|
|
I was happy to receive the latest issue of the Concourse in the mail recently. While attending Franciscan University of Steubenville, the Concourse was practically the only extra reading I allowed myself to have time for. I always found extremely insightful and truthful articles in your paper that dealt with many issues which were often overlooked or ignored by the majority of the student body and the administration. I applaud you on your most recent article on households. I myself was part of a large household that almost fell apart because of it was trying to conform to Student Life standards. I considered dropping out when it became a regimen of commitments and formats which if not attended brought much resentment. At one point, it was causing so much stress to my academic, social and even my spiritual life that I wished I could have been counted among the proud who boasted of never succumbing to household charms. However belonging to a household was overall a beneficial experience, and I made friends I will treasure the rest of my life. Student Life might mean well, but unless it stops trying to make every household fit into its mold, it will be the end of individual household identity and healthy household simplicity. Thank you and the Concourse staff for you sincerity and honesty.
Catherine Blum
I enjoyed your last issue's articles very much. I thought the article on households raised an important issue that was due to be discussed. I disagree however on the negativity toward household covenants. If it weren't for our covenant, I never would have joined household! I most agreed, however, with Jason Negri's article on success. I have been waiting for someone to express this exact point of view! I fully respect all those at FUS who choose to major in subjects less admired at other universities (e.g. philosophy and theology), but I also have a great respect for those students who choose to major in the more "secular" fields such as politics and business. If we wish to steer this country down the straight and narrow path, we must allow ourselves to do God's will behind the steering wheel. We cannot always be in the back seat biting our nails, wondering whether our advice will be taken or not. This is not to denigrate the intercessory role of the passengers, but rather to emphasize the directing role that can be taken as driver. Instead of deterring students from these "worldly" vocations, we should give them even more support because of the greater responsibility they will be taking on and the stronger temptations they will most likely have to face. They will need more humility and more strength from God, because they will most often be resisting the group mentality within their chosen profession. So while we remember that we are all humble sheep of the Good Shepherd, let us not forget to show due appreciation for those who are appointed to positions of leadership in gathering our society back to our loving Lord.
Myriah Christine, Class of '97
Amen Sister! Thank you for your fabulous article on households. It warms my heart to know that I am not alone in some of these sentiments. Anyone who graduated from FUS will have to admit it is a mixed blessing. I appreciate the education and the faith lessons I learned while attending the University. Yet I was also affected by the misplaced zeal, lack of wisdom and errors of well-meaning staff and students there. And while I would surely prefer silly arguments over the morality of music, restrictions on dating, and a paternalistic SLO to the drunken brawls, sexual abandon and irreligion that punctuate the standard American campus, I can still critically reflect on the experience at FUS. Student Life should not overly regulate the free association of students in households. The monitoring of students through coordinators is wrong and improper. And the current conception of the role of the RD is not fitting for a school which sees itself as an orthodox Catholic university. Such paternalism would be better suited to a Bob Jones University, or a Liberty College. Well, enough said. I affirm your willingness to tackle these issues. Feel free to print this letter if it helps. More Alumni need to speak up.
