Education without Teachers

I can tell you one simple truth from my experience out there: The values of the executives who steered that ship of disaster look very similar to the values of those among us who think that the way to sustain the great tradition of public higher education is to trim expenses by outsourcing the teaching—the core of the undergraduate experience—to grad students and adjuncts. (An Academic Rip Van Winkle - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education)

After documenting the misery of work as an adjunct without prospects of a steady, affordable living, David Hiscoe asks what's in it for the students. Not much.  Just more debt as the institution builds itself while losing its focus.  Adjunct teachers aren't always there, not continuously from semester to semester, and not between classes as they hold down other jobs or travel between campuses.  Often, an adjunct doesn't even have a desk of their own.  Education with only ad hoc teaching isn't sustainable.

A Catholic University?

I have been following the events at Notre Dame with great curiosity, and when I read what Sharon blogged (she has links to everyone else, so just read what she wrote and follow her links) on the subject, I sensed an invitation in her post. So, here I am!

Every time I began to think about the president's invitation to speak at (and to receive an honorary degree from) Notre Dame, a conversation I once overheard would run through my mind. A Catholic philosopher who was teaching at the University of Chicago was speaking to the dean of one of the colleges that is considered more orthodox and serious about its Catholic identity. The philosopher observed that he could always tell which of his students were either Catholic or Jewish from the rest of the students. The dean asked him how he could tell, and the philosopher replied, "The Catholic and Jewish students all have a sense that there are other countries in the world, that people speak other languages, that in the past there were people, people who came from cultures very different from our own, who thought great things and whose works are worthy of examination." The dean seemed bemused and then said, "Well, we know our students are Catholic because daily Mass on campus is packed with students, because they often gather together to pray the rosary, and because a majority of them major in theology, and because they engage in a multitude of pro-life activities." And that was the end of the conversation.

I think that Stephen (not my husband, but a good friend) is right that the people who now decry Notre Dame's invitation to President Obame are (more or less) the same people who have been suspicious of Notre Dame's claim to being a truly Catholic institution. It seems that this controversy provides them with a litmus test -- to judge just how "Catholic" Notre Dame is. Will Notre Dame waver under the barage of email, phone messages and letters of protest, or will she remain "Catholic in name only"?

The question about what makes a University Catholic and what makes its students Catholic seems to be the unspoken heart of the whole brouhaha. There is enormous pressure on the students to "prove" their Catholicism by protesting or even boycotting their graduation ceremony.

What troubles me is that this drive to reject a man (who is after all, our president) seems neither human nor Christian. Many of the children in my atrium pray for President Obama that he may be a good president and make good decisions. A few pray that he will stop killing babies. Both prayers indicate a commitment toward his person, toward his humanity, I think. These prayers imply a relationsionship with the man. If we want these things for him, for his ultimate good, then we must spend time with the man. Jesus spent more time with Pharisees than he did even with the poor and the lame -- at least, his conversations with the Pharisees use much more ink in the Bible. Why? Why did he spend time with them? Why did he pray with them, witness to them? Why did he forgive them from the Cross?

As Catholics, we should think hard about how we approach those who come from other worlds, who speak another language. God has placed this president in our lives for a reason. He exists and leads us for our good, to lead us to Christian maturity (as Sharon so beautifully points out). We should spend some time thinking about what is best for him, how we might help him "to be a good president and make good decisions."

Cross posted at Come to See.

Financial Advice for Low-Income Mothers

Lately I'm sure it's dawned on those of us who have retirement accounts that these are products that have been sold to us. In fact, they're not for everybody. An economist, offering volunteer financial advice at a women's shelter, has a counterintuitive perspective on spending priorities. Some of these principles would make sense for middle-class families as well.

First, though, I was impressed by the fact that she did not presume to make the choices for her clients or even to volunteer for the purpose of "helping".

