The Higher Learning Commission

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MISSION
DRAFT REPORT

Members of the Subcommittee on Mission:

Howard Gray, S.J, Assistant to the President for University Mission and Identity
Dr. Mary Beadle, Ph.D., Graduate School
Ms. Lisa Mencini, Human Resources
Mr. Tim O’Callahan, Development and Alumni Relations
Gerald Sabo, S.J., Classical and Modern Languages and Cultures
Dr. James Swindal, Ph.D. Philosophy

Introduction. In 1994 the NCA evaluation report assessed favorably the expression of the JCU mission, its process of dissemination, and its reception and influence in the university committees then working on the core, assessments, and institutional planning (5-6 of the Report). In its summary list of recommendations the review committee cited the vitality of the Jesuit/Catholic character of JCU (p. 45 of the Report); however, it also pointed out that the language of the mission statement “does not lend itself easily to outcomes assessment” (pp. 47-48 of the Report).

With the recently Board approved abbreviated mission statement and the companion vision and goals statements the university has made an effort to provide the JCU community with guidelines that are accessible and practical. Moreover, with the work done on the University Planning project and the focusing of the school’s mission as the first strategic goal of the implementation of this plan, institutionally JCU has a solid foundation for sustaining the specific character of the school and adapting this character to the realities of decreased numerical Jesuit presence and greater reliance on lay and other religious community leadership. The publication of Ex corde ecclesiae and the subsequent USA bishops adaptation of this document for national Catholic higher education have caused some concern, much commentary, and a deeper appreciation for the efforts at JCU to bring into harmony the wisdom and integrity of a religious tradition with the USA concern for academic freedom and legitimate autonomy. Consequently, there has been no absence of discussion about aspects of the mission at JCU, though these are frequently located in groups of faculty and staff rather than the entire academic community. It is against this background that the subcommittee on mission did its work. This report has three divisions: (1) the administrative efforts to implement the mission, (2) the overall climate of the school vis-à-vis mission, and (3) some brief recommendations from the committee.

1. Administrative efforts. There has been a development in the way that the university administration has orchestrated its oversight of the school’s mission, particularly its Jesuit and Catholic character. In November 2001 the president appointed an Assistant for University Mission and Identity whose task is to guide the implementation of the University Strategic Plan in those areas that deal with the school’s mission. To that end the Office of Mission and Identity (a Jesuit and his assistant) has spent the first year organizing itself in the light of the present culture at JCU, cooperating with mission initiatives that antedate his appointment (e.g. the Partnership program among faculty and staff), overseeing programs already in place (e.g., Ignatian Day), investigating the viability of new programs (e.g., the spring 2002 presentation on Ignatian spirituality, preparatory to the 2002-2003 series, Bagging Ignatius), cooperating with other university offices in their programs (e.g., the Suenens spring 2002 Ignatian pilgrimage for the JCU and Walsh Jesuit Board and administrators; presentations for first-year student and new faculty orientations), and designing new possibilities (e.g., the university-wide celebration of the feast of St. Ignatius on July 31st, 2002; the negotiations with the Religious Studies department for an annual forum on belief and unbelief and their respective approaches to crucial common issues; a seminar for recent hires on aspects of the Jesuit/Catholic tradition). In addition to these the Assistant to the President teaches a course on Ignatian spirituality as part of the Religious Studies and Catholic studies offerings. He is also the university’s liaison with the AJCU Commission on Mission and Identity, the Heartland Steering Committee, and the newly formed Mission and Identity Program sponsored by ACCU, AJCU, and AGB.

Distinct from the Office of the Assistant to the President for University Mission and Identity but allied to the enhancement of the Catholic and Jesuit character of the school is the establishment of the Ignatian Spirituality Institute (ISI). This institute offers an educational program for the training of spiritual directors in the tradition of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. An affiliate program of the Department of Religious Studies, the ISI will begin its program in the fall of 2003.

The University Strategic Plan has as its first aim: To ensure the Catholic and Jesuit Nature of the University and has assigned eight strategic goals to implement this aim. Five of these strategic goals are challenging but doable; three present difficulties that the wider school community has to acknowledge and confront in some creative fashion. These three include: hiring for mission in a way that is consistent with academic freedom, encouraging Jesuits to come to JCU, and investigating the complementary nature of the Jesuit and Catholic identity and identifying ways that include visible reminders of the Jesuit and Catholic character of the university, e. g., good religious art, campus outdoor locations for meditation.

