What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

What's Wrong With Education

Today was graduation day for the students of California State University, Chico, a fact we were forced to acknowledge on the way to Mass this afternoon as we observed young people walking their neighborhood streets in caps and gowns, past front yards littered with hundreds of red plastic cups from the parties the night before. I remarked to the children, "This is the best I have ever seen the students dress", to which one replied "And it's still not very good", noticing the black gowns draped over jeans and ultra-casual shoes or sandals. Chico State has never fully recovered from its sordid reputation as the nation's premier "party school" due to an unfortunate 1987 designation by Playboy magazine. When I say "sordid", I mean it, and could tell you stories that would (or should) raise the hair on the backs of your necks. The overall atmosphere of the university is morally, spiritually, and intellectually toxic, due to both faculty and student influences, despite some bright lights here and there (some of whom we are blessed to know). It has undeniably brought some cultural "goods" to the community, and we gladly participate in these, but on balance the university has been a Faustian bargain and Chico would be better off if the place were razed to the ground.

All of this is by means of introduction to a deficiency in my own education which I hope soon to remedy, having never read John Henry Newman's "The Idea of a University". Whatever is going on in the CSU system, it isn't education, it isn't liberal in the sense of producing men set free by knowledge, and it certainly isn't worth the money coughed up by parents and taxpayers alike. Dr. Craig Bernthal is somehow permitted to teach English at CSU Fresno, and his article at The Imaginative Conservative titled "Newman’s ‘Idea’ and the Crisis of the Secular University" gets to the heart of the problem. He writes:

Newman’s first point is that truth is one and coherent, and by definition, a university must teach all disciplines for truth to be comprehensible. Therefore theology had to be included. By this Newman did not mean religious studies: anthropologic treatments of religion as a human phenomenon and its role in human history or the Bible as literature. He meant the study of God. If God existed as a fact, no institution claiming to teach all fields of knowledge could leave out the study of God without putting the coherence of all knowledge in danger.

Indeed, no institution leaving out the study of God can teach anything else with coherence and conviction. As the CSU system - like most universities in America today which educate the elite 27% of adults - has not only left off theology but in fact positioned itself against theology, its graduates have become a devastating social liability, a rabble motivated by little more than thoughtless impulses and ignorant class prejudices (not that there's anything wrong with class prejudices if they are grounded in reality). There are notable survivors here and there, and it must be granted that some fields of study are more vulnerable than others, but in general the accusation is solid. As Dr. Bernthal explains:

In contrast to the methodical and strenuous approach of Newman, General Education, which constitutes the liberal arts portion of education in California and makes the community college system interlock with the CSU and UC systems, offers a Home Town Buffet of individual consumer experiences. In its “critical thinking” component, Fresno State serves up twelve courses, among them: “Critical Thinking: Gender Issues,” “Critical Thinking in Chicano and Latin American Studies,” “Critical Thinking about Race,” and “Critical Thinking in Anthropology.” Students are required to take one of the twelve. You don’t have to be a good halfback to do a broken field run through our GE program to evade education; it is harder to go through it and get one.

For me, most of the learning that took place at CSU Sacramento occurred in the library, where I was introduced to "The University Bookman", "Modern Age", and the works of many great thinkers who were inexplicably banished from the classroom. My CSU English professors were not sane and rational creatures like Dr. Bernthal, but fanatics ranging from atheists whose overriding goal was to rescue English masterpieces from their association with Christianity, to sexual perverts whose interpretations turned everything, quite predictably, into literary pornography.

Let's make a deal, then, shall we? If you'll bookmark "The Imaginative Conservative" and check in now and then, I'll read Newman's "Idea" and review it here before years' end.

Comments (22)

In 1854, Newman was appointed rector of the new Catholic University in Dublin. Previous to this appointment, in 1852, he had delivered his lectures on the nature of university education.

In these lectures - eventually published as The Idea of a University, Newman opposed the popular beliefs of the day by declaring that the obligation of a university is instruction rather than research, and to train the mind rather than to diffuse useful knowledge. He defended the study of theology and recommended tutorial supervision as parts of the university framework.

He soon discovered that the Irish clergy and the New Catholic University were lukewarm about his proposals, and resigned from his appointment as rector.

It was thought by people like Newman that a 'trained mind' - usually meaning in 19th century England, a graduate who studied classical literature in the original Latin and Greek - had acquired transferable skills. Those who possessed 'trained minds' were thereby equipped for a political career, a high position in the Civil Service, a senior colonial administrator, etc. This idea had some undesirable consequences because it encouraged a form of intellectual snobbery and led to the neglect of business-like and practical qualifications for public office.

Jeff, I bookmarked TIC a few days ago. I've read Idea a few times, and I look forward to your review. I use it frequently in discussing with my colleagues our mission at this Christian college.

Jeff - I have had The Imaginative Conservative linked to my Facebook page for months thanks to the contributions of Bradley Birzer, one of Maggie's favorite professors at Hillsdale College. I was glad to see your essay posted by them recently which reminded me that I bought America's British Culture many years ago and never read it.