I said I volunteered because I thought that learning about how these women respond to their extreme financial constraints would be interesting. Everyone else said they thought their experiences would be helpful (most were lawyers or in human resources). I realised I was the only one who did not say I was there to help homeless women. I wondered if that made me a bad person. But (and I may be rationalising here) I found something presumptuous about the idea I could swoop in from my comfortable life and sort out these women’s financial woes. I might know about economics and finance, but I know nothing of what it’s like to be a homeless single mother. I genuinely hope to help these women, but expecting that I can feels naive.

While the lead volunteer stated that cell phones were a luxury, the mothers disagreed for reasons of safety and the need for contact with day care. Instead, the economist suggested using pre-paid plans which are much cheaper than the standard contract plans. There was a lot to unravel with these clients. A young pregnant woman she was helping was maxing out credit cards instead of going on welfare, a recipe for ruin.

IRAs and education funds for college have been marketed to the poor as well which only exacerbate their financial burdens. Her advice to parents on schooling is particularly interesting, which is to put their resources into education while the children are young and to rely on state aid later.

The poor have different saving needs from the rest of us. They do not need to save much (if at all) for retirement because the state provides them with a generous pension relative to their lifetime income. They also have less incentive to save for their children’s education. American universities practice nearly perfect price discrimination: having few assets entitles poor students to more financial aid. Resources are better spent on education while a child is young, ensuring he’s well prepared for university in the future. The women at the shelter have low or no income and children to support. Saving might be a better idea in the future, when they have some income and are less dependent on state benefits.

Charles Morris on Student Lending

Charles Morris in The Trillion Dollar Meltdown (the 2nd edition paperback at the printer's now reads "Two Trillion") covers the gambit of financial woes generated by the free hands of financial wizards. Don't read this book at bedtime: it is one long nightmare. Beyond the discussion of spurious new financial instruments, national debt and foreign investors and the unraveling of the markets, Morris asks some questions about human values that don't fit so neatly into the all-encompassing free-market ideology, including such social benefits as health and education.

Morris titles the section on college lending "Class Warfare" because of the correlation between education and economic opportunity. Sallie Mae, originally a government entity for offering student loans, became SLM Corp. and was privatized in 2004, a year in which it made a 37% profit.

Why are its profits so high? Because it is the beneficiary of extraordinary privileges. For one thing, 90 percent of the loans it makes are guaranteed by the taxpayer... Student lenders are exempted from all state usury laws; if a student defaults, fees, penalty interest, and collection charges skyrocket. Loan servicing by the student lenders is reputed to be very poor, and there are widespread reports of defaults occurring because student lenders make little or no effort to contact debtors when repayment periods start. Collection of student loans and credit card and other debts is now a separate SLM business line, and it racked up about $800 million in debt management fees in 2005.

Morris goes on to argue that there are smarter ways to finance higher education which offer more social benefit by taking it away from the profit-taking private sector. The direct federal loan program offers the same service for half the price, but the program has been contracted in recent years. He argues: "If all loans were financed through the direct loan program, the savings could finance full tuition grants for another million students." He also cites the historical precedents which show our traditional commitment to higher education, including Lincoln's land-grant college system and the GI Bill after World War II.

Young People in Debt

In a previous article here, "The Financial Risks of College", I offered some numbers on the increasing debt load of college students. Of the two-thirds of students who finance their education, the average accumulation by 2003-4 was $20,000. Interest rates offered by private financing can be as high as 20%, which in the worst cases are severely compounded by default fees. About 10% of students are defaulting over a ten year period, and for those with loads higher than $15,000, the default rate doubles. It's a grim start at a time when young people are preparing to start their own families.

Graphic from National CrossTalk.

Ron Paul and My Education

Originally published at Naru Hodo.

There is a certain aspect to my particular humanity that I have come to understand, and, after significant on-going internal debate, have an affection for. And that is that I come at the issues of life in an other-than-mainstream sort of way. One might say I tend to see what other people do and then do something quite the opposite. A bit of a contrarian, I am. I can accept that about myself, but I have to explain, even to myself, that I don't style myself as this, I don't try to be different; it emerges from me. It is part of me.

