First Friday Mass and Speaker Series

Fr. Chris Collins, S.J., Director of the SLU Catholic Studies Program and professor in the Theological Studies Department, has organized a "First Friday Mass and Speaker Series" for our SLU community.  The series begins this Friday, September 6, 2013, at 8:00 am, in Our Lady's Chapel in lower College Church. 

On the first Friday of each month, join alumni and friends of Saint Louis University for mass at 8:00 a.m., followed by pastries, coffee, and a brief presentation and discussion led by SLU faculty. Presentations will be from a variety of academic disciplines reflecting on research and writing pertaining to the Catholic Intellectual Tradition.  The schedule for the fall semester is:

Friday, September 6, 2013  Our Lady’s Chapel in lower College Church, Catholic Studies: Finding God in All Academic Disciplines, Fr. Michael Barber, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Friday, October 4, 2013       Mass and breakfast in Jesuit Hall, The Archaeology of Catholic St. Louis, Dr. Tom Finan, History Department

Friday, November 1, 2013   All Saints’ Day, Mass and breakfast in Jesuit Hall, Tribute to Fr. John Kavanaugh and the Dignity of the Human Person, Dr. Eleonore Stump, Philosophy

Friday, December 6, 2013   Our Lady’s Chapel in lower College Church, God Became Man so that Man Might Become God, Fr. David Meconi, SJ, Theological Studies

Practical Proposals for Transforming Jesuit Higher Education at Saint Louis University

 by Claude Pavur, S.J.

Under the charge of the highest legislative body in the Society, Jesuits are told to assist, even as individuals, in guiding the university to its proper objectives.*  Toward this end, I have drawn up some proposals that I hope will help promote the thinking, planning, and restructuring that seems necessary at this time. The proximate stimulus for this set of reflections was Fr. John Padberg’s talk of March 25, 2013, “The Meaning and Purpose of the University,” a large-scale overview that left me wondering about practical details and the next specific steps.

1. An explicitly revised, stated understanding about the nature and details of the Society’s role in the administration of the University. The Board of Trustees could explicitly renegotiate the working (but not the legal) understandings of the idea of “separate incorporation” announced at Saint Louis University in January of 1967. It is very likely that some kind of meaningful, directive supervision by the Society was envisioned by Jesuit universities and colleges in the original intention to have Jesuit presidents. Even where this no longer holds, the spirit of the original charter could be seriously compromised if there is virtually no vital line of supervision to deal with mission-critical details in a timely way. For the sake of authentic partnership with the Society and for the sake of the identity and effectiveness of the institution, the Board could rethink and formally recognize ways in which the Jesuit order, even apart from any given President and Jesuit board members, must be given a definite moral weight and even structured practical involvement in mission-critical matters. The Board could work out in partnership with the Society to the satisfaction of both parties ways to achieve the “periodic evaluation and accountability to the Society” that are called for by Decree 17 of GC 34.* The envisioned arrangement will give the university an added level of oversight that will help prevent any deformation or mismanagement of the mission.

2. Restructuring the understanding of the presidency.  The Board could explicitly distribute authority in the university and craft an understanding of the presidency in such a way that the scope of the office would lie midway between the two extremes of quasi-dictatorial power on the one hand and purely ceremonial functionality on the other. The Board might set a base term-limit that could be extended for compelling reasons under a strong consensus of Board and University sectors. Such an arrangement would help to keep the president accountable to the wider university community without removing the authority necessary for leadership with respect to mission.

3. A standing structure to speak for the Society. The Board could formally write into its charter its expectations of the proper oversight by the Society and propose means by which the university can better hear the voice of the Society, even where there is not total consensus on issues at hand (e.g., What should the Core Curriculum include in light of the Jesuit character of the institution?). The Society should be capable of making competent, well-informed, well-grounded, well-deliberated judgments about Jesuit higher education in any of the directions, details, procedures, and contents that bear on the substance, quality, and reputation of Jesuit education. Some standing Jesuit structure could be created to study and debate the issues and then make its opinions known.

4. A faculty governing board with its own administrative powers. The faculty, particularly that which is engaged in teaching at the undergraduate level, could be corporately authorized (perhaps through its own administrative board, one that has its own discretionary budgetary powers and that is superior to all other academic governing bodies in the institution) to discern the educational needs of the students and to discover and enact the ways in which those needs can best be fulfilled in the context of the Jesuit tradition, its history, and its authentic development. Such a board could also work out explicit ways to consult with the Society about relevant issues, under that “periodic evaluation and accountability” mentioned by Decree 17 of GC 34.  This proposal would lead to a greater shared moral unity and purpose of the faculty and allow them to better fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities they have for educating the next generations.

5. Proper formation for leadership in Jesuit education. The university has the right to expect proper guidance from the Society.  It has the right to require of its leaders the background and training necessary for mission-critical matters, just as it has the right to require the proper training of its faculty. This is a very large question for the formational sector of the Society. The university could make its own leadership needs and expectations explicitly known to the Society so that the Society might adjust its formational programs in a properly collaborative spirit.

These five proposals or something along similar lines seem absolutely essential for a truly desirable and well-rounded transformation of Jesuit higher education at Saint Louis University (and probably elsewhere as well). These proposals aim not only at structured solutions for a more adequate sharing of power and oversight at the university but also at the responsible fulfillment of its mission as a Jesuit institution.

