The New Brand of Jesuit Universities

Autumn Jones looks at The New Brand of Jesuit Universities for The Atlantic. It had the potential for an interesting article but, in my opinion, it falls flat. To be fair, though, maybe it is just the Jesuit institutions that they highlight that fall flat.

In the likeness of Martin and Colbert, Pope Francis uses modern media to address points of tension in the Catholic Church. Having held the institution’s highest office for nearly two years, the pope’s approach is quite different than that of his predecessors. His strategy is, in many ways, "rebranding" the Church for a new audience and providing an updated image for its most ardent constituents—the very same thing Jesuit universities are doing across the country.

What is left at stake for both Pope Francis and Jesuit universities is whether this rebranding attenuates the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. As a branch of Catholic education, Jesuit universities are required to fall in line with the Church as a whole and with the requests of the local bishop. Yet, similar to secular colleges and universities, they are also places where young adults are encouraged to think critically and to explore variations in religious ideology. The balance of mission, identity, and modern times—and whether that balance negates the central principles of Jesuit and Catholic education—is what lies at the root of the tensions present for these schools.

Of the 251 Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S., 28 are run by the Society of Jesus. The Society of Jesus, commonly known as the Jesuits, was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in 1540 and is the largest male religious order of priests and brothers within the Catholic Church. Though St. Ignatius didn’t originally intend to establish schools for the broader public, the Jesuit order quickly became recognized throughout the world for its achievements in education, community service, and the sciences. From the get-go, the Jesuits started compiling a number of documents to outline the kind of education the order would provide. These documents would later become the foundation of what’s known as Ratio Studiorum, the official plan of Jesuit education, published in 1599.

I'm not going to go into everything, but Jesuit and Catholic universities and colleges confront myriad problems similar to other institutions of higher education (cost, increasing reliance on part-time work, board members disconnect from what it means to be a university, societal pressure for universities to provide their graduates with a near guaranteed job, and so on) and others that are more unique (maintaining religious identity among increasing secularism throughout the US - not just students but faculty and administrators, fewer clergy available on campus not just to teach but to manage large, complex institutions, relations with the local bishop and the Newman Society, and so on).

That's all fine in the article although I believe the author could have been clearer distinguishing between challenges to higher-ed at Jesuit institutions and higher-ed institutions in general.

In surveying the 28 Jesuit institutions, Jones narrows in on Regis, Rockhurst, St. Joseph's and Gonzaga. Other than Gonzaga, perhaps (at least that's my impression), let's just say that those are not the most competitive Jesuit Universities out there today. Here are the Jesuit universities that make the cut on the top 201 in the 2015 US News & World Report rankings

21. Georgetown University

31. Boston College

58. Fordham University

76. Marquette University

99. Saint Louis University

106. Loyola University Chicago

106. University of San Francisco

While Jesuit universities do confront similar problems in many ways, the rankings tell me that the article should more accurately reflect how weaker Jesuit and Catholic universities are confronting the 21st century.

Father Martin and Pope Francis are in some way "rebranding" the Church but they are more accurately doing what Jesuits have historically done by abiding by the principle to “meet people where they are." They are extending invitations to individuals to become closer to God. However, it is disappointing that the solutions posed by the individuals identified in the article do no such thing. "Rebranding" of their Jesuit universities entails hiding or removing their Jesuit and Catholic identities.

At a time when Jesuits are more popular than they have been in some time with Fr. Martin in the US and Pope Francis globally, Rockhurst University in Kansas City removed the word "Jesuit" from the university's tagline to hide its Jesuit tradition. At least they kept "Catholic" in some of their materials.

Regis University, on the other hand, wants to drop Catholic and play up Jesuit as if you can be Jesuit without being Catholic.

"We hide the word ‘Catholic’ from prospective students," said Traci McBee, who helps oversee fundraising efforts at Regis University. "We focus on the Jesuit piece rather than the Catholic piece. We’re able to transform a little quicker because we are not waiting for the archbishop to give us permission. We don’t have to ask the Pope when we want to make changes."

So in reaching out to donors that have already completed an education at Regis, they want to hide who they are from their alumni? I'm more with Gonzaga's McCulloh who says "the Jesuits are completely and wholly a part of the Church." You shouldn't run away from the need to convince people that you cannot be Jesuit without being Catholic. Hopefully, Regis' development office isn't spearheading this radical change.

What Regis and Rockhurst are doing seems completely at odds with what Fr. Martin and Pope Francis are doing. They are hiding their Jesuit and Catholic identities from prospective students (ethics in advertising?) and alumni (sorry, forget about your four years here) rather than embracing them.

I'm a little biased. I attended a Regis High School in New York City and Fairfield University in Connecticut. I now teach at the University of Scranton in Northeastern Pennsylvania - all Jesuit institutions. In my opinion, universities can be successful not in spite of their Jesuit and Catholic identities but because of them.

