Also, the Catholic identity turns on many professors (probably less so than it turns off other professors though), such as irish mentioned with William Evans (the econ professor from Maryland) who I am excited about coming into my department.</p>
<p>He is a great get. However, it should be mentioned that in order to seal the deal they sent him to Fisher Hall daily Mass, where we average 25-30 students. Fisher, the best-kept secret on campus!</p>
<p>dimissing monk’s accomplishments as nothing more than raising our usnews rankings is doing a disservice to him. this school attracts some of the brightest high school students from all over the world now. and here is a question, if notre dame was not the great academic institution it is today, how many students that currently attend this school would actually be here today? would you? considering the academic strength of our student body, i doubt they would choose to attend just a “football” school, if it still was. </p>
<p>
i know this can open up a whole lot dialogue of controversy, which i don’t want to delve into, but just look at the Land o’ Lakes statement. it wasn’t Monk, but Hesburgh who pointed nd into this direction of “academic freedom.” disclaimer–this is only my opinion as well.</p>
<p>irish- i would argue we already are an elite university, and that it is part of who/what notre dame is right now.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that Notre Dame is an elite university, and I am very proud to be an alum. However, I think it is very important that we are an elite CATHOLIC university. There are plenty of elite universities, but we need ND to be an elite Catholic university so that those who want to have a Catholic experience but also go to an elite college have that choice. I will be honest, I looked strongly at transferring to Franciscan University because I was worried about ND being Catholic enough. If it was any more secular, I may now be a graduate of Franciscan University. </p>
<p>I know the school attracts a lot of great students, and that is fantastic, but it should not trade its Catholic character for getting the best students. In my opinion, if we only get the best students who also want a Catholic experience, fantastic, that is fine. While academics are first and foremost, we have to be a Catholic university. If not, we may as well be like Georgetown or Duke (Methodist); religious schools where religion doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>I will be honest, in all respect to Fr. Hesburgh I disagree with him on some things, and I think Land O’ Lakes was a bit too liberal. ND became a great university and got the following we have now in large part because we are a Catholic school. My great aunt gave a great amount of her salary to Notre Dame for example…we never had anyone who had ever gone to Notre Dame and we had no connection with the school…but it was the best Catholic school and that was important to her. That is our legacy in my mind. </p>
<p>I am proud to call myself an alum of the University of Notre Dame, and I think that is safe with Fr. Jenkins. I pray, however, that I never have to be ashamed to call myself an alum (as I frankly would be with Georgetown). Don’t get me wrong, Georgetown is a great school, but if ND did that I think it would truly be a tragedy.</p>
<p>Without Ted Hesburgh’s leadership, Notre Dame would never have gained the elite academic reputation it has. Without Monk Malloy, student life would have really suffered–they needed his influence. Without Fr. Jenkins, the school’s Catholic identity would be at risk.</p>
<p>Rather than look at this as a debate about who is the best steward of the university’s mission and legacy, I think it is really a matter of the right people being in the right places at the right time. </p>
<p>I, too, am proud to call myself an alumna of the University of Notre Dame. I feel the legacy has been “safe” all along. Tell you one thing, without the critical student life impact that Monk Malloy introduced, I would have felt a lot more reluctant about sending my daughter there than I am now. </p>
<p>If you knew what it was like in the early '80’s compared to how it is today, perhaps it would be easier to see that a little bit of “liberal” intervention and philosophy was actually pretty well needed. Don’t know if there are any other female alum posting on here who were there in the first decade of education, but it was a very institutionally sexist place. There were so many great things and great people there, it was certainly tolerable–more than tolerable–but it clearly needed to change. I believe that it has; I believe that Monk was plugged into the students and plugged into the faculty–something that needed to happen.</p>
<p>I don’t believe ND will ever shed its Catholic legacy. Nor do I think that legacy was ever at risk under Monk Malloy…</p>
<p>I realize I just contradicted myself regarding risk… I’m a middle-aged woman, and will gladly claim that as an excuse… </p>
<p>I think there is a big difference between ideology and faith…</p>
<p>in his ~15 years as nd president, monk raised the schools endowment 6x, from $456 million to around $3 billion, while tripling the number of minority students. the school was mainly known as a football school in 1988, now it is known as the best catholic university in the nation. Hesburgh laid the groundworks for Monk to build a great university, and Monk did.</p>
<p>I hope that whatever expectations some may have of Jenkins limiting academic freedom are never validated, particularly while I’m a student here. It makes me angry enough when there is such a big mess every year concerning the Vagina Monologues, as I’ve never been of the opinion that a theatrical production about female independence and expression damages a Catholic identity, explicit or not. I would say that there is some growing up to do on both sides of that argument (with evidence being that there is an argument at all). </p>