Hiring for mission is a tough sell to faculty and, to some degree, even to staff. It has been a topic that the AJCU Commission on Mission and Identity has waltzed around in its last three annual meetings. It is crucial because of the second of the three problematic goals, the recruitment of younger Jesuits to JCU. As the Jesuit pool shrinks, the presumption that the distinctively Jesuit and Catholic dimensions of the mission will naturally and organically be represented and enhanced is increasingly ingenuous. The presence of many committed Catholic faculty and staff and committed faculty and staff from other traditions at JCU is real, but needs both education in and formation for (albeit the awkwardness of the term) that tradition. Such education and formation can be done piecemeal, as it is presently being done. However, sooner or later there will have to be an administrative decision to commit time and money to the preparation of lay leadership expert in the communication and inculcation of the specifically Jesuit and Catholic character of JCU.

The implementation of the complementary character of Jesuit and Catholic has two obstacles. First, in general, faculty and staff accept far more readily JCU being Jesuit than they do its being Catholic. The reasons for this will be discussed later in this report. Second, JCU has a long way to go in providing any art and appropriate conversational, much less meditation, space.

In summary, then, the administration has delegated specific personnel, space, resources, and authority to the implementation of the school’s Jesuit and Catholic character. There also exist clear and helpful directives from authorities within the Society of Jesus, which specify what is the Jesuit and Catholic character of an institution that identifies itself as part of that tradition (e.g., Communal Reflection on the Jesuit Mission in Higher Education: A Way of Proceeding, a document of the USA Jesuit provincials, promulgated in May, 2002). But there are immense challenges that confront the present and long-term viability of that tradition at JCU.

2. Overall climate at JCU towards the mission. In an effort to gauge what faculty and staff feel about the mission at JCU, particularly its Catholic and Jesuit character, the committee designed a set of questions for a variety of university divisions and groups—faculty and staff. These groups included the Graduate Studies Committee, the Jesuit community, the Catholic Studies Advisory Group, Human Resources personnel, the heads of the departments of Community Service, Center for Global Education, and the Core Curriculum Committee, as well as focus groups of faculty and staff. These provide some sample of faculty, staff, and administrators’ opinions.

No one sees his or her work, either as the head of a department or as an individual professional at JCU, as outside the scope of the mission broadly conceived. The areas where everyone seems to be comfortable and even enthusiastic about the mission are these:

The academic curriculum takes seriously the inculcation of skills and wide, humane knowledge that offers an intellectual and even formational (ethical?) foundation for our students to choose to be men and women for others. People at JCU care about being good teachers and responsible adults with and before the JCU students.
The faculty and staff generally support the many initiatives at JCU to involve students in service programs. There was no wide-spread or deeply held complaint that the commitment to serving the poor, the raising of consciousness about justice issues, or the time spent in international or national service programs undermined the seriousness of the academic life at JCU.

The areas of mixed reactions were these:

Departmentally, there is more disparity. On the one hand, department heads can point to the services that they offer to the wider community and the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, to the strong sense of ethics in the professions which they inculcate, and to the desire to raise the consciousness of young people to the issues of justice and peace in today’s world. On the other hand, there is a range of discomfort with aspects of Catholicism among some of the most influential faculty and staff. There is a perception among some, faculty especially, that the Catholic Church represents thought-control, academic censorship, and a distrust of intellectual inquiry and dissent. Jesuits come off a little better, being perceived as intellectually interested, personally involved in and committed to the university system, frequently trained in secular disciplines and at secular institutions, and historically something of mavericks in the official Church. These are attitudinal dimensions of the question, not hard statistics; but they are real and contribute mightily to one major aspect of the school’s mission.
There was also a series of concerns, like the need to acknowledge what some saw as the shortcomings in implementing the mission: the practical social justice questions that touch the role of women in the church, a living wage for graduate students, and the need for a more open budget process. There were also concerns raised about the maintenance of the distinctively Catholic and Jesuit character of JCU, which centered on hiring for mission, an environment of religious criticism and anti-Catholicism which discourages conversation about ways to implement the mission at JCU. In short, there are two major voices at JCU, one comes from a distancing from the Jesuit/Catholic character of the institution; the other comes from an espousal and, in some cases, even a defense of, that tradition.
One of the questions that the committee asked was about a personal assimilation of the school’s mission into one’s professional and even personal life. Again, this evoked a mixed response. Some said that being at a school like Carroll gave integration and direction to their professional work and to their private lives. They were specific in naming things like the ideals, the Spiritual Exercises, time for liturgy and prayer, Ignatian Day, Jesuit friendships. Others found that the JCU mission had little impact on either their scholarship and research or their personal life. On the other hand, a significant number of faculty did say that they reverenced their teaching and their contact with the students at JCU because these were a professional value at JCU.
There did not seem to be any major unease among non-Catholics at JCU. Either they felt comfortable with what they saw as the “golden rule” quality of life at JCU, the general climate of friendliness and acceptance, or they felt that their indifference to religious issues was sufficiently unchallenged at JCU.
In summary, the mission statement probably gives more “tone” to the school’s culture than either the secularists among us want to admit or the ardently Catholic among us would like to see more explicit. What is clear is that enough people are not sure how the mission has an impact on the daily lives of students---outside their service programs. Questions arose about the level of consciousness about social justice among the middle range of students, about everyday civility and kindness, honesty and integrity, and a sense of global solidarity with other peoples in their struggles for justice, education, freedom. Does being at JCU significantly change the majority of JCU students?