The image that comes to mind is being at a big party, a big family gathering. Upstairs is crowded with voices and faces and animated discussion, exchange, eating, greeting. After a short time, the crowd and the din threaten to suck off my face and render me numb, so for simple self-preservation I retreat to the basement, where I find some children playing, and there I engage in meaningful conversation with the eccentric uncle who for his own reasons also ends up there.

This is how I think about my political education these last many months. Upstairs, there's a lot of talk about McCain and Obama. I cannot help but hear all about it. But I have followed a way that has helped me glimpse Christ amidst all the political stuff. I've been learning "in the basement" in the company of Ron Paul.

I learned of him about a year ago, when he was a Presidential candidate. His position on health care attracted me first. Then I realized he was pro-life and anti-war. The whole idea that he called his campaign a revolution, with LOVE in it struck me as very catchy. More recently I've watched his economic views gain great respect, because the things he warned would happened actually did.

I am not generally interested in individual politicians. But here are some reasons why I can listen to Ron Paul and learn from what he has to say. First, I see humility in him. My brother has worked for state government, and I worked indirectly with lobbyists at the state level, and these experiences (plus the eyes in my head) tell me that humility in a politician is exceptional. I see that he desires that voters educate themselves, and thus I have really heard the call to take up that task. (Even though he is no longer a contender for the Presidency, he is leading a movement to essentially change the Republican party from the grassroots up, based on education and action.) One thing I admire about his call to education is the emphasis on the need for historical context to understand what is before us today. Although I can appreciate the need for knowing what is happening how, there is a certain addictive aspect to chasing the "absolute latest" and forming our opinions accordingly. We need more than news ticker headlines and soundbytes and instant-response polling to understand the meaning of the events of our time.

There is this other thing that appeals to me viscerally about his message, and I'm not sure if I'll put it into words adequately. His supporters have formed what is called the Campaign for Liberty. I'll step out and say I feel this move for Americans to understand and embrace liberty -- freedom -- is nearly a prophetic one. I am not about being a Libertarian, although I do lean more toward that direction than Socialism. But there is a specter that I do find worth fighting against, and it is not perhaps even so much a political reality right now as it is a societal reality, and that is the specter of totalitarianism. Here, I think of this definition: the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government.

My journey of parenting, my journey of the education of my children, my own personal spiritual journey has been greatly marked, indelibly marked by a move away from the damage of an authoritarian model. So perhaps I am very sensitive to see acceptance, welcoming, of control in the movements of society in ways that crush the human spirit and essentially block its potential for movement toward God and the good. I taught in Japan and I saw how the human spirit was somehow almost systematically crushed out of children so that their lives could be brought into societal conformity. Japanese adults, who I think felt could only vent their pain to a foreigner, often told me of the desperation this brought to their own lives.

I believe there is a corollary in our political system. I see a "big picture" that involves much of the world scrambling for someone to take control for us to make things all better. That desire, I believe, can become dangerous for our nation and for our world. We cannot resign ourselves to operate as cogs in a machine. While we need not have as our model the rugged American individualist, we do need to have strength as individuals. Otherwise, banding together becomes not "for the common good," but to the benefit, or I should say the advantage, of those who are given power by those who have learned to believe that they cannot operate in power for their own selves.

For myself, my "naru hodo" moment in writing this is to realize that it really does make me just a tad weary to find myself always attracted off the beaten path. Part of me would like to just stay upstairs and join in what is "really" going on.

But I can't, and remain loyal to who I am. This is what is "really" going on for me.

Inherent complexity defies reduction

In responding to Suzanne's very interesting post regarding one woman's struggle to factor abortion and various aspects of the church's social teaching proportionately in order to arrive at a prudent judgment, she cites a letter-to-the-editor written by Professor Patrick Lee. As regards the letter, I need to point out contra Prof. Lee, that Abraham Lincoln took a personally opposed, but . . . position on slavery as a congressman, a candidate for the Senate, and running for his first term for President. He was morally opposed to slavery and to the extension of this institution into new states entering the union, but just fine with keeping it where it already existed, primarily for the sake of holding the union together.

