ABSTRACT THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT IN CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION by Frederick Reese Clark The purpose of this study, in general, was to identify conflict that change has brought into the Catholic higher educa- tional structure. The specific purpose of this study was an attempt to provide some empirical data drawn from three Catholic universities and three Catholic liberal arts colleges on the phenomenon of conflict within the organizational structure of Catholic higher education. This thesis tried to identify and measure this conflict by the degree of consensus or lack of consensus of the administration and faculty which comprised the leaders of influence concerning the following four problem areas or issues: l. The philosophy of Catholic higher education; 2. Institutional goals and purposes; 3. The loci of decision-making and governance; 4. The definition and interpretation of academic freedom. The theory of conflict as used in this study was a way of describing antecedent conditions to overt or manifest conflict; Frederick Reese Clark that is to say, it is an analysis of latent and perceived con- flict. While conflict itself is not necessarily good or bad, this study emphasized the position that conflict may be functional rather than dysfunctional in that it may generate pressures which ultimately reduce conflict. The methodology rested upon certain fundamental propositions in perceptual theory, namely, that human behavior is a function of perception and that the perceiver acts in a manner which is con- sistent with his perception. The instrument used in this study was an interview schedule designed to determine the leaders' per- ceptions over the four issues. The information gathered from interviewing 83 leaders of influence provided a basis for the qualitative analysis of the six institutions and the Catholic system as a whole. The sample of respondents was selected through a sociometric device for nominating leaders of influence. The interpretation of the results of the analysis was based on the notion that where consensus or agreement are found, there is at present little latent or perceived conflict. 0n the other hand, the lack of agreement would be evidence of latent or perceived conflict. The following analysis was made concerning Catholic higher education: l. There is some conflict found between the institutional church and Catholic higher education as a system. This is based upon the perception of the leaders as they view the dioceses and religious orders that try to control these institutions. Frederick Reese Clark The conflict found between the institutional church and Catholic higher education as a system is not necessarily disruptive but holds the potential for being positively functional. It appears probably, although this is a subjective response to the total mass of data, that both institutions are in the process of re-assessment of their positions and in re-evaluating or redefining their goals. The crucial breach that might have spelled manifest con- flict seems to have been averted. There is latent conflict within the leadership of the administration and within the leadership of the faculty over the identification of a philosophy of higher educa- tion. All agree that it has changed and that a new pattern is emerging. I There is conflict over the identification of goals and purposes within the leadership of the administration and faculty. Among the colleges and religious work group there seems to be a pattern of social and commu- nity service and involvement emerging. There is no conflict over the locus of decision-making and governance in relationship to academic affairs among the leadership of the administration and the faculty. There is, however, disagreement among the administration and the faculty concerning deliberative decision-making concerning non-academic and administrative affairs. Frederick Reese Clark All agree that the Catholic system is in transition from an authoritarian—benevolent system to a consul- tatory-participative system. Seeds of unrest are present concerning the use or value of a deliberative- participative system. On the whole, there is no significant conflict over the definition and interpretation of academic freedom. However, all recognize conflict in regards to the freedom of theology and philosophy within the institu- tional church, extra-academic circles. THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT IN CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION By Frederick Reese Clark A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education T968 557% rs“ .2 " - Copyright by Frederick Reese Clark 1968 DEDICATED TO My Parents-- Frederick and Florence Clark Their sacrifices made all this possible ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Surely, my indebtedness will not be reflected in the brief words on this page. But I should like to mention those people who gave their time, talent, and experience in contributing to this study. I should like to single out for special mention, Dr. Max Raines who was kind enough to become my committee chairman and advisor at a late stage in my career at Michigan State University. He was gener- ous of his time, and he has shown a sincere interest in my work. Also, Dr. Sigmund Nosow. He gave a great amount of advice and counsel during my studies and especially in directing the writing of this thesis. Dr. Karl Hereford, my former advisor and chairman who instilled a great deal of confidence in me to pursue and continue my program. Dr. George Johnson and Dr. Edward Blackman, both of whom have guided me through my program and have given me very helpful advice. Finally, but most definitely not least, to Fr. Vernon Gallagher, C.S.Sp., and Fr. Joseph A. Duchene, C.S.Sp., for their continual encouragement and sincere faith in me. They also provided the neces- sary resources for my continuance in the doctoral program. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ........................ iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................... iv LIST OF TABLES ...................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ..................... x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................... l Purpose of This Study ............. 2 Conflict Theory .......... _ ...... 4 Hypotheses .................. 6 Overview ................... 7 MaJor Conclus1ons of the Study ........ 8 II. THE THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT ...... ll Models .................... ll Definitions of Conflict ............ l2 Conflict as a Dynamic Process ......... l3 Latent Conflict ................ l3 Perceived Conflict .............. l4 Application to Study ............. l5 Organizational Reaction to Conflict ...... l5 Summary .................... l6 III. LITERATURE REVIEW ................ 19 Introduction ................. l9 The First and Second Issues-- The Philosoohy, Goals and Objectives . . . . 20 Critics of Church- Related College ..... 25 The Third Issue--Decision-Making ....... 44 The Fourth Issue--Academic Freedom ...... 62 Summary .................... 7O Chapter IV. METHODOLOGY .................... Introduction The Selection of Sample and Population ..... Demographic Data on Sample and Population Instrumentation Analysis and Classification .......... Summary ........... - ......... V. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ......... The First Problem Area, A Catholic Philosophy of Higher Education ............. Question Question Question Question The Second and Goals Question Question Question Question Number Number Number Number Issue, Number Number Number Number One ............. Eight ............ The Third Issue, The Locus of Decision-Making and Governance Question Question Question The Fourth Question Question Question Question Question Number Number Number Issue, Number Number Number Number Number Identification of Education in General and in Particular Institutions Ten ............. Eleven ............ Academic Freedom ....... Twelve ............ Thirteen ........... Fourteen ........... Fifteen ........... Sixteen ........... Problems in Catholic Higher Summary .................... VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. Study Findings ................. Implications of Conflict Theory in Catholic Higher Education ............... Future Trends Towards Secularization ...... vi Page 77 77 8T 93 97 99 T03 T2T T22 T25 T35 T40 T44 T50 T53 T60 T62 T66 T68 T72 T76 T82 T84 T88 T90 T96 T97 20T 203 208 232 235 243 246 Chapter APPENDIX . . BIBLIOGRAPHY vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.l College “A” Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 86 4.2 College "B" Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 87 4.3 College "C” Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 88 4.4 College "D” Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 89 4.5 College "E” Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 90 4.6 College "F" Sociometric Choice of Leadership Matrix .................... 9l 4.7 Summary of Population Sample .......... 92 4.8 ‘ Summary of Sample Characteristic: Religion . . . 94 4.9 Summary of Percentages of P0pulation in Various Disciplines ................. 95 4.lO Summary of the Age Characteristics of the Popu— lation and Sample .............. lO7 4.ll Summary of the Status Characteristics of the Sample. .................... l08 4.l2 Summary of the Origin of the Terminal Degrees . . l09 4.l3 Summary of the Earned Terminal Degrees of the Population .................. llO 4.l4 Summary of the Years in Institutions of Higher Learning ................... lll viii Table 4. 4. 010101 0'1 T5 T6 .T7 .7A .78 .10A .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .T8 .T9 Summary of the Years in Catholic Institutions . . Summary of the Years in Present Institutions Summary of Employment in the Number of Catholic Institutions . . . Responses Responses Responses ReSponses Responses Responses Responses ReSponses Responses Responses Responses Responses Responses Responses Responses Responses Responses to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question to Question Six ............ Fourteen ......... Fifteen .......... Sixteen .......... Summary of Responses Concerning Catholic Prob- lems in General . Summary of Responses Concerning Institutional Problems in General 0 O 0 O O 000000000 Summary of ReSponses Concerning Institutional Problems by Institution ..... . ...... ix Page TT2 TT3 230 230 23T Figure boom College College College College College College ..A.. ..B.. ..C.. ..D.. ..E.. ..F.. LIST OF FIGURES Directed Graph Directed Graph Directed Graph Directed Graph Directed Graph Directed Graph of Leadership Choices . of Leadership Choices . of Leadership Choices . of Leadership Choices . of Leadership Choices . of Leadership Choices . Page ll5 ll6 ll7 ll8 ll9 l20 cmwea 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past two years, the headlines of the natiOnal press as well as those of the professional and popular journals have shown an intense interest in Catholic higher education. This interest has centered around a transition that is taking place in Catholic institu- tions of higher learning. TIME magazine (April l5, l966) has pre- sented this transition as a problem of secularization. It writes that Catholic seminaries are becoming more and more like Catholic colleges which, in turn are becoming more and more like secular institutions themselves. LOOK (April 5, l966) describes the tran- sition as a contest between freedom and authority within the insti- tutions themselves. The SATURDAY REVIEW (April l6, 1966) presents Catholic institutions as facing an embarrassing dilemma: in trying to retain a Catholic identity they have risked the loss of acceptance in the educational mainstream, or in gaining academic acceptance they have risked the loss of significant identity. This review claims that the problem stems from an absence of an intellectual integra- tion and an educational rationale on a higher educational level which is distinctively Catholic. In summary, there appears to be a conflict arising between the secularization of these institutions and an integrated Catholic identity. Both the secular and the Catholic press have reported manifest conflicts between the hierarchical authorities and the emerging laity. An example of this have been the demonstrations and strikes at St. John's University in New York and Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. There is represented here a pressure toward an increasing participation of the faculty,both clerical and lay, in the formation of university policy and governance. This is a new type of pressure and one for which the structure of religious life has ill-prepared those in administration, and as a result, overt tensions and conflicts were bound to develop. John D. Donovan sums up the problem in the following way: Briefly stated, the coming of age of American Catholic colleges has been a transition ushered in, so to speak, by the fundamental challenges to the validity and viability of the theological, structural, and historic warrants of the pre-l950 system. Thus, the newly developed theological for- mulations of the relationships between the order of faith and the order of knowledge have reopened the question of the ,functions of Catholic higher education. Similarly, the evo- lution of a theology of the laity in the Church has pressed for a re-evaluation of the status and role of the lay profes- sor in the Catholic college. And finally these theologically rooted pressures have become academically relevant because the lay professors constitute the faculty majority and because the American Catholic community is composed of a more highly educated, more articulate, more knowledgeable population than it was even fifty years ago. The Purpose of This Study It is a well-known fact that fundamental challenges always engender conflict: "what is," is challenged by "what is becoming." Scott and Blau in their book, Formal Organizations, suggest that conflicts in complex organizaitons are an inevitable source of change and that the resulting organizational developments can be conceptu- 2 alized as a dialectical or dynamic process. They also maintain that there is a relationship of mutual dependence between conflict and change, in that changes in the social structure often precipi- tate conflict, and that conflicts tend to generate innovations.3 Since l950 there have been many changes in the structure of Catholic higher education that have precipitated conflict or internal stress which are demanding innovations in the philosophy of Catholic higher education, modifications of institutional goals and purposes, shifts in the locus of decision-making, and the interpretation of academic freedom. There is a need, then, for a study to review these issues of stress within the internal structure of Catholic higher education and to determine their direction and the effects that they will have on the structure and system in particular, and on all higher education in general. . Some degree of conflict within an organization is inevitable and desirable; indeed, a certain amount is healthy and may be produc- ' tive for change, since it may bring about creative transformations and innovations resulting in the improvement of the structure and functioning of the organization. Most administrators of organiza- tions miss this fact and think of conflict as something bad, to be avoided. They miss the point that a certain amount of conflict or social disorganization may make for stimulating relationships and positive change. The big question is how much? There is no pat answer to this question. A study of conflict and consensus such as proposed here may give the answer. The specific purpose, then, of this study will be to attempt to provide some empirical, qualitative data drawn from three Catholic universities and three Catholic liberal arts colleges on the phemomenon of conflict within the organizational structure of Catholic higher education. It will try to identify and measure this conflict by the degree of consensus within four major institutional areas--the philosophy, goals and objectives, loci of decision-making and, finally, the definition and interpretation of academic freedom, as perceived and represented by the leadership of the administration and faculty in these institutions. Conflict Theory If we define conflict as a struggle between two or more parties for the utilization of limited resources, then the sources of poten- tial conflict in church-related institutions and particularly Catholic institutions may emerge from the desire to realize competing philoso- phies of education, conflicting institutional goals, or the institu- tion of conflicting means. Since we are dealing with a social pro- cess, often such conflict is latent, below the surface, rather than manifest. Overt conflict often emerges based on underlying differ- ences in value-orientations when certain new forces in the situation bring these to the surface. Here value-orientations refer to those aspects of an individual's orientation which commit him to the ob- servance of certain norms, standards, criteria of selection, whenever he is in a contingent situation which allows (and requires) him to make a choice.4 Hence, one may also infer conflict in values from particular overt behavior or expressions of such values. One must assume, then, that the eXpression of conflict or its potential expres- sion is based on conflicting interpretations of the role or functions of an institution. On this basis, we sought data which seemed most clearly to provide expressions of fundamental values or attitudes of significant persons in actual or potential positions of power within sampled Catholic institutions of higher learning. We are searching out certain areas of conflict in Catholic higher education because we are convinced that conflict may be both productive as well as destructive in consequence. The literature about tension and conflict in social systems produces very little, if any, empirical data that measure the degree of conflict that results in change. In fact, there is very little in sociological theory concerning organizational conflict as func- tionally positive or valuable. However, Lewis Coser in his work, The Functions of Social Conflict, and before him, George Simmel in his work, Conflict, have suggested the positive functions rather than the dysfunctional aSpects of conflict. They are concerned with those consequences of social conflict that make for an increase rather than a decrease in the adaptation or adjustment of a particular social group or social structure. Far from being a negative function which tears_apart, it is presented as a positive function which leads to an integration of factors and groups in an organization. This study will limit its investigations to in-group conflicts. In this case, conflict inherent to the organization. Two of Coser's hypotheses that will be of primary concern in this investigation are: Internal and social conflicts, which concern goals, values, or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the relationship is founded tend to be positively functional for the social structure. Such conflicts tend to make possible the re-adjustment of norms and power re- lationships within an in-group in accordance with felt needs of its individual members and sub-groups; and Internal conflicts in which the contending parties no longer share the basic values upon which the legitimacy of the social system rests threaten to disrupt the structure. In this case, we are dealing with latent conflicts manifested in perceived values and attitudes. (This latent conflict is taken up in Chapter II, page l3.) We are not dealing with students protesting, faculty strikes, defiance of administrative orders, faculty resigna- tions or turnover; but various forms of latent conflict. Such latent conflict may be erosive in that it may affect occupational self-satisfactions, attitudes toward organizations and their func- tions and more important interpersonal relations. This study tries to provide some empirical, qualitative data on the phenomenon of latent conflict as identified, and measured by consensus or lack of consensus among administrators and faculty engendered in the philo- SOphy, goals, loci of the decision-making and governance; and not least, the definition and interpretation of academic freedom. Hypotheses A number of specific hypotheses concerning the phenomenon under discussion have been generated from preliminary exploration of the problem. Because of the exploratory nature of the study and the pur- posive character of the sample, it will not be possible to test these hypotheses in a scientifically valid manner. Rather, they set the direction for our exploration and allow us, we believe, to discuss the problem at hand, in a meaningful way. The following hypotheses stated in null form provide the foundation for the research herein described. They are: 1. That the latent conflict among the leadership of influence within the administration and the faculty does not affect the basic foundations upon which Catholic education rests. The leadership of influence here is defined as the leader- ship within the most prestigious segments of the social structure—~administration and the faculty, on one hand, and/or the religious and laymen, on the other. 2. That the leadership of influence among the administration and the faculty do not have significantly different per— ceptions concerning the philosophy of Catholic higher education. 3. That the leadership of influence among the administration and among the faculty do not have a significantly different perception as to the goals and purposes of the organization as it is and should be. '4. That the leadership of influence among the administration and among the faculty tend to share the same perceptions and attitudes toward the loci of decision-making and govern— ance in the institutions. 5. That the leadership of influence among the administration and the leadership of influence among the faculty hold similar values concerning academic freedom. Overview The remainder of this study will be concerned with the four problem areas and their relation to the theory of conflict in Catholic higher education. The following are the chapter breakdowns: In Chapter II we will present a Theory of Organizational Conflict. In Chapter III the review of the literature concerning the four problem areas will be presented within a historical and current perspective. These problem areas are often referred to as issues in this and the following chapters. The design and methodology for organizational analysis is presented and explained in reference to the six institutions studied in Chapter IV. In Chapter V there will be an analysis of the data which are both anecdotal and statistical. Chapter VI includes a summary of the study with conclusions, impli- cations and future trends. Major Conclusions of the Study It may be valuable at this point to present a brief summary of the ultimate findings. The major conclusions of this study are: . l. That the conflict found between the Institutional Church and Catholic higher education as a system is not disrup- tive but functional. '2. That there is significant conflict between the Institu- tional Church and Catholic higher education as a system and as individual institutions over the four areas. 3. That there is no significant conflict between the leader- ship of the administration and the leadership of the faculty over the four issues. They are perceived in much the same way. 4. That there is no significant conflict over the identifi- cation of a philOSOphy of higher education. All agree that it has changed. A new pattern is emerging. 5. There is a significant conflict over the identification of goals and purposes. A pattern of social and community service and involvement is emerging. 6. There is conflict over the locus of decision—making and governance in relation to non-academic and administrative affairs. The conflict resides in the degree of lay parti- cipation in these matters. 7. On the whole, there is no significant conflict over the definition and interpretation of academic freedom. However, all recognized conflict concerning academic freedom in regard to theology and philosophy with the Institutional Church. There is also conflict concerning the academic freedom of the religious members of the faculty. In the next chapter, then, the related literature for the four problem areas or issues is presented in order to give an historical perspective. TO Citations-~Chapter I John 0. Donovan, The Academic Man in the Catholic College (New York: Sheed and Ward, l964), pp. 195-196. Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comproductive Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Press, 1962), p. TO. Ibid., p. 240. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, l952), p. 59. Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1956), p. T5l. CHAPTER II THE THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT1 Models Louis R. Pondy conceptualizes three models which are de- signed to deal with the major classes of conflict phenomena in organizations: 1. The bargaining model: this is designed to deal with con- flict among interested groups in competition for scarce resources. This model is particularly appropriate for the analysis of labor-management situations, administration- faculty problems; budgetary processes and staff-line problems. The bureaucratic model: this is applicable to superior- subordinate conflicts, or in general, conflicts among the vertical dimensions of a hierarchy. This is the model that was used primarily in the past in Catholic colleges for conflict resolution. This model is primarily con- cerned with the problems caused by the institution's at- tempt to control behavior and the organization's reaction to such control. The systematic model: this is directed at lateral con- fTict, or conflict among the parties to a functional relationship. The analysis of the problems of coordina- tion is of special concern to this model.2 Louis Pondy writes of common threats in the form of implicit orientations as running through all of these models: 1. 3 Each conflict relationship is made up of a sequence of interlocking conflict episodes: each episode exhibits a sequence or a pattern of development, and the conflict relationship can be characterized by stable patterns that appear across the sequence of episodes. This orientation is said to form the basis for working definitions of con- flict. 11 12 Conflict may be functional as well as dysfunctional for the individual and the organization; it may have its roots either within the individual or in the organizational con- text; therefore, the desirability of conflict resolution needs to be approached with caution. Some authors such as Talcott Parsons and before him Weber, viewed conflict as always dysfunctional and disruptive. They disregarded its possible positive functions. Conflict from this point-of— view seems to be thought of as partly avoidable, partly inevitable, and an endemic form of a sickness in the body social.4 However, Louis Coser, and before him, George Simmel, are concerned with the positive functions rather than the dysfunctions or disruptive effects of conflict. They are concerned with the consequences of social con- flict that make for an adaptation and adjustment in social relationships or groups. It is presented far from being a negative function which tears apart, but as a positive function which leads to an interaction and integration of factors which result in innovation and change. Conflict is intimately tied up with the stability of the organization, not merely in the usual sense that conflict is a threat to stability, but in a much more complex fashion; that is, conflict is a key variable in the feed- back loops that characterize organizational behavior. Until techniques of c00peration have been developed for much wider ranges than as yet have been possible, conflict itselg may be the chief process toward ultimate integra- tion. Definitions of Conflict The term "conflict” has been used by the organizational behav- ior theorists in the following way: 1. 6 To describe antecedent conditions of conflictful behavior. This would refer to scarcity of resources, policy differ- ences, and differences in phil050phy. To describe affective states of the individuals involved: this refers to stress, tensions, hostility and anxieties within the individuals. To describe cognitive states of individuals: their per- ception or awareness of confTictful situations. Conflictful behavior: this ranges from passive resistance to overt aggression. Any attempt to decide which of these classes--conditions, attitude, cognition, or behavior--is really conflict is likely to be elusive. Each does not 13 represent a particular type of conflict but rather a stage in development of a conflict episode. Conflict as a Dynamic Process Conflict, then, can be more readily understood as a dynamic process. A particular conflict relationship between two or more groups in an organization must be analyzed as a sequence of conflict episodes. Pondy identifies five stages in every episode:7 Latent conflict (conditions) Perceived conflict (cognition) Felt conflict (affect) Manifest conflict (behavior) Conflict aftermath (conditions) 01-5de This does not mean that every conflict episode necessarily passes through every stage to open aggression. A potential conflict may never be perceived by the parties to be conflict, or if perceived, the conflict may be resolved before hostilities break out. Several other alternative courses of devel0pment often are possible. This is knOwn as conflict resolution, which will be discussed later. It is the first two stages of conflict that this study is primarily interested in: latent conflict and perceived conflict in Catholic higher education. Latent Conflict Pondy identifies three types of latent conflicts:8 l. The competition for scarce resources. 2. Drives for autonomy. 