Gregory M.A. Gronbacher, Class of '91
An outsider's perspective on the household problem Kathleen van Schaijik's recent article provides a veritable litany of alleged problems in the household system as it now stands. She writes from the perspective of someone with experience in a household. I approach the question of households as an outsider: I have never belonged to one; my closest association with them has been through cleaning residence halls. She relates in a footnote the experience of having her household adviser tell the group that failing to attend dorm teachings required "repentance." This is an extreme case of the common problem of absolutizing one's own experience, devotion, or style of prayer. For those who have had a profound conversion this can be especially tempting; we wish others to share in the good we have received from God, and mistakenly suppose that if they simply have the same experience we've had "they'll get it." The end result of this can be to turn something "good" into something ugly by mandating its use. For example, praying the rosary daily can be beneficial. But if you tell me that it is the only way to pray, you have suggested that your preferred means of encountering the living God is normative. In a word, you have made a "counsel" into a "commandment." Peer pressure has a way of inculcating dispositions, both healthy and harmful. Excessive peer pressure can lead a person to adopt behaviors and even spiritual disciplines in an inauthentic way--because someone I respect is doing it, not because I have discovered for myself that it is good. I'm doing the practice, but it's really Frank's or Jane's. So, what happens when I leave the City on the Hill and find myself alone among the pagans? If I have not personally appropriated the gospel of Jesus Christ and found a way of following Him that is my own, I will fall like lightning from the sky. All the pious "habits" I've acquired won't do a damn thing to help me (because these habits belong to Frank and Jane, not me); if I have not personally verified the goodness of the event of Jesus Christ, it might as well not exist. Mrs. van Schaijik's discussion of the term "covenant" is instructive and provides at least one clue toward solving the riddle of the household question. She notes that "covenant," properly speaking, applies to (a) Christ and the Church and (b) to Christian marriage. If households are adopting improper terminology to speak of themselves, it is possible that their self-understanding is likewise erroneous. That is, they may be attempting to be something they cannot and should not be. Add to this the phenomenon that occurs when something good is institutionalized: The bureaucracy finds a way of justifying itself through expansion, and you have the defeat of the Relational by the Organizational. I don't know whether this has in fact occurred within the household system. I am, as I said, an outsider. But I have been involved in vibrant ministries which have literally died from over-organization and well-intentioned pressure "from on high" to conform to this or that admirable goal. The alternative to this course would seem to be a recognition of what the household system legitimately can and cannot be. Something that households are not and cannot be are apostolic associations. The Catholic Church has given generous approval to a variety of movements, associations and apostolates (often international in scope) which allow the faithful to follow a rule or way of life inspired by a particular charism. My experience with movements in the Church has been with Regnum Christi and Communion and Liberation. These two movements are poles apart in their respective "styles." Regnum Christi is very structured, while CL is organized in a decidedly un-organizational way. Despite their dissimilarities, both respect the interior freedom of the person in deciding whether or not "this particular way" of following Christ is a genuine call from God addressed to a particular person. One is not coerced, but invited to a discovery of others, Christ and one's own self. This is the authentically Christian approach because it is the method of Christ Himself as we find Him in the Gospels. Households are not movements, but they can learn from these movements. In fact, there's probably nothing impossible about a household affiliating itself with a given movement in the Church. If Mrs. van Schaijik's facts and assertions are correct, the necessary change in households and the University's attitude toward them will come when greater freedom is given to those involved in households. Freedom is the pre-requisite for love and friendship. In addition, perhaps greater attention could be paid to discerning the motives and needs of students who wish to join households. I assume that the majority of households are not merely fraternities and sororities with a cross tacked-on. Joining with others in following Christ, even if the form of this following is transitory, is serious and should be approached in a serious way. Like any Catholic university, the household system should have as its goal preparing the total person for the challenges and pressures of the present age in service to the Church. To do so, both University and household system must serve the person, not rule over him or her. Postscript. Space does not permit a discussion of the following questions which should be addressed in reference to the household system and the University itself. I place these questions on the table in the hope that they might be addressed in a future issue of the Concourse: From where have we as Christians drawn our models for organization? Is the household system (as it presently stands) a natural outgrowth of living faith (and hence ecclesial) or does it rely upon structures which have been borrowed from the dominant (secular) culture? That is, in organizing our life together do we look to Christ and Church or corporate America? The Church is not destroyed by this dynamic because she is protected by the Holy Spirit. Neither households nor universities are guaranteed such protection.
Matt McGuiness, MA theology program
I would like to congratulate you on your wonderful journal. The Concourse is a breath of fresh air! I have always held that the actualization of faith and spirituality in the life of a Christian demands constant self-reflection and fearless searching. Your journal highlights the fact that intellectual as well as spiritual evaluation is necessary to live our lives well. Thank you so much for your thought provoking articles and editorials.
