universities that demonstrate higher education should establish connections with the church. His
defense of this opinion is that the church "is necessary for (the university's) integrity" (Newman 3). Newman's focus on integrity and connections between faith and the university can be seen in different ways. While some can clearly understand his reasoning, others may view his opinions as judgmental and somewhat hypocritical in the way that he at times goes back on his word.
Newman's perfect university has a strong focus on what he calls "universal education". This includes people from all backgrounds coming together to communicate thought and common ideas. He seems to feel very strongly about diversity in education, but the fact that he is close-minded to other religious views makes his view of the ideal university seem nearly unrealistic. What caught my attention in class today was the similarities we were able to draw between today's university (we mainly used Trinity as an example) and the basis of secular humanism. Both focused on ideas of freedom and moral education through reason, science and technology, and ideas such as evolution which bring about religious skepticism. Newman's claim is that religion brings about a connection of all types of knowledge. But, in my opinion, his inability to accept those outside of his "Civilization" limits the amount of knowledge that can be shared.
Does this not conflict with the goal of higher education? Is Newman's expectations for the university unrealistic for today's society?
Max
I would definitely agree that Newman's narrow definition of what is acceptable for "gentlemen" to come into contact with and learn about in school directly opposes the goal of higher education. In my opinion, an education should, aside from providing useful skills and a general knowledge of the universe, help a person gain an understanding of the source and nature of the great variety of cultural (and other) views that people around the world hold. Newman seems to agree with this notion of tolerance, stating that the educated "gentlemen" is an open-minded individual who is "a friend of religious toleration" and even "merciful towards the absurd [beliefs of others] (Newman 146)." However, his acceptance of and outright support for a university that is exclusively for Catholic males is in itself destructive of several of such qualities which he wishes for students to cultivate. Acceptance of "otherness" is fostered through exposure to exactly those cultures and ideas which are considered alien, not through constant interaction with only people who's religious and national backgrounds are identical to ones own. To relate this back to our discussion of Trinity University, I would say that this exposure to foreign people and ideas is exactly what we receive here (since Trinity is known for its efforts to enroll students from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds), and this undoubtedly is an important part of a liberal arts education. It seems obvious to us that tolerance is derived from such exposure, but apparently Newman either did not understand this or he was simply too overzealous in his faith to admit it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind when assessing Newman's arguments for the purpose and scope of a university is his place in history. This is a man writing in mid-Victorian Britain, and what may appear to us now as prejudices or close-mindedness might not necessarily have been considered out of the mainstream during his own time. Granted, this does not exempt our dear cardinal from criticism, but we do want to be careful not to project presentist ideals of diversity and inclusiveness onto his approach to higher education. Then again, given the persecution Catholics suffered, a discrimination against which Newman was campaigning, a reader of his own day might actually have thought his ideas of opening universities to Roman Catholics (and opening a university devoted to Roman Catholicism) rather liberal and subversive. Just a thought . . .
ReplyDelete