3. Divergence of sub-group goals. Competition forms the basis for latent conflict, when the aggregated demands of the participants for resources excel the resources avail- able to the organization; autonomy needs to form the basis of conflict 14 when one party either seeks control over some activity that another party regards as his own province, or seeks to insulate itself from such control. It is quite evident that this is what is happening in the decision-making processes in higher education. Goal divergence is also a source of conflict when two parties who must c00perate in some type of joint activity are unable to reach a consensus or a con- certed action. This certainly has application in the philosophy of Catholic higher education and institutional goals and purposes. Two or more types of latent conflict may be present at any given time. Perceived Conflict Conflict may be perceived when no conditions of latent conflict exist, and latent conflict conditions may be present in a relation- ship without any of the participants perceiving that conflict exists. Some latent conflicts fail to reach a level of awareness because of mechanisms which limit perception of conflict. These mechanisms are called: l) suppression mechanisms, and 2) attention-focus mechanisms.9 Individuals tend to block out of their consciousness conflicts that are only mildly threatening. Conflicts become strong threats, and therefore must be acknowledged, when the conflicts relate to values that are central to the individual's personality.10 The suppression mechanism is applicable more to conflicts that relate to personal rather than to organizational values. The attention-focus mechanism then is related to organizational behavior. The normal reaction of groups within an organization is to focus on a number of perceived conflicts but not all. Often these tend to be conflicts for the short-run, routine solutions. However, this is not always true. 15 Application to Study By operationalizing the conflict models through a series of questions delving into their various elements, we h0pe to be able to uncover actual and potential sources of conflict confronting Catholic higher education. This study is concerned not only with latent and perceived conflict within the institution but with analyzing patterns of intra as well as inter-group conflict. Organizational Reaction to Conflict One way of viewing an organization is to think of each parti- cipant as making a contribution, such as work, capital, raw materials, in return for certain inducements, such as salary, self-development, interests and even finished goods. The organization is said to be in “equilibrium" if inducements exceed contributions (subjectively valued) for every participant; and in "disequilibrium" if contri- butions exceed inducements for some or all of the participants.11 Participants will be motivated to restore equilibrium either by leaving the organization when it is in disequilibrium, that is, unstable, or by attempting to achieve a favorable balance between inducements and contribution within the organization, when it is considered to be stable. Since changing organizational affiliation frequently involves sizeable costs, disequilibrium tends to be stable. If we assume conflict to be a cost of participation, this inducement-contribution balance theory may help in understanding organizational reactions to conflict. It suggests that the perception of conflict by the participants will motivate them to reduce conflict 16 either by withdrawing from the relationship, or by securing induce- ments to compensate for the conflict. March and Simon state: We assume that where conflict is perceived, motivation to reduce conflict is generated. This assumption that conflict represents a disequilibrium in the svstem is implicit in all treatments of the phenomenon.12 March and Simon continue that reaction to conflict depends on its source.. Where the source of conflict is uncertainty, the individual will first increase his search for clarification of consequences of alternatives already evoked. Failing in that, he will increase his search for new alternatives.13 Reaction to conflict may initiate types of interaction between antagonists, even previously unrelated antagonists. Conflict as a stimulus for establishing new rules, norms, and institution, thus serving as an agent of socializa- tion for both contending parties ..... As a stimulus for the creation and modification of norms, conflicts makes the readjustment of relationship to changed conditions possible; 14 Cyert and March speak of a "quasi-resolution of conflict." They postulate that organizations do not eliminate conflict entirely but live with considerable latent conflict of goals. Organizations cape with these conflicts by dividing up the sub—problems so units do not have to deal with conflicting goals. The conflict between units is ameliorated by decision rules at an acceptable level.15 Summary In summary, then, theory argues that conflict within an organi- zation can be best understood as a dynamic process. This process may best be analyzed as a sequence of conflict episodes. Every episode may be described as having five stages: 1) latent conflict which is 17 the condition for conflict; 2) perceived conflict, which is the cog- nition of conflict; 3) felt conflict which is the affective part of conflict; 4) manifest conflict which entails behavior, which might range from hostility to aggressiveness; 5) conflict aftermath, which sets up the conditions for further conflict--latent conflict. This study is limited to an analysis of latent and perceived conflict in Catholic higher education, as found in the first three stages. While conflict itself is not necessarily good or bad, this study emphasizes with Coser that conflict may be functional in that it generates pressures to reduce conflict through resolution. These conflict resolution techniques may be applied at any of several points or steps in conflict as a process. 13. 14. 15. 18 Citations-~Chapter II Louis R. Pondy, “Organizational Conflicts: Concepts and Models," Administrative Science anrterly, Vol. 12, No. 2, (September, 1967), pp. 297-298. The above Conceptualizations draws heavily on a paper by Lawrence R. Ephron, "Group Conflict in Organizations: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Theories,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, (Spring, T961), pp. 53-72. Pondy, pp, git., p. 298. Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Ap- plied (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1949), pp. 275-310. Chester 1. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 294. Pondy, pp, 913,, p. 298. Ibid., p. 300. Ibid., p. 300. Ibid., p. 300. Coser, pp, 913,, p. 151. Pondy, 9p, 91; , p. 309. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968), p.7l15. Ibid., p. 115. Coser, pp, 915,, p. 128. Richard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963), pp. 117-118. CHAPTER III LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Much has been written recently on the various problems of church-related institutions of higher education. We have singled out issues in which conflict is most likely to appear: 1) the philosophy of Catholic higher education; 2) institutional goals and purposes; 3) the locus of the decision-making process and governance; 4) definitions and interpretations of academic free- dom. These four issues are not of primary concern in all types of organizations. Only two of these issues: goals and purposes, and the locus of decision-making, can be treated as concerns of all types of organizations. The definition and interpretation of aca- demic freedom is an issue that is common to all educational organi- zations but it has its greatest application on the higher educational level. While the phil050phy of education is common to all types of educational organizations, it has a unique position in the church- related institution. It is within this issue that there is a fusion of two social systems: the objectives of the church and the objec- tives of higher education. It is in this fusion that the great amount of latent or perceived conflict is present: the conflict 19 20 between the sacred and the secular, the Gemeinschaft and the Gesellschaft, the localite and the cosmopolitan. There is no doubt that the philosophy of Catholic higher educa- tion will pervade the other three issues, even dominate them. This degree of domination can also be a source of conflict which in turn can be a prelude to redefinitions of philosophy. Since institutional goals and objectives have their roots in the philosophy, this issue will be treated with the philosophy of Catholic higher education. The First and Second Issues The Philosophy, Goals and Objectives Andrew M. Greeley, in an article entitled, ”After Secularity: The Neo-Gemeinschaft Societ: A Post—Christian Postscript," maintains~ that the Catholic church as it moves from the post-tridentine counter- reformation stance to the post-Vatican ecumenical stance is going through the same transition that the whole western society has under- gone Since the beginning of the 19th Century--from Gemeinschaft to Gessellschaft.1 It is not surprising, therefore, that the phi1050phy of Catholic higher education should be changing since its parent social system is in a state of transition. It is clear that when we speak of the philOSOphy of Catholic higher education, we mean not a.system of philosophy but rather a value-orientation. The only question that this study could ask, then, is what is the meaning of the adjective “Catholic" as a qualifier of the concept higher educa- tion? It is this that presses for re-examination, for the pattern- 21 maintenance and integrative functions of Catholic higher education seems to have lost their original importance and have become secon- dary. There has been a theological acceptance of the integrity of the secular as secular and the need to integrate all knowledge to a transcendental order of truth has been removed. This has freed, also, the scholar from many inhibitions and fears of self~imposed censor- ship and doctrinal error.2 Andrew Greeley says that the Church has become secularized, not in the sense of secularism that has been repeatedly condemned by the Popes and Bishops but rather in Harvey Cox's sense of the word.3 This does not mean that the basic assump- tions of Catholicism are being denied or devaluated but rather that recent theological works are showing an intellectual openness. Donovan in The Academic Man in the Catholic College, writes: Thus, the newly developed theological formulations of the relationships between the order of faith and the order of knowledge have re-Opened the question of the functions of ACatholic higher education.4 It is this very fact, as Donovan puts it, “The question of the functions of Catholic higher education," that some observers have called the identity crisis of church-sponsored education, in the United States. There is no doubt that there are some real dilemmas facing the church~related colleges and universities. One of the most pressing is the matter of their distinctiveness. As, department by department, the best of these "value-oriented" schools begin to look more and more like their secular counterparts, how many features of their original identities remain? If they are not different, ought they to go on existing? Edward Walkin, in an article entitled, "How Catholic is the Catholic College?"5 maintains that more than 300 22 Catholic colleges and universities are being forced to face an embar- rassing dilemma: in trying to retain a Catholic identity they may risk loss of acceptance in the educational mainstream or in gaining that acceptance they risk loss of any significant Catholic identity. The better Catholic colleges and universities suffer from the latter tendency and the result is an ambiguous, if not a misleading, identity. Walkin sees the problem stemming from an absence of intellectual inte- gration and an educational rationale that is distinctively Catholic on the level of higher education. Given the Catholic emulation of contemporary academic life-~which is diffuse, complex and inchoate-- it is not surprising that a unifying ethos has not emerged for the Catholic educator or scholar. His energies and resources have been devoted to the pursuit of excellence as defined by the secular main- stream of higher education. He does not want to be left out. This is not to say that the Catholic campus is not identifiably Catholic. It is in ways that have nothing to do with education and the intel- lectual life. They share common externals such as crosses on the buildings, crucifixes in the classrooms and a church on location where religious services are readily available to the students. The loss of meaningful Catholic identity troubles those educators whose vision extends beyond what is now commonly labeled as the "edifice complex" on the Catholic campus. Such educators are haunted by the nineteenth-century ghost of Cardinal Newman and his idea of a univer- sity, which stresses "integrity" in the intellectual and university life. They feel uneasy about the lack of religious and intellectual integration and their uneasiness comes from taking to heart such Newman statements as this: 23 That only is true enlargement of mind which is the power of viewing many things at once as one whole, of referring them severally to their true place in the universal system, of understanding their respective values, and determining their mutual dependence.6 Yet, insofar as they emulate the academic compartmentalization, division of labor and professionalism of the secular campus, Catholic educators make it increasingly difficult to establish integration. Moreover, the American academic milieu can be summed up as post- Copernican--viewing the world as unfinished, rating experience over essence, regarding meaning as made by man rather than found by him. Therefore, on both administrative and intellectual grounds, "integrity" is an unrealistic goal on the Catholic campus trying to succeed "American Style." Newman, in his preface to his Idea of a University, speaks of a university as a place of teaching universal knowledge: This implies that its object is, on the one hand, intel- _1ectual, not moral; and, on the other, that it is the dif- fusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advance- ment.... such is a university in its essence, and inde- pendently of its relation to the church. But practically Speaking, it cannot fulfill its object duly, such as I have described, without the Church's assistance; or to use the theological term, the Church is necessary for its integrity. These are Newman's thoughts as they were written on November 21, 1852. They have been held as an ideal and a guide for Catholic educators throughout the years. However, both on an administrative and intel- lectual grounds, the integrative function has become an unrealistic goal on the Catholic campus trying to succeed American style. The Vatican II Council in its Declaration on Christian Educa- tion tries to update the Newman concept. This document clearly has a preoccupation with the meeting of the spiritual and intellectual values: 24 The Church is preoccupied, too, with schools of higher learning, especially colleges and universities and their faculties. In schools of this sort which are dependent on her, she seeks in a systematic way to have individual branches of knowledge studied according to their own proper principles and methods, and with due freedom of scientific investigation. She intends thereby to promote an ever deeper understanding of their field, and as a result of extremely precise evaluation of modern problems and inquiries, to have it seen more profoundly how faith and reason give harmonious witness to the unity of all truth. It continues that the h0ped-for result is that the Christian mind may achieve, as it were, a public, persistent and universal presence in the whole enterprise of advancing higher culture, and that the students of these institutions may become men truly outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society's heavier burdens and to wit— ness the faith to the world.9 This document on Christian education also calls for a foster- ing of inquiry into the sacred sciences--philosophy and theology. It is also the responsibility of these faculties to explore .more profoundly the various areas of the sacred disciplines so that day by day a deeper understanding of sacred revela- tion will be developed, the treasure of Christian wisdom handed down by our ancestors will be more plainly brought to view, dialogue will be fostered with our separated brothers and with non-Christians, and solutions will be 10 found for problems raised by the development of Doctrine. Finally, the Council called for increased coordination and joint effort with all other types of institutions, Catholic as well as non-Catholic. Let the various colleges and universities unite in a mutual sharing of effort; together they can promote international conferences, allot fields of scientific research, share discoveries, exchange teachers temporarily, and foster among 1] themselves whatever else contributes to more helpful service. 25 Critics of Church-Related College Harvey Cox in his work, The Secular City, perceives man as becoming a cosmOpolitan. The world has become man's city and the city has reached out to include the world. For Cox, the world has become man's task and man's responsibility. It is here that Cox makes a great distinction between secularization, which he sees as a process, and secularism, which he sees as a new closed ideology. Cox champions secularization as a process by which man demythologizes his tribal culture, (and now I am interpolating my own view) becomes the contemplative man, the deeply spiritual man who knows he is con- fronting infinite reality and infinite truth but recognizes his own fallibility of his race and finitude of his time and therefore knows that he will, for all his finite time and finite space, be fallible man making successive approximations toward a limit that none of us can comprehend.]2 Because of this process of seculari- zation, he feels that the church should have nothing to do with higher education. He writes: The university, like the culture it influences and is influenced by, has become a secular institution, a center of clashing ideas, enormous dangers, and fantastic possibilities. Since secularization is a process of liberation for man, the univer- stiy, like all the institutions of culture, participates in this process of liberation. In fact, at certain points, it should take the lead. He believes that the organizational church has no role in the university and should stay out. For Cox, the clearest thing of all is that the future shape of the church in the university will oc- cur only when Christians live with responsibility within it and not in and for the denominational churches that have only succeeded in 26 weakening and fragmenting the university life.13 Dr. Rosemary Lauer, one of the leaders of the now-famous pro- test at St. John's University, stated that a ”Catholic university is a contradiction in terms.” Sister Jaculine Grennan, (nee Jacqueline Grennan) on January 11, 1967, stated: “It is my personal conviction that the very nature of higher education is Opposed to the juridicial control of the church." At this time, Webster College, of which she is President, was changed from a Roman Catholic institution to that of a secular institution.14 John Cogley, of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, believes that Catholic institutions face the same fate as the papal states-~secularization. He believes that these institutions should be pluralized, ecumenicized and universal- ized in order to be transformed into genuine universities "in a pluralistic, ecumenical and philosophically many-mansioned world.” In practice, for Cogley this would mean that there would be theolo- gians of all persuasions on hand and anti-theologians as well-~not to "lend an appealing pluralistic coloring to what would otherwise be a depressingly sectarian institution, not to serve as ecumenical window-dressing, but to reflect the reality of the modern world and the bewildering choices open to the modern man asking his ultimate question."15 There are three recently published works that point out what some observers call this identity crisis or a lack of a philosophy of higher education. However, they would not favor this rhetorical over-kill as displayed by Cox, Lauer, Grennan or Cogley; they are: l) Church-Sponsored Higher Education in the United States by M. Pattillo, Jr., and D. Mackenzie;16 2) The Shape of Catholic 27 Higher Education in the United States by R. Hassenger (ed.);17 18 and 3) The Changing Catholic College by Andrew M. Greeley. 1. The Church-Sponsored Higher Education in the United States is a report of the Danforth Commission of an intensive look at 817 church-related institutions in the United States. In this comprehen- sive and candid study of the Danforth Commission on church colleges and universities, the authors collected and analyzed statistics on fifty institutions, considered a representative cross section of the entire group of 817. One of the questions that this report addressed itself to was what should be the distinctive roles of church-related institutions as academic and religious institutions in our predomi- nately secular culture and educational system? This report found that the church institutions are approximately equally divided be- tween those that have a clear role and those that do not. Too many of the colleges are imitative, making for inconsistencies in their purpose. There is a failure to exploit the opportunity for individ- uality. This latter is one of the basic problems in all higher edu- cation and is not just limited to the church-related segment. The report points out, however, that this may be more serious for the church institution because, in a secular academic world, uncritical imitation has the practical effect of drawing them away from their own distinctive purpose. This study reports four major types of institutions. Each of these types represents a philosophy. I. The first type was the Defender of the Faith College: its purpose is to provide an education in the arts and the sciences for persons who will later take their places as leaders (lay or clerical) in a particular religious tradition. Its students and faculty are 28 drawn almost entirely from the sponsoring group (though this is rare- ly required). Before admitting students or appointing instructors, the college assures itself that they are committed to the specific religious beliefs for which the institution stands. Such a college also sees itself distinct from the culture around it and in tension with this culture. It is training persons who will go out to defend and advance a clearly defined religious position in a secular society. The curriculum follows the conventional patterns of liberal arts colleges, except that the course requirements in religion and theology are substantial, often consisting of a sequence of courses extending over three or four years. Finally, colleges of this type have the advantage of clarity of purpose and a strong religious influence on the students. The graduates are likely to be imbued with the values reflected in the educational program. On the other hand, the student and faculty freedom is circumscribed; the students have limited oppor-‘ tunity to make up his own mind freely about the basic issues in life.19 II. The second type reported was the "Non-affirming College." This type of college gives little attention to religion. Neither the students nor the faculty are attracted to the college because of its Church connection. The statement of educational purpose is likely to om-i 1: any reference to religion or to speak in more general terms of mOral or spiritual values. Students take courses in religion but are hot always required to do so. The church relationship to the institu- tion is evidenced principally by the fact that a specified number of 1“"lal'satees must be members of the associated denomination or elected by a denominational body; and a nominal fraction of the Operating budget TS provided by the church. For many years the official description 29 of the institutions have emphasized its non-sectarian character. There is complete freedom of inquiry into the area of religion. This type of institution has no clear sense of identity. It is never sure where it fits into the mainstreams of American higher education.20 III. The third type that this study reported was the "Free Christian College." This type is free because it does not control thoughts; Christian because it has a specific commitment. Most of its faculty shares its religious purposes and considers them to be important in the life of the college. Students are attracted to the institution by the dual emphasis of the academic excellence of its curricular programs and its religious vitality. The college surrounds its students with opportunities for full deve10pment--intellectual , religious, moral, artistic and social. While chapel attendance is not required, the chapel is a focal point of students and faculty interests. The department of religion or theology is composed of well trained instructors, who also play an active role in faculty affairs. The courses in religion or theology are "rigorous and stim- U1 ating and are an integral part of the academic program." The impor- tant aspect of this type of college is that the college does not tell the students what they must believe, but it does expect them to "grapple with the basic religious and philosophical questions and arri ve at a considered position of their own." A great deal of atten- tion and effort is given to the relationship between religion and the T I“tellectual problems of our day. Theology and liberal learning are rI‘z-‘Qarded as mutually supportive. This has some of the overtones of CaV‘ciinal Newman's integrity theory. The free Christian college com- bi"Des the chief assets of the other two models while it tries to 3O avoid their liabilities. It stands unapologetically for religion and liberal education, but it relies on example, persuasive presenta- tion of ideas, and a climate of conviction, rather than on conformity to accomplish its ends. This report points out that many colleges purport to be this type of institution but only a minority have achieved it in actuality.”21 IV. The fourth type of institutional pthOSOphy reported in this study is the ”Church-Related University." This is usually an urban institution with a heterogeneous student body. It serves pri- marily a community in a region rather than a particular religious group. The church-related university is much larger than the col- lege; it enrolls between 5,000 and 20,000 students. The scope of its educational offering is very broad for it provides programs in many of the professional and occupational fields. It may include a school of theology. This type of institution regards students as adults and ' discipline in regard to their social conduct is at a minimum. In regard to religion, the church-related university is pluralistic. It is unlikely to have religious requirements which apply to all students. There are, however, many opportunities for participation in religious activities but these are optional.22 These are the sketches as reported in the Danforth Report. It does not exhaust the possibilities and many institutions combine fea- tures of two or more of the patterns as described. This report also pointed out "that not infrequently institutions find themselves en- meshed in two patterns, unable to extricate themselves from inconsis- tencies of purpose and practice.” Many are trying to respond to conflicting sets of pressures which are driving them in two direc- 31 tions at once.23 One of the major conclusions of this study is that the cause of church—sponsored higher education would be greatly helped if every institution formulated a clear statement of its policies with respect to this matter. The Danforth Report recommends: 1) that institutions see to it that a substantial nucleus of the persons appointed to the faculty are intelligent, practicing Christians (or Jews) and are sympathetic with the religious purposes of the institutions; 2) that the institution insist on freedom of inquiry for both faculty and students; 3) that the institution create a climate in which the under- lying philosophy of the institution is reasonably and per- suasively presented in a variety of ways, but without pressing for acceptance; ‘4) that the institution encourage faculty and students to explore the relationships between religion and other facets of modern life. In regard to curriculum and teaching, the Danforth Report fur- ther recommends that there should be a commitment to teaching in the church-related institution as its primary function. It should also have an emphasis on the humanities and responsible citizenship. It recommends that church-sponsored institutions make definite provisions in their curricula for helping students develOp a philosophy of life, a faith, a coherent and reasoned understanding of fundamental matters. It is now assumed by most colleges that this goal can be attained only indirectly; that it is not an objective which can be achieved by stu- 32 dents in an orderly way. “This assumption," the report says, "is fallacious." The student is no more likely to arrive at a sound world-view effortlessly and by chance than he is to master calculus as a by-product of studying psychology or music. Presumably in a Christian institution a special effort will be made to assist the student in arriving at a Christian synthesis.24 Finally, it will also provide intellectual leadership for the churches. This recommendation of the Danforth Report states that it is time for the colleges to turn their attention to the churches that have nurtured them and not merely regard the churches as sources of students and money. The grave problem already faced by the churches is to reverse, re-direct or adapt to a change in world-view as pro- found as that through which we are passing and this is not simple. We cannot expect church administrators and pastors to give answers; they are too much involved in the day-to-day activities of the church.' There has to be a dispassionate examination of large historical and philosophical trends in perspective-~the work necessary to frame proposals commensurate with the church's problems. The church- related colleges are in the most favorable position to provide intel- lectual leadership in the study of the issues facing the church and the hammering out of proposals for action. The report points out that the church college lives in both the church world and the out- side world. There is a fusion as it were of the two worlds. This report urges the faculties of church-affiliated institutions to view themselves as scholarly task forces for assessing the status of the Christian church in the changed and changing world.25 33 It is interesting to note that this latter recommendation is very similar to that of the Vatican II decree on Christian Education asking the various faculties to explore more profoundly the various areas of the sacred disciplines so that day-by-day a deeper under- standing of revelation will be developed, the treasure of Christian wisdom handed down by our ancestors will more plainly be brought to view, dialogue will be fostered with our separated brothers and with non-Christians, and solutions will be found of problems raised by the development for doctrine.26 The most important recommendation concerns the institutional model in regard to the institution's philOSOphy and purposes. The report had suggested that one of the difficulties of church colleges is that they are seizing upon secular images-~conceptions of col- legiate education borrowed from other institutions whose purposes are different. This final recommendation is that each institution devise for itself a coherent pattern which relates purposes, clien- tele, staff, program and church relations in such manner as these types and models. The report believes that many church institutions should aspire to the third type of the "Free Christian Institution," or at least something like it. 2. Robert Hassenger, as editor of the book, The Shape of Catholic Higher Education, points out that "despite the escalating discussion of the time-bomb in Catholic higher education, its iden- tity crisis and the possibility that Catholic colleges and univer- sities may be a contradiction in terms, there is a paucity of solid information available about the largest higher educational system in the United States." Unlike the elementary and secondary schools, 34 the church's colleges and universities have never been an official Catholic project. There never has been an overall plan for Catholic higher education. Each college seems to have been founded and to have grown in response to various local situations, under the direc— tion of numerous religious orders. ChristOpher Jenks and David Riesman confirm this when they speak of 380-odd Catholic colleges being operated by autonomous teaching orders of religious, as priests and nuns are called in the Church, which are free to define their missions and clientele as they wish.27 Approximately 75 Catholic orders today operate colleges in the United States. These orders have different national origins, systems of organization and government, traditions, and often very dissimilar leaders. All orders accept a common body of doctrine and ritual but here, too, there has been room for highly diverse interpretations. Thus, while differences among orders are not quite comparable to those among Protestant denominations, they are often much more sig- nificant than non-Catholics assume. Their differences have certainly many of the same effects on higher education as denominational dif- 28 ferences among Protestants. In his important work, The Shape of Catholic Higher Education, Philip Gleason, in the chapter, ”American Catholic Higher Education: A Historical Perspective," maintains that Catholic colleges and uni— versities have historically departed in some degree from prevailing norms in three areas: 1) socially, in that most of the teachers and students came from groups who, in one way or another, were different from other American teachers and students; 2) institutionally, in that the patterns of educational organization, administration and so 35 on were not the same as those in vogue in other institutions of higher learning; 3) ideologically, in that the ideas, beliefs, and attitudes of Catholic educators were not the same as those of other Americans. But since Catholic colleges exist in American society, and since they must prepare roles in that society, they had to accom— modate themselves to the norms and requirements of that society. This accommodation naturally brought to the three areas a divergence; hence, the whole story may be understood in terms of social adjust- ment made by the Catholic population and of institutional and ideo- logical adjustments made by the colleges to adapt to the American scene without compromising their Catholicity. It is this ideologi- cal adjustment that has presented the most critical problem today, a crisis in purpose, a question of the fundamental raison d'etre of Catholic education. Philip Gleason believes that Catholic higher education is entering its identity crisis in a state of virtual amnesia, with no meaningful grip on the history that has played so crucial a role in forging its present identity. He believes that it is supremely ironic that a Catholic academic community that is more and more disposed to accept a develOpmental view of