Ruth Ann Stearns, Senior, theology major
An alum's perspective on households I read with interest and concern Kathleen van Schaijik's recent article "How not to help households." Regarding the content of that article, in a word-Amen! However, in the true spirit of the University Concourse, let me expand. From my own observations and from interaction with other alumni (including at the recent alumni reunion), it seems that the editor's concerns are warranted. Many of the conditions she describes are not new; however, it appears that they have become incrementally more invasive and may have had the effect of stifling the individuality and creativity that used to characterize the household system. Like the editor's, my household experience (In His Image, 1983-87) led to life-long friendships, rooted in common faith and experiences. My fellow IHI alumni and I continue to stay very much in touch; we are regular guests in each other's homes and part of each other's lives. It would be a shame if well-intentioned but, perhaps, poorly executed management lead to reduced participation in this very worthwhile part of the FUS college experience. In the mid to late-80s, Student Life exercised influence on household life by offering training, meeting with coordinators and arranging for household advisors, who were primarily members of the local covenant community. Such influence varied in degree depending on the household coordinator and advisor. Household covenants were written and entered (the original IHI covenant, almost 20 years old, could still be found in the common room as of last Fall), but the covenants were used as frameworks, not as weapons. However, the tendency to over-manage student life was also present at that time. Who can forget the absurdity of proposed book reports and "groundings," or the annual argument over exactly how far "open" a dorm room door had to be? (In that context, the locked common room door mentioned by the editor although inappropriate isn't particularly shocking.) It is not, then, necessarily the type of activity, but, rather, the tone of Student Life's involvement with households that seems very different at present compared to what went on in the "old days". Training, meetings, gatherings, various group activities, etc. were attended by willing participants who took advantage of what made sense and worked around what didn't. In my own household's history, there has been no shortage of members and coordinators who could, and did, speak out about what was best for themselves and their fellow members. Any number of other households had the same experience. The situation described by the editor seems much more intrusive. In examining this problem, I don't think that we should lay too much at the feet of Keith Fournier or any of his successors. In the three years that I held campus-wide office and in which he was an administrator (Asst. to the President in 84/85 and Dean of Students in 85/86 and 86/87), I had a great deal of official and personal interaction with him and his various deputies. Not all of this interaction was agreeable. However, regardless of the inherent tension one experiences when dealing as an advocate/representative with officials seeking to expand (perhaps inappropriately) the boundaries of their own authority and influence, I believe that these individuals were sincere, concerned, committed and faithful. They were, however, attempting to achieve a "grand plan" with too little staff and too much else going on. I questioned then whether the plan itself was worth reaching for; history would now suggest that it probably was not. Ultimately, however, while it did appear that there was some official movement toward viewing households as something of a "farm system" for the local covenant community, the true cause of damage to household life can be more appropriately attributed to an attempt to establish uniformity, more likely as a means of simplifying an approach than as an attempt to co-opt student groups. The series of "new mandates" handed down in the late 80s, and some of the current practices are all the result of a similar, well-intentioned, but flawed approach. Student Life staff observed "good ideas" and "great examples" of effectiveness in certain households, and decided to create "models" for all households (e.g. the New Model for Student Life of 1986 and the related annoying series of charts and brochures). Now, apparently, models have given way to rules--and, of course, a rule book. It doesn't take an expert on human dynamics to understand the effect of this progression on a system--any system--and the results in this instance are not surprising. My own view at the time, freely and frequently expressed both privately and in various official capacities, was that this "model" approach to households, while easier for administrators to explain and attempt to execute (execution seems to have failed), short-changed the system and the participants--who were and are both adults and paying customers. My own household (and various others) may have been insulated from these ill effects because we simply wouldn't stand for being "herded." Rather, we chose to work with the best of what was offered (there was a great deal of valuable assistance) and go our own way when that was necessary. This occasionally opened us up to being advised that we were not "buying into the vision." Since we knew where we stood and why we were there, we usually ignored this advice. Perhaps we should have pressed our points more often with a view toward the future. To the extent that we failed to successfully and completely challenge flawed policies, we--and those who followed us--should share some of the blame for the resulting problems. It seems, then, from the editor's description and my own observations, that Student Life is in a rut, and is defaulting to rules and control rather than a customized or creative approach. It also seems that students, rather than engaging authority as in the past, are now voting with their feet. First, let's acknowledge that something must be done. The household system had a lot to offer, and I suspect that it still does. Not that everything should always be the way it was, but it seems that, in this instance, change hasn't necessarily been good for the system. So, then, a little advice from a "thirty-something old timer." Student Life--Ease up on the rules, and pitch good ideas, serving as a resource, not as a surrogate parenting organization. If flexibility, creativity and custom approaches aren't as easy as "the program", too bad--work harder! Start listening more and dictating less. These are your customers, and the outcome of your performance is much more important than in traditional customer relationships. Students--Join a household, or start a new one. It can be a great experience. Engage Student Life, and whomever else you have to deal with, and do it through channels (dorm council, Student Government, committees, if these still exist). If the channels don't work, fix them. It's worth the effort, and the effort can be rewarding and good preparation for your future in and of itself. In the final analysis, although I am grateful for the forum provided by the Concourse, it really doesn't much matter what I think. I had the "full household experience," and I am glad that I did. But we alumni are on to other things now. I can read this journal, support my alma mater (I recommend the Carrigg scholarship) and enjoy the ability to hold forth on issues that seem to have changed very little, except for the outcome, in over ten years. However, if household participation is to increase and improve, it will be because current students want to join and make it work, which will only happen if the "program" is improved. Whether the dynamic leadership necessary for a change will be top-down or bottom-up remains to be seen. Nevertheless, I hope and pray that it happens soon.
