Arrogant idealism

by Jason Negri

One of the biggest problems I have with Ben Brown’s articles is his assumption that his definition of a “liberal arts education,” of a “university” and (seemingly from his latest submission) a “truly Catholic vision” are the correct ones. While he is eloquent and passionate in defending his beliefs, he does so by pointing to things not yet agreed-upon.

Similarly, it would seem that many contributors take it for granted that Newman’s idea of a university is the proper model for FUS (and indeed any “true” university) to follow. Is it not possible that an alternate view of education, its ends and purposes, might be just as worthy of our consideration? St. Bonaventure, for example, held to a position that education was intended to be in service to man; that knowledge in one sense may be an end in itself, but that it was also a means to other ends? And would Ben Brown & co. see it as a betrayal or perhaps less “Catholic” if FUS would choose the Bonaventurian model over Newman’s?

His argumentative words to Professor Kelly were unwarranted, especially since Professor Kelly made no mention of Brown’s articles. Brown was simply using Kelly’s article as an occasion to restate his position, only this time it was particularly arrogant. For him to suggest that FUS should not call itself a university because we’re not living up to his (medieval) model is beyond the pale.

I, for one, appreciated Professor Kelly’s expression that FUS is trying to serve both needs (stronger liberal arts core and strong professional training), and his expression of support for their respective goods. His attempt to peacefully resolve this debate by recognizing the fact that the faculty and the University are even attempting to wrestle with this thorny issue was noble. It certainly did not deserve to be treated so disdainfully by Brown.

The core curriculum at FUS may indeed need improvement. I have no quarrel with those who advocate for a stronger liberal arts core for all students; as a matter of fact, I thank Ben Brown for his persuasive writing in past issues, as it has helped me arrive at the realization that I do support a stronger core. But there are important considerations that the faculty and the Core Curriculum Task Force must address. What I and others have tried to do in a hitherto congenial manner is to remind Concourse readers that these issues (professional, and indeed, life preparation for FUS students) are not ancillary issues—they are central to the debate. I think it’s irresponsible when these serious considerations are not sufficiently mentioned in the quest for a liberal arts ideal.

Jason Negri

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Reforming our thinking about courtship and sexuality, William Craig Is St. Thomas’s thought egoistical?, Patrick Lee Shakespeare and the Catholic question, Glen Cascino Distributism or the Free Economy?, Kevin Schmiesing Prize announcements, the editors The influence of Puritanism, Jeff Zare Thank you, thank you!, Catherine Egan Arrogant idealism, Jason Negri A personalist point regarding economics, Philip Harold Fr. Michael’s achievement, Kathleen van Schaijik Charity may be severe, Kathleen van Schaijik On the other side of the same coin, Kathleen van Schaijik The Weimar Republicans, Kathleen van Schaijik Drawing out an analogy, Kathleen van Schaijik Beware of economic Puritanism, Kathleen van Schaijik How to support the Concourse by buying books, Kathleen van Schaijik Shakespeare debate update, Kathleen van Schaijik What the education debate is and isn’t about, Kathleen van Schaijik Dear Class of 2000, Kathleen van Schaijik Thanksgiving, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same topic: core curriculum

I,1 Shouldn’t we have a real core curriculum at Franciscan University?, John F. Crosby I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education?, Kathleen van Schaijik I,2 Core curriculum (1), R.J. Convery I,2 Core curriculum (2), Jim Fox I,3 Core curriculum (3), Katherine Kemmis I,4 Core curriculum and anti-intellectualism, Adam Tate I,5 Core curriculum and critical thinking, Joseph A. Loizzo I,6 Core curriculum (4), Regis Martin I,7 Making ‘the connection’: A Steubenville education, Regina Schmiedicke I,7 A defense of a diversified core, Mark Fischer II,1 In reply to Mark Fischer’s defense of the present core curriculum, John F. Crosby II,2 More on the curriculum debate, Mark Fischer II,3 Last words on the core, John F. Crosby IV,4 What liberal educators may not omit, Regis Martin IV,5 Dr. Martin does it again, Joanna K. M. Bratten IV,5 FUS needs to get more practical about education, Peter Cole IV,5 Why non-liberal majors need a liberal core, Susan C. Fischer IV,6 The real purpose of liberal education, Ben Brown IV,7 The will and the intellect are inseparable, Martha L. Blandford IV,7 Preparing students to compete in the global economy, Peter Cole IV,7 Education not limited to the mind, Susan C. Fischer IV,7 According to the Tradition, education aims beyond the intellect, Matthew Fish V,1 More on the aim of education: Ben Brown replies to his critics, Ben Brown V,2 Preparing FUS graduates for the modern world, Jason Negri V,3 Liberal arts and professional programs: a reply to Jason Negri, Ben Brown V,3 Let’s improve our stats, Sofia Genato V,3 The ideal of perfecting the mind is timeless, Michael Houser V,3 Cultivating the intellect, Anne Schmiesing V,5 The eternally practical liberal arts, Timothy J. Williams V,5 Computers and liberal learning, Ben Brown V,6 Liberal arts with professional training: the best of both worlds, Thomas E. Kelly V,7 Education is not primarily about preparing to evangelize in the workplace, Ben Brown V,7 The God gap in the workplaces of the world, Peter Cole IV,7 Newman, education and context, Kathleen van Schaijik

Same author