|
|
Computers and liberal learning I would like to thank Anne Schmiesing for her comments furthering the discussion of the nature of a liberal arts education. I readily grant her distinction between the humanities and the liberal arts, and would modify my earlier comments accordingly. Concerning the place of computer science in the liberal arts, Mrs. Schmiesing seems to say that basic computer use skills should have a place therein, based on the analogy with writing as a means of communication in the tri/quadrivium. This analogy, however, does not work the way she would like it to, because insofar as writing was a prerequisite, it does not pertain to a liberal arts education. And insofar as a liberal arts education does teach writing, it does so under the aspect of teaching clear and accurate thinking and the expression thereof. In order to make the analogy hold, then, Mrs. Schmiesing would have to show that learning how to use a word processor, email, and the internet is something which fosters clear and accurate thinking and expression. I don't think that anyone is going to be able to show such a thing, and so I assert once again, that computer skills do not fall under the umbrella of the liberal arts, despite the fact that anyone living today should have such skills. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to briefly mention my thought that certain aspects, parts, and sub-disciplines of computer science do pertain to a liberal arts education, namely those parts which actually do develop one's thinking. Such parts include algorithmic thinking and problem solving as learned through programming, an understanding of symbol systems and logic, computational linguistics, computing theory, and others. Finally, if Mrs. Schmiesing means by a poor liberal arts education the kind of relativist, deconstructionist stuff that is often done these days, then I am in complete agreement with her that we can hardly say that the student's intellect is cultivated. I would even go one step further, though, and say that it is really not even "developed" or "grown," to use Mrs. Schmiesing's terms. In fact, to answer her question, I mean by cultivated just what Newman meant, namely developed, perfected (not absolutely, of course), fulfilled and actualized. If, however, she means an education that is not explicitly Christian (which is what the previous debate has been more focused on), then she is going to have to show how the incompleteness therein means that we cannot call such an intellect cultivated or perfected (to the requisite degree). To say that one's intellect must be absolutely perfected in order to say that the person is educated is to relegate the term education to meaninglessness, since no one in the history of the world has attained such a perfection. To use Mrs. Schmiesing's analogy, there neither is, was, nor ever will be an intellect so cultivated that it is free from all weeds. The question is whether the garden is fundamentally oriented towards growing food and growing it well, not how many weeds there are. Many of the best minds had some pretty towering weeds. I have the sense in the end, however, that I have somewhat missed this last point of Mrs. Schmiesing's, and if so, I hope that she will write back to clarify.
Ben Brown, Contributing Editor Rights of workers: an under-appreciated part of Catholic social teaching In the discussion of fair labor practices initiated by Regina Schmiedicke (V,1), Kevin Schmiesing notes, "There are considerable practical difficulties with the notion of the family wage, the most important being the establishment of exactly what level of wage is 'just'" (V,2). That is true, and is one reason why I am so proud to be a Catholic, with a rich tradition exploring this question. Pope Leo XIII wrote about labor in 1891, and since then others Popes have returned to the matter repeatedly, notably in encyclicals that are named in reference to Pope Leo's great work: Quadragesimo Anno (40 years after Pope Leo's encyclical), Octogesimo Anno (80 years after) and Centesimus Annus (the 100th year after). Despite the admitted difficulties, the Holy See defended the notion of a family wage in the 1983 "Charter of the Rights of the Family." One of the great tragedies of our time is that so many Catholics are aware of only half of the Church's teaching on how to live our lives in the modern world. Many Catholics embrace and promote the Church's teaching on sexual morality; others are especially concerned with the Church's teaching on matters of justice, including labor. Unfortunately, few Catholics are equally committed to both aspects of the Church's great wisdom. It goes so far that factions are formed within the Church. These factions rarely speak to each other, and even frequently denounce each other for hypocrisy. Thus it can and does happen that organizations that bill themselves as "pro-family" show themselves hostile to concern for the rights of wage earners. But the teaching of the Church is clear: family life is gravely threatened by sexual misconduct, and family life is gravely threatened when society is careless about the rights of workers. Schmiesing asks, "Does Catholic social teaching insist that every parent, upon the birth of a child, be guaranteed an increase in salary?" Perhaps not in so many words, but in essence the answer is yes--if the raise is necessary to meet the increased expenses involved in having another child. The principle is stated explicitly in Quadragesimo Anno (1931):
