|
|
My love of Ultimate Frisbee and my thorough enjoyment of the many seasons of intramural sports I played at Franciscan University compel me to reply to Joanna Bratten's article "Sports before studies" in the September 18 issue of the Concourse. My impression on reading it was that she has not enjoyed or perhaps even played any intramural sports. I share her disdain for the way much of the world idolizes sports and sports-heroes. And I concede that when intramural sports become more important than classes there is indeed a problem. Still, it was difficult to see my beloved Frisbee treated as a virtual evil and a danger to academics. In spite of her last paragraph's concession that athletics do have a "legitimate place in a university setting," her overall tone implies that only those most base and backward would actually take Frisbee seriously. Personally, I would sacrifice a lot to play Ultimate Frisbee. And I suppose I was all too willing to make sacrifices during my years at Franciscan to play intramural sports. But, for me, staying up a couple extra hours to study or not going out on the weekends was well worth it. I did not feel then, nor do I feel now, that I was in danger of bowing before the golden sports-cow or of sacrificing my studies in order to play. Ms. Bratten fails to recognize or at least treat in her article any of the possible goods that may be attached to playing Frisbee or other types of athletic competition. Besides the physical exercise and training involved, the competition itself teaches invaluable lessens: learning to be a part of a team, striving to play hard and to treat one's opponent with respect. And it was so often just plain fun--playing with friends and against friends. What a great form of much-needed recreation! Of course, Ultimate Frisbee is not at the level of academics nor should it ever be; but it seems unfair to treat it as if it is an evil, and as if those students who enjoy and are committed to intramural sports should be accused of immaturity, lack of proper priorities or of dragging down the intellectual environment of Franciscan University.
Maria Ellis, Class of '89
In response to Dr. Crosby's critique of my defense of the present core requirements, I begin by noting that I did not "plead" for the existing core. It is obvious that some change is necessary, but the question remains as to the nature and extent of such change. While agreeing that the body of core courses ought to be narrowed and more focused, I argued that it should also contain a degree of flexibility, so as to adequately address students with diverse careers, goals and interests. Undoubtedly, in making my arguments, I was guilty of a measure of caricature. Such caricature was in part motivated by the hyperbole of those arguing for what I perceived as radical change. Comparisons to "Piedmont Virginia Community College" and statements about the lack of "real education" were offensive to me and other alumni who were enriched by our academic experience at the University. Caricature and hyperbole do not facilitate reasoned debate, and I regret my participation in such activity. As I approach the question of curricular reform, I begin with two basic premises. First, any core should contain encounters with the classics. A plausible way to approach these encounters is through carefully constructed survey courses in which students could be confronted with the fundamental questions of which Dr. Crosby wrote, presented in an introductory fashion that would encourage engagement in these questions by the student. In this way, such classes might inspire further exploration by the student. I believe that some of these classes already exist; indeed, I personally enjoyed taking survey-type courses in philosophy and theology while at the University. In my opinion, the University would do well to create a series of such courses to comprise a portion of the core. My second premise is that different students have different strengths and abilities. This does not seem a remarkable proposition, and in no way implies a denigration of professional students. (Remember that I myself was a professional student.) I noted these differences among students, and Dr. Crosby compared me to those who engage in the condescending treatment of minority students. Such comparison is seriously misplaced and, I may say, a caricature of my argument. Those who patronize minority students are judging their abilities by the color of their skin. I engaged in no comparable judgment. I only noted that different students bring with them different strengths and different interests and that a single inflexible core of courses cannot adequately address such diverse students. While Dr. Crosby disavows a great books approach, his colleague Dr. Regis Martin wrote strongly about "sustained encounters with the masters." Other articles contained lists of these masters. The impression I received (and it may have been a false one) was that many professors were advocating a core dominated by extensive readings of the works of these masters. Such an approach would require non-philosophy, theology and literature majors to grapple with very difficult works from these disciplines. A useful comparison might be a requirement that philosophy, theology and literature majors all grapple with calculus and lab-physics. Indeed, a classical liberal arts education surely contains a difficult regimen of math and science. Yet, I hear no clarion call for physics and calculus--disciplines that develop logic, precision and academic rigor. Instead, our students, if they so choose, may take a survey of physical science and lower level math courses. And this is how it should be. Similarly, surveys in philosophy and theology should be available for those not pursuing those disciplines. Students can be introduced to the masters in small, manageable doses and, if the teacher does his job, the student will pursue further study on his own. Once again, I do not