reality has only 29 What the sketchiest notion of the pattern of its own develOpment. is even more unfortunate and from a developmentalist viewpoint simply bewildering, is the disposition sometimes manifested to treat the earlier efforts of Catholic educators with condescension or scorn because they are not what we are doing, or trying to do. Paul J. Reiss describes some "built-in tensions" in the 30 Catholic college. He looks at Catholic colleges as social organi- zations and like any other social organization they have problems of 36 functioning simply because they are social organizations. Some of the basic problems are: a) the attainment of the goals of the organizations; b) the necessary adaptation of the organization to its external environment; c) the internal integration of the organization; and d) the continuance of the organization's cultural patterns. Reiss's main thesis is the distinctive manner in which these four organizational problems are handled by Catholic colleges as con— trasted with other colleges, owing mainly to the effort on the part of the church's schools to maintain an integration of education and religion in its purposes and organization. The author points out that the distinction made here between religion and education is an analytic one that is not invalidated by the fact that in the concrete, education and religion as functions may overlap, as in the case Of religious education. This integration for Reiss in some form becomes the rationale for a Catholic college. In other words, the Catholic college exists in the United States presumably because it is believed that there should be an integration, or at least a rela- tionship between Catholicism and higher education. In the attempt to maintain or develop this integration the Catholic college has established a social organization that distinguishes it from non- church-related colleges. In our pluralistic society, there is demanded a separation of religion from education in our public institutions and even in our private institutions. This trend towards the separation of religion and education is the basis of the oft-noted secularization of higher 37 education. Reiss also points out that this process of differentia- tion between religion and education has proceeded to varying degrees for different colleges and churches. At the present time, the vari- ety of forms that the relation between religious organizations and colleges may take is seemingly infinite; it becomes virtually impos- sible to define the church-related college. This diversity indicates that full differentiation has not taken place, and that the Catholic colleges are notable in their attempt to resist the differentiation trends, to maintain the integration of religion and education long abandoned by other denominational colleges. Despite this resistance to differentiation, the process Of secularization is gradually at work. Many Catholic colleges operate rather independently Of the local bishops and religious orders. As a practical matter, many of those in authority in the church realize that they do not possess specialized competence in higher education, nor the time and energy needed to become directly involved in the operation of the colleges within their jurisdictions. The typical pressures toward specialization in large organizations have permit- ted the develOpment of an actual Operating independence of the Catholic colleges from the dioceses and religious orders that own them. Tensions and conflicts, manifest and latent, in this area run high, however, since the degree of independence is often a consequence of practical consideration rather than a product of consensus on prin- ciples.31 Paul Reiss points out that a problem for all social organiza- tions is the mobilization and allocation of resources to move toward the attainment Of their organizational goals. All social organiza- 38 tions typically have more than one goal; therefore, the initial issue involves the determination Of some hierarchy Of goals. This issue of priority among a complex of goals is particularly acute for Catholic colleges since it is in a state of partial differentiation between secular educational goals and religious ones. This engenders conflict. The problem of goal priority is further complicated by the fact that an educational or religious orientation each, sui generis, contains a complex of goals. Reiss points out that it is important to examine these goal complexes as well as to analyze the manner in which decisions are made in reference to them. There are a number of separate religious goals that the Catholic college may seek and among which priority problems and conflicts are clearly manifested. These religious goals include: a) the maintenance and develOpment Of religious practices such as the attendance at Mass and at the sacraments on the part of the students; b) the inculcation Of moral principles and ethical behavior patterns; c) the attainment Of an intellectual understanding of religious beliefs; and d) the development Of a commitment to the church and its mission. A college may also focus upon being the center for the development of Catholic thought rather than simply an institution for its trans- mission. Although these goals are certainly related to each other, they are also independently and not always simultaneously achieved. An intellectual understanding of religious truth need not be accom- 39 panied by approved moral behavior, nor does frequent reception of the sacraments mean that a student is actively committed to the work of the church. For Reiss, there is substantial evidence to support a hypothe- sis that Catholic colleges, during the past decade at least, have shifted the priority of their goals; religious practices and moral training have been given a relatively lower priority, with intellec- tual understanding and religious commitment receiving a higher prior- 32 He also believes that these changes in the priority of reli- ity. gious goals are also consistent with changes occurring both in the society and in the church at large. This emphasis upon intellectual understanding Of religion is consistent with the recent attempt to achieve academic quality; also, the rediscovered lay-apostolate finds its counterpart in the college. Similar problems Of priority among goals of secular education are also found. Here the college faces the same questions as do other schools in assigning relative priorities to education in liberal arts and sciences and to education that is more career or pre-profes- sionally oriented. In addition to questions concerning the relative priorities among religious goals and among the goals Of secular education, there is the basic issue of the relative priority Of religious vis-a-vis educational goals. Reiss phrases this issue as the extent to which the organization as a college is Catholic or a Catholic organization that is a college; this is the basic issue reflecting the partially differentiated state of the Catholic college: What is the identity Of the organization? For Reiss, there is no firm resolution of this 40 problem and he thinks that perhaps none is possible; but nevertheless the issue is relevant to almost any important policy decision in the college. He mentions that in some Catholic colleges the pursuit of academic excellence has meant that the secular academic goals have become dominant; the curriculum is designed to emphasize the compe- tence in a major which will lead to fellowships at the better secular graduate schools. All Of these efforts are directed toward creating an excellent college on the secular model. The question then arises as to whether the religious goals have become secondary. The answer, as given by Reiss, is that no Catholic college in terms of a formal organization has gone secular as have many Protestant colleges when subject to the same forces. But it is clear, that in forming poli- cies the secular educational goals have become the important ones. Reiss's conclusion is that academic excellence with secondary atten- tion to religion is in vogue in the 60's and the 70's. (Robert Hassenger, in looking at the future as it concerns Catholic colleges feels that they must be Catholic. Not in the tri- umphal defensive ways of the past, but with the spirit of aggioramento and dialogue. As for the departments of theology, this means ecumen- ical faculties, giving first-rate instruction, and doing contemporary research on a variety of religious systems. It also means that Cath- olic institutions must be structured for pursuing the relevance of theology to contemporary culture, to man in the secular city.33 Christopher O'Toole calls this a heavy emphasis on pluralism. This means, in practice, not necessarily in principle, that the impact Of 34 Catholic Doctrine is simply put on a par with other theologies. In other disciplines, the guidelines are less clear. Some would 41 state that learning can be done "in a Catholic form," even in such subjects as the social sciences. Father Leo Ward seems to hold that the believer will be better able to understand some things. Hassenger would concede this possibility for some areas of philosophy and per- haps for the understanding of the works done in a specifically Chris- tian milieu, but he is not at all sure what this might mean for sub- jects such as mathematics, nuclear physics or cytobiology. The scholar in such disciplines will admittedly bring his assumptions and values to bear on the teaching and research he does, and will probably try with all seriousness to integrate his knowledge with his own belief system.35 The question is, where is the integration that will give a true identity? Theodore Hesburgh, at Notre Dame, says that the Catholic uni- versity "touches the moral as well as the intellectual dimensions of all questions it asks itself and its students; it must emphasize the rightful centrality Of philosophy and theology among its intellectual concerns...the Catholic university must be a witness to the wholeness Of truth, from all sources, both human and divine...(it) must reflect profoundly and with full commitment its belief in the existence of God and in God's total revelation to man.36 vTimothy S. Healy, S.J., Of Fordham University believes that the future of the Catholic university rests in its freedom to experi- ment and being a place where the church can think. It will be a place "where the disciplines meet--in fact, where they Openly clash." The sheer density of modern life made any one discipline, even theol— 37 ogy, a cripple as long as it rises to stand alone. The college and university faculties Offer the church a crossroads of skills and 42 visions. This is very similar to one of the recommendations of the Danforth Report. 3. Andrew Greeley, Senior Study Director of the National Opinion Research Center, has written an important sequel to his highly acclaimed study, The Education of Catholic Americans,38 in 39 The Changing Catholic College. In this book, Greeley investigates the changes taking place in Catholic higher education in the United States. This investigation was made on thirty-six Catholic colleges with low, medium and high growth rates and six non-Catholic colleges and universities. The evidence presented is based upon interviews with students, faculty, and administrative personnel. This study also examines the geographic, demographic, social and religious fac- tors tO determine the elements most influential in establishing a program which makes for a progressive, growth-minded university or college. The major hypothesis of Greeley in this study is that any Catholic institution wOuld improve academically to the extent that the president and the upper administration Of the institution were independent of traditional norms and restrictions of the religious communities. He points out that the empirical evidence demonstrates that there is a weak to moderate correlation between the complexity of graduate programs, faculty participation in academic affairs, the number of laymen in administrative or departmental chairman positions, and the liberality of the student rules and academic improvement and excellence. However, none of these correlations is nearly as strong as the predictions based on the evaluation of the competency of the administrative leadership of the school. In other words, it seems far more important that an intelligent and dynamic man be president 43 than that he have lay vice-presidents, deans or academic chairmen working for him. Catholic higher education needs strong leadership. In regard to the philosophy of Catholic higher education, it is pointed out by Greeley that most Catholic colleges and universi- ties are staffed by religious orders. While the religious orders were in many ways qualified to assume the administration of univer- sities and colleges, they were not completely qualified. Their views of education were Often in variance with those which were held by most American higher educators. "But more seriously, their training, their style of life, their norms and values, and their methods Of administration were shaped by an historical tradition that did not come into existence with the problems of American higher education in view.“40 Almost from the beginning, there were inevitable ten- sions between the historical traditions within the religious com- munity and the administration of the college. The more liberal members Of the orders have always held that the spirit of the founder and his traditions permitted them to drastically revise the role relationships and the goals of the religious community to fit new work, namely, higher education. But the more conservative members have always held that such adjustments shall not be permitted to go too far. They were parish and mission oriented. Both the values and the other works Of the order provide serious potential Of con- flict with the values and the work of the American higher educational enterprise. In other words, religious orders formulated philOSOphies Of higher education in order to be in conformity with the goals and roles of the order and its other works rather than societal needs in general and higher education in particular. 44 In line with this, Greeley also points out that most Catholic higher educational institutions have only the vaguest idea of what its goals are. He believes that the president of these institutions must symbolize in his own person and in his activities the goals that the institution has set for itself and to radiate confidence and hOpe that these goals are achievable. It is unlikely, according to Greeley, that a president would arrive on the scene to find that the goals have been predefined for him. He Often has to define and set the goals.41 In summarizing this, it can be said that, no matter what the future, one thing is certain; that all those who are concerned with Catholic higher education must become more deeply conscious of what their institution stands for. Christopher O'Toole writes that "the more conscious they become of what a Catholic university really is, the more clearly they should recognize the gap that exists between what it is and what it should be"... "And hopefully, the more firmly they will be motivated to take action to close the gap, if indeed it is now possible to close it."42 It now seems to be the time, more than ever, to redefine, re- state, readjust the thinking and statements about the true meaning and purpose Of a Catholic university or college. II The Third Issue Decision—Making The process by which goals are given priority and resources allocated to the attainment of these goals is organizational decision- 45 making. As Paul Reiss points out, in the Catholic college, Operated by a religious order or a diocese, the style of decision-making has been basically authoritarian rather than democratic. The board of trustees, whether a board with legal authority or lay advisory board, has not been the real locus of decision—making power. For the most part, power resides in the president appointed by the religious order or the diocese. It is in the power to appoint the president that the ultimate control of the college resides. The president, in turn, makes all other major appointments with the authority being essen- tially delegated authority. Because of the concern for adequate con- trol by Catholic administrators, there has been only the minimum delegation or decentralization of authority required for organiza- tional functioning. Decisions are made in the typically bureaucratic manner according to the apprOpriate bureaucratic level. Such a decision-making process, according to Reiss, does not preclude a wide variety of advisory functions on every level. Lately there has been considerable discussion of the organization of the Catholic colleges adopting the model of the community of scholars, which looks to the possibility Of authority resting in the faculty. This has been implemented on the lower levels of management in many Catholic colleges where the faculty devises curriculum and passes on appoint- 43 ments. 0n the whole, Reiss does not see that there is presently in the Catholic college more real delegation Of authority and the real use of advisory bodies than in the past.44 John 0. Donovan feels that lay members Of the faculty are expected to concur uncritically with the decisions of religious mem- bers and are required to accept them at least without public demur. 46 In his research, Donovan found that as a free professional, the lay academician in the Catholic college cannot be silenced; but his vigor- ous and outspoken Objections, before and after administrative deci- sions, are sometimes viewed as disloyalty according to the authority- obedience value structure Of the religiously-oriented culture. The majority of lay professors in Catholic colleges feel that they are the Objects Of policies and practices rather than subjects in their 45 The faculties understand the set- formulation and implementation. up and the traditional basis on which it has developed, but in in- creasing numbers out of their professional self—consciousness they are beginning to chafe at the paternalistic definitions of their roles. TO protect and tO promote the professional elements of their work situations within this authority structure, they have turned to extra-university professional groups. Thus, during the past few years numerous Catholic colleges have seen dormant A.A.U.P. chapters reviVed and new chapters established. These units have had little attraction for the religious-professor, because of a conflict- situation in which membership might place them vis-a-vis their reli- gious superiors, but they have symbolized the lay professors need for a professionally-oriented rather than a religiously-oriented 46 authority base for work policies and practices. Donovan's research as presented in The Academic Man in the Catholic Colleges is one of the few pieces of empirical research that we have prior to the "St. John's" incident in New York. It presents the perceptions of 300 faculty members concerning the decision-making process. For many, the turning point in Catholic higher education is the emancipation pointed to by the experiences at St. John's. 47 Donovan says that in Catholic colleges and universities, the ultimate authority for the major academic policies and practices resides out- side the college, in the office Of the ecclesiastically-defined superior of the religious group appointed to administer the institu- tion. This authority figure, "the bishop" in the case Of the dioce- san college and "the provincial-superior" in the case of a religious order, does not concern himself with every academic policy and prac- tice but represents a "formal negative authority." The immediate deliberative authority is entrusted to priests, brothers, and nuns who as presidents and trustees of institutions are appointed by and directly responsible to the extra-university official. Basically, this also explains why the deans in the Catholic colleges are almost always religious and why even at the departmental level, the quali- fied priest is more likely to be chairman than his "lay colleague" is. Structurally, therefore, the work situation of the Catholic religious and lay professor is defined and controlled by policies, I gand practices on which they need not be consulted and to which reli- gious considerations have a pervasive relevance. The research find- ings confirm the reality of this non-faculty defined work-situation. Some professors said that they had an informal voice in, or were con- sulted on, policy matters, but this group was a distinct minority. The majority reported a contrary situation, in a variety of tones.47 The faculty in the Donovan report saw their major satisfactions associated with teaching in Catholic colleges as related not to pro- fessional values alone, but to religious as well as professional values. This pattern is clearly indicated by the two most frequently identified satisfactions: the Catholic environment, and the cordiality 48 of their personal relations with colleagues. Proportionately, these identifications were made somewhat more frequently by the lay than by the clerical professors, but this difference was not very signi- ficant.48 Those situations perceived and defined by the Catholic academicians as institutional sources of frustration and conflict drew a complex pattern. The most clear-cut problem in terms of fre- quency is that involving the structure Of religious-lay relationships. These frustrations and conflicts perceived most frequently by the lay professor, were described in the interview as not involving per- sonal relationships, but as being based on the layman's dissatisfac- tion with his status in the Catholic colleges. Almost fifty percent of the lay academicians felt that they were "second-class citizens, necessary evils, or without any significant value." Approximately twenty percent of the religious professors sympathetically identified this as a frustration also, and some Of them felt that as far as being denied any significant voice in the affairs of the college, 49 According to Donovan's they were as one with their lay colleagues. study, even though there have been recent increases in the number and types Of professional opportunities for responsible participation in the affairs of the college, there is still evidence to support the fact that faculty members are playing a subordinate role. Their frus- trations can only be expected to grow in this respect as their numbers increase and as their professional sensibilities become stronger. The problem of morale is only one dimension of the situation. Faculty dissatisfactions with their role definitions are bound to entail resignations and to affect not only the scholarly performances of the faculty but the recruitment campaign Of the college.50 49 At this point, one may ask what insights are provided in the literature on decision-making control in non-church-related colleges? One of the classics in this area is John J. Corson's work, The Gover- nance of Colleges and Universities, published in 1960. In this study, Corson chose ten institutions which were geographically acces- sible and were headed by an appreciable number Of individuals sympa- thetic to the author's research interest in governance. While not a probabilistic sample, they did provide a selection of state univer- sities, denominational ones, Of urban and liberal arts colleges. Concerned as it is with the large problem Of governance Of educational institutions, Corson's work deals only in part with faculty participation in the process. But faculty participation may be a key to the administration of a university; in fact, a unique characteristic of the university which sets it apart from other forms of enterprises. 'A primary difference between the colleges or universities and other forms of enterprise, so far as administration is concerned, lies in the authority and responsibility placed in the faculty, as a body, by tradition, by custom, or by formal bylaws or regulations. A second difference lies in the freedom of speech and thought accorded the faculty member as an individual. Together, their two factors have organizational and administrative consequences that are unparalleled in business and governmental enterprise. To- gether they suggest that if more is to be learned about how colleges and universities are governed effectively, it is essential that intensive, unemotional analysis be given to the question: what role do faculties play, and what respon- sibilities should they have in the governance of colleges and universities?51 Certainly, this question is endemic. It is voiced as frequently today by denominational schools as by other institutions Of higher learning. Should the faculty's traditional right to decide educa- tional issues be so comprehensive that every matter involving educa- 50 tional policy is to be decided only and with the consent of the faculty? Observation of the governance Of the colleges and univer- sities suggest that the answer should be no. The necessity for this continuing adaptation of educational programs to society's changing needs and the tendency Of faculties, unobserving of the evolving demands Of society or addicted to the practice of departmental countering, to fight Off changes in educational content or presses, substantially disqualify most faculties for a large role in governance. Neither the assurance Of academic freedom nor the faculty's superior understanding Of what should be taught, and how, makes it essential that the faculty should have the exclu- sive right to determine what education should be Offered.52 In the same vein, Corson remarks that faculty influence on institu- tional governance is greatest in the realm of educational policy. Their effectiveness in contributing to such decisions is limited by the lack of analytical data on which to base objective and considered decisions. The limited interest of many faculty members in higher education, their tendency to think about and act upon specific courses or requirements rather than policies, and their primary con- cern with the individual subject matter fields. Despite these limi— tations upon their effectiveness, faculties tend to claim large and exclusive authority over educational decisions. In addition, some faculty members and some faculties see educational implications in most decisions the institutions make. Hence, they insist on author- ity which bridges the responsibilities of the institution's officers and trustees for fiscal, legal, public relations, and other non- educational decisions.53 Corson's conclusions suggest the extent of faculty participa- tion in the decision-making process. They do not explain the admin- istration-faculty friction that Obtains in many institutions. Faculty 51 representation Often resent what they call the high-handed attitude and action Of the administration in areas of primary concern. The administration officers, on the other hand, seek the most efficient and effective practices in times when incomes fail to grow with expenses; they press for innovations. They often feel that their efforts to bring about progress are hindered or blocked by faculty prerogatives. Underlying this friction or conflict is the basic fact as presented by Corson that faculty members adhere to a cause, greater than their institutions. They have a professional allegiance to knowledge and intellectual freedom which supersedes their insti- tutional loyalties. Administrators are more organization-oriented. The result is an organizational weakness, a lack of institutional- wide sense Of Objectives and purposes which is supposed to guide the decision-making process.54 Other causes Of friction singled out by Carson are: l) the differing concerns of faculty and administration with higher educa- tion; 2) the in-between position of the president and dean; 3) the complexity of purposes of the eXpanding university; 4) its increas- ing size; 5) poor communications and 6) the lack of operational and administrative research that would provide the factual data which would make for more Objective, as well as more thorough, consideration. Similar to Corson's investigation of college and university government, but even more extensive in scope is Dodds' study Of the academic presidency. With three associates, Dodds visited approxi- mately sixty colleges, where the practice was to interview the presi- dents, trustees, academic vice-presidents, deans and non-academic officers of administration, members of the faculty Of all ranks and, 52 finally, students. He begins his discussion Of the Presidents' relations with the faculty with the Observation that it is unnecessary to expatiate on the desirability of wide faculty participation. Nevertheless, there are two considerations regarding the exercise of faculty discretions with which presidents are familiar and which faculties should bear in mind. The first consideration is that faculty members do not share a collective responsibility for the income side Of the budget commensurate with their part in deciding how the money should be spent. The other, which is peculiar to faculty government, is the absence of an individual personal accountability for one's actions, such as pertains to other professors, with only remote collective 55 It would seem that the Dodds' accountability for decisions taken. study stresses that the collective faculty body that demands parti- cipation in the decision-making process must also show responsibility. for any decisions. In a similar vein, John H. Callan, Dean of the School of Educa- tion, Seton Hall University, speaks of the nature of faculty partici- pation in administration as having to be guided by the principles of representative democracy; that is, it must be guided by responsibil- ity, mutual respect, and good will, and must be creative and produc- tive.56 On October 26, 1962, the American Association Of University Professors issued a statement on faculty participation in college 57 This statement maintains that three and university government. groups play the most important roles in the government of American colleges and universities: faculties, administrations, and govern- 53 ing boards. The responsibilities of each group should depend on its own particular competence for the functions it undertakes. This statement of principles is concerned primarily with the role and responsibilities of the faculties. It points out that experience with college and university government has produced a marked contrast between the ultimate legal power Of governing boards and Operating practices. Actual practices of institutional Operation are now based on the principle of joint responsibility of faculties, administrations, and governing boards. This statement sets forth principles that have already achieved widespread acceptance and in many institutions have long since been applied to faculty participation in college and uni- versity government. The principles are as follows: 1. The faculty should have the primary responsibility for determining the educational policies of the institution. It further defines educational policies to include such fundamental matters as the subject matter and methods of instruction, facilities and support for research of faculty members and students, standards Of admission for students, for academic performance and for granting Of degrees. They also include those aspects of student life that relate directly to the educational process, for example, limita- tions, in aid Of academic performance, on extra-curricular activities, and regulations affecting freedom of expression. The statement also points out that on the latter matters, the power of review and final decision on the part of the governing board should be exercised adversely only in ex- ceptional circumstances and these reasons must be communi- 54 cated to the faculty. The faculty is also concerned and should actively participate in decisions made on other matters that may directly affect the educational policies for which it is primarily responsible. As examples, the statement mentions major changes in the size of the student body, changes in the academic calendar, the establishment Of new schools or divisions as being matters that directly affect educational policies. The second principle affects faculty membership. Faculty appointments, re-appointments, and promotions and actions resulting in tenure should require the active participa- tion and, except in rare cases and for compelling reasons, the concurrence of the faculty, through established com- mittees and procedures. The third principle is concerned with administrative Officers. The selection of presidents, academic deans and other principal academic administrative officers, and the creation or abolition of new offices, should be affected by procedures that ensure the active participation of the faculty. As for the chairman or the head of an academic department, the principle states that if they are not directly elected by the members of the department, they should be appointed after consultation with, and normally in conformity with, the judgment of the members of the department. Budgeting. This principle maintains that the funds allo- cated to educational purposes should be budgeted and 55 expended in accordance with the educational policies that the faculty has determined within the areas for which it is primarily responsible. Concerning the other elements of the budget, the faculty should be informed of important developments in administrative planning, including proposed capital expenditures; the faculty should be consulted in major issues of policy involved in such developments, and should have means through committees or other organized procedures to express its views on major issues Of policy affecting current or projected budget decisions. 