Speaking on the subject of repealing the Missouri Compromise, he said: "And, as this subject is no other, than part and parcel of the larger general question of domestic-slavery, I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me." He was worried about being misrepresented because people on both sides of the issue could accuse him of taking the opposite position, which he did not. His was a middle way. Of course, it ultimately failed and justice won out, due in no small part to his Emancipation Proclamation. Before joining the new Republican Party, Lincoln was a Whig and supported that party's position on slavery. As it pertains to abortion, let's not forget church teaching, let's not forget the papal magisterium of JPII. I refer specifically number 73 of Evangelium Vitae:

"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."

While I agree with Prof. Lee about the equal dignity of all human life, one has to admit that it is not apparent to many people, perhaps not even most, that having an abortion is akin to shooting a professor, especially early term abortions; the earlier the abortion, the less apparent the equivalency. Again, morally and logically all human life from conception to natural death inherently possesses equal dignity. A larger issue arises from reducing the issue to a simple, banal, analogy. I refer to his direct analogy between abortion and shooting professors. Such an analogy lends itself to the kind of distorted reasoning that makes it okay for people to shoot abortionists, which it clearly is not, either morally or legally. Such a response goes far beyond the conscientious objection called for by the church to unjust abortion laws. John Brown and his kind of violent abolitionist are the analogue to such a distortion in the slavery example, a form of abolition that Lincoln rejected, a form of abolition that helped facilitate the Civil War. With all that in mind, let's take up the analogy a bit more: if a gunman were taking shots at the good professor and I were an armed bystander in a state, like Utah, that legally allows me to walk around packing heat, or a policeman, I would be justified in shooting the gunman, but only with the intention of deterring him him, not killing him. So, I guess I would say that there is a missing premise or two from his argument. In the end, I accept his conclusion, but find his argument lacking and his analogy disturbing as well as very problematic.

Missing premise or not, Prof. Lee's response is too narrow, too abstract, and too prone to misinterpretation to be truly educational- I know a thing or two about being too abstract- and is not likely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with him, namely Kari Lundgren. Who knows, perhaps Ms. Lundgren heard this argument from Prof. Lee himself at FUS? At least she has the benefit of writing about grappling with her own experience and growing beyond a certain narrowness, which narrowness does, indeed, show a lack of true education. Let's hope she discovers the beauty of the both/and, rejecting the false dilemmas that too many people of faith insist upon. The question about life is simple, but the social and political situation in which we must offer the answer is complicated and complex, requiring persons who are truly educated with a deep understanding of the truth, who possess the ability to unequivocally and convincingly communicate it. I think Kari is faithfully dealing with this complexity. I think the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, leads us by his example.

Reason is the need for the Infinite...

As I was doing some research for another project, I stumbled on an interesting article, "My Catholic Faith Pushes Me to Obama," by Kari Lundgren.

In her article, Kari provides a quick sketch of her college experience "as a conservative Catholic single-issue voter":

I quickly joined Students for Life, the campus pro-life group, and began spending Saturday mornings with 6 am mass and an hour drive to Pittsburgh to pray in front of the abortion clinic. That first year I was a bus captain on the trip to Washington, D.C. for the March for Life, as well as head of the Students for Life Prayer Team. I was interviewed on the conservative Catholic TV station EWTN as a young pro-life leader.

...I also volunteered at the local crisis pregnancy center, where we offered free pregnancy tests, infant formula, children's clothing, and other services to help women who were pregnant and needed extra support. I went to daily mass and weekly confession, as I had since high school. I marched in the occasional local abortion protest. I read theology in my free time.

I was, in other words, the perfect Steubenville Catholic student: devoted to my prayer life, diligent in my studies, involved in student life, and passionate about the pro-life cause.

Later, Lundgren experienced a kind of conversion:

...While I prayed for an end to abortion and the conversion of souls, I also saw the depressed ex-steel town in which the university resided, and I felt a disconnect between the spiritual fervency on campus and the poverty surrounding it. I was ashamed to have the money to be a full-time student when the neighborhoods next door to the university were filled with dilapidated houses and people forced out of work when the steel mills closed. Big questions started plaguing me: Was it really enough to make these people observant Catholics, as the general thinking on campus went? Were all of their socioeconomic problems really caused by the fact that they used birth control? Would overturning Roe v. Wade really be enough to solve the poverty, under-education, and chronic unemployment rampant in the town and the world?