71. In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. . . It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately....It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all who . . . have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised... Michael Welker seems to doubt that unfair labor practices are widespread in Catholic organizations. And he noted that when there are serious labor abuses, "significant legal remedy is available," including the specter of "bankrupting litigation" (V,2). Indeed such remedies exist, but the people who accept the difficulties of an apostolate in the first place are usually extremely reluctant to take a charity organization to court. What Catholic wants to take another Catholic to court? Will legal proceedings damage critical pro-family work? Some disclosure may be necessary here: Regina was referring to me and two others when she spoke of a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board against a pro-life charitable organization. When my fellow fired employees and I filed a complaint with the NLRB (after the local diocese told us that they had no jurisdiction in the case), we were accused of handing a club to the Clinton administration--a club that will be used against many pro-life and religious organizations. But we are convinced that the NLRB is a rational alternative to "bankrupting litigation," and that it deserves the whole-hearted support of Catholics who understand and support the Church's social teaching. I'm with Regina. The teaching of the Church on family life is as balanced as an icon of the Holy Family. To protect the dignity of each individual as a child of God, we must struggle for personal morality and also for social justice. Love for the child leads us to defend motherhood as a noble vocation, and also to assert the right to wages and working conditions that take the family into account.
John Cavanaugh O'Keefe The eternally practical liberal arts Mr. Jason Negri's recent article in the Concourse reminds me of a hallmark of liberal education: it is cherished by the man who is liberally educated and very difficult to recommend to the man who is not. Mr. Negri seems to believe that those of us who insist on the primacy of forming the mind and character might just be elitists with romanticized notions of the past. In fact, nothing would be more elitist than the idea that the average student is incapable of or uninterested in the life of the mind, desiring only job training from his alma mater. Moreover, if anyone is likely to romanticize the past, it is the man ignorant of history, unable to inhabit the present due to his own cultural poverty, incapable of proposing a better future through lack of philosophical discipline. No one denies that certain occupations require specific professional competencies. In my experience, though, most employers are perfectly willing to train a new employee, but are impatient with people left ineducable by years of perfunctory vocational studies. I myself have an undergraduate music degree, and graduate degrees in music and French, and have never taken a course in business or computers. Nevertheless, I have not had the least difficulty obtaining employment with commercial interests and have held a couple of positions that promised much better reimbursement than my current teaching post at Franciscan University. (Yes, some people teach because they actually enjoy it.) Although it is never my intention (nor my duty) to prepare students for the "market place," a liberal arts degree is, in fact, an excellent preparation for all walks of life. Serious study in any humanities discipline requires the ability to think, speak, and write clearly and creatively; to identify, comprehend and solve problems efficiently; to discern truth from falsehood; to distinguish fact from opinion. Frankly, I can think of no poorer preparation for a rapidly changing planetary culture than "practical, training-type programs" whose contents will be outdated shortly after commencement exercises. As examples of the "practicality" of my field of study, here is what some recent graduates are doing with their B.A. in French. One works for a worldwide employment agency in Washington. Another works for the New York office of an international real estate company. Yet another edits textbooks for a college publisher. Some of my former students have gone on to careers in government or the military. For others, the initiation into language studies has inspired them to take up more difficult languages, like Chinese and Japanese, sometimes combined with graduate studies in foreign relations. And of course, several former students are now teachers of French. I am glad that Mr. Negri has brought up the question of "oppressive student loan debts." However, poor scholarship endowment has nothing to do with the question of liberal versus more practical studies. Possessing a liberal arts degree does not prevent one from finding satisfactory employment, even in the "business world." But ill-advised borrowing often means that students must obtain lucrative salaries immediately after graduation, instead of being able to undergo a period of apprenticeship during which they might demonstrate their capacities to an employer. There might be persuasive arguments against the idea that the traditional liberal arts should remain the foundation of a college degree, but the proposition that such studies are "impractical" is not convincing.
Timothy J. Williams
© The University Concourse, January 28, 2000 |