It was thought by people like Newman that a 'trained mind' - usually meaning in 19th century England, a graduate who studied classical literature in the original Latin and Greek - had acquired transferable skills. Those who possessed 'trained minds' were thereby equipped for a political career, a high position in the Civil Service, a senior colonial administrator, etc. This idea had some undesirable consequences because it encouraged a form of intellectual snobbery and led to the neglect of business-like and practical qualifications for public office.

And today, the result is that people with virtually no skills of any kind but do have a college degree believe they're more qualified than a high school graduate for most of those positions in the public and private sectors.

In contrast to the methodical and strenuous approach of Newman, General Education, which constitutes the liberal arts portion of education in California and makes the community college system interlock with the CSU and UC systems, offers a Home Town Buffet of individual consumer experiences.

This is very much too general a condemnation. It applies only to the liberal arts curriculum. No one gets to do such nonsense in the sciences. One cannot take a course called: the Science of Silly Putty, for instance, or even the Science of Beer and be considered a real practitioner in the field of science. This is because science is a hierarchy of truth, whereas literature is not. If one cannot, "do the business," as one of my professors (a colleague of Einstein's) used to say, it will quickly become obvious because THINGS WILL FALL DOWN. Nature cannot be fooled. Now, Newman was not discussing the science education of his day, but only a more general liberal arts education. I do not know what he knew about the workings of science.

In fact, his idea of theology being essential to a university is too broad, in my opinion, because it is impossible to give a perfect division of epistemology to encompass all connections within knowledge. As such, it is really impossible to say when a university comes into existence. If it is missing topic X or subject, Y, is it a university? What is the size of X or Y, for that matter. I do not think it is possible to construct a university from the bottom up.

It would be better to say that if a True University admits of universals or possibly even a single Universal, that is enough. Ordering of topics within that construct would provide a useful definition, but also give a number of different universities, small u. In other words, God can be studied through nature, and thus we have the science university; God can be studied through the workings of the heart and then we have the liberal arts university; God can be studied though human interaction and then we have the political university, etc. That universities in modern times are not constructed this way, but in a more expansive form, with smatterings of offerings from different disciplines does not mean that one cannot, in principle, divide the pie in other ways.

That God is not at the top of the hierarchy does not, in itself, mean that a university has lost its way, so long as it allows the argument of a universal, yet unknown, to be permitted. Even St. Paul would probably allow for a university based on an unknown God. Science, for instance, cannot reject the idea of a God (try as some scientists might) and thus, its hierarchy is answerable to an every tightening judgment of truth.

The current state of liberal arts education, however, does not hold the possibility of a hierarchy of truth and this is the reason that it cannot fit into Newman's idea of a university. Science and music both salute the truth and put it on display for scrutiny. If you can't play the part, sooner or later, everyone is going to know. If you can't prove the theorem, sooner or later you will run out of intelligent things to say about the topic.

Not so with liberal arts. The individual is said to hold the truth and this reduces the truth to the size of one, which just exactly happens to be the size of error, as well. Early apologists used to go out two-by-two, for this very reason - if one fell, the other was there to pick him up. In the modern liberal arts community, there is no falling, because there is no bottom to hit, no final insult to the senses and there is no rising, because there is no ultimate end beyond the self to which to aspire . Thus, not only is there no university or universalism in the current liberal arts, there is nothing but a stasis, without rising or falling, but always a moving sideways. One is always studying new issues of critical thinking without demanding that one think critically. No, that would demand an encounter with a singular truth.

I will give Newman that. A university, paradoxically, must be base on a singular truth. However, a university, in this life, must also be finite in its scope, limited in its resources, and humble in its understanding of truth. Thus, the true university, like the understanding of the true singular Truth, is something reserved for the next life.

The Chicken

Should read:

...if one fell, the other were there to pick him up.

The Chicken

Students are required to take one of the twelve. You don’t have to be a good halfback to do a broken field run through our GE program to evade education; it is harder to go through it and get one.

This deserves highlighting. Now, here's a somewhat cynical comment: The Home Town Buffet nature of current gen-ed curricula in large universities is a student's only hope of "salvation," such as it is, from the perverts, misinformers, and totalitarians. Therefore, the smorgasbord structure needs (rather importantly needs) to be left in place for the time being. The only hope for a student who has to fulfill that "critical thinking" requirement the author mentions is finding one of the twelve courses that he might be able to take and get a good grade in while retaining his integrity. A less probable but still possible (?) outcome would be finding one that was actually somewhere near being worth the tuition and maybe even taught him a little bit of logic. I'd have to see the list of the whole twelve to see if this is even possible. But it's in the sheer fact that there are twelve at all that some hope survives for the good student.

If universities start getting some idea of "tightening up" their gen-ed program or (heaven help us) making it more "rigorous," what will emerge will simply be an even more ironclad leftist and perverse set of requirements.