These questions led her to reject what we might quickly (if inaccurately) refer to the "Steubenville solution." She found "better" answers to her questions in the rhetoric of the political left.

There are, as of this writing, 168 comments following her article. The commenters split rather cleanly into two camps: Catholics who disapprove of Lundgren's conversion on the one hand and on the other hand, supporters of Obama who cheer her on. Meanwhile, not one person posed the questions that most interest me:

Why, as an undergraduate, did she do all the things she describes herself doing? And why does proclaim the views that she now proclaims?

I am particularly curious about why she was so ardently pro-life as a college student. Because we can work very hard at many righteous and important tasks, but if we lack adequate reasons for doing them, they will eventually exhaust and paralyze us. Do we do them because we feel our efforts will make a positive impact and thus give our lives meaning? Do we do them in order to appear morally or religiously consistent in the eyes of our neighbors? Do we wish to please an authority? Or do we do them in order to find self-fulfillment?

It is the task of educators to propose a positive hypothesis that explains the meaning of everything. The Church provides just such a hypothesis, one that accounts for the questions that Lundgren asks. This hypothesis does not include the explanations that Lundgren lists in her article (that the answer to poverty is to make the unemployed into "ardent Catholics," that socioeconomic problems are caused by people using birth control, that overturning Roe v. Wade is all that is needed" to solve the poverty, under-education, and chronic unemployment rampant in the town and the world"). So, where did she get these inadequate answers to her questions? Why do they remain the only reasons she can give for the Catholic concern for the sanctity of life?

These questions are troubling, especially in light of Lundgren's assertion:

I went to daily Mass and weekly confession, as I had since high school. I marched in the occasional local abortion protest. I read theology in my free time.

In all those daily homilies, in her encounters with priests in the confessional, in the theology she read, did she never encounter reasons other than the ones she listed as the "Catholic" (and unsatisfying) response to poverty and injustice? It is possible. And the fact that it is possible should give us pause.

We can train young people to engage in "correct" behaviors without ever providing them with an education that will adequately give meaning to the whole of life. We can avoid probing their motives when we find ourselves approving of their behavior.

So, now my second question: why does Lundgren write her article? In her opening paragraph, she says, "I'm writing this for my sisters and brothers who still are those kinds of Catholic voters" (that is: "conservative Catholic single-issue voters"). Does she really hope to convince anyone who might disagree with her? In the whole of her article, she never addresses whether there exist Catholic voters who appreciate being called "single-issue" voters (it's actually perceived as an epithet by most ardently pro-life Catholics). And what steps does she take to speak with them about their true concern, that is, the destruction of innocent life?

The assertion that better services for the poor and marginalized will reduce the number of abortions has not been documented with evidence. I can imagine that some anecdotal evidence exists, but there is no hard data to support this claim. It remains on the level of pure speculation and supposition. In fact, abortion cuts across socioeconomic class. It is not merely the desperate choice of the impoverished.

The most intelligent and succint argument in response to the charge that pro-life Catholics are "single-issue" voters appeared in The Herald Star, our local newspaper, in a letter to the editor by Patrick Lee, professor of bioethics at (coincidence?) Franciscan University:

To the editor:

Some suggest pro-lifers should consider life as just one issue among others and not engage in single-issue voting.

But this makes no sense. The differences between the two presidential tickets on taxes, health care, etc., concern means to the same ends (neither side advocates solving such problems by killing poor or sick people). By contrast, the difference between them on abortion is a difference about basic ends.

At stake in this debate is the principle of the fundamental equal dignity of every human being, regardless of inessential differences, the same principle at stake in the 19th century regarding slavery. It was intrinsically unjust to reduce black human beings to the status of mere things for use. Likewise, it is inherently unjust to reduce unborn human beings to the status of mere inconvenient burdens that can be ripped to pieces or disposed of in trash cans.