 -------

 * The text reads as follows:  “The complexity of a Jesuit university can call for new structures of government and control on the part of the Society in order to preserve its identity and at the same time allow it to relate effectively to the academic world and the society of which it is part, including the Church and the Society of Jesus. More specifically, in order for an institution to call itself Jesuit, periodic evaluation and accountability to the Society are necessary in order to judge whether or not its dynamics are being developed in line with the Jesuit mission. The Jesuits who work in these universities, both as a community and as individuals, must actively commit themselves to the institution, assisting in its orientation, so that it can achieve the objectives desired for it by the Society.”  (From Decree 17 of General Congregation 34, “Jesuits and University Life,” Number 9.) 

------

First composed, March 27, 2013; revised August 14 to 20, 2013.

Townhall Meeting on the Next SLU President

The contributing editors of the Heithaus Haven invite all to a Townhall meeting on the next SLU president.

Please join us:  Friday, 10 May 2013, 3:00-5:00 pm, Carlo Auditorium, Tegler Hall, Saint Louis University

The meeting will have as its frame of reference the mission statement of Saint Louis University. All are welcome.

Some things are known.  In particular, the leadership literature includes a very standard list of traits that are desirable in a leader. We surely want a president who has these standard traits: trustworthiness: the ability to exhibit that one is reliable and dependable; self-control: the ability to exhibit a calm demeanor; empathy, likability, adeptness in relationships: the ability to exhibit concern for others; creativity: the ability to overcome challenges and adapt to novel circumstances; focused clarity: the ability to multitask and return to task after interruption;persuasiveness: the ability to motivatate; effectiveness: the ability to execute and get things accomplished; honesty, etc.

Other things are unknown and must be discerned by our community.  Should the next president be a Jesuit?  Should we have a compressed search for a candidate that can lead us through the bicentennial in 2018?  Should we have a long search for a candidate who can lead the institution for a long period, perhaps 20+ years?

Please join us to help us consider these questions, and to offer questions of your own.

The Not-So-Secret Strategic Conversation

Last week, members of the SLU community gathered at an open strategic planning session, to begin a conversation about the future.  Below is a report on the session, compiled by Silvana Siddali.  The Heithaus Haven is pleased to share this report and to provide a space for further dialogue and discernment.

**********************************

On Wednesday, April 17, members of every SLU community—undergraduate and graduate students, staff, faculty, members of the Jesuit community, and administrators—met  to talk with each other about our hopes and dreams for SLU’s next century. We believe that we all have a stake in creating our future. 

The meeting began with a free-wheeling open call for important topics: what did people most want to discuss? What ideas would be particularly important as we contemplate the next century in SLU’s history? 

The Call for Forgiveness

In two articles published last week, one trustee and one Jesuit raised the question of forgiveness.  The basic argument for each was that the faculty ought to respond to Fr. Biondi’s February message with forgiveness since he was demonstrating that he had listened.  So the faculty was not just guilty of being malcontent and whiny, but now hard-hearted and unchristian in its collective attitude.  There was a way to resolve the campus crisis, both articles implied, if only the faculty would respond in the correct way instead of personal animus against the President.

One might say that the President’s supporters were playing the “forgiveness card” and the faculty should simply treat the two articles as propaganda.  That may happen.  By invoking forgiveness the two authors have shifted the argument from professional relationships to personal ones.  If that is what they want, then they only increased the onus on SLU’s leadership, not lightened it. And if they want to conflate the personal and professional, let me state clearly and loudly: I am more than happy to forgive Fr. Biondi.  I’m a theologian and a medievalist, whose research takes him constantly into the deep quagmire that is the theology of penance and reconciliation.  Forgiveness is a theological concept I know very well.  I know that forgiveness is what I as a Christian must do and it is never an option.  But, I also know that forgiveness compels the one forgiving and the one seeking forgiveness to do some very difficult things.

Remembering our Mission, Imagining our Future - Part III

The Jesuits of Saint Louis University have organized a Jesuit Mission Series for the SLU community.  The third and final installment of the series takes place this evening – Monday, April 15, 4:00-5:30, in DuBourg Hall’s Pere Marquette Gallery.  

Fr. Mike Sheeran, S.J., president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, will talk about "Transforming the World through our University," and there will be time for reflection and discussion with each other -- faculty, students, staff, administrators, trustees, alumni.  Refreshments will be served.  

Please join us and help us as a community to articulate who we are, and who we want to be, as we move forward in SLU's history!

Bad Language

Or

What the Mutiny on the Bounty can tell us about the troubles in an American University

Events over the past year at Saint Louis University have puzzled many members of the University, the local community, and (so it would appear) even some of the Trustees tasked with overseeing the direction of SLU.

What has gone wrong? SLU is an outwardly successful institution. It is headed by a president whom many hold to be a charismatic and transformative figure. It employs responsible and skilled administrators and staff. It is capable of attracting highly qualified faculty drawn from around the nation and from overseas. It is dedicated to working with talented and motivated graduate and undergraduate students. The University’s research and teaching are recognized nationally and internationally. It is situated on a campus which has been comprehensively redeveloped. Its finances are reputed to be healthy.

And yet this same institution has fallen into an abysm of self-recrimination.

Senior and mid-ranking administrators have resigned (or been fired): most recently two Deans of the Law School, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, and a Departmental Chair. Positions have been left unfilled or turned over to "interim"  appointments, to the extent that the term "interim" has become almost part of the SLU administrative brand.  Senior faculty have resigned from University committees. Votes of no-confidence in the President from three representative bodies of the University (the Student Government Association, the Faculty Council of the College of Arts and Sciences, and the Faculty Senate) have been passed by overwhelming majorities. Membership of the Facebook page, "SLU Students for No Confidence" currently numbers some 1200 individuals. So debased have our relations with one another become that an outside agency has been called in to survey the "climate" of the University.

Fear, mistrust, despondency, and anger abound. Like Don Corleone in The Godfather, one might ask: "How did things ever get so far?"