5. Finally, this report says that agencies for faculty parti- cipation should be provided at each major organizational level in the institution (department, division, school, college, geographical unit) and university system as a whole. "The rules governing faculty participation in institutional government should be approved by the vote of the faculty concerned, should be Officially adopted by the appropriate authority, and published. The methods by which its own representatives are chosen should be determined by the faculty." The agencies employed may consist of meetings of all faculty members of the depart— ment, school, college, division, or university system, or may take the form of faculty-elected executive committees in departments and schools and a representative, faculty— elected senate or council for the institution as a whole or one or more of its divisions. A task force was formed by the Association for Higher Education 56 to ”examine the factors contributing to faculty unrest and to recommend procedures for improving faculty participation in campus government.“ The members of this task force visited thirty-four campuses "where there was prior indication that major develOpments in faculty-administration relations were taking place.” They also talked with officials Of the American Federation of Teachers and the major professional organizations that have a direct interest in the problems of faculty representation. The report, entitled "Faculty Participation in Academic Governance“ is the first published document in the American Association Of Higher Education's campus governance program. Lewis B. Mayhew writes concerning this report: The report probably reflects a bias, for the task force comprised only professors. The findings, however, seem responsible and not altogether unexpected. Effective system of campus governance should be built around the concept of shared responsibility and shared authority.58 The major conclusions of this report are as follows: I l. The main sources of discontentment are the faculty's desire to participate in the determination of those policies that affect its professional status and per- formance and in the establishment of complex, statewide systems of higher education that have decreased local control over important campus issues. 2. An evaluation of the essential functions of administrators and faculty leads to the judgment that an effective system of campus governance should be built on the concept of shared authority between the faculty and the administration. 3. A meaningful application Of the concept of shared authority should include a wide variety of issues. The issues include 57 educational and administrative policies; personnel adminis- tration; economic matters ranging from total resources available to the institution to the compensation for partic- ular individuals; public questions that affect the role and functions of the institutions; and procedures for faculty representation in campus governance. Arrangements for faculty representation in campus govern- ment must be related to the locus of decision-making in the institution and the system. Several types Of organizations can provide for faculty representation in campus governance: an internal organi- zation, such as an academic senate, is an integral part of the structure Of the institution in which the faculty is represented. An external association, such as the A.A.U.P. attempts to exert influence outside the frame- work of formal campus governance. A bargaining agency, such as some locals of the American Federation of Teachers or some units and affiliates of the National Education Association seeks to enter into formal negotiations with the administration with the objective of reaching a writ— ten agreement. Faculty members should have the right to select the type of organizational arrangements that they believe is most appropriate to their needs. There are three alternative approaches to faculty-adminis- tration decision-making in campus governance. These in- clude information sharing and appeals to reason, the use of neutral third parties, and the application Of political, 8. 10. 58 educational or economic sanctions. The report maintains that the greatest reliance should be placed on information- sharing and appeals to reason. The concept of shared authority can best be implemented through the establishment of an internal organization, preferably an academic senate. The senate which has decision-making authority normally should include both faculty members and administrators. Faculty members should comprise a clear majority. The senate should rely upon information—sharing and appeals to reason as the preferred approach to resolving faculty-administration disputes. A formal appeals procedure should be established to re- solve disputes involving individual faculty members and the administration. External associations such as the American Association of University Professors and the American Association for Higher Education can act as a constructive complement to the academic senate by providing information and technical’ resources and by supporting education sanctions if they should become necessary. Formal bargaining relationships between the faculty and the administration are most likely to develop if the administration has failed to establish or support effec- tive internal organizations for faculty representation in such institutions; the faculty should have the right to choose a bargaining representative. 59 ll. Some systems of faculty representation is likely to emerge in most institutions. The pattern Of campus governance that prevails in the future will be determined by the mea- sure that governing boards and administrators take to deal with faculty aspirations now. As can be seen from the above summary of the findings and recommendations of the task force on faculty representations and academic nego- tiations of the American Association for Higher Education, the locus of decision-making process is a problem in all types of institutions: private or public; church-related or non-church-related. Closely related to the issue of the locus of decision-making in colleges is the issue of control. While there is no national or international control center for Catholic colleges, most people seem to assume that on the local level the bishop and his staff must exer- ' cise a large measure of supervision and authority. While this assump- tion is not entirely without foundation, the bishop's role tends to be exaggerated. A local bishop must authorize the founding of a college in his diocese. Once it is in business, however, it usually is legally controlled by a board drawn from the teaching order which conducts it. The local bishop has certain kinds of spiritual author- ity over all the faithful in his diocese, including priests and nuns; but he cannot intervene directly in the affairs of a college. This does not, of course, prevent his exercising enormous indirect influ- ence over these colleges if he has the time and inclination. Few teaching orders are willing to remain at sword's points with a local bishOp for very long.59 6O ChristOpher Jencks and David Riesman point out that the preser- vation Of outward unity between the Church and its colleges depends in part on the fact that diverse as Catholic colleges are, they are still controlled by the religious. Catholic laymen have participated in advisory boards, but these have had no real power. Both Notre Dame and a number Of Jesuit colleges, such as St. Louis and Fordham, have added laymen to their boards in the past few months. Two or three Diocesan colleges have lay presidents, and the President of Webster has recently left her order. But these are exceptions, and laymen almost everywhere are still a hesitant minority. The Catholic college which comes closest to the "lay power" ethos of Protestant higher education is Webster. Webster College, which is led by Sister Jaculine Grennan, nee Jacqueline Grennan, has an extraordinary faith in the potential of the laity. While Webster today is unique in the American Catholic world, Jencks and Riesman suspect that other. Catholic colleges will move in the same direction.60 In line with this thought, Andrew Greeley in The Changing Catholic College, makes the following recommendation: A...alternative would be to make the existing legal boards Of trustees independent governing bodies. Thus the provincial could appoint to the board Of trustees some Of the most high- ly qualified members Of his community and then change the legal nature of this board of trustees so that it could be self-perpetuating by electing its own members (either restricted to the religious community or including a certain proportion of laity) for specified terms of Office. In this way, the school would still be owned by the religious order, but the provincial would not have the burden or the responsibility Of supervising its operation and selecting its Officers.51 The logic leading to greater control over Catholic education is best supplied by Father Paul C.(Ebinert in an article entitled "Lay Leadership for Catholic Universities." The reasons for change come 61 under four headings: l. The university is a public trust and as such has the respon- sibility to a large number of constituencies. If a university is a public trust then it should represent and reflect the viewpoints of all groups and segments which the university serves in the policy- making Operation. 2. Vatican II Council has given a strong mandate to involve laymen in the entire life of the church, including Catholic higher education. They have long been involved at the teaching level where 75% of those teaching in Catholic colleges today are laymen. They also have been long involved in administration. It is not until recently that they have been given a voice in final policy. Now at St. Louis University and the other Catholic institutions of higher education which are taking the same approach, laymen will have an opportunity to assume this all-important basic responsibility. '3. A university board Of trustees must assume responsibility for the financial stability of the institution it governs. In today's world, it is incongruous that thirteen priests who have taken the vow of poverty should have the task Of raising the great sums of money needed to Operate a large university. Obviously, a broader based, more worldly board whose members hopefully may have readier access to influence and wealth can do the job better. 4. It is an essential principle Of good management, whether of business or an educational enterprise, that policy-makers should not assume reponsibility for carrying out their own policies. But this division of responsibility was not possible under the former composi- tions Of boards. Under the new board, however, the members, though 62 assuming complete responsibility for formulating policy, will not have the added burden, then, Of actually implementing their own decision.62 Andrew M. Greeley, in an article entitled “Myths and Fads in Catholic Higher Education," speaks of the “higher educational enter- prise would apparently not survive very long if it were deprived of its myths and its fads. The first canon of the new mythology is that Catholic higher education will not make great strides unless it is free from ecclesiastical control: A group Of distinguished Catholic educators assembled at Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin, this past summer, issued a ringing declaration calling for independence Of the Catholic University vis-a-vis ecclesiastical authority. One can only applaud such vigor, but one is forced to wonder how relevant the question of independence really is. How much interference has there really been by ecclesiastical authority in the administration of Catholic schools? Has there been any more than most State colleges and univer- sities must tolerate from State legislatures?53 ,Possibly in this study some Of these questions may be answered. I must agree with Father Greeley that the question of control, while it can be a source of conflict in reality, is a mythology in the minds of both the administrators and the faculty. Research does not bear it out. III The Fourth Issue Academic Freedom Dr. Philip Gleason, at the last National Catholic Education Association meeting in the spring Of 1967, commented that the first paper on academic freedom in Catholic education was read in the 1938 63 meeting. The second, in 1942, which included academic freedom along with rank and tenure in a survey of the status of faculties in Catho- lic institutions; the third paper was in 1951 and this paper con- cerned itself with the Catholic stand on freedom of thought. The fourth was Professor Gerald F. Kreyche's discussion of "American Catholic Higher Learning and Academic Freedom" before the same National Catholic Association Convention two years ago.64 Until Professor Kreyche's paper, Dr. Gleason points out that the recorded attitude of the association toward academic freedom was predominantly negative. By that he means that the notion of academic freedom that prevailed in American higher education gener- ally was considered incompatible with the nature and purposes of Catholic higher education, and was at least implicitly rejected. The resolution of 1935 and the speakers through 1951 did not reject or condemn academic freedom "rightly understood," but they inter-‘ preted it in a way that would be unacceptable to those in the main- stream of academic life; they stressed, for instance, that academic freedom is not academic license, and insisted that it meant "free- dom to teach what is true and to receive instruction in what is true."65 The contrast between these earlier statements and Professor Kreyche's treatment is striking. He takes a very positive stand. If we broaden the scope of our review Of the literature to include articles on academic freedom in Catholic periodicals, the same general conclusions as reached by Dr. Gleason apply. There has been very little Catholic discussion on academic freedom. 64 Indeed, one of the editors of the Notre Dame symposium on Academic Freedom and the Catholic University, speaks of the "scan- dalous short list of scholarly discussions" of the subject by American Catholics, needless to say research. The mere listing of a few titles that appear around 1940 confirms the impression that Catholics had serious reservations about academic freedom-~titles such as "Arrogance of Academic Freedom" in the Ave Maria for April, 1940; "Academic Freedom is not a Reckless Grant" (American, Novem- ber, 1940); and "The Myth Of Academic Freedom" (Columbia, February, 1941).66 In the last two or three years, however, academic freedom has become a pressing and controversial subject; but in all of the dis- cussions there is reflected a positive tone as was displayed in Professor Kreyche's treatment in 1955. The most significant work on this issue is Academic Freedom and the Catholic University, edited ' 67 by EdWard Manier and John Houck. It is interesting to note that in the preparation of this volume the editors considered including in the book a chapter on cases involving Catholic institutions that had been dealt with in the past by the A.A.U.P., but they had to drop the idea because there were not enough cases to warrant a substantial analysis. In the practical realm there does not seem to have been tOO much difficulty with the manifest abuse of academic freedom in Catholic institutions. David Fellman, a former President of the American Association of University Professors, writing in the chapter "Academic Freedom and the American Political Ethos," states that the preamble of the 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom declares: "Institutions of higher 65 education are conducted for the common gOOd and not to further the interest Of either the individual teachers or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition." The preamble then goes on to declare that "academ- ic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teach- ing and research. ‘Freedom in research is fundamental to the advance- ment of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamen- tal for the protection Of the rights of the teacher in teaching and 68 Fellman also maintains Of the students to freedom in learning." that the concept of academic freedom for college and university pro- fessors includes, necessarily, the right of meaningful participation in the life of the institution. That is why the right to participate in college and university government looms ever larger in the think- ing of American teachers today. Thus, the statement Of the Associa- tion declares: I'The basic functions of a college or university are to augment, preserve,criticize, and transmit knowledge and to foster creative capacities. These functions are performed by a community of scholars who must be free to exercise independent judgment in the planning and the execution of the educational responsibilities. The organization of an institution of higher education should be designed to allow it to select and carry out its responsibilities with maximum effectiveness and integrity."69 Fellman declares that a very special problem arises in the institutions which are committed to religious principles, or which were founded by religious groups, or have a strong religious con- nection today. The 1940 Statement recognized this fact in the fol- lowing statement: 66 Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time Of the appointment. Interpretation Of this provision in the 1940 Statement has caused a great deal of difficulty. In 1967, a special committee was created by the American Association Of University Professors to study this sentence and to recommend policy with respect to the nature and scope of academic freedom in church-affiliated schools. The problem here, as presented by Fellman, is that we have a contradiction be- tween the enjoyment Of academic freedom on the one hand, and on the other the assurance to all religious groups of their full right to maintain colleges and universities committed to their own moral and religious principles. Of course, very few would deny to church groups the right, which the law secures for them, of maintaining institutions of higher learning. Fellman does not know if a com- plete and wholly satisfactory reconciliation Of the special demands of church-related schoOls with the requirements Of academic freedom can be worked out. He says that the Association is certainly making an effort to do so. Cardinal Newman, speaking on the university, says: The true university or college is a place in which the intellect may safely range and speculate, sure to find its equal in some antagonist activity, and its judge in the tribunal of truth. It is a place where inquiry is pushed forward, and discoveries verified and perfected, and rashness rendered innocuous, and error exposed, by the collision of mind and knowledge with knowledge. It would seem from this quote of Newman's, that a true university is one that seeks inquiry on all matters, no bars held. The Danforth Report, however, suggests that once a faculty member is appointed, he should enjoy a large measure of freedom in teaching, research and 67 private life. In other words, the Danforth Report is looking for more discrimination in hiring of faculty members according to the principles and purposes of the institutions.72 The Vatican II Council in its Declaration on the Church in the Modern World, defends the broad human freedom of inquiry and 73 Of expression in general society. This sacred Synod, therefore, recalling the teaching of the first Vatican Council, declares that there are "two orders of knowledge" which are distinct, namely faith and reason. It declares that the church does not forbid that "when the human arts and sciences are practiced, they use their own principles and their proper method, each in its own domain. Hence, “acknowledging this past liberty,“ the sacred Synod affirms the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences.... The Council also affirms explicitly the freedom of the scholar in the church in the following passage: Although the Church has contributed much to the development of culture, experience shows that, because of circumstances, it is sometimes difficult to harmonize cultures with Christian .teaching.... The difficulties do not necessarily harm the life of faith. Indeed they can stimulate the mind to a more accurate and penetrating grasp of the faith. For the recent studies and findings of science, history and philOSOphy raise new questions which influence life and demand new theological investigations. Furthermore, while adhering to the methods and requirements prOper to theology, theologians are invited to seek continu- ally for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to men of their time. For the deposit of faith or revealed truths are one thing; the manner in which they are formulated without violence to their meaning significance is another.... ....Let them (the faithful) blend modern sciences and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus, religious prac- tice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever advancing technology. This, too, they will be able to test and interpret all things in a Christian spirit. 68 Through a sharing of resources and points Of view, let those who teach in seminaries, colleges and universities try to collaborate with men well versed in the other sciences. Theo- logical inquiry should seed a profound understanding of reveal-75 ed truth without neglecting close contact with its own times... It is to be noted here that the spirit of open inquiry and research which is praised and safeguarded in the following passage is to influence the academic atmosphere of seminaries as well as universi- ties. In order that such persons may fulfill their prOper functions, let it be recognized that all the faithful, clerical and lay, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and the freedom to express their minds humbly and courageously about those matters in which they enjoy competence. As can be seen from the above passages, these freedoms are guaran- teed and to be exercised within the church and they are extended to all the faithful. The duty, therefore, is to recognize these rights and this duty rests on all ecclesiastical superiors. This, then, brings us to the large general question of the propriety or imprOpriety of non-academic authority being exercised over Catholic colleges and universities by either the local bishop or by superiors of religious communities. Currently, this is appear- ing as an issue in the University of Dayton case. This case appears to be the prototype case in that it illustrates the sort of academic controversy that is going to be the most fundamental and serious for Catholic institutions in the future if the above statements of the Council are not heeded. Academic freedom has always been closely related to religious liberty in our colleges and universities. Hofstadter and Metzger wrote, "Academic freedom first appeared in the guise Of religious 69 liberty for professors." The Dayton case incorporates three crucial elements: 1. Charges of doctrinal deviation in the teaching of some Of the members of the faculty; 2. The questiOn of the nature of the teaching magisterium of the church; 3. The problem Of the university's relationship to non— academic ecclesiastical authority. This case involves, in other words, the application Of the principles of academic freedom to the specific question of religious teaching in a Catholic university. Neil McCluskey, S.J. maintains that academic freedom applies in the area Of theology and philosophy precisely the same way that it does in other areas of scholarship. He further states that there is no academic justification for the interference by external ecclesiastical authority in the teaching of theology at Catholic universities. This probably pinpoints the key area of future academic freedom difficulties in Catholic univer- sities and colleges.77‘ The source of some of this trouble resides in Canon Law. It is here that it is stated that the bishop derives his authority from his Office as an authentic teacher Of Catholic faith and morals, though not infallibly and always dependent upon the magisterium of the church. Schools are subject to this authority in particular matters mentioned in the Law; there are three degrees of control: 1) the general right of vigilance as to faith and morals; 2) the direct authority in regard to religious instruction; 3) the right of canonical visitation.78 70 It is because of this type of control that there was a meeting Of representatives of ten major Catholic universities under the sponsorship of the North American Region of the Federation of Catho- lic Universities in the summer of 1967 at Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin. The participants made public the following statement: To perform its teaching and research functions effectively, the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community.... this means, that the intellectual campus of a Catholic university has no boundaries and no barriers.79 The statement said that it draws knowledge and understanding from all the traditions of mankind. The whole world Of knowledge and ideas must be open to the students; there must be no outlawed books or subjects. Catholic universities should continually evaluate all activities of the Church, as well as provide a community where stu- dents and faculty can explore together new forms of Christian living. .This is probably the most up-to—date statement advocated by the Catholic institutions as a system regarding academic freedom 80 Greeley in support of this statement and authority of the church. recommends that higher educational institutions should recommend reforms in canon law and in their own constitutions that should make clearer specification of the relationship of the university and the religious community possible—~a recognition that without certain broad areas of independence, it is very difficult for the higher educational institution to improve academically and to become a full- fledged member Of the American educational enterprise.8] 71 IV Summary In summary, then, the literature reveals a definite transition and, in some cases, conflict concerning the four issues. In regard to the philosophy and goals of Catholic higher education, there is an identity crisis; what is distinctive about Catholic higher education that justifies its existence? While this seems to be a crisis in all of church-related education, according to the Danforth Report, it has significant importance in Catholic higher education for it is the largest single system in the United States. The related literature reveals a large body Of theoretical speculation on what the identity of Catholic higher education "is“ and "should be," but there is very little empirical data to substantiate it. The third issue, the locus of decision-making and governance, is an issue that is commonto all higher education and not only to church-related education. It has significance in the Catholic sys- tem in that there has been a definite transition from an authoritar- ian-hierarchial structure to a democratic-administration structure. To use Rensis Likert's topologies, we are moving from a "benevolent authoritative system" to a "consultative system." A complete demo- "82 This appears cratic approach would be a "participative system. to be still far in the future for the Catholic universities, although many non-Catholic institutions and private institutions have reached this "participative system." Again, there is very little empirical research concerning this issue in Catholic higher education. 72 Finally, there is very little written on academic freedom in Catholic institutions. It was only until recently that this issue gained respectability in Catholic circles. It was always considered suspect. Now it is being discussed Openly and without bias. In the last three years, the problem of academic freedom does not seem to have been an internal problem as much as an external one concerning the control over theology and philosophy departments from non-academic circles. This seems to be the locus of future conflict in Catholic higher education in regard to academic freedom. It is hoped that this study, in which we pursue “The Functional Analysis Of Conflict in Catholic Higher Education," will shed some empirical illumination on these four issues. In the subsequent chap- ters we shall discuss and analyze data gathered to test whether these are eXpressed grounds for the assumptions that many have concerning the potential or actual conflict engendered in Catholic higher educa- tion. 1o. ' 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 73 Citations--Chapter III Reverend Andrew M. Greeley, "After Secularity: The Neo- Gemeinschaft Society: A Post—Christian Postscript," Sociological Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 3, (Fall, 1966), pp. 119-122. John 0. Donovan, The Academic Man in the Catholic College (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964). Greeley, 9p, £13,, p. 119. Donovan, 9p, gj_,, p. 195. Edward Wakin, "How Catholic is the Catholic College?" Saturday Review, Vol.XLIX,NO.16 (April 16,1966), pp. 92-94, 105. John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea Of a University (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960). Ibid., p. xxxvii. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. (ed.), "Declaration on Christian Educa- tion," The Documents of Vatican II (New York: An Angelus Book, Guild Press, 1966), p. 648jlsec. lO. Ibid., p. 649, sec. 10. Ibid., p. 650, sec. 11. Ibid., pp. 650-651, sec. 12. Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: The MacMillan CO., 1965). “Ibid., p. 236. Robert Hassenger, "A Rationale for Changing Student Values," Educational Record, Vol. 48, NO. 1 (Winter, 1967), p. 62. John Cogley, "The Future of an Illusion," Commercial, June 2, 1967, p. 316. Manny M. Pattillo, Jr. and Donald M. Mackenzie, Church- Sponsored Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D. C: Amer1can Council on Education, 1966). Robert Hassenger, The Shape of Catholic Higher Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967). T8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 74 Reverend Andrew M. Greeley, The Changing_Catholic College (Chicago: Aldine Publishing CO., 1967). Pattillo and Mackenzie, pp, c_it., pp. 192-193. Ibid., pp. 193-194. bi u—o Q. .9 PP. 194-195. H Q. bi ., p. 195. ., p. 196. H O. bi H bid., pp. 211-212 H bid., p. 213. Abbott, pp, £13., p. 650, sec. 11. Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, "The Catholics and Their Colleges," The Public Interest, NO. 7 (Spring, 1967), pp. 79-80. 191g , p. 80. Hassenger, pp, 315., pp. 29-52. ijd,, p. 254. ijd,, p. 255. H bid., p. 256. bid., p. 330. H Christopher O'Toole, C.S.C., “Disappearance of the Catholic University," The Priest, Vol. 23, NO. 9, pp. 700-705. Hassenger, pp, 913,, p. 331. Peter Schrog, "Notre Dame: Our First Great Catholic Univer- sity?", Harper's, Vol. 234, No. 1404 (May, 1967), p. 48. Reverend Timothy S. Healy, S.J., "The Emerging Role for Catholic Higher Education," Fordham, Vol. 1, No. 8 (April-May, 1967), pp. 15-16. Andrew M. Greeley and Peter H. Rossi, The Education of Catholic Americans (Chicago: National Opinion ResearCh Center, Aldifie Publishing Company, 1966), p. 368. Andrew M. Greeley, The Changing Catholic College (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967), p. 226. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 75 Ibid., p. 205. I id., p. 206. O'Toole, C.S.C., pp, pip., p. 704. Hassenger, pp, pip., p. 260. Ipip,, p. 261. Donovan, pp, pip,, p. 172. Ibid., p. 173. Ibid., _____ P Ibid., p. 182. . 