3. Recommendations.

The communication of and the subsequent appropriation of the school’s mission so that operationally it influences the way the school hires, orients, promotes, evaluates, and markets itself needs to be worked through.
The role of the mission in student formation or development is not clear. What kind of young woman or man “fits” John Carroll and how do we help to develop certain attitudes, skills, sensibilities that are congruent with the school’s mission?
The future of the Jesuit component at John Carroll is at best problematic as Jesuits both diminish and age. What are the strategies and tactics that need to be developed to sustain this tradition?
Some in depth thinking needs to be done about the particular “take” on Catholicism at John Carroll. On the one hand, it might be better simply to allow a variety of approaches to flourish along side one another; on the other hand, there ought to be some developed theological and educational policy that articulates a kind of governing consciousness that encourages this kind of plurality and diversity as an expression of our Catholicism. In other words, when we call ourselves Jesuit and Catholic, what do we mean?

For comments or questions, please contact Dr. Elizabeth Swenson.



		SUBCOMMITTEE ON MISSION DRAFT REPORT Members of the Subcommittee on Mission: Howard Gray, S.J, Assistant to the President for University Mission and Identity Dr. Mary Beadle, Ph.D., Graduate School Ms. Lisa Mencini, Human Resources Mr. Tim O’Callahan, Development and Alumni Relations Gerald Sabo, S.J., Classical and Modern Languages and Cultures Dr. James Swindal, Ph.D. Philosophy Introduction. In 1994 the NCA evaluation report assessed favorably the expression of the JCU mission, its process of dissemination, and its reception and influence in the university committees then working on the core, assessments, and institutional planning (5-6 of the Report). In its summary list of recommendations the review committee cited the vitality of the Jesuit/Catholic character of JCU (p. 45 of the Report); however, it also pointed out that the language of the mission statement “does not lend itself easily to outcomes assessment” (pp. 47-48 of the Report). With the recently Board approved abbreviated mission statement and the companion vision and goals statements the university has made an effort to provide the JCU community with guidelines that are accessible and practical. Moreover, with the work done on the University Planning project and the focusing of the school’s mission as the first strategic goal of the implementation of this plan, institutionally JCU has a solid foundation for sustaining the specific character of the school and adapting this character to the realities of decreased numerical Jesuit presence and greater reliance on lay and other religious community leadership. The publication of Ex corde ecclesiae and the subsequent USA bishops adaptation of this document for national Catholic higher education have caused some concern, much commentary, and a deeper appreciation for the efforts at JCU to bring into harmony the wisdom and integrity of a religious tradition with the USA concern for academic freedom and legitimate autonomy. Consequently, there has been no absence of discussion about aspects of the mission at JCU, though these are frequently located in groups of faculty and staff rather than the entire academic community. It is against this background that the subcommittee on mission did its work. This report has three divisions: (1) the administrative efforts to implement the mission, (2) the overall climate of the school vis-à-vis mission, and (3) some brief recommendations from the committee. 1. Administrative efforts. There has been a development in the way that the university administration has orchestrated its oversight of the school’s mission, particularly its Jesuit and Catholic character. In November 2001 the president appointed an Assistant for University Mission and Identity whose task is to guide the implementation of the University Strategic Plan in those areas that deal with the school’s mission. To that end the Office of Mission and Identity (a Jesuit and his assistant) has spent the first year organizing itself in the light of the present culture at JCU, cooperating with mission initiatives that antedate his appointment (e.g. the Partnership program among faculty and staff), overseeing programs already in place (e.g., Ignatian Day), investigating the viability of new programs (e.g., the spring 2002 presentation on Ignatian spirituality, preparatory to the 2002-2003 series, Bagging Ignatius), cooperating with other university offices in their programs (e.g., the Suenens spring 2002 Ignatian pilgrimage for the JCU and Walsh Jesuit Board and administrators; presentations for first-year student and new faculty orientations), and designing new possibilities (e.g., the university-wide celebration of the feast of St. Ignatius on July 31st, 2002; the negotiations with the Religious Studies department for an annual forum on belief and unbelief and their respective approaches to crucial common issues; a seminar for recent hires