It is unjust to vote for, or promote, a pro-abortion candidate if another candidate who is not worse on fundamental life issues, is an option - even if that candidate is inferior on other issues. This violates the basic moral principle of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If a candidate was in favor of killing professors, I would expect my fellow citizens to vote against him even if his positions on health care or economics were superior to those of his rival candidate. Likewise, it is unjust to vote for those who promote killing unborn human beings - indeed, energetically, even to the point of advocating the clearly barbarous practices of partial-birth abortion and killing babies born alive from botched abortions (as Obama has done) - when their rivals do not.

Some object that Obama does not actually endorse abortion because he promises to work to decrease there number. But this argument is fallacious. Obama has consistently supported funding for abortions, and his governmental health care plan would mandate such funding. Since in political office, Obama has done everything he could possibly do to assist the abortion industry, and has even proclaimed his defense of the alleged right to abortion a priority in his presidency.

If a politician in the 19th century took an analogous position on slavery, his claim that he is "pro-choice" would not fly. Imagine a candidate saying, "I do not endorse slavery. Rather, I am pro-choice. But I have been a consistent champion of the right to slavery for the last 10 years. And I will make defense of that fundamental right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will introduce measures aimed at keeping slavery safe, legal and rare. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, control their own property, I am in favor of funding slavery for those poor whites who cannot afford it." (Patrick Lee, Steubenville)

Lundgren should be crafting an argument to respond to Lee's position, not working to knock down straw men she herself has invented.

So, I'm still left with a question. Why did she write her article? I suspect, in the end, it was for the same reason she went to daily Mass and worked so ardently to put an end to abortion while in college. Perhaps she has a strong desire for justice? If so, she could begin her quest by accurately understanding and representing the Catholic understanding of social justice and the sanctity of life. This exercise would represent a great step toward justice.

Or, perhaps she has other reasons.

The Financial Risks of College

While the country is focused on home foreclosures and unemployment figures, many young people are entering a financial crisis of their own just as they begin their careers and start their own families. Those who have attended and/or graduated from college are increasingly burdened with debt.

About two-thirds of students borrow money for their education with an average debt load in 2003-4 of $20,000, a figure which has doubled in the last ten years. Some students, especially in the professions, rack up $100,000 or more in student loans. As reported in a New York Times article, Lucia DiPoy, a first-generation Tufts graduate of an immigrant family, has an accumulated debt of $85,000 with monthly payments totaling $900, an obligation which prevented her from volunteering at an overseas refugee camp.

Whereas state colleges once offered an affordable education to residents, tuition rates have increased by 35% over the first five years of the decade thanks to budget cuts. Grants have not tracked the rise in costs, and in some cases aid has decreased. Federal loans have stagnated in availability.

Private loan companies have entered the gap with variable rates as high as 20%, a “Wild West” of lending according to New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Last year, a scandal emerged linking private loan companies and financial aid executives who received gifts and/or owned shares in the lending company they were promoting. Recently Congress passed regulations to ensure more transparency in college lending though without imposing rate caps.

Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers stated: “When a student signs the paper for these loans, they are basically signing an indenture. We’re indebting these kids for life.”

Contrary to the more sanguine U.S. Department of Education default figure of under 5% tracking only the first two years post-graduation, an in-depth 2006 study by their National Center for Education Statistics department found that 10% of students defaulted on their loans over a ten year period. Minority groups are overrepresented. For students with over $15,000 in debt, the risk of default is around 20%. While federal lenders are more lenient with deferments, private lenders generally do not offer such safeguards.

A law protecting private student loan companies in 2005 makes bankruptcy virtually impossible. On the other hand, once a person goes into default, interest and fees can dramatically increase the total obligation. Alan Collinge, founder of StudentLoanJustice.Org, started with a $38,000 in federal student loans which ballooned to $100,000 in his three years after defaulting.

The presidential candidates are weighing in on the need for college education funding. Barack Obama proposes a $4,000 universal tax credit, which would cover about two-thirds of public college tuition. John McCain prefers to expand the current federal loan and grant programs.