"God can be studied through nature, and thus we have the science university; God can be studied through the workings of the heart and then we have the liberal arts university; God can be studied though human interaction and then we have the political university, etc."


No, Chicken. Theology is not anthropology. Talking about us is not talking about God.

Thank you for the comments, everyone.

If universities start getting some idea of "tightening up" their gen-ed program or (heaven help us) making it more "rigorous," what will emerge will simply be an even more ironclad leftist and perverse set of requirements.

From the frying pan into the fire, so to speak. Cynical but probably true in most cases. Still, if you had some authority in the matter, could you in good conscience let the smorgasbord stand? Of course not. And maybe the main difference between the frying pan and the fire isn't temperature, but the fact that the latter is closer to a new beginning.

Theology is not anthropology. Talking about us is not talking about God.

Michael, I completely agree, which is why terms like "theology of the body" sound so ridiculous. Chicken has a point in that much can be learned about God through His creation, and I don't think you would disagree. But Chicken believes that this is enough to make a good university. I think he's mistaken. The study of creation isn't enough if there isn't a real theology to which creation ought to relate.

Michael and Jeff, you have misunderstood my post a bit. I did not say mean to say that theology was not necessary for a university, but a theology department. In fact, the whole second part of my post was a defense of implicit theology being necessary, but not explicit theology. I took Newman to be referring to explicit theology. I can prove the need of implicit theology, but not explicit.

No time to post further. Busy, today. If still not clear or in disagreement, will clarify later.

The Chicken

Oh, also, I made no comment about studying man as a preference to theology. I have no idea where Michael inferred that. Disagree with what I said, if it can be understood. I was a bit abstruse. Will discuss more, later.

The Chicken

Still, if you had some authority in the matter, could you in good conscience let the smorgasbord stand? Of course not.

Oh, that would depend entirely on how much authority we're imagining my having. I certainly would never endorse the horrible courses. I'd shut them down if I could. But I even more certainly wouldn't make some specific course required that I had good reason to believe would be, or would become in the blink of an eye, a horrible course.

To put it a little differently: It would be worse than a pretense (it would be educational abuse of students and defrauding students and parents) to set up some sort of core curriculum structure that, from the types of courses, gave the appearance of a good liberal arts education, that required all students to take a small set of highly specific courses, but that did so at a school where one knew in advance that the content would be largely junk. I would never, ever take the responsibility for doing that. For example, given the ability to influence general education requirements, I would never support requiring all students to take a literature survey sequence at a typical secular university. At a good school one was building from the ground up, it would be not only legitimate but normal to require all students to take a literature survey sequence. At a typical secular university, it would be _wrong_.

Chicken
I mean to say that you don't study fallen human beings, or nature, or politics in order to learn about God. God is not known that way. God is known only by means of self-revelation. Or put differently, when asked to show his disciples the Father, Jesus simply pointed to Himself, not to fallen human beings, nature, or politics: "He that has seem Me has seen the Father." Or, in another context: "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." Jesus is quite explicit and quite exclusivistic on the point. Knowledge of God exclusively Christocentric. Apart from knowing Him in Christ, "no one," simply "no one," knows the Father. Knowledge of God is not gotten via the means and methods mentioned earlier.

"God is known only by means of self-revelation ... Knowledge of God exclusively Christocentric ... Knowledge of God is not gotten via the means and methods mentioned earlier."

Michael, I have to say, concord with you on any point is thrilling while it lasts, but in the end it always proves illusory. Knowledge of God, like knowledge of anything else, admits of increments and degrees. So how does one respond to statements like yours which are so obviously false on their face? A war of Bible verses? Be assured that I have mine too. But if you admit no court of appeal - no recourse to reason, authority or tradition - then we can dispense with the Bible verses and fast-forward to the usual standoff. "I'm right and you're wrong and that settles it."

It's time to read your Barth, Jeff, or at least, say, read the books on Barth by Bromiley and Busch, or the parts of them that unpack the inevitable failure of natural theology for knowing God. Not to worry. There's plenty of reason, Scripture, tradition, and authority there. The Church Dogmatics is full to the brim with them. It could hardly reach to 8,000 pages and leave them out.

Thanks, Michael, but reading Barth won't be necessary. It appears we have a simple misunderstanding. There is "knowing God", and there is knowing some things about God. Natural theology fails at the former but can be helpful at the latter. Agreed?

Knowing about God is not knowing God. Natural theology fails damnably at both.

Wait - natural theology fails damnably at knowing anything about God? Nothing can be known about God apart from divine revelation? Is that your position?

I'm not talking about salvific knowledge, but just certain attributes: for starters, that He exists in the first place, that He is good, that He is just, that He is the creator of all things, etc. Surely we can find some common ground here, Michael: natural theology can tell us certain things about God. You might say those things are of no importance (and I would disagree with that), but you have to admit they are true, and therefore in the category of knowledge.

Yep, that's Michael's position, Jeff. As far as I know, it always has been.

Thanks, Lydia, although if true it's extremely depressing. And it strikes me as a position that is akin to atheism.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.