on aspects of the Jesuit/Catholic tradition). In addition to these the Assistant to the President teaches a course on Ignatian spirituality as part of the Religious Studies and Catholic studies offerings. He is also the university’s liaison with the AJCU Commission on Mission and Identity, the Heartland Steering Committee, and the newly formed Mission and Identity Program sponsored by ACCU, AJCU, and AGB. Distinct from the Office of the Assistant to the President for University Mission and Identity but allied to the enhancement of the Catholic and Jesuit character of the school is the establishment of the Ignatian Spirituality Institute (ISI). This institute offers an educational program for the training of spiritual directors in the tradition of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. An affiliate program of the Department of Religious Studies, the ISI will begin its program in the fall of 2003. The University Strategic Plan has as its first aim: To ensure the Catholic and Jesuit Nature of the University and has assigned eight strategic goals to implement this aim. Five of these strategic goals are challenging but doable; three present difficulties that the wider school community has to acknowledge and confront in some creative fashion. These three include: hiring for mission in a way that is consistent with academic freedom, encouraging Jesuits to come to JCU, and investigating the complementary nature of the Jesuit and Catholic identity and identifying ways that include visible reminders of the Jesuit and Catholic character of the university, e. g., good religious art, campus outdoor locations for meditation. Hiring for mission is a tough sell to faculty and, to some degree, even to staff. It has been a topic that the AJCU Commission on Mission and Identity has waltzed around in its last three annual meetings. It is crucial because of the second of the three problematic goals, the recruitment of younger Jesuits to JCU. As the Jesuit pool shrinks, the presumption that the distinctively Jesuit and Catholic dimensions of the mission will naturally and organically be represented and enhanced is increasingly ingenuous. The presence of many committed Catholic faculty and staff and committed faculty and staff from other traditions at JCU is real, but needs both education in and formation for (albeit the awkwardness of the term) that tradition. Such education and formation can be done piecemeal, as it is presently being done. However, sooner or later there will have to be an administrative decision to commit time and money to the preparation of lay leadership expert in the communication and inculcation of the specifically Jesuit and Catholic character of JCU. The implementation of the complementary character of Jesuit and Catholic has two obstacles. First, in general, faculty and staff accept far more readily JCU being Jesuit than they do its being Catholic. The reasons for this will be discussed later in this report. Second, JCU has a long way to go in providing any art and appropriate conversational, much less meditation, space. In summary, then, the administration has delegated specific personnel, space, resources, and authority to the implementation of the school’s Jesuit and Catholic character. There also exist clear and helpful directives from authorities within the Society of Jesus, which specify what is the Jesuit and Catholic character of an institution that identifies itself as part of that tradition (e.g., Communal Reflection on the Jesuit Mission in Higher Education: A Way of Proceeding, a document of the USA Jesuit provincials, promulgated in May, 2002). But there are immense challenges that confront the present and long-term viability of that tradition at JCU. 2. Overall climate at JCU towards the mission. In an effort to gauge what faculty and staff feel about the mission at JCU, particularly its Catholic and Jesuit character, the committee designed a set of questions for a variety of university divisions and groups—faculty and staff. These groups included the Graduate Studies Committee, the Jesuit community, the Catholic Studies Advisory Group, Human Resources personnel, the heads of the departments of Community Service, Center for Global Education, and the Core Curriculum Committee, as well as focus groups of faculty and staff. These provide some sample of faculty, staff, and administrators’ opinions. No one sees his or her work, either as the head of a department or as an individual professional at JCU, as outside the scope of the mission broadly conceived. The areas where everyone seems to be comfortable and even enthusiastic about the mission are these: The academic curriculum takes seriously the inculcation of skills and wide, humane knowledge that offers an intellectual and even formational (ethical?) foundation for our students to choose to be men and women for others. People at JCU care about being good teachers and responsible adults with and before the JCU students. The faculty and staff generally support the many initiatives at JCU to involve students in service programs. There was no wide-spread or deeply held complaint that the commitment to