173. Ibid., p. 183. Ibid., p. 199. John J. Corson, Governance Of College and Universities, (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1960), p. 97} Ibid). pp. 105-106. pp. 113-114. Ibid., pp. 114-115. H U' do 0. U Harold W. Dodds, The Academic President: Educator or Caretaker (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1962), pp. 98-99. John H. Callan, "Faculty Participation in College Administra- tion," School and Society, February 18, 1967, pp. 121-122. "Faculty Participation in College and University Government," American Association Of UniversitprrOfessors, Bulletin 48, (March, 1962), pp. 16-18. Lewis B. Mayhew, “Other Recent Books of Interest," .ng Chronicle of Higher Education, September 13, 1967, p. 9. Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, "The Catholics and Their Colleges," Public Interest, NO. 7 (Spring, 1967), pp. 81-82. Ibid., p. 82. Greeley, pp, p13,, p. 213. Paul C. Reinert, S.J., "Lay Leadership for Catholic Universities," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 48, NO. 10 (June, 1967), pp. 518-519. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.- 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 76 Reverend Andrew M. Greeley, "Myths and Fads in Catholic Hi her Education," America, Vol. 117, No. 20 (November 11, 1967? p. 542. —""" Philip Gleason, "Academic Freedom: Survey, Retrospect and Pros- pects," NCEA Bulletin, VOl. 64, NO. 1 (August, 1967), p. 68. Ibid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 68. Edward Manier and John Houck (ed.), Academic Freedom and the Catholic University_(Notre Dame, Indiana: Phides Publishing CO., 1967), p. 225. Ibid., p. 65. Ibid., p. 73. Ibid., p. 75. John Henry Cardinal Newman, "What is a University?", Historical Sketches (London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1872). Manny M. Pattillo, Jr., and Donald M. Mackenzie, Church- Sponsored Higher Education in the United States (Wasfiington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966), p. 78. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. (ed.), The Documents Of Vatican II . (New York: Angelus Books, Guild Press, 1966). Ibid., p. 265, sec. 59. bid., pp. 268-270, sec. 62. H Ibid., p. 270. Gleason, pp, 213,, p. 70. T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J., Canon Law: A Test and Commentary (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing CO., 1957), pp. 743-748. "Catholic Scholars Urge University Autonomy," National Catholic Reporter, Vol. 3, NO. 39, p. 3. Ibid., p. 3. Greeley, The Changingpgatholic Collegp, pp, p13,, p. 212. Robert C. Albrook, "Participative Management: Time for a Second Look," Fortune, Vol. LXXV, No. 5 (May, 1967), pp. 166-167. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this study is presented and discussed in this chapter. The following topics are developed: 1) Introduc- tion; 2) Selection of the Study Sample and Population; 3) The Demographic Data on the Population; 4) Instrumentation; 5) Instru- ment Development and Administration; 6) Analysis and Classification; 7) Hypotheses; and 8) The Summary. Introduction Conflict is engendered in human behavior. One can deal with some Of the structural and cultural sources Of conflict through pointing out a diversity of goals and directions potentially held by persons functioning within these institutions. Manifest conflicts are not the central subject of this analysis, for we are interested in the future and attempts to uncover the dynamics underlying poten- tial change. Some of the cultural dynamics, such as secularization, have been described and have actually been incorporated to some extent in all of the six institutions by becoming, to various degrees, non-sectarian; the content of the curriculum also shows a degree Of secularization. The question here that must be asked is: How stable are these institutions in reacting to changes? What are some of the latent 77 78 forces that will upset their equilibrium? In other words, what are some Of the latent sources of conflict that are significantly affecting Catholic higher education? The central focus of this research assumes that forces for change and therefore conflict--latent or otherwise, are engendered in the values and attitudes of individuals holding positions within the formal and informal structures Of these institutions. They are performing controlling roles through the leadership of influence. This leadership Of influence will be defined and explained later in this chapter. In order to uncover these latent forces, we feel that we must identify how key persons within the formal and informal structures in these institutions see themselves within the organiza- tion--the goals they feel should hold top priorities, their atti- tudes toward the determination of these goals. We must assume here that views Of the self and of the organization will critically influence the future Of Catholic higher education and certainly are significant in decision-making. The tremendous significance to sociological methodology of the approach to social phenomena through the perceptions of individ- 1 uals is manifested in a large part of sociological research. This approach was documented by G. W. Allport: According to Thomas and Znaniecki, the study of attitudes is ar excellence the field of social psychology. Attitudes are ifiaividual mental processes which determine both the actual and potential responses Of each person in the social world. Since an attitude is always directed toward some Object, it may be degined as a "state of mind of the individual toward a value." 79 Perceptual theory suggests a meaningful phenomenological approach to the study of human behavior.3 It is concerned with the Observation Of behavior through the senses; that is, as sensed or reported by the one who is behaving. The observer attempts to view the situation from the point of view Of a particular individual. This, then, is an internal rather than an external approach to the study Of human behav- ior. Perceptual theory holds that reality for an individual is what the individual perceives reality to be, and that he acts in a manner that is consistent with that perception. This theory also holds that awareness, then, is a cause Of behavior; that perception is affected by one's values, beliefs, needs; that perception is dependent upon Opportunity; that an individual's perceptual field is unique to him; and, finally, that an individual's behavior is purposeful, relevant 4 The entire and pertinent to the situation as he understands it. perceptual field, the behavioral universe, includes the past, present and future, as it is experienced or inferred. These same factors which affect the perceptions of the average individual as a group member also Operate on the perceptions of the leader. Moreover, since the leader is in the center Of the communi- cation net and is usually selected or arises because of his ability to put himself in the place of others, his perceptions of others tend 5 As a result to be more accurate than those of the average member. of this favored position, the leader is usually superior to non- leaders and he isolates this ability to judge Opinions on problems which are relevant to the group's activity (Chowdhry and Newcomb, 1952; Exline, 1960). However, if all members of the group actually 80 share the same Opinion on an issue and there is a high rate of interaction among group members, the difference in perception between leaders and non-leaders may not appear (Hites and Camhill, 1950). The importance Of being in the center Of the communication net for accurate perception is further demonstrated by evidence from studies in which communication among all members is maximized either because the groups are small or because the members have known each other longer. In these cases, all members may be able to predict group Opinion in group structure more accurately than members of groups with less effective communication. Based on this theory of perception, this study assumes that: l. a university is what it is perceived to be by its members; 2.. administration and faculty behave consistently with their perceptions Of the university; '3. behavior changes when members perceive a need for a change and feel a willingness to initiate or accept changes; 4. the elements of a member's perception of the institution are: a) a perception of what an institution was in the past; b) a perception of what an institution is as it presently exists; c) a perception Of an institution as it should exist ideally. 81 The Selection of Sample and Population Sample Ideally, we would base our analysis on a probability type of sample and would thereby generalize to all types Of institutions. However, time, money, and availability were limiting factors. We decided to select six institutions representative of the types in which potential or latent conflict might be studied. The six selected institutions were all members of the Middle Atlantic States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Two Of the univer- sities were co-educational and one was an all-male institution. Two of the liberal arts colleges were all-male institutions and one was an all-girl liberal arts college. We felt that by sampling from among six institutions and by gathering from these institutions in- depth experiences from their administrators and faculty, religious and laymen, we would receive valid perceptions concerning our four areas of concern, and, in turn, could test the stated hypotheses.‘ Therefore, all the subjects interviewed in this study were members of one of the six institutions of higher learning and formed our pOpulation. We also wanted comparative data from different kinds of institutions, so that the nature of the data collected and the analysis of this data would be of interest to the whole field of Catholic higher education as a system. For the purpose of this study these institutions were representative of the types of structures we felt manifested the dynamics which are interjecting secularity or religiosity within an institution, or institutions. These institutions were selected with help of a leader in 82 higher education in the Middle Atlantic States Region and arrange- ments also were made through this source for visiting them. It was not possible nor even desirable to pick six co- educational institutions, or all institutions of the same size; nor was it feasible to select a sample of colleges with similar histories or growth problems, or similar locales as settings for the colleges. The diversity of the institutions, however, reflects well the diversity of all Catholic higher education as a system. The following are thumb-nail sketches of the institutions involved:6 Institution A: This is an all-male university, conducted by ha religious order. It was founded in 1888 and chartered in 1924. This institution may be classified as an urban university in a small eastern industrial city. It has full-time staff of 38 priests, 84 laymen and five laywomen. Its full-time enrollment is 1,621. Its overall enrollment, which would include part-time and graduate work, is 2,821. In 1965, it awarded 379 Bachelors degrees and 74 Masters. Institution 8: This is a co-educational university residing in a suburban community on the eastern seacoast. It is one of the twelve diocesan institutions in the United States, having been found- ed in 1856 and chartered in 1861. It has a full-time staff of 69 priests, one sister, 241 laymen and 59 laywomen. Its full-time en- rollment is 3,404 men and 803 women with a total Of 4,207 students for a full-time enrollment. Its total enrollment is 9,173. In 1965, it conferred 1,060 Bachelors degrees, 392 Masters and 77 Profes- sional degrees. 83 Institution C: A major co-educational university conducted by a religious order in a major Eastern city. It was founded in 1841 and chartered in 1846. As a university, it is composed of ten colleges and institutes, enrolling 5,367 full-time men and 1,392 full- time women. Its overall total enrollment is 11,018. It has a full- time staff of 182 priests, 310 laymen and 65 laywomen. In 1965, it conferred 1,054 Bachelors degrees, 304 Masters and 61 Doctoral degrees. It also conferred 432 Professional degrees. Institution 0: This is a liberal arts college for men in a small city in the East. It was founded in 1946. It has a full-time staff Of 28 priests, two brothers and 66 laymen and six laywomen. It has a full-time enrollment of 1,333. In 1965, it conferred 244 Bachelors degrees. Institution E: A liberal arts college for women in a wealthy suburban area. It is conducted by a religious order of women. It was fOunded in 1841. It has a full-time staff Of one priest, 29 sisters, 35 laymen and 36 laywomen, teaching a total enrollment of 960 girls. This liberal arts college also confers Masters degrees in Music and Religious Education. In 1965, it conferred 173 Bachelors and seven Masters. Institution F: This is a liberal arts college for men con- ducted by a religious order. It is located in the suburbs of a major eastern city. Its foundation was in 1852. It has a full- time enrollment of 948 men. Its full-time staff is composed of 28 priests, 47 laymen and one laywomen. This institution also can . award Masters degrees in Education and Business Administration. In 1965, it awarded 221 Bachelors and 96 Masters degrees. 84 Population Of more crucial importance to the study was the selection of the respondents within each institution. This study tries to analyze how people in different types Of positions respond to current prob- lems or areas of concern in higher education; hence, the respondents had to be representative of positions or statuses in these institu- tions and also representative of the leadership. We had to assume that occupational roles such as administrators or professors were institutionalized strongly enough to make for similarities in certain areas of perception and role performances more or less uni- versal in Catholic institutions Of higher education. Certainly the literature in the sociology of occupations and the vast litera- ture on organizational performances seem to validate this type of an assumption.7 A sociometric technique was used to select the persons to be interViewed which would comprise the pOpulation. This technique identified for us the potnetial or actual leaders Of influence among the positions, whether they were administrative or faculty, and whether they were religious or lay. Our definition of adminis- tration was a catalogue description which met our needs and includes: presidents, vice presidents, deans, staff--such as the director of admissions, registrars, etc. The faculty refers to full-time instruc- tional faculty, department heads, and teachers. The religious refer to priests and sisters and the laymen are all non-religious teaching in Catholic institutions of higher learning. 85 The leaders of influence were designated by the peer group forming a sociogram for each institution. This sociogram was ini- tiated by interviewing arbitrarily one person in administration and one faculty member. Usually, but not always, these first two candi- dates were picked because of their role or prestige in the institu- tion. For instance, in Institution A we started with the president of the university and this would reflect the administration; the second one that we started with was the president of the newly formed academic faculty senate. In this way, we tried to get the reflec- tions of perceptions of both the administrative leaders and the faculty leaders. Each one nominated eight members whom they per- ceived as being either leaders or potential leaders. According to the availability of the persons nominated and time allotted for each school in gathering data, these peOple were contacted and interviewed. The same process was applied to the other five remaining schools. There is no doubt that there are sample inadequacies inherent in the system for not all the subjects that were nominated could be contact- ed because of unavailability, inconveniences and time. For instance, in Table 4.1 it can be seen that 1013 was mentioned and included in the sample population yet he was not nominated. This was the first one interviewed; 1016 had twelve people out Of fifteen nominating him as a leader yet he could not be interviewed because he was out of town. The sociometric matrices for each institution are found in Tables 4.1 to 4.6. The peOple that were actually nominated appear at the tap of the matrix. Those peOple who were actually interviewed are listed to the left of the matrix. The total population for this study is broken down by institutions in Table 4.7. TABLE 4.1 - COLLEGE "A" SOCIOMETRI‘C CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 1030 1004 1000 1082 1031 1030 1030 1020 1030 1020 1022 1020 1019 1010 101? 1010 - 1010 1010 1010 1011 1011 1010 E55? 1000 253': 1001 0-. O Id 04 a 0-0 I! u‘ 0-. 1011 1013 1010 1014 1 1010 11* TABLE 4.2 - COLLEGE "B" SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 110? 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1100 1100 1100 1107 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1100 1100 1107 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1100 , 1110 1110 1117 1110 1110 1110 1110 1110 1111 1110 1100 1107 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1101 1100 1100 1100 1100 110' 1110 1111 1110 1110 1110 1110 1110 1117 1110 11 0’ 0‘ 11‘ TABLE 4.3 - COLLEGE "C" SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 1001 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1001 1000 1000 1007 1000 1000 1001 1000 1007 1000 1001 1010 1010 1017 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1011 1010 1000 1001 1001 88 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1017 1010 1010 TABLE 4.4 - COLLEGE "D" SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 1220 1228 1227 1220 1220 1220 1220 1222 1221 1220 1219 1210 1217 1216 1210 1210 1213 1212 1211 1210 1200 1208 1207 1206 1205 1200 1203 1202 1201 O 1201 1202 89 1 1203 1200 1205 | 1206 1 1207 1200 1 1 1209 1210 90 40 40 90 o . ADMINISTRATION TABLE 4.5 - COLLEGE "E" SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 1323 1327 1320 1325 1324 1323 1322 1321 1320 1319 1313 1317 1310 1315 1314 1313 1312 1311 1310 1309 1303 1307 1306 1305 1304 1303 1302 1301 0 1 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 |1306 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1307 1308 1309 1310 3-' 3t 6. 4i 9. t : IUDDIUNISTTLATTCNH TABLE 4.6 - COLLEGE "F" SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE OF LEADERSHIP MATRIX 1619 1618 1617 1616 1615 1614 1613 1612 1611 1610 1609 1608 1607 1606 1605 1604 1603 1602 1601 91 1601 1602 1603 1604 | 1605 1 1606 1607 1608 1609 5* ' 4* 7* * I AJHMINHSTTLATWCHW 92 Table 4.7 - Summary of Pogulation Sample Percent of Full-Time Number Full-Time Institution Faculty Interviewed Faculty A 127 15 11.80 B 370 18 4.86 C 557 21 3.77 D 82 10 12.10 E 101, 10 9.90 F 76 9 11.00 There was a total of 83 members in the sample; 32 administrators and 51 faculty members. All members represent the influence structure. By the influence structure we mean those members who actually determine what goes on in an organization; this need not correspond to the formal authority structure, although in many cases it does. The basic concept of influence here means the ability to make things happen in a social group according to their wishes.8 Sometimes a measure of influence has been referred to as a measure of power. This study restricts the concept of power to one source of influence; con- trol over sanctions-~rewards and punishments for faculty formally built into the organization. For this study, influence is more than power to the extent persuasion enters into it. A member of a group who can present facts or arouse value-laden sentiments in such a way as to influence the other members' judgment is our definition of a 1eader--whether he actually holds an office or has the potential to hold an office. 93 Each leader had to identify, if he could, eight others; thus, there was identified centers of influence in each institution. Figures 4.1 to 4.6 at the end of the chapter are the directed socio- metric graphs for each school showing these centers of influence. These sociometric graphs also show a series of interlocking sub- groups as the informal group structure. The analysis of such socio- metric graphs is useful in identifying the positions of individuals in the informal structure of a group. However, these graphs can never be used to reveal behavior which is associated with the posi- tion. Newcomb (1960) maintains that the process by which persons are initially attracted to each other and finally become reciprocal choices or friends can be represented by four types of relationships: 1) proximity, 2) similar individual characteristics, 3) common interests or values, 4) similar personality traits. Demographic Data on Sample and Population The total sample of 83 subjects consists of 54 persons (65.06%) from universities; 29 persons (39.94%) from liberal arts colleges. The predominance of the population, 75 (90.86%), were male. The total number of females on the faculty or administrative staffs of these institutions is very small. The members chosen as leaders, eight, were approximately proportional to the number of females in the university. 94 The religion of the pOpulation was represented as follows: Table 4.8 - Summary of Sample Characteristic: Religion Religion Romper. Percent Catholic 76 91.57 Protestant 4 4.82 Jewish _3 _3;_6_l_ 83 100.00 The status of the population is defined as members who are lay or religious (priests or sisters). There were 61 laymen and 22 religious members representing 73.49% and 26.51% of the members, respectively. The administrative personnel comprised 36.14% of the sample and 63.86% (53) were of the faculty. Their academic disciplines were varied as indicated in Table 4.9. 95 .mme agmcFFaFuan xcm usochz mmFoL m>FumLuchFEum :F 0903 mcomgma cm>mm Fugue 2:2 ooF mF ooF m ooF m ooF m ooF FN ooF mF ooF NF Nm.F F - - l - - - oF.¢ F u - l - 0N.m e FF.FF F FF.FF F - u - - oo.mN F mm.m F mm.m m - - l - i . Nm.m N u - mm.m F 0N.m v - - FF.FF F - . Nm.m N mN.m F - . Nm.F F - - - - - - oF.¢ F - - - - mo.N , N FF.FF F - - - . mF.¢ F u 1 u . mm.oF w - - mm.mm m NN.NN N 0F.¢ F mN.o F mm.m F mm.m m - - - - FF.FF F mF.¢ F mN.o F - - mm.F o FF.FF F - - FF.FF F Nm.m N mN.m F mm.m F F¢.¢F FF FF.FF F NN.NN N FF.FF F mo.mF w u - oo.mN m 5F.mF mF NN.NN N FF.FF F NN.NN N mN.¢F m oo.mN e oo.mN m 0N.m q - - - - FF.FF F Nm.m N u. . mm.m F mm.F m FF.FF F - u i . mF.¢ F mF.mF m mm.w F mm.m m FF.FF F. - - FF.FF F u . mN.o F - . 0N.m q FF.FF F l l u - - . mF.mF m - - Nm.F F l - FF.FF F l u l - n u - . .lpm .F. x F m F .m “F m F m F m F FmpoF F u a o m (i « mcoFuaqumcF FMHOF EmFchgzoa AmoFomcF amoFoFuom mocmFum quFpFFom agaomoFFna mumeza zmoFoguxmm .mcms .mmFu a .uoz muFumEmgpmz xgoumF: cmFchm :oFumuacm moFeocoum FgumFEmcu amoFoFm .cFEu< .mam xgoumF: ucm ug< ”FF LOLO I-7- HeF PNMQ'kaNmmOFNm l'_l'—l'-'!_ mmcFFaFumFo mmcFFnFomFo mzoFFm> cF :onszaoa Fo mommucmogmm Fo xgmssam . m.e anmh 96 It is interesting to note the large number of the leaders of influence coming from English, Education and the Social Sciences, such as Psychology, Sociology, Political Science and History. In Tables 4.10-4.17 a summary of the various characteristics of the population are given. In Table 4.10 the summary of age characteristic of the sample showsthat the leadership of influence is very young. In the universities the mean ages are slightly higher than those in the liberal arts colleges. The second surprising outcome of the demographic information is in Table 4.12, the Summary of the Origin of Terminal Degrees. There is a significant number of degrees that were earned at private institutions and this is probably accounting for much of the change in Catholic higher education. More than thirty-six percent of the degrees were earned at private institutions and not at Catholic institutions. ‘The number of years served in institutions of higher learning among the university leaders is shown in Table 4.14. The greatest number of the leaders were in the six to ten years category with 31.33%. The six to fifteen year categories accounted for 54.22% of the population. The number of years of service in Catholic institutions were considerably less as can be seen in Table 4.15. Approximately forty- seven percent of the population fell in the six to fifteen years cate- gories. ’ The present leaders, accounting for 66.06% of the population, were in their present institutions between one and ten years with 36.14% in the first five years. It can be seen that the leaders of 97 influence are young and probably not socialized in the old Gemein- schaft traditions often associated with Catholic higher education. Table 4.16 also shows that the leaders in the universities are more stable than those of liberal arts colleges. This is probably due to the fact of higher prestige factor in university employment. Finally, Table 4.17 shows that there is little mobility among the leaders of the Catholic systems: 93.8% of the population have held jobs in two institutions, while 63.86% have only been employed in one institution. Instrumentation The instrument used for this study was a structured interview schedule. (See the appendix.) The types of data derived through the interviews were: 1. certain types of control data (independent variables) concerning the identities, roles and statuses of the interviewees; and 2. attitudes toward the crucial problem areas (dependent variables). The interview schedule consisted of: l. Fourteen closed-ended questions which were demographic in nature; and 2. Eighteen open-ended questions on attitudes and opinions which were grouped under the following headings: a) Catholic Philosophy of Higher Education; b) Institutional Purposes and Goals; c) The Locus of Decision-Making; d) Academic Freedom. 98 The interview was administered by the researcher. In addition to the written reSponse, there was also, with the permission of the interviewee, a portable tape record of all spoken conversation with the interviewee. There were over one hundred and twenty-three hours of recorded conversations with the eighty-three persons in the popu— lation. There were two assumptions that underlay the use of the inter- view schedule: 1. The internal conception concerning the issues within the institutions as an organization and the system are related to the way members of the organization act and how they identify themselves in relation to the actions and identi- ties attributed to them by superiors and others. An organizationpresents an image and this image is thereby formed by the experiences of its members and even more so by its leaders of influence. An organization's function- ing has an end effect. The organizational image, there? fore, guides the organization's on-going behavior. It is when the perceptions of this image are not congruent that there is latent and perceived conflict within an organiza- tion. The second important assumption is that the perceptions of the organizational image are indexical at the awareness level, through statements of its members and even more so by its leaders of influence. The solicitation of statements about the organization from its members provide a direct approach to the organization's image. When the members are 99 confronted with the problem of identifying the organization through its philosophy and goals, they must decide for themselves how this identification will be made. They made these perceptions as a socialized member of the organization of the system and therefore tend to reflect normative expec- tations (value orientation) and behavior patterns that speci- fically characterized that institution as an organization. These perceptions may be in conflict. These perceptions can also reveal changes that have taken place and this also can be a source of conflict. Analysis and Classification We feel that the information gathered from the interview schedules provides us with the basis for a qualitative analysis of the nature of the institutions in our sample and of the nature of the Catholic system of higher education, generally. While the study is descriptive, it also attempts to be analytical and tries to uncover some of the general causes, relationships, and processes concerning the issues. The information in the form of descriptive statements in responses to the eighteen questions were analyzed through content- analysis procedures, ....as a research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of Communication.9 The key words are objective, systematic, quantitative and manifest. This is what distinguishes scientific content analysis from the ordinary informal analysis: 100 1. Objective means that the categories used to analyze the content must be defined; so that different persons can analyze the same content using these definitions and get the same results; 2. Systematic means that the selection of the content to be analyzed must be based on a formal predetermined, unbiased plan; in other words, the analyst cannot choose to examine only those elements in the content which happen to fit his hypotheses and ignore all the others; 3. Quantitative means that the results of the analysis are usually expressed numerically in some way: fre- quency distributions, contingency tables, percentages of various sorts; 4. Manifest means the semantic analysis involved is direct and simple. It deals with the reading on the lines and not between them. The content is then coded.10 Typically, coding units are the word, the theme, items. In this analysis, the statements were coded and classified according to themes and context analysis. .A definition of a theme is a simple assertion about a subject matter. Sometimes, however, a score cannot be given solely from an examination of a theme. It is then that a unit can only be coded reliably in terms of the context. Hence, a context unit, which is the largest division, may be consulted by a coder in order to assign a score to a basic coding unit and this is often used in this study. The criteria used in coding were two: the subject was used as a lOl criterion and the action verb as a second criterion.]] An example of this can be seen in this study in Chapter V in Table 5.12. The important part of each response was underlined according to the above procedure. Each individual's response for each question was typed on separate cards; one card was used for each question--this resulted in 1,476 cards. The cards were then divided into subject categories for each question. These categories were determined by themes and context as described above. whether a person gets into one category or another is depen- dent upon his choice of words on that particular day. Many times the choice of words made it very difficult in determining the cate- gories; it is then that contextual analysis was used. In interpreting the categories, the following questions must be kept in mind: Are there fundamental differences in points of view held by significant persons with different characteristics and identities within the Catholic institutions? Are there signi- ficant differences among the work groups such as the lay-religious, administration-faculty? Or are these differences found in all institutions or just church-related institutions? Are these dif- ferences found only in a university system or also in a smaller liberal arts college system? To what extent are there areas of agreement found for the crucial issues covered in the interview schedule among the various work groups concerning the differentiated categories? We have used the idea of consensus in our interpretation of the results. By consensus, is meant a simple agreement in any group. 