Published at Il Sussidiario.Net

"The Foreign Policy Difference"

In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, which was highlighted in Paper Clippings, Fouad Ajami has an interesting take on The Foreign Policy Difference between the two candidates. While I am not particularly enamoured with the sweeping scope of the article, I think the Paper Clippings observation about it relating how our elite universities teach people "science", that is, "empirically-oriented knowledge directed at problem solving," to the neglect of "philosophy," which entails "grappling in a systematic fashion with questions of truth and meaning," is spot on.

Indeed, for too many educated people, value is derived from sentiment and preference, not rooted in reason and consistent judgment. We see this in Sen. Biden's classic emotovist "personal and private" response to the question about when life begins. This pervasive attitude only serves to demonstrate what the Holy Father asserted in his speech that he was to give at La Sapienza university, namely that in late modernity, known also as post-modernity, humanity has surrendered before the question of truth. Such an outlook reduces questions of truth and meaning to mere opinion, thus giving us no measure, no canon, against which to judge our choices, or with which to make choices. This view is ultimately paralyzing and makes every value judgment nothing more than an arbitrary preference.

He is certainly correct in writing that

"the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise."

I daresay that issues of judgment and criteria also rear their head on the other side, the so-called conservative side, which very often seeks to divide and conquer, to pit us against them, putting self-interest and national interest, even when matters of security are not at stake, before the common good. This leads, among other things, to an abdication of power by states in favor of corporations. I could stand to read a little on that in Ajami's piece. The closest he comes to something like this is when observes that Sen. McCain is not "particularly articulate" on how he plans to build bridges to rest of the world. He is accurate in asserting that McCain may not have to do this at all. If his choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate is any indication, he he has clearly determined that all he has to do is talk and act tough, thus blatantly re-asserting American exceptionalism, demonstrating that

"he shares the widespread attitude of broad swaths of the country that are not consumed with worries about America's standing in foreign lands. Mr. McCain is not eager to be loved by foreigners. In November, the country will have a choice between a Republican candidate forged in the verities of the 1950s, and a Democratic rival who walks out of the 1990s."

Traces Series on American Presidential Campaign

2008 No. 1 - Why Should We Care About the Sick (health care)? (statistics)

2008 No. 2 - Defending a True Education

2008 No. 3 - Caring for our Neighbor (immigration) (statistics)

2008 No. 4 - The City and the World (foreign policy) (terms)

Unable to Pause For Beauty?

This is a wonderfully provocative article on the disconnect between American culture and beauty. Is this culture formed by our educational system, as the author suggests? And what if a large sector of children began to be allowed the indulgence of entering the embrace of beauty as it happened to appear?

Communicating Oneself

Suzanne, thanks for posting so many notes from the diaconia. It was great meeting and you and Scott, and others I'd never met; along with all the old friends that I don't see as often as I'd like.

The meeting with educators was particularly helpful for me. Two weeks ago I wouldn't have thought to go, but for the past few weeks my new parish (the one in my neighborhood) has been begging for catechists. I began to get the distinct feeling that they were talking to me... so I sent the parish an email offering to help out. The director of religious education sent me back an email saying "Jim, I came to the CL Beginning Day at your house in October!" So I had an immediate verification that I was doing what I needed to do.

But as I sat in the meeting with educators at the diaconia, I really began to feel a profound sense of gratitude... gratitude for having met the Movement, and gratitude for having been shown where I was needed the most in my own circumstances. I didn't have to push the Movement, or worry about how many people were coming to School of Community. I just have to follow for myself and my own needs, then let Christ show me where he needs me to be.

Don't get me wrong... I'm really nervous about my first class with the 5th graders at my parish. But I know that I'm not there to give them the answers, or to be The Perfect Catholic. I'm there to witness to what has happened to me, to the fact that I've met Christ.

Open Christianity by Msgr. Luigi Giussani

This article by Don Giussani was published in Logos, but I see now that it's available at the CL site also: "Open Christianity."

"He, Jesus, is the prominent figure, not I with my faults. His face is at stage centre and not the features of my poverty. Gazing upon Him I will realize that He alone can resolve all problems, all of my problems and those of others." (p 5)