Christopher P. Wright, Class of '87 Kathleen van Schaijik replies: Since my old school mate Chris Wright obviously means to corroborate the main lines of my argument, I do not intend to dispute with him over details. But I would like to clarify a few of the facts from my article which seem to be called into question by his. First, about covenants: I said that the idea of having them is relatively new. I ought to have said that the idea of needing to have them is relatively new. I was in two households, neither of which ever had any kind of written agreement. When I first heard that some households had one, I thought it was a nice idea, but had no sense of "ought" about it, until Kieth Fournier's office made them if not mandatory then so "strongly encouraged" that they were felt to be mandatory by all households who hoped to remain in good standing with the Student Life Office. They are now clearly expected of households. The number two item in a current official description of the "components of household life" says, "A household is founded on a written agreement..." (their emphasis) and the Student Life Office tells me that there is now not a single household without one. To his point that an RD locking a common room door is not shocking compared with what RDs did in our day I have two comments: One, if my memory serves, there was a very great difference in the manner of disciplining residents between pre-Fournier and post-Fournier RDs. I'm pretty sure book reports and groundings were "post-Fournier"--part of his philosophy of modeling dorm life on family life (hence the paternalism). And secondly, what is striking about the example I raise of the RD locking the common room is not that it is particularly severe, as punishments go, but that it is very strange that coordinators be punished at all for not attending meetings which are ostensibly designed to "provide training, support and guidance to these leaders." Why should a coordinator not be perfectly free to say, "Thanks, but no thanks"? If the answer is that the RD needs to meet with coordinators in order to handle dorm business, then I say let such business be done--as it used to be--by elected reps. not coordinators, who have more than enough to do as it is. And let not business meetings be mixed up with training and support meetings. RDs are justified in making a minimum number of the former mandatory; the latter should be entirely optional. Along the same lines, I did not mean to imply in my article that there was no interaction between the coordinators and Student Life in my first years at FUS, but rather that what interaction and training there was was much freer than it is today. The relevant point is that much of the interaction and training that goes on now is officially organized and mandated. (I was told by a student on the Household Council that even the annual retreat is mandatory: "Otherwise some coordinators might not go.") And, even more, the impression is always "in the air" that the more you do in this direction--the more zealously you cooperate with every program and directive generated by Student Life or the RD or the RAs--the more exemplary and praiseworthy you are as a household. Resistance to Student Life initiatives or recommendations is generally frowned upon. Finally, I would not lay all the blame at Keith Fournier's feet in the sense of assigning him sole responsibility for the harm his measures did to households. Certainly he would never have been hired if others in high places at the University did not share his covenant-community-like "vision" for households; certainly, too, his ideas were enthusiastically endorsed by many among both staff and students at the time. Nor did I mean to suggest that he was not acting in good faith. I have no doubt whatsoever that he thought that what he was doing was a great for households, and he threw himself into it with admirable zeal. My claim is rather that his vision, and his manner of implementing it, represented a quantam leap in the degree of control Student Life sought to exercise over households, and that that control has proven over time to be inimical to the real genius of the household system.
© The University Concourse, October 28, 1997 |