102 The degree of consensus with respect to any category simply would be the degree of consensus that the individuals in the group have about the issues, under analysis. Exponents of this definition of consensus are, among others, Neal Gross and his associates. In their work, Gross and his associates point out that if all the responses for an item fall in one category there would be perfect consensus}2 However, not all will approve or even come near this extreme, and this is true in our research. A small difference in response represents consensus and presents limited grounds for conflict; on the other hand, a large variance is defined as no consensus and thereby presents large grounds for conflict. How large is large? Are the differences themselves verified in a statistical sense? There is no doubt that it would have been possible to use non-parametric techniques for analyzing these differences if the population of the sample was ‘ adequate to warrant it. However, since our population numbers were small, it was decided that the study findings would be repre- sented_by using frequencies and percentages as measures of analysis. These forms, then, are used to relate the degree of consensus or lack of consensus about the issues involved; that is, categories selected by the leaders of influence within the organizations. The rejection of more sophisticated techniques was, then, because of (sample limitations--the limited number of respondents for various cells. In order to enhance our analysis, it was elected that the study findings also be presented in the form of anecdotal reports. This, it was felt, would give a more meaningful in-depth discrimi- 103 nation to the categories which were selected through contextual analysis, provided the number of candid responses add insights to the findings. These anecdotal analyses would also allow the reader to infer what differences were meaningful. This anecdotal form gives actually what was said and the nuances of different meanings to the categories. The study findings finally will be presented as a structural analysis of the Catholic higher educational system. In addition to the above mentioned treatment of the organization as a structure, the analysis allows us to look for relationships that might be found in any organization: a) the relationship between the position of an individual in the organization and his attitudes toward the organi- V zation; b) the relationship between the goals and methods of opera- tion of a work group, in a larger segment of the organi- zation, on the one hand, and the structure of that work group or segment. These work groups are as follows: 1. the administration-faculty work group; 2 the lay-religious faculty work group; 3. the university-college work group; 4 finally, the personnel in each individual college. Summary We have suggested that the methodology to be used provides us with meaningful responses for the crucial areas or problems under analysis. Psychological and social psychological theory have pointed 104 to the dynamic interrelation between perception and behavior--that behavior tends to emerge consistent with an individual's perception. Therefore this study assumes that: l. a university is what it is perceived to be by its members; 2. the administration and faculty often behave consistently with their perceptions of the university; 3. these perceptions are often in conflict; different insti- tutionalized aspects may be more or less shared; 4. changes are significantly influenced by the perceptions of individuals and their behavior. The sample was limited to institutions in the Middle Atlantic Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges. Six institutions were pre-selected by an outside source: three universities and three liberal arts colleges. The sample was selected through a socio- metric device of nominating leaders of influence, and consisted of 83 persons: 32 adminiStrators and 51 faculty members. Sixty-five and six one-hundredths percent were members of universities and 34.94% were from liberal arts colleges. ,The instrument used in this study was an interview schedule to determine the perceptions of influentials regarding the four issues: the philosophy of Catholic higher education; institutional goals and purposes; the locus of the decision-making process; and academic freedom. The information gathered from the interviews provided a basis for the qualitative analysis of the six institutions and the Catholic system as-a whole. 105 The interpretation of the results is based on the pattern of perception and the value attitudes of the leaders of influence con- cerning the significant areas under analysis. The degree of consensus with respect to any category operationally defines for us the areas of perceived or latent conflict. 10. 11. 12. 106 Citations-~Chapter IV Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (ed.), The Language of Social Research (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1957). Gardner Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), Vol. I, p. 45. Harvard S. Bartley, Principles of Perceptions (New York: Harper Brothers, 1958), pp. 1—46. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959), pp. 9-11, 50-65; 121-129. Donald Snygg and Arthur W. Combs, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 13. Robert E. L. Faris (ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964), p. 233. Taken from The 1966 Official Guide to Catholic Educational Institutions (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Con- ference,11966). Sigmund Nosow and William H. Forin, Man, Work and Society New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962), passim. Theodore Caplow, The Sociology of Work (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1954), chaps i and ii; pp.13L57, 124-140. Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organization (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), chaps. v-vi; pp. 81-113, 114-137. ' Allen H. Barton, Organizational Measurement (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1961), p. 33. Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952), p. 18. Wayne A. Danielson, "Content Analysis in Communication Research," Introduction to Mass Communications Research, ed. Ralph O. Nufziger and David M. White (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1963), p. 181. Robert C. Anderson, "Method and Instrument for Predicting the Consequences of Intra-Organizational Action," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), p. 78. Neal Gross, Ward Mason and Alexander N. McEacher, Ex lanation in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 108. 107 wmoHHoo mafiuwmuo>was mN.N I z mowuamuo>ada oonHOU g NOON NOON noca Road NOON NOON nu I 2 nu ma HN . OH OH m N¢.N 1 1 1 Nn.a 1 1 uo>01 co .n c 1 N 1 1 1 N mN.oN 1 oo.cd cc.ON mN.¢N No.0N No.0v an 1 on .e N n n N N 1 ca mn.~n om.mn oc.cn cc.ON ca.wn aw.mn oc.°¢ ac 1 ow .n c. N a . N n m an «H.9n c<.¢¢ oc.cn co.co ca.on mm.wn 1 on 1 an .N 1 N m o n c on No.c 1 oc.c~ 1 1 om.n nn.na mN 1 ON .N N A 1 c N 1 a Ilmummnouuom .2 11ml . a 0 ml 4 31.0114 _ o . llnjllu11~11 F38. ouuuuuuuom lllfl huaoavoum mgmzmfida muHuHmuo>Has ,muwwaaou NOOH NO0H NOOH NO0H NOOH NOOH 0092 MM _ 0H — HN 0H 0H 0 a mn.mm 00.0m 00.0Q m0.m._.. no.0H mm.mm HMUNHJHU m A m .N c m m No.00 00.0“ 00.00 no.00 00.00 No.00 had 0H . ma NH 0 w h o m m a o _ m < 633m < “F n o a 1% m m unnucouuum muauavouh rilllllllll m4m2mNaa mmNuNmum>Naa mmmeNou NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON ON ON NN ON ONF O ne.m NN.NN O0.0N 1 ON.ON on.n N0.0 :wNouom N N n 1 N N N NO.¢ 1 O0.0N 1 1 om.m NN.NN UNNnam N N 1 1 N 1 c ON.Om NN.Nn O0.00 1 NO.N¢ om.mm O0.0N .OoOaN .Num m ON ON 1 a m on .Nom nuuano N<.N 1 1 1 Nn.m 1 1 UNNosuu0160z 1 1 N 1 1 1 N ON.O¢ on.mm O0.0¢ OON Nn.ON nn.nn O0.00 uNNonuuu O O O ON e n OO unouuom m N O O m < OONuauNunnN 4 O O O m m Nuuoa 1. ouaucuuuom huaonamum mummme OmNc= mmNuNmum>Naa momeNou NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON ON ON NN ON ON O NN.N 1 1 1 1 O0.0 1 NQOOwaowouO 1 N 1 1 1 1 N N0.0 1 1 O0.0N 1 Om.n N0.0 O“SNQFOOO N N 1 N 1 1 m OO.NN NN.NN O0.00 O0.00 ON.O NN.NN O0.00 ououuwz O N N O m N ON O0.0N ON.NN O0.0N O0.0m ON.OO ON.NN mm.nm ouuMOuUOO O ON ON n N N NO uauuuom O O O O O < OONuauNuunN 4 O O O O O Nuuoa «Oauaouuum Nuaoauauh zONNmNaa OONuNauu>an mOoNNou NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON MO I z ON ON NN ON ON O OO ON.ON 1 1 O0.0N N0.0N N0.0N OO.mN uu>o1 NN .n N m m N 1 1 NN OO.nN 1 O0.00 O0.0N nO.mN NN.NN O0.0N ON 1 ON .O n N O N n 1 ON OO.NN NN.NN NN.ON O0.0N N0.0N ON.NN O0.0N ON 1 NN .n n n . n N N N ON NN.NO On.mn O0.00 O0.0N NO.nN nm.mn N0.0N ON 1 O .N O O n N O O ON N0.0N NN.NN O0.0N O0.00 .Nn.m NN.NN O0.0N m 1 N .N m N N O N N ON unoouom O O O O O 4 OONuauNuuaN < O O O O O Nauoa owuuauuuum hoaosvuuh Ozsz OIN NO >man moNuNmuo>ch ommNNou NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON OO I 2 ON ON NN ON ON. 0 OO O0.0N 1 1 O0.0N O0.0N NN.NN O0.0N uo>01 NN .O N N O N 1 1 a ON.ON 1 O0.0N O0.0N O0.0N O0.0 O0.0N ON 1 ON .O O N O N N 1 NN N0.0N 1 1 O0.0N N0.0N N0.0N O0.0N ON 1 NN .O N O O N 1 N ON NN.OO O0.00 O0.00 O0.0N N0.0 O0.00 O0.00 ON 1 O .N O N N N O O ON ON.ON NN.NN O0.00 O0.00 N0.0N ON.NN O0.0N O 1 N .N O O O O O N ON uaouuom O O O O O O OONuauNuch 4 O O O O O Nancy «Ouuuuuuum mucusvouh OZOONONHNOZN OHOOIN mzh NO >mNaa moNuNmuu>Naa moOONNou NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON ON ON NN ON ON O OO N0.0 1 1 1 ON.ON O0.0 1 uu>o1 NN .O 1 N O 1 1 1 O ON.ON 1 O0.0N O0.0N N0.0 NN.NN O0.0N ON 1 ON .O O N N N N 1 NN N0.0N NN.NN 1 O0.0N O0.00 O0.0 O0.0N ON 1 NN .O O N N N 1 N ON N0.0N O0.00 O0.00 O0.0N NO.m O0.00 N0.0N ON 1 O .N O N N N O O ON ON.OO O0.00 O0.00 O0.00 O0.00 O0.00 O0.00 O 1 N .N O N N O O O OO acouuoO O O O O O < «OONuauNuuaN . H O O O O O Nuuoa anucouqu haemavouO OZOHNONNNOZO szmmma 2O mm OIN mo >m<22=m 1 ON.O OOONn= OONuNmuu>Naa . mmOuNNoo NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON NOON ON ON NN ON ON O OO N0.0 1 1 1 1 O0.0 O0.0N O N N 1 1 1 1 O N0.0 1 1 1 ON.O O0.0 N0.0 O N N N 1 1 1 O N0.0N NN.NN O0.0N O0.0N OO.NO ON.NN N0.0N N O O O N N N. ON O0.00 ON.NN O0.00 O0.00 OO.NO NN.NO O0.00 N O NN NN O O N OO uaooNOO O O O O O 4 nonauz .1. K O O O O O Nuuoa uoOuuuouuoO Oouaauqu OzOONONNNOzN OOOOINO4azu OO >zfall into seven categories, ranging from a very sacred- traditional conception to a highly secular-liberal one. However, the predominant number of responses were essentially closer to the secular, non-religious pole. The categories were: 1. A limiting word: implies a philosophical and religious value—-influence of the institution. 2. Catholic as meaning universal: this is similar to the Danforth's church—related university. 3. “The Free Christian University" of the Danforth Report, 4. Denominational pattern-maintenance type of institution (traditional). 5. The "non-affirming college": education for education's sake (highly secular). 6. Nothing but an atmosphere or presence. 7. Did not know. 126 Category 1.--As a limiting word, it means that it adheres to parti- cular phi1050phical, religious values and by definition exerts an influence in a narrow sphere of activity. This was best expressed by the following interviewee who was a professor in Institution A with a doctorate in education. He is a layman between the ages of 50-59. He made the following response: This is not easy to give. Negatively, I would not like to see an institution that is Catholic like a state institution. There should be an uniqueness that comes from Catholic dogma that marks the thinking, at least in certain subjects. There would not have to be always a Catholic faculty. No matter what the postion, there should be certain tenets that must be held to. There is nothing scholastically unique about a certain college. He continues that an institution should have a morale, a spirit and and emphasis on the liturgy of the church. He believes that there is an overemphasis on scholastic thinking. 'It is too rigid thinking about religious courses; one cannot indoctrinate students; they must have free inquiry and sufficient time to mature. Category 2.--Catholic as meaning universal is taken from the semantic meaning of the word universal meaning "all." It is very closely re- lated to the Danforth Report meaning of the church-related univer- sity. It encompasses all programs and fields and would be pluralistic in nature. While there would be many opportunities for religious thought and activities which are provided, these are certainly optional and of all faiths. The following interviewee, who is between the ages 40-49, holds a doctorate in history and is a full professor at Institution F. For him Catholic means universal: This means the best that is available in tradition on the Catholic campus. It is the same notion of a university as at 127 about 1200-1300 A.D. It is not a narrow approach to reality nor a narrow approach to theology and phi1050phy. It is also not a narrowing approach to a particular history or culture. I approach this question more comfortably from an historical analysis or historical approach. There is a religious and historical tradition that is present; a normative value but not in the narrow sense as an approach. There was a time when Catholic education did represent all these points of view but this is way back in 1300. There has been a closing off of this point of view. Category 3.--"The Free Christian College“ as defined in the Danforth Report has had the greatest impact upon the personnel of Catholic colleges. This type of philoSOphy stands unapologetically for reli- gion and liberal education, but it relies on example, persuasiveness in presentation of ideas, and a climate of conviction rather than on conformity. It is free in that it makes no attempt to control thoughts. It is Christian in that there is a definite commitment. There is concomitant with this academic excellence and religious vitality. .The following is an interview resume with a priest at Insti- tution A. He is in the forty to forty-nine age bracket and has a" licentiate in theology. He has just taken over as dean of the college. He argues that a Catholic institution should be a "Free Christian College," committed to Christian ideas and a witness but not using force in making the students accept the philosophy and theology. This is the third interpretation of the Danforth Report and it is what Catholic means to me. There must be a wide presen- tation of all the various religious and modern philosophies and a getting away from the defender of the faith concept. I do notagree with Cogley that we should run secular universities and present everything. If this is so, we should not be in the business. It is Catholic in the sense that one is offered a chance to learn of the presentation of truth as the Catholic Church sees it. 128 Category 4.--The denominational pattern-maintenance is the same as the "defender of the Faith" type as reported in the Danforth Report. Its purpose is to provide an education in arts and sciences for persons who will later take their place as leaders (clerical or lay) in a particular religious tradition. It places strong emphasis on character formation and conformity. The following interview extract was given by a priest with a Doctorate in English at Institution F. At the time of the interview, he was dean of the college. He perceives Catholic as . .expressing an intellectual commitment which is major in all areas and dominant in some, theology. I do not mean , ecclesiastical or clerical control; Catholic defines the whole church. Catholic should be dominant but not the total focus of the theology department. Category 5.-—The “non-affirming college” is the type which emphasizes its non-sectarian character or its connection with any church. Any connection with any church would be completely formal and neglible in 1 practice. This particular point of view is well represented by a professor and head of the chemistry department from Institution C. He has a doctorate and is in the forty- to forty-nine age bracket. I do not have an Opinion on it. I suppose that it means higher education under Catholic auspices. I for one have never joined a Catholic science organization. It has no meaning and it should not be a qualifier of the phrase higher education. Category 6.--Nothing but atmosphere. This is the type of college that offers nothing more than atmosphere. It is the "ediface" type of concept: crucifixes on the walls; statues around the grounds; services in the chapel; priests in the classrooms teaching, but totally free of all religious commitments. 129 The following interviewee is a non-Catholic woman teaching full-time in Institution E. She is an associate professor with a doctorate in the history of art. She is in the thirty to thirty-nine age bracket. She answered this question in terms of her experience at the institution she teaches: It is a liberal arts college in a Catholic framework, and not that it is a Catholic college. The religion courses at this point do not work in the broad sense of their contribu- tion to western culture but is an extension of the catechism. The college should present these courses as a study of academic sincerity like any other subjects. This will contribute more to the college. The girls feel very remote from this. Most feel that they are here because of family urgings and tradi- tions rather than seeking a liberal education. Another representative of Category 6 was an assistant professor at Institution A. He is in the twenty to twenty-nine age bracket teach- ing educational psychology. He has a masters degree in psychology. He presents the sixth category most effectively. It means nothing really. If higher education is what it is, growth and development, then the Catholic does not change the nature of higher education but may add to it. In terms of higher education, nothing but the atmosphere; it gives the students the chance as students to be oriented beyond them- selves; leaves man to believe in more than man--a striving for something. It contributes to a thing greater than man and a goal that man strives toward that takes man outside himself. As can be seen from these excerpts of the interviews concerning the meaning of the adjective Catholic, each presents a different point of view, although sometimes the differences are very slight. For instance, Categories 1 and 4 are very closely allied in meaning and, in some cases, Categories 2 and 6 are also closely allied. The major distinction was between Categories 3 and 4. Category 7.-—There are some of the respondents that just did not know what the term "Catholic” meant today. They felt that it would be 130 better not to respond to such a question. Did persons who occupied different statuses in the system perceive these objectives (values, goals) differently? One of our hypotheses specifically suggests that there would be no differentiated responses: That the leadership of influence among the administration and faculty do not have significantly different perceptions con- cerning the philosophy of Catholic higher education. However, this preliminary hypothesis certainly did not mean to preclude lack of consensus among the other work groups. The analysis for this section will be presented from the viewpoint of five divisions of work groups: Group 1. Total responses Group 2. Administration-Faculty Group 3. Lay-Religious 'Group 4. University-College Group 5. Individual institutions in the sample A complete summary of the characteristics of each occupational type for Question One is found in Table 5.1 at the end of the chapter. Total Responses of Population Total Response sacred-traditional secular-liberal 1 4 l 3 2 6 5 '1 I 1 I 1 T 24° 23 36% 5% 4% 6% 1"7611111 ‘ I 47% 36% 15% traditional moderate liberal 131 Overall, the largest number of leaders of influence (36%) believe in the "Free Christian University" as the pr0per meaning for the adjective Catholic in terms of the "Free Christian University.“ Twenty-three percent of the population perceive it as a limiting word; closely allied with this perception, 24% look upon it as a denominational pattern-maintenance type of concept. There are here certainly two opposing forces as to the meaning of the adjective Catholic. There- fore, 47% of the leaders perceive the term Catholic in a sacred- traditional way. Fifteen percent of the population can be classified as tending toward the secular-liberal pole. Category 2 is a transi- tional category; it could be counted toward Category 3, Free Christian University, or Category 6, nothing but an atmosphere or presence. The essence conveyed in Category 2 is universal with a pluralistic interpretation. All religions are taught. All religions and personal persuasions among the faculty and students are adequately presented. Administration-Faculty Grouping Administration sacredatraditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 —r 35.5% 26% 35.5% 0 3% O 1 11 ' 11 1 .4 61.5% 35.5% 3% traditional moderate liberal Faculty sacred-traditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 I i r 1 1 1 1 17% 21% 37% 8% 4% 10% L 1 11 1 l L_ 1 38% 37% 8% 14% l 1 l l_ _____ r 22% 132 The differences between the administration and the faculty are wide. The greatest differences appear in Category 4; 35% of the administration perceive the word Catholic from a denomina- ational pattern-maintenance point of view; while only 17% of the faculty leaders of influence perceive it in this manner. Closely allied to this is the fact that both administration and faculty are almostequal in their perception of the word Catholic as a limiting word; they are also equal in their perception of the word as meaning the free Christian university in Category 3. The administration tends more towards the sacred-traditional end of the scale in inter- preting the term "Catholic." Twenty-two percent of the faculty, however, view it in a more liberal manner-—more pluralistic, as an atmosphere or presence and education for education's sake. Religious-Lay Grouping m sacred-traditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 l 1 l T I T T 1 25% 26% 411 30% 11 5% 10% 4% 51% 30% 19% traditional moderate liberal Religious sacred—traditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 _J 1 T 1 I 1 l 23% 14% 55% 5% O 5% 1 11 11 l 1 i T 37% 55% 10% traditional moderate liberal 133 There is a broad difference also between the religious and lay leaders of influence in Category 3, 55% of the religious per- ceive the word Catholic as meaning the “Free ChriStian University" concept, while only 29.51% of the lay leaders perceive it in this manner. The difference isin Category 1. The lay leaders, 26.23%, perceive the word Catholic in the limiting sense, while only 13.64% of the religious perceive it in this manner. When Category 4, denominational pattern-maintenance, is joined with Category 1, a limiting word, another significant dif- ference emerges: 51% of the lay leaders view it in the sacred- traditional sense, while only 37% of the religious perceive it in the same sense. Toward the liberal side of the continuum there does not appear to be much of a difference. Nineteen percent of the lay leaders perceive it in the liberal sense, while 10% of the reli- gious view it in the same manner. University-College Grouping University sacred#traditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 28% 22% 31.5% 2% 4% 9.5% 50% 31.5% 15.5% traditional moderate liberal College sacred-traditional secular-liberal 4 l 3 2 6 5 17% 24% 45% 10% 3.5% O 41% 45% 13.5% traditional moderate liberal 134 The colleges on the whole have a more comprehensive grasp of the meaning of the adjective Catholic as Free Christian University; 45% of the leaders perceive it as such. Only 31.5% of the university leaders perceive it in this manner. However, on the whole, greater diversity and conflict as to the meaning of the word rests among the college leaders. The colleges also perceive the word Catholic as meaning denominational pattern-maintenance slightly less than do the universities. Forty-one percent of the college personnel per- ceive it in the sacred-traditional manner compared to 50% of the university personnel. Among the individual colleges, all present different signifi- cance to the term "Catholic" with the exception of Institution 0 where 70% of the leaders of influence see it to mean the "Free Christian University or College,‘I Category 3. It would appear in the summary that Institutitons D, E, F,, the colleges, are on the whole less conservative than the universities. Among the univer- sities, Institution C is the most liberal with 43% of its leaders subscribing to Category 3 and 14% of its leaders subscribing to Category 5, the non-affirming college. Discussion: There is no doubt that there is conflict that is latent among categories 1, 3, and 4. The greatest number of the leaders (47%) still perceive the adjective Catholic as meaning either a limiting word to a certain phi1050phical and theological tradition or as a denominational pattern-maintenance type of concept. There is, however, a growing number of both the lay and religious leaders of influence who perceive it as the Free Christian University or College as defined by the Danforth Report. The religious in the interviews 135 seem to be more optimistic and less cynical than the lay leaders, about two to one. The religious are more socialized toward an author- itarian system but any change that takes place is looked upon as sig- nificant and in the ”right" direction—-this suggests optimism. The layman in this study is relatively young and has not been socialized to an authoritarian system and he tends to be impatient and wants to run, figuratively, before he can walk. He feels that the changes are not progressing rapidly enough. This probably accounts for the cynicism among the laity in Catholic higher education. On the whole, these seem to be the most significant responses to Question One. 2 Do you believe that the phi1050phy of Catholic higher education is changing? If so, what is the nature of the change? The greater majority of the pOpulation believes that there has been a change. Eighty-nine percent of the population believes that there has been a change, while 11% are not sure that there has been a change or perceive no change at all. The Nature of the Change The responses of the leaders to the nature of the change were placed into eight categories: 1. Yes - changed from a pastoral approach to an academic one; 2. Yes - changed from an emphasis stressing the free pursuit of all truths. 3. Yes - the change is ecumenical; 4; Yes - the change stresses a lay influence; 5. Yes - the change is humanistic - stresses involvement, 136 commitment in and to the problems of mankind. 6. Yes - it has lost its uniqueness, it is secular; 7. Not sure there is a change; 8. There is no change. Categories 1 and 2 certainly were considered close in meaning and for the purposes of our scale were joined together. Categories 5 and 4 were also considered close in meaning and were looked upon as transitional from the moderate position toward the more liberal- secular position. Finally, Categories 3 and 6 represent the liberal- secular position. Category 3 states that the change is ecumenical; this perception seeks more pluralism and Category 6 is the complete secular perception--the same as higher education. This would pre- clude a value system. Total Responses Total Response acred-traditional secular-liberal f 8 7 l 2 5 4 3 6 1 T 1 l 1 T I T 7% ' 4% 27% 31% 8% 11% 4% 8% 1 r 11 1 11 1 11 ‘ 1 11% 58% 19% 12% L T l 77% traditional moderate liberal The two major perceptions among the total responses as to the nature of the change is the transition from "a pastoral approach to an academic one“; and a change to an "emphasis which stresses the free pursuit of truth." The majority of the population (58%) per- ceive this as being the nature of the change. It was surprising to see that in this day of emphasis on lay personnel in colleges that 137 only 19% of the population perceive the nature of the change as ”stressing a lay influence," of a ”humanistic approach." Administration—Faculty Grouping Administration sacred-traditional secular—liberal 8 7 l 2 5 4 3 . 6 f T T T 1 T T I ' 6% 6% 23% 29% 6% 16% 3% 10% 1 1 1 L 1 A 1 1 1 L 1 l 12% I52% 22% 13% l r 74% traditional moderate liberal Faculty sacred-traditional secular-liberal [ 8 7 1 2 5 4 3 6 —T 1 1 r 1 1 i 1 8% 2% 29% 33% 10% .8% 4% 8% l ' 1 L J l l L 1 1 1 I i 10% I62% 18% 1 12% T 80% traditional '7 moderate liberal The administration-faculty dichotomy does not present an extreme latent or perceived conflict pattern in their perception of the nature of the change. Both groups are equally divided over the nature of the change. One shows a change from “pastoral- denominational approach to a completely academic atmosphere"; while the other more specifically speaks of the "free pursuit of all truth." Within each group, the administration and the faculty, there are latent conflict patterns among their sub-groups even though Categories 1 and 2 are the predominant categories in each group. Even so, this predominance is within the middle of the scale, the moderate position; Categories 1, 2, 5 and 4 represent this position 138 and it represents 74% of the perceptions of the administrators and 80% of the faculty. Lay—Religious Grouping m sacred-traditional secular-liberal L 8 7 1 2 5 4 3 6 I I f 1 1 1 1 1 10% 5% 26% 26% 10% 11.5% 5% 7% 1 h l l _T I l ' l l r I 15% L52% 21.5% 1 12% 1 73.5% traditional moderate liberal Religious sacred-traditional secular-liberal l 8 7 l 2 5 4 3 6 ’ T 1 T r T 1 T l —[ ‘ - 1 - 27% 45.5% 5% 9% O 14% 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O l72.5% 14%J 14% A 861.5% traditional moderate liberal There are definite differences between the religious and the lay faculty concerning the nature of the change. Only 58% of the lay faculty see the change as in Category 1 and 2, "in the pursuit of all truth and a change to an academic one"; while 72.5% of the reli- gious see the change in this area. The other significant area of change is in the sixth category: “It has lost its uniqueness; it is secular." Fourteen percent of the religious perceive this as happen- ing, while only seven percent of the lay faculty feel that this is happening. Categories 5 and 4, which were considered transitional, received 21.5% of the lay faculty attention as compared to 14% of the religious. 139 University-College Grouping University sacred-traditional secular-liberal 8 7 l 2 5 4 3 6 W T T 1 T i T 1 % 2% 31% 33% 9% 7% 6% 6% L 1 1 1 1 1 1 J l T T l 8% 64% 16% 12% 1 1 T 80% College sacred-traditional secular-liberal 8 7 l 2 5 4 3 6 T T f T l 1 T 10% 7% 17% 28% 7% 17% - 14% l I l 1 1 1 l l T ’f F T 17% l45% 24%I 14% T 69% The differences between the university and college work group is in Categories 1 and 2: "the changing from a pastoral approach to an academic one," and "changing to an emphasis stressing free pur— suit of all truths." Sixty-one percent of the population in the university setting perceive it as a change to this type of pattern and direction. Only forty-five percent of the college personnel perceive it as such. One-third of the university population tend to see it as a change in emphasis stressing the "free pursuit of all truth.“ Twenty-eight percent of the college population see it as “a change to the pursuit of all truth." I It is also significant that 14% of the college leaders of influence feel that our uniqueness is lost and that our institutions have become too secular. The university personnel do not view it with such pessimism. Only six percent of the population perceive the change in this way. 140 It is interesting to note that the college personnel perceive the change as moving into the secular-liberal pole of the scale; 24% of the college personnel perceive the change as being humanistic, stressing involvement and commitments to the problems of mankind, as well as stressing a lay influence. The university personnel do not seem to perceive the change as moving toward a more secular aspect but confine this change to an academic aspect. As for the individual institutions, most of the populations (31%) perceive the change as stressing the free pursuit of all truth. The one exception is Institution C which puts more stress on the change as moving from a pastoral point of view to that of an academic one. The most conservative of the group is Institution F which feels definitely that the uniqueness is lost and that the change is toward seculariZation. Institution E sees the change as stressing "involve- ment and commitment to the present problems of the community and mankind." This involvement in the community would be in the advising of community administration, social welfare action and enhancing the educational and cultural aspects of the community. 3 In your opinion, what should a Catholic philoSOphy of higher education be? The responses to the third question were placed into the following six categories: 1. The pursuit of all truth in a Catholic atmosphere-- the spirit of Christ; 2. The same as for higher education with a Catholic influence-- value orientation; 141 3. The same as for higher education; 4. Higher education with theology; 5. A promotion and a development of the individual for the betterment of mankind 6. Pattern-maintenance. When these categories were placed on the following scale of direction of perception and consensus, they were arranged with the following rationale. Again, Categories 6 and 5 were considered to be the extreme of the sacred-traditional pole. Categories 1, 2 and 4 were considered to be very close in meaning and not significantly different. They represent the moderate position. Finally, Category 3 was considered to be the secular-liberal end of the scale. Total Responses Total Response sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 l I 11% 12% 27% 19% 10% 22% l I l 1 1 o 1 E 1 1 23% 1 56% 32% J T . 