mean to condescend when I reference "small, manageable doses." This is how I was introduced to philosophy, and I believe the approach to be effective. However, such survey courses are not the only way to provide a liberal arts education. As I attempted to outline in my prior article, writing courses, political science courses and courses in theological doctrine can be used to expose the student to fundamental ideas great, seminal thinkers throughout history. To repeat an example I used earlier, Mary Ann Sunyoger taught a highly useful and practical course in writing by having us read and analyze excerpts from Plato and Augustine and St. Paul. I still argue that such methodology (along with the survey courses described above) will be more accessible and effective for many students than a core of lengthy, difficult works. Finally, Dr. Crosby used a statement from my article as an opportunity to dispute with those who believe that a professional program combined with catechism is the best form of Catholic higher education. I can assure Dr. Crosby that I do not hold this view, and that the University faculty, especially its theology department, did a fine job instilling in me a beginning knowledge of "how to interpret (documents of faith) with balance and a sense of proportion." And this is most certainly a sign of an authentic liberal arts education. Surely, our curriculum can be made stronger and more focused. I applaud those who have undertaken this enterprise and only caution against our establishing a curriculum that ignores the diversity of vocations within the student body. But to recognize a need for change, one need not disparage what has gone before. We graduates have been immensely blessed--both spiritually and intellectually--by our University experience and by those faculty who provided such experience. It seems to me that fruitful change may only happen if those seeking it begin by acknowledging this reality.
Mark Fischer, Class of '89
Sports at Franciscan University In reading her article "Sports before studies," I perceive that Ms. Bratten has unfortunately misdiagnosed the role of sports at Franciscan University, at least in part because of a bad experience with a few immature students. Although Ms. Bratten's concern with the abuse of athletics is valid as it pertains to other schools, it does not apply to our University. Her claim that sports is the latest, "most insidious" threat to our academics is simply ludicrous. Perhaps I can offer some more plausible insight as to the role of sports here at the University. Everyone who has ever lived has been created with a tripartite composition of mind, body and soul. We are given by God the free will to use the mind and the body in ways that are beneficial to the soul. God also confers on each person different gifts and talents, which enhance the abilities of any one of the three parts of the human being, if not all of them. One such gift is intelligence, which we at the University share--it was needed to gain admission to this institution. But God has also graced many students with athletic talent. For those included in this category, it is natural to desire something more than a basic workout, which would stimulate only the body. These people would rather apply their gifts of intelligence and athleticism in unison, partaking in competitions of strategy and skill which involve taking the body to its physical limits--a concise definition of the word "sport." Is it just, then, to attack sports and athletes for sacrificing the use of the mind? In the Book of Genesis it states that God rested on the Seventh Day. In following this example given to us by God, we must admit the necessity of rest. This need for rest is especially evident here at the University, because concentration on scholarly pursuits all day, every day is humanly impossible! But how do we rest? This question is left to be answered by the individual and his tastes. We all have our own preferences and forms of rest, some of which are simply destructive. Our University, being, as Ms. Bratten says, a "bastion of truth and a proponent of intellectual integrity" encourages us to find wholesome forms of rest which, rather than promoting physical, mental or spiritual sloth, carry the student away from the tension and rigors of the intellectual life, in order that he may re-enter it energized and motivated. Is it just, then, to attack sports as "insidious" and "least important" of all possible university activities? Ms. Bratten's statements concerning the conflicts occurring between the Honor's Symposium and Ultimate Frisbee games are understandable. There is a certain amount of frustration felt when people shirk their responsibility for one thing to do something of equal or lesser importance. But, since the Honor's Symposium, to my knowledge, is (like sports) an extracurricular activity, and is not required for anyone's graduation--or, for that matter, education--it should take no higher importance than any other extracurricular activity, such as intramural sports. We all must, at some point in our lives, wrestle with the fact that not everyone values equally those subjective values which we value. Neither the Athletic Department nor the sport of Ultimate Frisbee are to blame for deficient attendance at Honor's Symposium meetings. Those students who were not mature enough to select one or the other time commitment, so that no one would be left "out on a limb," are the only persons who are at fault. Is it just, then, to attack the general position of sports here at the University? However, I must agree that there is a virus, a plague of sorts, that runs rampant in the athletic programs at many universities. It is a great injustice that students be allowed to receive scores they did not earn. To attack and stifle such abuses is both valid and obligatory. Ms. Bratten's article would have had a stronger effect at schools such as these, where it would have been more relevant.