<p>In any case, I can assure whoever may be worried that Notre Dame is hardly in danger of becoming “too liberal” (after all, which school tops the list of “alternative lifestyles not an alternative” in the Princeton Review?). I hope that the multiple meanings of that word aren’t lost, however, particularly in the interest of educational growth. Maybe it shouldn’t matter what faith a given percentage of the faculty chooses. I certainly hope there is no informal quota. </p>
<p>My impression of Jenkins so far has been a positive one. He cares quite a lot about the tone of the student body as well as the sentiments of alumni. I think he could be very good for the University. I only hope that he doesn’t try to please everyone at once.</p>
<p>Fr. Jenkins is in the enviable position of having inherited the legacy of a now-elite institution (for which I credit Hesburgh more than Malloy), and a student-friendly campus funded by a booming endowment (that’s Malloy’s legacy). So his job is to walk that fine line between maintaining Catholic identity at the same time allowing academic freedom, and striving for academic excellence. I believe he’s the right man at the right time.</p>
<p>I personally think his handling of the Vagina Monologues controversy was wise and balanced. </p>
<p>As per quotas, I am not aware of any. I do think, though, that there are a lot of professors who genuinely embrace things such as having chapels in their faculty buildings and classrooms, as well as the ability to be more open about their faith.</p>
<p>Indeed, the idea that other more secularized institutions are somehow more advanced in academic freedom strikes me as amusing. Just look at Larry Summers, former president of Harvard. For daring to say that it is difficult to maintain an equal gender balance in the graduate level of science because (a) women tend towards other majors (which is true) and (b) a lot of women choose to sidetrack their careers for awhile to devote time to motherhood (also true–I did that; LOTS of very educated women have done that)–he was lambasted and ultimately driven from the university. When you get driven away from an institution for speaking a truth that is quite obvious to even the most casual observer–simply because it doesn’t fit into some elitist, politically correct view of how things are supposed to be (i.e. that there are no inherent differences in women and man, only cultural ones superimposed by some invisible patriarchy)—that doesn’t fit my idea of academic freedom, either.</p>
<p>How can some of these universities claim to be academically superior, and, in fact, elite, when basic common sense is often woefully absent?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is brilliantly said.</p>
<p>The typical elite university is composed of intelligent students, administrators, and professors who are either indifferent to, or hostile towards religion. In their view, the mix of religion and academics is frightening, for it is taking something they love (academics) and mixing it with something they don’t love (religion). </p>
<p>But it is not so clear why the two should necessarily be seperated, and in defense of the seperation, what is cited is the virtue of “academic freedom”, as if religion’s influence is anti-intellectual and tyrannical. And there is a point here. Galileo, a Catholic, was threatened and suppressed by the Catholic Church because, through his studies, he discovered the taboo-fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. In this case, organized religion smothered any academic freedom.</p>
<p>That was about 400 years ago. Times have changed. The 1960’s happened. The current threat to academic freedom is no longer religion, but rather it is political correctness. And political correctness is rampant at elite universities, which are almost always very secular and politically liberal.</p>
<p>In the words of sociology Paul Hollander:</p>
<p>“There are at least five areas to which PC applies and where it succeeded in imposing a fair amount of conformity. They are: 1) race-minority relations 2) sexual and gener relations; 3) homosexuality; 4) American society as a whole; 5) Western culture and values… Deviation from the norms of PC may result in public abuse, ostracism, formal or informal sanctions, administrative reproach, delayed promotion, difficulty of finding a job, being sentenced to sensitivty training, etc.”</p>
<p>So, if Notre Dame truly did want to ensure academic freedom, they would be mistaken to follow the lead of Harvard, Yale, etc. because these universities are plauged by political correctness.</p>
<p>I am genuinely interested in seeing what will happen to Notre Dame in the next forty years, seeing whether or not it will maintain its Catholic identity, which it has more or less maintained over the years in spite of being surrounded by a time and country dominated by a secular intellectual class.</p>
<p>I truly believe from what I have seen that Notre Dame will keep its Catholic integrity, and I think that Fr. Jenkins becoming president is a step in the right direction and a sign that ND takes its Catholic nature seriously. Also, for better or worse, the donations would go down if ND lost its Catholic identity, so that will probably factor in as well as you always have to go where the money is.</p>
<p>For those who are worried about ND losing its Catholic identity I urge you to go to Project Sycamore’s web page at <a href=“http://www.projectsycamore.com/[/url]”>http://www.projectsycamore.com/</a>. It is a group of ND alums who are quite passionate about this issue and there is good information on there. I find they address all of these issues in a very complete manner and will give you all the background on them but also remember that they are only one source and they have the mission of keeping ND Catholic, which is the same mission I have. Nevertheless, check it out!</p>