78% It is significant that 22% of the leaders of influence in all institutions believed that it should be the same as for all higher education. A much smaller percentage, 10%, felt that it should be the same as for all higher education but with theology added. For all practical purposes, 32% of the pOpulation believed that it should be the same as higher education with or without theology. Category 1, "the pursuit of all truth in a Catholic atmosphere--the spirit of Christ," was perceived by 27% of the population as the ideal philosophy; 142 19% felt and perceived it as the same as for all higher education but with a Catholic influence--a value orientation. Therefore, fifty-six percent perceived that it should be the same as for all higher educa- tion, but the something added, namely, theology or a value system. Administration-Faculty Grouping Administration sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 1 ' 2 4 3 l 115% 113% {9% 216% 10% 167 ' l r 1 l t l l l 29% 55% 16% I Faculty sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 1 2 4 3 5% {2% 31 % 175% ‘ 1'0% 25% 1 ' k_l L r l 20% 56% 25% pThe administration-faculty grouping did not show significant differences in regard to their perceptions as groups as to what "A Catholic phi1050phy of higher education should be." Nineteen percent of the administrative leaders saw it as the pursuit of all truth in a Catholic atmosphere--the spirit of Christ; while 31% of the faculty leaders perceive it as such. Again, one-quarter of the faculty leaders perceive it as the same for all higher education as contrasted with 16% of the administration. I think that this is very significant, if not frightening. It is also interesting to note that 16%of the administrative leaders still perceive it as a pattern- maintenance function as compared to only 8% of the faculty leaders. 143 Lay-Religious Grouping L21 sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 l 2 4 3 1 I I T I T 8% 11.5% 25% 23% 8% 25% I T l l I 1 l | 19.5% 56% 25% Religious sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 1 2 4 3 l T I I r T— r1 18% 14% 32% 9% 14% 14% L 1 I t I L4, §2% 55% 14% The same is also true for the lay and religious work group dichotomy. One-quarter of the lay faculty believed that it should be the same as for all higher education without reference to theology or a value system, as compared to 14% of the religious leaders. Thirty-one percent of the religious and 25% of the lay leaders believe that the philosophy of Catholic higher education should be the "pursuit of all truth in a Catholic atmosphere." The religious are still more prone towards the more conservative pole of the scale, Categories 6 and 5, pattern-maintenance and the development of the individual; 32% perceive the ideal this way as compared to only 19.5% of the lay leaders. University-College Grouping University sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 l 2 4 3 5% 11% 28% 24% 7% 20% l fl —I 20% 59% 20% 144 College sacred-traditional secular-liberal 6 5 l 2 4 3 121% {4% 24% 10% 13% 22% I I J I Y 1 L 1 28% 47% 24% I The university-college group is much more divided than would appear on the surface. Fifty-nine percent of the university group- ing view the ideal as Categories 1, 2 and 4, as compared to only 47% of the colleges. Yet the surprising fact that occurred and emerged was that the colleges are slightly more in favor of a philo- sophy that is "the same as that as for all higher education" without reference to theology or a value system than the universities. One-quarter of the college personnel reSponded in this way when interviewed. 4 What do you consider to be the phi1050phy of Catholic higher education at this insti- tution? .The responses to Question Four were again placed into seven categories, six of which were used in Question Two and Three. The seven categories had to do with the clarity of the institutional philOSOphy and whether it was in a state of transition. For con- venience sake, the categories were as follows: 1. The pursuit of truth in a Catholic atmosphere—-the spirit of Christ; 2. The same as for higher education but with a Catholic influence, value orientation; 3. The same as for higher education; 145 4. Higher education with theology; 5. A promotion and a develOpment of the individual for the betterment of mankind and the world he lives in; 6. Pattern-maintenance; 7. It is not clear at present--it is in a state of transition, none. Total Responses Total Response sacred-traditional secular-liberal l 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 1 1'9% 113% 13% 1.8% 20% 6% 11% l_‘__.J L I l L T I I_‘.__J 19% 26% 44% 11% Nineteen percent of the pOpulation of all the institutions claimed that the phi1050phy of the individual institutions were not clear since it is in a state of transition. The greatest number (44%) perceived it as being Categories 1, 2 and 4-- pursuit of truth within a value system. There is definitely no clear percep- tion as to what the individual institutions are trying to do. There is latent conflict because of the diversity and lack of clarity. Only Institution E seems to have a clear idea. Forty percent of its leaders of influence interviewed perceived it as the same for all higher education, Category 3. However, even in this institution twenty percent did not perceive a clear philosophy for it is in transition. One-third of the leaders of influence in Institution F perceive it as a pattern-maintenance type of philOSOphy at the present time. It is also interesting to see on the scale that 26% of the leaders still view it as a denominational pattern-maintenance concept. 146 Administration-Faculty Grouping, Administration sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 I r —I 1 r 1 1 ~ 1 ’ 13% 16% 16% 1 L19% 19% 10% 6% l . I I 13% 32% 413% 6% Faculty sacred-traditional secular-liberal I 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 ' F 1 I I I T T 21% 12% 12% 17% 21% 4% 13% l 1 I l 1 I 1 r l 21% 24% 42% 13% The administration-faculty grouping does not show a great degree of difference in perception and in consensus. The most striking difference rests on the extreme poles of the scale: Categories 7 and 3. Twenty—one percent of the faculty has a less clear notion of what the institutional phi1050phy is than the administrators (13%). On the secular-liberal pole of the scale, 13% of the faculty perceive their institution's philosophy as the same as for all higher education as compared to only 6% of the administrators. The administrators are slightly more inclined toward the traditional area of pattern-maintenance and individual develOpment than the faculty. Lay-Religious Grouping L_a.1: sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 J l I I 1 T ”I 21% l10% 10% 1 l16% 26% 5% 1 11% 21% 210% 43% 11% 147 Religious sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 T 9% 23% 23% 23% 5% 9% 9% I J l _I l I If I I T 9% 46% 37% 9% l The lay-religious grouping does show more clear-cut conflict and divergence. The lay leaders of influence see lessclear-cut philOSOphy emerging at the present time than do the religious leaders. Twenty-one percent of the lay leadership perceive it as in a state of transition while only nine percent of the religious perceive it as such. Another reflection of conflict between the lay and the reli- gious is in the area of Categories 1, 2 and 4: the same as for higher education but with a Catholic atmosphere, value-orientation. Forty-seven percent of the lay leaders of influence perceive it as the same for higher education but with a Catholic influence-~a value orientation; while 37% of the religious perceive it as such. They, on the other hand, could perceive it as a pattern-maintenance-- development of the individual (46%). The religious leaders seem to have more concern for the promotion and the development of the indi- vidual for the betterment of mankind and the world he lives in; 23% of the religious mention this directly, while only 10% of the lay leaders mention this. It would seem that the religious leaders because of their past socialization are presently blind to many of the changes surrounding them. 148 University-College Grouping University sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 I 1 I 1 7 T I T 22% 11% 9% 19% 22% 7% 9% [52%] I 210 1 l '0 L II 0% 48% 16% College sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 5 l 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10% 17% 21% 17% 17% 3% 14% l 1 l J L I I 1 T I 10% 38% , . 37% 14% J In respect to the university-college grouping, the colleges seem to have a more significant perception of their philosophy as a pattern-maintenance and the develOpment of the individual than do the universities. The colleges also seem to be less aware of their philosophy as in state of transition than does the univer- sities. Again, the surprising fact emerges that 14% of the college personnel prefer their philOSOphy as the same as for all higher educa- tion.- It would seem that among the individual institutions there is no predominant consensus as to what the philosophy is in the individ- ual institution. Category 6, the pattern-maintenance concept, is a strong perception in some of the institutions, especially Institutions 8 and F. All the other institutions seem to be moving in the direction of Categories 1 and 2, as can be seen in Table 5.4. Institution A has only 13% of its leadership which perceives it as a pursuit of truth, while 27% perceive it as a promotion and develOpment of the individual for the betterment of mankind and the world. One-third of its leader- 149 ship of influence perceive it as in a state of transition and it is not clear. Summary In Section 1, The Issue on a Catholic Phi1050phy of Higher Education, there is shown very little consensus among the popu- lation and the work groups. There is shown a transition and a direc- tion which Catholic higher education is taking. This transition is from the secular-traditional position to the more secular-liberal posi- tion. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that there is a change in the philosophy of higher education but there is no firm con- sensus as to the nature of the change. In general, the nature of the change was concerned with two major perceptions: the transition from the pastoral approach to an academic one; and a change of emphasis which stresses the free pursuit of all truth. This represented 58% of_ the total population. Latent conflict was found to exist among some of the work groups as to the nature of the change also. This is es- pecially true in regard to the lay-religious dichotomy. The religious definitely showed more of a liberal stance than the lay personnel. Some consensus was found among the leaders of influence and their work groups in regard to what the ideal philosophy of higher education should be. Over fifty-six percent perceive that it should be the same as for all higher education but with Catholic theology and a value- orientation. While there was some conflict among the institutions in- volved, one can safely say that the institutions are moving in the direc- tion of Categories 1 and 2: the pursuit of all truth in a Catholic atmosphere--the spirit of Christ; and the same as for all higher educa- tion with a Catholic influence--a value-orientation. 150 The Second Issue Institutional Purposes and Goals Our society is an organizational society. Modern civilization depends on organizations as the most rational and efficient forms of social groupings known. Every organization is deliberately con- structed to seek specific purposes and goals. These purposes and goals serve many functions. They provide orientation by defining a future state of affairs, which organizations strive to realize. They set down in print guide—lines for organizational activities. Purposes and goals also provide a source of legitimacy which justifies the activities of an organization and the reasons for its very exis- tence. Finally, purposes and goals serve as a standard by which mem- bers of an organization and outsiders can assess the success of the organization; i.e., its effeCtiveness and efficiency. .Once an organization is formed or founded, it acquires needs and these sometimes become the masters of the organization. Some- times these needs become so great that the organizations have to abanddn their actual goals and pursue new ones which are more suited to these organizational needs.5 One may ask the question at this point, what is an organizational goal? Etzioni defines it as a desired state of affairs which the organization attempts to realize. The organization may or may not be able to bring about this desired image of the future; but if the goal is reached, it ceases to be a guiding image for the organization. Another question which may be asked at this point is which image is pursued? That of the top executive? That of the board of trustees? 151 That of the majority of its members? That of its leaders of influence? Etzioni says none of these individually.6 The organizational goals and purposes are a future state of affairs which the organizational membership collectively tries to bring about. It is in part, then, brought about by the top executives, board of trustees and the subor- dinates. How, then, does one determine what the goals of an organization are? We may interview executives, leaders of influence, to establish what they are. It is for this reason that this researcher interviewed the leaders of influence as to what they perceived the goals and pur- poses of Catholic higher education as a system and as individual institutions were. For it is on the administrative level and the subordinate level that these goals and purposes are determined. These goals and purposes are formed through power plays involving various individuals and groups both within and without the organization and by reference to values which govern behavior in general and the specific behavior of relevant individuals and groupings within a particular social system. All organizations today serve more than one goal and purpose-- they are called multipurpose. Because they are multipurpose, there are certain types of conflicts which are unavoidable. Various goals often make incompatible demands on the organization. Often conflicts arise over the amount of means, time and energy that must be allocated each goal. The establishment of a set of priorities which clearly defines the relative importance of the various goals reduces the dis— ruptive consequences of such conflicts, although it does not eliminate the problem. 152 In this study, this researcher found a definite confusion by the leaders of influence between the goals of Catholic higher educa- tion and the phi1050phy of higher education. There was not a distinc- tion made as to the philOSOphy being the framework from which goals arise and the goals themselves which are operational guidelines and procedures for the future of the institution and the system. This researcher also found that the issue of priorities among multigoals was also a potentiality for conflict in Catholic institutions. This also was referred to by Paul J. Reiss in his chapter, "Built-in 7 Tension," in the book, The Shape of Catholic Higher Education. This problem of goal priority is further complicated by the fact that an educational and religious orientation each contain a number of com- plexes of goals. It is important to be aware of these complexes as well as to analyze the manner in which decisions relate to them. Andrew Greeley in his book, The Changing Catholic College, established through empirical research that the Catholic institution is weakened because the administrators do not find it necessary to symbolize in their own persons and their activities the goals that the institutions have set for themselves and to radiate confidence and hope that these goals are available.8 The leaders of influence are in a crucial position as to determine what these goals are. Greeley maintains that most Catholic institutions of higher learning have only the vaguest idea of what these goals are. He also states that -it is most unlikely that a charismatic president would arrive on the scene to find that the goals had been predefined for him. This section of the questionnaire was composed of questions which were to elicit perceptions concerning institutional goals and objectives for 153 Catholic higher education as a system and the institutions in partic- ular. 5. These questions were as follows: What are the purposes and goals of Catholic higher education in general? How do you perceive the goals and purposes of this Catholic institution? In your opinion, is this institution emphasizing and engag- ing in the right type of activities to achieve these goals? What type of activities should it emphasize and engage in? What type of behavior can be expected of members of this institution in achieving these goals? This section produced evidence of the greatest amount of con- flict, latent and manifest, in the institution studied. Perhaps the other areas are more abstract. Of course, the Operational test is behavior related to types of goals achieved or sought. 5 What are the purposes and goals of Catholic higher education in general? This question elicited responses which were placed into seven categories: 1. The goals are intellectual; it is the pursuit of all truth with a Catholic or Christian framework; it is a liberating process. It is a free value-oriented education. The goals are for a Christian humanism. The goals are the same as for all higher education-- intellectual excellence. 154 5. The goals are the same as for higher education with Catholic philosophy and theology added. 6. The goals are such as to produce a pattern-maintenance-- the good Catholic, or the good Catholic leader. 7. Does not know what the goals are. In order to ascertain the proper meaning of these categories, it is necessary to analyze in depth a number of the responses in the inter- views themselves. Category l:--An assistant professor of political science in Institu- tion C perceived it as “an inquiry into truth for the purpose of liberating men spiritually, intellectually and physically. By inquiry is meant pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. Whether this is the liberating result of inquiry depends upon what man does with the truth. What man does comes in those areas of a question of value judgments to be made. This is the only role that a Catholic institution has." Category 2.--An assistant professor of English perceived that the goal was "to prepare individuals for their place in whatever area they intended to specialize and to assist them with a real sense of values in their day to day existence with their fellowmen." Another said that the goal was "to graduate knowledgeable and well-informed indi- viduals in Christian principles; they should reflect the training they have received; reflect a beneficial way in which he comes in contact with conduct, values, etc." Category 3.--A priest in administration at one of the liberal arts colleges looked upon the goals as being an education that is ”based on the liberal tradition. It proposes to develop the whole person, to cultivate the intellect, character, and sensibility in the light 155 of Christian humanism." A full professor in sociology looked upon the purpose and goals as ”being a concern for the human person and those with religious orientations should be concerned with this. We used to talk of the develOpment of the whole person; there is still a value in this. The purpose and goals, then, are values and research in philOSOphy, theology and the social sciences which will give the ideas for the next Vatican Council." Category 4.-—One of the priests in Institution F said that "the goals and purposes should be the same as for all higher education itself. The aim is to turn out a man who is intellectually alive and curiously confident in himself and reason, as well as a man with a sense of urgency and commitments." In Institution C, a full profes- sor of philosophy perceived ”the purposes and goals of Catholic higher education as those of everybody else's." Category 5.--A doctorate in business administration in Institution 8 perceives the purpose and goals as being "a good higher education no matter what the field. There should also be some courses in philosophy and theology, designed to strengthen the moral fiber of the student. Unfortunately, many of them do not do this." A doctorate in biology believes that it is the same as for higher education with something added: "Religion should have a central role in one's life." Categoryy6.--This category was concerned with the goals producing a pattern-maintenance for the Catholic church. An English professor at Institution C probably sums it up the best when he said: "We ought to produce laymen who are Catholics and at home in the intel- lectual life." Another in Institution D said, ”The basic aim is to help train the individual to attain his personal salvation and train 156 him to be a Catholic leader in society. Beyond this statement of personal salvation and service to society, vocational competence to help him in life.“ From these various excerpts from the actual interviews one can ascertain how these categories were arrived at. They range, again, from the sacred-traditional concept of pattern-maintenance (Category 6) to the most secular-liberal concept of having the goals the same as for all higher education (Category 4). Total Responses Total Response sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 I 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1% 18% 12% 11% 13%' 27% 18% 1 1 1 | I l I I r I l I 1% 18% 23% 40% 18% In the analysis of Question Five, one can see that Categories 1, 5,93 and 2 form a value-oriented education as a goal. Sixty- _ three percent of the total responses perceived this to be the purpose and goals of Catholic higher education in general. Twenty-three per- cent perceived it to be defined as the pursuit of all truth within a Catholic or Christian framework or the same as all higher education but with Catholic philOSOphy and theology. Forty percent of the leaders perceived the goals as being value—orientation and goals for a Christian humanism. These distinctions were made in that the value- orientation and the Christian humanism were more ecumenical in tone and not tied in with any denominational framework such as Categories 1 and 5 are apt to be. Categories 3 and 2 were more in line with the Danforth “Free Christian College/University" concept. 157 At the other end of the scale, the secular-liberal pole, 18% of the leaders perceived the goals in general as being the same as for all higher education. Administration-Faculty Grouping Administration sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 I - 22% 10% 10% 16% 29% 13% f L 1 J I I I L I 1 |_I____J 22% 20% 45% 13% Faculty sacred—traditional secular-liberal I 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 1 1 l T T 1 r 2% 15% 13.5% 12% 12% 25% 21% LT__J L.T__J 1 1 1 L , I 1 L_T__J 2% , 15% 25.5% 37% 21% The administration grouping perceived the goals very closely to those of the total responses. However, 22% of the administrators are still concerned with the denominational pattern-maintenance as a goal, while 65% are concerned with Categories 1, 5, 3 and 2-- pursuit of all truth within a value-orientation. Forty-five percent of the administrators perceive the value orientation as free from a Catholic framework-—it would be more ecumenical in tone. The faculty, on the other hand, show some differences. While the faculty leaders are less dominated by the pattern-maintenance concept, they are slightly more cognizant of the goals within a Catholic framework and less within just a value-orientation framework. However, 21% of the faculty perceive the goals as being the same as for all higher education as compared to only 13% of the administration. 158 It would seem that both groups are moving toward the secular-liberal end of the scale but the faculty is going farther than the adminisq trators as a group. Lay-Religious 19.1; sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 l T I F I T I I 2% 23% 10% 11% 15% 20% 20% L1__J L_T__J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 2% 23% 21% 35% 20% Religious sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 1 5% I15% 9%] 9% 45% 1'4%I 5% 217% 54% 14% The lay-religious dichotomy presents very interesting pat- terns in regard to the goals of Catholic higher education in general. Twenty-three percent of the lay faculty perceive the goals as pattern-maintenance, while only one religious, representing 5% of the religious,perceived it as such. The other surprising statistic that emerged is that 54% of the religious perceive the goals as Christian humanism and value—orientation which is free from any denominational framework. Only 35% of the lay leaders perceived it in such a way. In other words, this is the reverse of what one might have expected a priori. Forty-three percent of the lay leaders represent the extremes of the scale of direction, while only 19% of the religious are on the extremes. The religious leaders present a more moderate and consistent picture. The religious, however, are 159 moving away from the pattern-maintenance to a more moderate liberal position. The lay leaders present a more extreme position and direction. University-College Grouping University sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 1 5 3 2 4 j I I I 7 I I — 19% 15% 13% 15% 19% 20% L_T__J 1 I 1 1 I 1 L I I 19% 28% 34% 20% College sacred-traditional secular-liberal 7 6 1 5 3 2 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3% 17% 7% 7% 10% 41% 14% I J I 1 I I l I I 3% 11% 111% 51% 14% In regard to the university-college grouping, 51% of the college. grouping perceive the goals as Categories 3 and 2 as compared to 34% of the university personnel. One cannot account for this dife ference in that the colleges are more concerned with a value-orientaez, tion in education but one that is less tied to a denominational frame- work. The universities show two patterns: 28% of the university personnel are concerned with Categories 1 and 5, which is a value- oriented education but with denominational ties, while 20% of the university personnel advocate Category 4, the goals are the same as for all higher education, which is an extreme secular-liberal posi- tion and direction. As can be seen from the analysis, there is no clean-cut pattern or consensus for any one category or group of categories. There seems 160 to be a direction toward a value-oriented education that would go above denominational ties-~by this is meant that there would not be just Catholic theology or philosophy required, but rather the student is led freely to accept and form his own values. With Andrew Greeley, we can say that the goals and purposes of Catholic higher education as a system are exceedingly vague. They are not well defined as yet. There is a direction and a pattern emerging which is shifting from the sacred-traditional view to the more secular-liberal pole on the scale. It is for this very reason that we say that Catholic higher education is in the throes of an identity crisis, not only because of its phi1050phy but because of its operational goals and purposes. 6 How do you perceive the goals and purposes of this Catholic institution? In regard to Question Six, which elicited their perceptions in regard to goals and purposes of their own institutions, conflict is definitely present. Their perceptions were categorized as follows: 1. The goals are intellectual; it is the pursuit of all truth with a Catholic or Christian framework; it is a liberating process; 2. It is a value-oriented education; 3. The goals are for a Christian humanism; 4. The goals are the same as for all higher education-- intellectual excellence; 5. The goals are the same as for all higher education with Catholic philsophy and theology added; 161 6. The goals are such as to produce a pattern-maintenance-- the good Catholic or the good Catholic leader; 7. Does not know what the goals are; 8. No definite goal or purpose; 9. Did not answer the question. As can be seen from the scales below, there does not exist a clear- cut consensus. Again, only the religious (54%) and the college personnel (51.5%) reflect any sort of agreement regarding institu- tional goals. Total Responses Total Response sacred-traditional secular-liberal I9 8 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 I 5% 5% 6% 111% 113% 1'0% 113% 1'9% {4% 1 1 1 Lj 1 I 1 1 LI 1 1 1 J I I J 5% 5% 6% 14% 23% 32% 14% Administration-Faculty Grouping Administration sacred-traditional secular-liberal I 9 8 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 T— I I l I 1— 1 I I - 6.5% 6.5% 13% 10% 6.5% 19% 26% 13% L T 1 [WI 1 L_.I___| l j 1 g I J I 1 6.5% 6.5% 13% 16.5% 45% 13% Faculty sacred-traditional secular-liberal I9 8 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 fi 1 1 ‘f 1 1 1 1 1 ‘ 8% 4% 6% 15% 15% 12% 10% 15% 15% I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I J l I 1 1 1 I 1 I l 8% 4% 6% 15% 27% 25% 15% 162 Lay-Religious Grouping Lax sacred-traditional secular-liberal I9 8 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 I j I I I T I I I 1 7% 5% 8% 20% 11.5% 10% 11.5% 13% 15% LI IIT ILI 11I IL I IL I 1Lt I 7% 5% 8% 20% 21.5% 24.5% 15% Religious sacred-traditional secular-liberal I 9 8 7 6 l 5 3 2 4 I T 1 1 1 41 1 1 1 - 5% - - 18% 9% 18% 36% 14% L'_J I I 11 I II‘I J 5% 27% 54% 14% University-College Grouping University sacred-traditional secular-liberal 1 9 8 7 6 1 5 3 2 4 7% 7% 6% 13% 13% 11% 11% 11% 26% L J p I l I I I L I T j I I I 20% 13% 24% 22% 20% College sacred—traditional secular-liberal 9 8 7 6 1 5 3 2 4 j I I T I I I r I 7 - - 7% 17% 14% 7% 17% 34.5% 3.5% 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I L I 1 L 1 I 7% 17% 21% 51.5% 3.5% 7 In your opinion, is this institution emphasizing and engaging in the right type of activities in order to achieve these goals? it emphasize and engage in? This is an important question for What type of activities should it attempts to elicit per— ceptions in regard to whether the institutions are engaged in the prOper.activities in order to achieve institutional goals. Here 163 is probably the first cleavage in leadership response in regard to what they perceive and how they act in this study. In Question 5 and 6, which were concerned with systemic goals and institutional goals, there was no consensus. Yet when asked if the activities of the institutions were adequate to the goals, 73% of the leaders said, ”Yes." Twenty percent said, "No." Six percent were not definite. This is summarized in Table 5.7A. The second part of Question 7 asked what type of activities should the institution engage in. There were one hundred responses from the eighty-three leaders and they were placed into fifteen categories: 1. Continual evaluation and restructuring of the curriculum, student life and attitudes. 2. More cultural subjects-~fine arts. 3. To inculcate social awareness, responsibility and com- munity involvement. 4. Should have more experimental programs. 5. Should revamp the philOSOphy and theology curriculums. 6. Increase the communications between the faculty and the administration. 7. Humanize the disciplines. 8. Emphasis should be on the liberal arts, humanistic studies. 9. Should limit growth. 10. A need for greater contact with priests. 11. Should develop c00perative programs. 12. Should have better recruitment of faculty and administration. 13. Should develop a spirit of ecumenicism. 164 14. Should expand the graduate program. 15. Not covered. A summary of the frequency of these responses can be seen in Table 5.78. Twenty—eight percent of the frequency of the responses were that the institutions should "inculcate social awareness, responsibility, and community involvement." It is also interesting to note that the college personnel are more aware that this should be an activity than the university personnel. Forty-one percent of the responses of the college personnel had to do with this social awareness as compared with twenty-one percent of the responses of the university personnel. 'Among the lay-religious grouping, 30% of the responses were of the religious as compared to twenty-seven per- cent of the lay personnel; and, finally, among the administration— faculty work group there were 33% of the responses from the faculty as compared to 20% for the administration. The rest of the frequen- cies of responses were very much divided among the other categories and did not present any type of a pattern of consensus. ,A closer analysis of the interviews themselves show a variation as to the meaning of social awareness. Some talk of the impact upon the community: "The impact on the community has been small" accord- ing to a professor of physics at Institution F. Yet another in this same institution believes that this is a forte of the institution when he says: This institution ”has had a multi-faceted complex of both the academic and community involvement activities with the community at large." Many of the leaders of influence look upon involvement in the community as a sine qua non for survival. In Institution E, one of the associate professors of philosophy saw involvement as a secondary 165 goal and at this institution he perceived the development of the social consciousness as an extraordinary activity, "so much so that in many instances the faculty is leading the students in directing many of the social activities and programs." In this same institu- tion another responded that, ”there is a growing sense of social involvement and concern for the non-western cultures; it is concerned with the opening of the resources of the elite college to people who otherwise would not take part in it." Others feel that there should be greater social awareness for social service among the faculty. "The leaders in the school have to become more entwined with the power structure of the community whether they like it or not," says a professor of education at Institution A. In his book, Andrew Greeley maintains that one of the salvations of the Catholic institution and especially the small Catholic insti~ tution was the cooperative programs with other colleges, Catholic and nbn—Catholic, in the area. Yet among the responses only 1% had to do with this as a desired activity. On the whole, the responses were divergent and scattered and presented no pattern of consensus. (See Table 7B.) It is also interesting to note that the responses as categorized do not present antitheses to one another. One can safely say that there should be better communications and a getting together among the leaders of influence as to the type of activities that would be commensurate with the goals of Catholic higher education in general and institutional goals in particular. 