Ivan Ortiz, Senior, Humanities and Catholic Culture
I find it difficult to believe that one would attempt to justify polygyny (the kind of polygamy in which one husband has several wives) by appealing to the natural law. Revelation teaches us that at the creation of man, long before Our Lord raised natural marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, God willed that the marriage bond exist between one husband and one wife. Moreover, the Church, which "call[s] men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by her constant doctrine" (Paul VI, Humanae Vitae #11), does not teach that polygyny is forbidden solely by positive moral law; rather, she teaches that both forms of polygamy, like divorce, are contrary to the nature of marital love. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that polygamy "directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning" (#2387, emphasis mine). Like divorce, it was an evil tolerated in the Old Testament as a concession to man's hardness of heart (#1610). As sympathetic as I am with the content of Mrs. van Schaijik's article, I am disturbed by her characterization of her opponents, whom she judges guilty of chauvinism. Such a term reminds me of political discourse at my alma mater. There, if you opposed abortion, your views were deemed sexist; if you opposed racial quotas, you were called a racist; if you defended the prudence of the Holy See's diplomatic policies of the time towards Israel, or defended the civil law's preference for heterosexual marriage, your views were accordingly branded anti-Semitic or homophobic. Now chauvinism does exist, just as sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia do; but is a man who believes polygyny in conformity with the natural law, or a woman who holds the same about polyandry, necessarily a chauvinist? I think not. If a few Asian-American acquaintances serenely claimed that Asians, as a race, were intellectually superior to Caucasians, said that St. Thomas backed them up, and attempted to prove their case using SAT scores, I wouldn't accuse them of racism. Instead, I would invite them up to my apartment for cigars, ask them to state their case in the strongest possible terms, take the trouble to inquire where St. Thomas makes that claim, and try to understand the truth in their position. If, afterwards, I was moved to write an article criticizing their views, I would not entitle it "the horror of racism and the persistence of bigoted theories in Catholic academia." Can't we disagree with our opponents without using loaded words that have ruined careers at other institutions? And wouldn't such courteous restraint in diction be more in accord with the best traditions of the University Concourse?
Jeffrey Ziegler, Development Office Kathleen van Schaijik replies: My thanks to Jeffrey Ziegler for the references, and for the subtle verbal clarification: checking Webster's, I find that polygyny is indeed the proper word for the situation of several wives to one husband, while polygamy refers to one of either sex having several mates. More importantly, I thank him for holding my feet to the fire as regards the Concourse's commitment to courtesy in discourse. I wrote my article in a moment of indignation. Perhaps the discussion would have been better served had I waited until I was calmer--but then, though its tone might have improved, some of its immediacy would have been lost. In any case, grateful as I am for his concern, I must take issue with the substance of his complaint against me. The comparison with the irrational, fear-mongering PC crowd at his alma mater is unjust. It does not allow for the distinction between name-calling and calling things by their proper names. While it is of course absurd and worse-than-unhelpful to brand everyone who opposes Israel's foreign policy an anti-Semite, it would be something else entirely to charge someone who thinks all Jews should be eradicated because they are secretly conspiring to destroy Christendom with anti-Semitism. The title of my article was chosen for its accuracy, not for its shock value. The theory is chauvinistic. And to call a spade a spade is often the first step in dispelling an illusion or defeating an error. Neither did I judge these students guilty of the moral evil of chauvinism. I was careful to say instead that the theory they defended was chauvinistic, because it holds, in essence, that men have a natural right to dominate women. And, although intellectual errors and moral failures are usually linked, I do not for a moment suppose that every person who utters a chauvinistic idea can be fairly considered a full-blown chauvinist. On the contrary, it is in part because I expected that the deeper intentions of these Catholic men is to do justice to women that I was so quick to point out the chauvinism of their thinking. My hope was that once the horror of it is made apparent to them, they would gladly repudiate it.
© The University Concourse, October 2, 1996 |
