ARTICLES
May 2003 ARTICLES
Contents © 2003
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Diversity Perversity at Loyola-Marymount
But Philosophy Department Stands Up for the Faith
By Christopher Zehnder
Good things sometimes do happen even at a place like Loyola-Marymount in Los Angeles.
An instance of this was a recent departmental review by the Jesuit university's Academic Planning and Review Committee. -- a sort of internal accreditation agency that periodically evaluates the university's various departments. A December 12, 2002 report gave the results of the committee's review of the university's philosophy department -- a review that was, mostly, unremarkable, except for one point. And on this point hangs a tale.
Not surprisingly, the committee found "strengths and weaknesses" in the philosophy department. In accord with the canons of self-esteem motivation, the committee listed, first, the department's "strengths." Among other positives, the committee determined that the philosophy department had a "diverse student body" and a "committed" and "passionate" faculty ("passionate" about teaching, that is), which is also "diverse with a wide spectrum of philosophic disciplines represented within and beyond the Christian tradition."
Why it is desirable to have diversity spreading not simply outside the Christian tradition, but beyond it becomes clearer (perhaps) with point number four in the philosophy department's five point weakness list. In point four, the Academic Planning and Review Committee took issue with the department's "stated focus on implementing the University mission by representing the core course (PHIL 160) as being taught from a Christian viewpoint" [emphasis added]. This focus is especially problematic to the committee, for it "may give the appearance of being in conflict with the University's diversity goals and also may be odds with the diversity of perspective actually offered in this course." The committee recommended that the philosophy department "should revisit their core description for PHIL 160 to ensure that it reflects the diversity of philosophical and religious viewpoints desired or in current practice for this course."
The "stated focus" to which the committee referred was the course description found in the 2002 "LMU Undergraduate Bulletin," which says that Philosophy 160 provides students with an "introductory exploration of the central questions and interpretations of human existence which undergird a Christian worldview." It appears that the Academic Planning and Review Committee thought this description an unhappy one, since, as its report said, the philosophy department's "mission strongly parallels that of the University" -- and the university, presumably, has moved beyond the narrow confines of a Christian worldview.
But would the philosophy department seize hold of the Zeitgeist and follow the recommendation to affirm diversity in its course description for Philosophy 160? "We had a department meeting on Friday, March 14, to review this and there were various ironies," said James Hanink, a philosophy department faculty member. One of these ironies, said Hanink, is that one member of the philosophy department sat on the committee that prepared the document. "The other irony," continued Hanink, "was that, after a heated discussion, we revised the description of Philosophy 160, but actually made it more specific. It now reads: 'an introductory of central questions and interpretations of human existence, carried on in light of the Catholic intellectual tradition.' So, instead of having 'Christian worldview,' we've actually gotten more specific, which I am sure will lead to further discussion."
Though this new course description for Philosophy 160 is an even more egregious departure from Loyola-Marymount's mission of diversity, Hanink thinks the Academic Planning and Review Committee will let it stand. "I suspect," he said, "that the people on the committee will say, 'well, we were supposed to examine departments 1-3 this time. This is their response. When it comes time to examine them again in four years, if anyone is the same person on the committee, we'll bring it up again.' So many things happen out of sheer inertia [at the university]; so the committee, I would guess, would do absolutely nothing, because they got in their report and they have something else to look at. They'd really have to have a bug up their butts to challenge this, but I would really doubt that very much."
From Hanink's point of view, the philosophy department's action was "a case where there was a timely intervention that made things better than they were. So, I guess," said Hanink, "the moral of the story is, 'swing at the bat.'"