Signing a peace settlement guarantees neither peace nor justice

In 2012, I thought that two of the most important developments to emerge out of Latin America were the start of peace negotiations between the FARC and the government in Colombia and the gang truce the MS-13 and the 18th Street gangs and the government of El Salvador.

I'm sure there were other important events, maybe even more important, but the Colombian civil war had been going on for several decades, had cost the lives of nearly 300,000 people, and led to the displacement of millions. Colombia should be a leader in Latin America and the conflict was holding it back from realizing its true potential.

Two years later and after a few hiccups, the negotiations are still on track and WOLA just released an update with At Year’s End, It’s Clear: This Peace Process Is For Real.

A month ago, the FARC had another military captive, a far bigger prize: a Colombian Army general who wandered right into the guerrillas’ clutches. This time, though, the FARC let him go after just two weeks. Gen. Rubén Darío Alzate will spend Christmas at home with his family.

Why did the guerrillas’ behavior shift so radically? Again, they are in peace negotiations with the Colombian government. But this time, unlike 2001, they really don’t want them to end. A government suspension of the talks forced the guerrillas to choose between holding a general and continuing to talk peace. They chose peace.

While the FARC guerrillas are still rather strong, there seem to be so many parallels with the conflict in Guatemala. The duration and intensity of the conflicts are similar. Kidnapping that could have derailed the peace process occurred in both. Military and political elites attempting to undermine the peace process and push for all-out victory against a severely weakened foe or, at best, pushing for a negotiated surrender rather than more comprehensive reforms. A successful peace process and post-war are important to not only the people of Colombia but the entire region. Hopefully, the rapprochement between the US and Cuba is another good sign for the talks which have been taking place in Havana.

The second event was the February 2012 truce between El Salvador's two main gangs. Given that El Salvador's murder rate was above 70 per 100,000 at the time, several hundred thousand people were connected to the gangs in some way, and the weakness of the country's political institutions, I thought that dialogue and some sort of negotiation with the gangs by the government was an understandable and potentially positive development. I was never entirely confident that a total truce would hold but I thought that the Salvadoran government and international community would be able to use the opportunity to reintegrate and rehabilitate as many gang members as possible and to devise a more comprehensive government approach to the sources of the country's problems, of which gangs are just one. There was also the possibility that a successful truce in El Salvador, the place where it all began, would spread to gangs in Honduras and, to a lesser extent, Guatemala.

As 2014 closes in El Salvador, there are few signs that a truce exists. After decreasing from ~70 homicides per 100,000 in 2011, the rate settled in around ~40 in 2012 and 2013. Even with an increase in disappearances and, possibly, extortion, it was still a significant drop in violence. However, it looks like over 3,800 people will be murdered this year, 50% more than last year, and the rate should surpass 60. Gangs are at war with each other once again and the gangs and police are at war with each other. Nearly 40 police officers have been killed so far this year and over 100 gang members have been killed in shootouts with police. Several news stories also give the impression that security officers or other groups are engaged in extrajudicial executions of gang members.

There have been some successful reports of gang members receiving an education and jobs at bakeries and what not. The truce also seems to be still in effect in some areas such as Soyapango, Ilopango, Santa Ana, Sonsonate and San Vicente. With a more comprehensive plan, competent leadership, and domestic and international support, I know - that is asking a lot, the truce could have been more effective and reached a greater number of Salvadorans.

While a Salvadoran truce looks to be entirely in the past as the FMLN government scrambles for a new plan, the Colombian peace process is not yet a done deal. And as we have learned from the other peace processes in the region, especially Guatemala and El Salvador, signing a peace settlement guarantees neither peace nor justice.

Anniversary of Guatemalan peace accords in shadow of amnesty

Emi MacLean writing at the International Justice Monitor and Jo-Marie Burt at NACLA take a look at recent events in Guatemala as we head to the re-start of the Efrain Rios Montt trial set to begin January 5th.

Jo-Marie and Emi review previous decisions by various Guatemalan courts that have led to the present state of affairs in Guatemala. They, like many others, fear that the courts might soon overturn previous amnesty decisions which would prevent the start of a new trial. Guatemalan and international law would seem to make it impossible to allow amnesty in the case of genocide and crimes against humanity but stranger things have happened.

Should that occur, there would most likely be some international condemnation of Guatemala and a renewed effort to move the trial abroad. Guatemalan elites might prefer international condemnation for applying amnesty in the case rather than international condemnation for a ruling confirming that they committed genocide and crimes against humanity. For those against the trial, they are confronted with a lose-lose decision.

For the victims, I hope it does, but I've been pretty pessimistic about the trial actually restarting in January.

The Guatemalan Government and the URNG officially ended the thirty-six year conflict with the signing of The Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace on this date in 1996.