TO:        The University Community
FROM:    Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President
              Chair, University Planning Group
SUBJECT:  Summary of UPG Meeting, March 7, 2008

Following is a summary of the discussion items from the UPG meeting of March 7, 2008.

D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. in the LSC Conference Room   The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection.  P. Murphy from The Institute of Catholic Studies joined the UPG for this meeting to help discuss the statement “On the Catholic and Jesuit Identity of John Carroll University.”  N. Santilli opened the conversation, saying that the purpose for the development of this Catholicity statement  is to provide a clarifying statement for how our campus animates the distinctive Jesuit Catholic tradition we hold so dear.  Both qualitative and quantitative information resulting from the efforts (focus groups, surveys, etc.) of H. Gray, S.J., served as the backdrop for this Catholicity statement.  The UPG reviewed the document with Fr. Gray twice and will review it again today with the help of P. Murphy.  At the end of the December UPG meeting with Fr. Gray, the document was placed in our hands to make our own.  What we would like to achieve today is to gain a deeper understanding of this document and perhaps move forward two of the four questions posed at the end of the December meeting:  “What do we want to accomplish with this document?” and “How do we begin to use this document in communicating our Jesuit Catholic tradition to the outside world?”

P. Murphy worked with Fr. Gray on this document and is also a member of the university’s Mission Coordinating Committee.  One of the reasons to develop this statement is that external groups want to impose meaning to “Catholic” and “Jesuit,” often something stricter or a narrower version.  This statement is an opportunity to describe and/or explain in our terms what it means to be Catholic and Jesuit.  D. La Guardia asked where this document is expected to appear.  P. Murphy suggested that perhaps a shortened version could be used, or sections of it could be used in publications and discussions.  The intention is to develop a shared language, and he noted that it came about from Fr. Gray’s work with and across the community.  E. Peck suggested that we should begin to map what we currently do to the document.  That would allow us to see the relationship between what we do as a university to the words.  P. Murphy said that can be helpful in making people comfortable with the document as well as with Ignatian spirituality, and that the “search for God in all things” is totally appropriate for a university setting.  L. Bowen asked if the intent is to take the document as well as a shorter version to the Board for their May meeting.  P. Murphy said that it is important that we become comfortable with this complex document and how it shows the relationship between faith and reason or research.  D. La Guardia said that he is worried about what would be lost in a shorter document.  D. Riley said that we need a short version and acknowledged that she does not think it can be done by May, but also, that we need it now.  P. Murphy stated that it was Fr. Gray’s intent to produce a thoughtful document about who we are, not a marketing document.  E. Peck noted that Fr. Gray used a 3-fold schema to structure the document and that perhaps that could be used as a way to shorten it.  P. Murphy pointed out that you cannot have a short “intellectual” document.  He noted that the preamble talks about the experience of faith in Christianity as being embedded in culture and that faith reacts to culture in a dynamic fashion.

L. Eisenmann then suggested using the structural version to emphasize parts of the document, perhaps using bullet points.  K. Schuele suggested making an operational version rather than a shortened version.  P. Murphy said that this is not easily operational; it does not deal with outcomes.  N. Santilli noted that it is really a background for why we ask our students to do what we do, and why we allow certain performances, sponsor speakers, and engage in research.  It allows us to move to that distinctiveness that we talked about in May.  J. Sheehan suggested using specific students, alums, or faculty to show how this might be exemplified, especially on the web, and suggested using Celebration of Scholarship examples.  P. Murphy pointed to the conclusion of the document as a good place to use an operational approach.

J. Smith then noted that we have talked about how to use the document but that we have not talked about the document.  D. Ben-Porath suggested that part of the issue is that there are two different but related audiences – parents and those making phone calls.  The document is written for an academic, intellectual community.  P. Murphy said that it is a document for us, to understand who we are.  D. Norris asked how non-Catholic, non-Christian community members would interpret this.  P Murphy suggested using the last part of the preamble to start the document.  L. Eisenmann said that she talks to new faculty, finalists, and applicants about what it will mean to them to be here.  B. Williams noted that a common question they receive is “How Catholic are you?”  He said that they move the discussion to describe the kind of community we are rather than something like “we’re 70% Catholic, but .…”  P. McDermott said that the statement is helpful and that it is needed for students’ understanding.  D. La Guardia suggested that we use this document as background to feel comfortable in answering questions like “Why do you not do this?” as well as “Why do you do this or that?”  D. Norris said that it could be used to build community, to make clear that people who feel like outsiders really are not and are important to the community.  L. Bowen noted she has been surprised at how many people she thought were “insiders” felt or feel like outsiders.  D. La Guardia said that inclusivity is a state of mind, and we need to make progress in not ignoring it, if we have.  We need to have authentic dialogue to make people feel welcomed in their different voice.  B. Williams noted that we have not talked about our setting in time and place.

N. Santilli then suggested that our next move is to hand off the statement to the Mission Coordinating Committee to begin to animate this on campus, after the Board sees the document.  He said that it will be incredibly empowering for what we are going to do to become a better institution.

The meeting adjourned at 9:58 a.m.