serving the poor, the raising of consciousness about justice issues, or the time spent in international or national service programs undermined the seriousness of the academic life at JCU. The areas of mixed reactions were these: Departmentally, there is more disparity. On the one hand, department heads can point to the services that they offer to the wider community and the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, to the strong sense of ethics in the professions which they inculcate, and to the desire to raise the consciousness of young people to the issues of justice and peace in today’s world. On the other hand, there is a range of discomfort with aspects of Catholicism among some of the most influential faculty and staff. There is a perception among some, faculty especially, that the Catholic Church represents thought-control, academic censorship, and a distrust of intellectual inquiry and dissent. Jesuits come off a little better, being perceived as intellectually interested, personally involved in and committed to the university system, frequently trained in secular disciplines and at secular institutions, and historically something of mavericks in the official Church. These are attitudinal dimensions of the question, not hard statistics; but they are real and contribute mightily to one major aspect of the school’s mission. There was also a series of concerns, like the need to acknowledge what some saw as the shortcomings in implementing the mission: the practical social justice questions that touch the role of women in the church, a living wage for graduate students, and the need for a more open budget process. There were also concerns raised about the maintenance of the distinctively Catholic and Jesuit character of JCU, which centered on hiring for mission, an environment of religious criticism and anti-Catholicism which discourages conversation about ways to implement the mission at JCU. In short, there are two major voices at JCU, one comes from a distancing from the Jesuit/Catholic character of the institution; the other comes from an espousal and, in some cases, even a defense of, that tradition. One of the questions that the committee asked was about a personal assimilation of the school’s mission into one’s professional and even personal life. Again, this evoked a mixed response. Some said that being at a school like Carroll gave integration and direction to their professional work and to their private lives. They were specific in naming things like the ideals, the Spiritual Exercises, time for liturgy and prayer, Ignatian Day, Jesuit friendships. Others found that the JCU mission had little impact on either their scholarship and research or their personal life. On the other hand, a significant number of faculty did say that they reverenced their teaching and their contact with the students at JCU because these were a professional value at JCU. There did not seem to be any major unease among non-Catholics at JCU. Either they felt comfortable with what they saw as the “golden rule” quality of life at JCU, the general climate of friendliness and acceptance, or they felt that their indifference to religious issues was sufficiently unchallenged at JCU. In summary, the mission statement probably gives more “tone” to the school’s culture than either the secularists among us want to admit or the ardently Catholic among us would like to see more explicit. What is clear is that enough people are not sure how the mission has an impact on the daily lives of students---outside their service programs. Questions arose about the level of consciousness about social justice among the middle range of students, about everyday civility and kindness, honesty and integrity, and a sense of global solidarity with other peoples in their struggles for justice, education, freedom. Does being at JCU significantly change the majority of JCU students? 3. Recommendations. The communication of and the subsequent appropriation of the school’s mission so that operationally it influences the way the school hires, orients, promotes, evaluates, and markets itself needs to be worked through. The role of the mission in student formation or development is not clear. What kind of young woman or man “fits” John Carroll and how do we help to develop certain attitudes, skills, sensibilities that are congruent with the school’s mission? The future of the Jesuit component at John Carroll is at best problematic as Jesuits both diminish and age. What are the strategies and tactics that need to be developed to sustain this tradition? Some in depth thinking needs to be done about the particular “take” on Catholicism at John Carroll. On the one hand, it might be better simply to allow a variety of approaches to flourish along side one another; on the other hand, there ought to be some developed theological and educational policy that articulates a kind of governing consciousness that encourages this kind of plurality and diversity as an expression of our Catholicism. In other words, when we call ourselves Jesuit and Catholic, what do we mean? For comments or questions, please contact Dr. Elizabeth Swenson.