166 8 What type of behavior can be expected of members of this institution in achieving these goals? This question attempted to elicit the type of behavior that was expected in order to achieve systemic and institutional purposes and goals. The frequencies of the responses for the various groups are summarized in Table 5.8. There were one hundred and fifty-six responses from the eighty-three respondents. Fifty-four of the responses, representing 35%, were concerned with the competency and scholarly activity as being adequate behavior of the faculty in ful- filling their role in achieving the goals. Twenty-four of the responses, representing l5%, were concerned with social involvement in the community as the desired behavior. The types of responses seemed to be evenly divided among the various groups: administration- faculty, lay-religious and the university-college group. Again, there was no definite pattern of consensus and therefore the categories themselves could lend themselves to seeds of latent conflict. .In summary, then, it was pointed out with Greeley, that most Catholic institutions of higher learning are exceedingly vague about their goals. However, the leadership of influence within the adminis- tration and the faculty do have significantly different perceptions concerning the goals and purposes of the organization as it is and as it should be. Therefore, our null hypothesis as stated in Chapter IV must be rejected. It might be added here that since the leaders do not know what the goals are, they are not sure of the type of activi- ties that should be emphasized nor the types of behavior that the faculty must exert commensurate with the institutional goals. The l67 greatest number of the population, 2 %, perceived the goals for Catholic higher education as a system as being a free value-oriented education. However, over l8% of the population persisted in advo- cating a pattern—maintenance type of education. Conflict exists among the university-college grouping: 4l% of the college personnel advo— cates the free value—oriented education as compared to l9% of the university personnel. However, 20% of the university leaders advocated the goals for Catholic higher education as being the same as for all higher education as compared to l4% of the college personnel. There were no clear-cut patterns. Only the religious and college personnel had any semblance of agreement regarding institutional goals. There was a strong consensus among these groups that the institution should inculcate social awareness, responsibility and community involvement. There was no real pattern, outside of scholarship and competence, in regard to the type of behavior which would be expected of the faculty ‘ commensurate with the goals ofCatholic higher education. Taken as a ‘ composite, the responses to Section II demonstrate a dire need for a clear definition of the goals and purposes in Catholic institutions. These goals must be spelled out in Operational terms so that they will have a definite effect upon the activities of the institution and the role and behavior of the faculty member. l68 The Third Issue The Locus of Decision-Making and Governance As was already pointed out, the process by which goals are given priority and resources allocated to the attainment of these goals is organizational decision-making. Paul Reiss, in the §hapg of Catholic Higher Education, points out that formerly in the Catholic institutions, whether operated by religious orders or dioceses, the style of decision-making has been basically authoritarian rather than democratic. The bulk of the decisions were made from the top down. In fact, the authorities were often unaware of the problems encountered by the subordinates or by the lower levels of the organization. As to those problems that they became aware of, they extended a benevolent- paternalistic attitude towards solving them but always in an authori- tarian manner. However, it is becoming more and more evident from this study and from others, such as Andrew Greeley's, The Changing Catholic College, that the managerial and, in particular, the decision-making process is passing from a benevolent-authoritarian position to a consultative one.9 Formerly, decisions were often made after informal consultation on a "man to man" basis and any thought of team work was discouraged. Rensis Likert, in his book, The Human Organization, speaks of a consul- tative system of decision-making as being a step towards deliberative- participative decision-making system.10 He refers to the consultative system as being both man to man consultative and group work consultative, where the top executives and superiors partially encourage teamwork. According to Likert, then, under the consultative system broad policy and general decisions are made at the t0p, but more specific decisions 169 are made at the lower levels. Another important distinction that Likert makes in his analysis of management systems is that, in the authoritarian—benevolent system, decision-making contributes little to motivation. This was true in the Catholic system of higher educa- tion. For where the majority of the faculties were religious it was relatively easy for the superior or t0p executive to give orders and to have them carried out. Under the consultative system, there is something contributed by the decision-maker to be implemented through a prOper motivation. Likert holds that all decision-making should be participative through a participative group. Through such a system, decision-making would be widely distributed throughout the organiza- tion. It would be well integrated through a linking process provided by the overlapping of sub-groups. These overlapping groups and the group decision processes would tend to push decisions to a point where the information would be most adequate or even to pass the 10 It is for this relevant information to the decision—making point. type of system that the American Association for Higher Education convened a task force on ”Faculty Representation and Academic nego- tiation.“ In l967, the report of this task force was published under the ll title of Faculty Participation in Academic Governance. The Associ— ation for Higher Education believed that "in many institutions the "12 However, it is be- notion of professionalism is a polite fiction. coming more and more evident that, in many of our institutions, facul- ty members are now demanding the full prerogatives of professionalism. This means that professors, like members of other professions seek di- rect participation in the formulation of the policies and rules that i{-Ii l7O govern the performance of their duties. This is especially true among the junior colleges and the emerging four year institutions. This report also states that the ”problems of transition have on oc- casion been aggravated by the fact that most of the top administra- tors have a background in secondary education which has an authori- tarian tradition of management which is inappropriate for colleges ”13 Among the older and more established institu- and universities. tions there are also changes in the educational organization. This report points out that "in many states, the judgment has been made that public higher education is too big, too costly, and too complex for each institution to be allowed to formulate its own programs with- out an overall state coordinate." “This desired coordination and con- trol is usually embodied in 'a master plan' to be administered by a 'super board.‘ This movement," the report continues, ”toward the co- ordinated systems approach has had a sharp impact on the role of the faculty on the individual campuses, even on those that have well func— "14 The coordinated ap- tioning procedures for faculty representation. proach moves the locus of decision-making on some critical issues to a level beyond the reach of local procedures. In other words, it re- turns to a authoritarian-benevolent approach as detailed by Likert. There are very few institutions, if any, in the United States, either public or private, that have sustained the type of participa- tive approach as described by Likert as the ideal. Certainly, it can be said that there never was such an approach in the Catholic system and from the above mentioned report the public institutions presently have not sustained any such system either. This study does, however, present enough evidence and data to draw a conclusion that the Catho- l7l lic system of higher education is moving away from the authoritarian- benevolent system to a consultative position, but not a participative system as yet. Too often superiors in education think that consulta- tive and participative management means the proliferation of commit- tees. Likert is careful to point out that ”the group method of deci- sion-making and supervision should not be confused with committees which never reach decisions or with 'wishy-washy', 'common-denominator' sort of committees about which the superior can say, 'well the group made this decision, and I couldn't do a thing about it'."15 The group method of supervision holds the superior fully responsible for the quality of all decisions and for implementation. He is responsible for building his subordinates into a group which makes the best deci- sions and carries them out well. The superior is accountable for all 16 Because of decisions, for their execution, and for their results. the progress made in the last several years in consultatory decision- ' making, many of the superiors have proliferated committees in order to avoid responsibilities as an administrator. Even with this ten- dency there is no doubt that progress has been made toward participa- tive decision-making. This section of the study was composed of three questions which were designed to elicit perceptions of the leaders of influence as to what is the proper role of the faculty in the decision-making process and what it is in their respective institutions. The questions asked were: 9. What do you consider to be an apprOpriate faculty role in the university decision-making? With respect to academic, nonoacademic and administrative affairs? 10. ll. 172 What role does the faculty play in the decision-making process in this institution? To what extent, if any, are faculty members consulted on such matters as changes in curriculum and faculty policies, etc.? What would the appropriate procedure be? 9 What do you consider to be an appropriate faculty role in University decision—making? With respect to academic, non-academic and administrative affairs? The responses to this question were placed into three categories and four sub-divisions. They were: 1. 3. The faculty should have full participation in the formulation of policy and decisions in all three areas: a) a consultative role b) a deliberative role The primary and major role of the faculty is the academic; they should have a voice but of lesser authority in the other areas: a) 'a consultative role b) a deliberative role Did not answer. A summary of the reSponses is presented in Table 5.9. Thirty-two of the 83 respondents (39%) felt that the faculty should have full participation in the formulation of policy and decision-making in all three areas. Twenty-seven of the 32 believed that it should be a con- sultative role while five of thirty-two expressed that it should be deliberative; in other words, the administration must follow the decisions l73 formulated by the faculty. Forty of the eighty-three respondents (60%)- perceived that the primary and major role of the faculty is academic; they believe that they should have a voice but to a lesser degree in the other areas. Twelve respondents (24%) of the fifty perceive it as a deliberative role. There is no doubt as to the consensus concerning the faculty's role in the decision-making of any institution; they have a right to make decisions and they have a deliberative role in regard to academics. The conflict arises as to the degree of authority they have over adminis- trative and non-academic areas. For instance, at one major university the faculty senate wants a consultative role in the picking of the president of the university. This is a major step in the participa- tive system of management in the Catholic system. The transition towards a consultative-participative type of control over decision-making is reflected by the following excerpts from the interviews of the leaders of influence. The perceptions reflect a consultative role for the most part but one can sense seeds of transition being salted which will eventually lead to a deliberative- participative role. This is certainly a change since 1964 when the Donovan study as described in Chapter III stated that though there have been recent increases in the number and types of professional opprotunities for responsible participation in the affairs of the college, there is still evidence to support that the faculties are very much playing a subordinate role. The frustrations of the faculties, according to Donovan,can only be eXpected to grow in this respect as their number increases and as their professional sensibilities become stronger. This researcher actually did not find this to be true in 174 this study. In fact, according to our data, in the four year inter- val there evidently has been a vast change in perceptions and atti- tudes which give no indications of frustrations, as is illustrated in the following excerpts from our interviews. The president of Institution A, who was a religious, had this to say about faculty participation: ”The faculty should have full participation in the formulation of policy. The primary role is con- sultative. The board of trustees ultimately make the decisions. The faculty has not only the right but the duty to participate and hence all faculty members should stand ready for Openness at the academic senate and contribute.” This excerpt is very important since it re- veals the change in emphasis concerning the board of trustees. Paul Reiss had earlier pointed out in The Shape of Catholic Higher Educa— tion, that the board formerly, whether legal or advisory, did not have the real power of decision-making. For the most part, power re- sided in the president appointed by the religious order or diocese. This also was pointed out by Andrew Greeley in his book, The Changing Catholic College, for the president was appointed mainly to look out for the interest of the order or diocese and was chosen mainly because 17 This attitude is he was loyal to these elements within the church. certainly changing. Another member of the same institution said that ”the faculty senate should act on all three areas (academic, non-aca- demic, and administrative) with equal importance...It is established to insure full faculty participation in matters of general interest by sharing the responsibility in the governance of the university. The university senate has the authority to initiate discussions, to express its views on the matters of general university interest, and l75 to make recommendations to the president and the board of trustees." Certainly, all do not agree that Catholic faculties' powers have increased with the rapidity that they should have. A professor of English in Institution A feels that "the faculty role should be stronger than it is at present concerning the decision-making level in respect to academics. In Institution C, the perception of an associate professor in physics was that the faculty should have the main authority in all academic decisions and a lesser authoritative role in all other matters. Also in Institution C, a professor of economics and a former president of the institution's academic senate, said, "There should be a setup of some type of a partnership. We can‘t leave it all to the faculty. They do not have the time, exper- tise and the patience that is needed. In execution, there should be a joint effort between the administration and the faculty.” The in- sight in this last excerpt is that while the faculty would like to participate they do not always accept the responsibility, because of lack of knowledge, time, and administrative patience in the decision- making process. In fact, they often lose sight of the challenge and become bored. Another reason that is forewarded, and will be discuss- ed in Chapter VI, is that many of the faculty are not social action oriented. By social action is meant an interest in the institution, students, and community affairs. Many are interested only in their own self-interest, academic disciplines and their own research. They are only for that which will enhance their own self-interest and are often referred to as educational entrepreneurs. The colleges in this study seemed to have little participative consultation outside of the academic areas. A non-Catholic professor l76 of art in Institution E had this to say: "In academic decisions, the faculty has decision—making powers. There is no problem. In the non-academic areas, the faculty has not been involved. There are not enough of the faculty that live close to the campus or feel responsibility beyond the classroom. This is left to the nuns." It is also interesting to note that at Institution E it is the admin- istration that is putting pressure on the faculty in order to force them to take responsibility for decision—making. lO What role does the faculty play in the decision—making process in this insti- tution? In the summary as presented in Table 5.lO, it can be seen that 70% of the population responded that the faculty was playing an advi- sory and recommending role. Only l3 out of 83 pe0ple, representing l6%, felt that it was a "small role” and only one felt "none" at all. In the college group, nine out of 29 members in this sample felt that the "role was small." These nine leaders represent 3l% of the college population. This nine was out of a total of l3 in the en— tire population that felt that the "role was small" for the faculty. This also would reinforce the fact that the colleges are conservative in regard to the locus of the decision-making. In the interviews, there were strong intimations that the colleges, especially institu- tion F, did not have autonomous control over its organizational fu- ture but was controlled by the head of the order rather than the board of trustees. One—third of its leaders felt that the decision- making role was ”too small." Even Institution E, which is supposed l77 to have a liberal orientation and reputation for small Catholic col- leges in the U. 5., had half of its leaders of influence among the administration and faculty perceiving the ”role as being too small." The religious as a work group were more optimistic in that 90% of them feel that the academic senate and academic councils are play- ing an increasing and important role. This perception is compared to 62% of the lay personnel. One would expect the religious as a group to be more optimistic than the lay group since they have been trained and socialized into a authoritarian atmosphere. It is significant that 62% of the lay personnel share the same perception which gives credence to a transition toward the consultative—participative deci- sion-making. Among the administration-faculty work group, there is seen a certain amount of dissatisfaction among the faculty. While 84% of the administration feel that the academic senates and the councils are playing an increasing role in an advisory-recommending role, only 62% of the faculty perceive it in the same way. One of the reasons for this difference is that many of the administrators are religious and thereby would contribute to this disparity. To really ascertain the attitudes that were found in the re- sponses to Question 10, it is necessary to analyze the interviews in depth. An associate professor of philosophy in Institution A had_ given a good resume as to the type of decision-making that is going on and what it should be. "On the academic side, considerable. In the next two or three years, it is going to increase. The faculty has not awakened to the fact that the non-academic has an impact." Another in the same institution who teaches sociology said that "in the past, they 178 had no role." ”Currently, they are moving toward a more active role in decision-making. However, as long as the board of trustees are members of the order, there is very little decision-making."' This excerpt emphasized the prevalent thought among the respondents that the board of trustees have to be more diversified and that they must have less members of the order on it. Greeley also emphasized this in his study. More and more institutions are laicizing their board of trustees. Three of the institutions in our sample had already laicized their board of trustees and a fourth was setting up plans to do so. Institutions O and F were still under the direct control of the reli- gious order with members of the order solely being on the board of trustees. Reinert in an article feels by laicizing the board of trus- tees we are bringing into conformity with the dictates of Vatican II Council of bringing the laity into the work of the church. Greeley, on the other hand, is more practical-minded and feels that this is being done because it will open up more doors for financial resources and in particular federal and state funds. One thing is for sure, that more and more boards of trustees are becoming laicized regardless of the reasons and any problem which is resulting from an all religious_ board of trustees will correct itself in the next few years. A layman in administration at Institution B describes the decision-making process at that institution which was more or less the same at all the institutions: l'Each school has a committee of the faculty, for its own administration. The faculty senate takes care of problems, organizational welfare and benefits. All decision-making is subject to the board of trustees. There is a great willingness on their part to accept recommendations." Another member in this same institution I79 who teaches chemistry talked of the role of the faculty: "Its role has been changing, markedly over the last five years. Five years ago it was very small. Presently, we play a much greater role and the role is increasing every year. This is the first year that the faculty and the administration sat down around a table to negotiate administrative problems in a period of Open discussion. This is probably why we don't have a St. John‘s situation here. The administration respects the faculty.“ A number of the leaders in the various institutions felt that the deciding point in time that improved the relationship of the administration and the faculty, especially in regard to the locus of the decision-making, was the St. John's incident. The feeling is that it was at this point in time that the administration came to the realization that the faculty had a role in the administra- tion of the university from an academic, non-academic and administra- tive point of view. - There is, however, an underlying current of discontent among the leaders that the faculty, although they want consultative and deliberative decision-making power as a body, will not accept respon- sibility in making decisions as individuals. A lay administrator who also has the academic rank of an associate professor, concerning this issue, says: "It is pretty advisory now through the faculty senate... here the administration has to force the freedom and the decision- making upon the faculty. One often hears the remark: 'It is their university, namely Jesuit, let them run it.‘ This freedom is being I accepted reluctantly because of the responsibility. The faculty wants decision-making power without responsibility.” In addition to the problem of the faculty not accepting reSponsibility in decision-making, l80 there are also problems in the composition of the academic senates and councils. An associate professor of physics at Institution C states the problem in the following way: "In principle, the faculty senate has great power in the decision-making process. De facto, they are often by-passed by the administration and decisions are made without adequate consultation of either the faculty and the deans. This is the faculty senate's own fault by insisting that there should be no administrators in the senate. They have closed off a valuable source of knowledge and experience; and they have become bogged down in discussions of trivia. What is really needed is a university senate consisting of both faculty and administrators with real decision- making powers. Often through just the academic and faculty senate there is created a wide separation between the administration and the faculty.” The same thing is again expressed by a full professor of modern languages. "At present there is too much separation between the faculty and the administration. I do not want a faculty senate but a university senate. I also want faculty members on the board of trustees. I feel that there are enough faculty that would take this responsibility and make it viable.” Those of the respondents that feel that the faculty has a very small role is best represented in the following excerpt from an inter- view with an assistant professor of history in Institution D. The faculty had "no real role formerly." "Some window dressing with commit- tees but no real power to make decisions. Real changes come about on an informal basis, with informal pressures. There are no real changes taking place in the academic council or faculty meetings." In this interview, it was graphically brought out that the type of action that l8l is probably still most prominent is the ”man to man type of consulta- tion." Certain members of the faculty are well respected by the admin- istration and taken into their confidence and they, in turn, control informal groups and exert pressures in these groups. Likert describes this as being a part of the consultatory system of participation. This happens because the administrators only partially support group action. This is also due to the changing patterns from an authoritarian- benevolent system to the consultatory-participative pattern. In Institutions E and F, the "man to man consultatory pattern" was more in prominence than in the other four institutions. An associate pro- fessor with a doctorate in English at Institution E best described the decision-making of the faculty as a "hit and miss affair.' Formally, very little; informally, a lot. This is one of the things that will change in the next five years." This also was brought out in an inter- view with an associate professor of philOSOphy who believed that the faculty had no role in the decision-making process. He says, "None whatsoever. Except in the cases where the president respects the advice of an individual faculty member. There are committees which theoretically play a role in the decision-making process but they are uninformed, unambitious, and they have no means to guarantee the implementation of the decisions that it should carve out." ”Again, this excerpt shows the force of the "man to man consultation" rather than the group consultation as being a force in this institution. Yet even this muSt be looked upon as an improvement as to what was done twenty years ago in church-related institutions, especially Catholic institutions. l82 ll To what extent, if any, are faculty members consulted on such matters as changes in curriculum and faculty policies, etc.? What would the appropriate procedure be? The answer to this question fell into five categories: l. The faculty is always consulted, from the departmental levels upward through the senate/academic council; 2. They are playing an increasing role in departmental level upward through the senate/academic council; 3. Sometimes they are consulted and sometimes they are not; it is not consistent; 4. They are consulted but not listened to; the action is not the action of the faculty; 5. There is no consultation on any level. Eighty-five percent of the leaders perceived that the faculty members are consulted on all matters concerning changes in curricu- lum and faculty policies. Six percent felt that they are not con- sistently consulted and five percent felt that there was not any con- sultation on any level. Among the work groups, ninety-four percent of the administra- tors felt that the faculty were always consulted. This is only natu- ral, since they represent management. However, 78% of the faculty also felt that they were consulted. The four faculty members and the one administrator that feel that the faculty is sometimes con- sulted and sometimes not are all lay persons. Only one religious feels that the faculty is not consulted. l83 Overall, one may say that there is no conflict as to the parti- cipation of the faculty in academic decision—making. All feel that the locus of decision-making is through the academic senates/councils and that this is being fulfilled. However, the type of governance is advisory and consultatory. There is also of late a greater consensus on the true meaning and authority of the board of trustees. If any conflict does arise it will be whether the faculty should have a say over the non-academic and administrative affairs and whether the role in these matters should be advisory or deliberative. In summary, then, this section explored whether the Catholic system is moving from an authoritative-benevolent pattern, as defined by Likert, to a consultatory system of management. For the most part, in the academic area of curriculum and faculty policy, the role of the faculty is deliberative. The conflict that may arise between the administration and the faculty will be whether the faculty should have ' a consultative or deliberative role in the non-academic and adminis- trative area. At the present time, most of the Catholic institutions are practicing a consultative system in decision-making. However, not all of this consulting takes place within a group framework but some of it is done within a man to man consultation framework. Many of the administrators in practice only partially support group action. This is changing, however, and in the next two or three years the facul- ties will enjoy full group participation and possibly a deliberative role, if they will accept the responsibility for the locus of decision- making. Therefore, it can be safely held that the leadership of influ- ence among the administration and among the faculty tend to share the same perceptions of the locus of decision-making and governance in the 184 institutions presently and ideally. If there will be any conflict, it will come in the area of deliberative decision—making about non-academic and administrative affairs by the faculty. As yet, the administration and faculty and the religious—lay groups do not share the same percep— tions over this. The F0urth Issue Academic Freedom One of the areas of possible conflict between traditional views and the emergent needs of individuals is that of academic freedom. In Chapter III, it was pointed out that until very recently there was very little literature on academic freedom in Catholic institutions. What little was written about it was with the motif that academic freedom was not academic licence and there was the insistence that freedom meant to teach what was true and to receive instruction only in what was true. Andrew M. Greeley, in his book, The Changing Catholic College, points out that there is irony in that while the immediate ancestors of the academic freedom movement had its foundation in the German University of the 19th century, the more remote ancestors were surely the Christian Universities of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, he points out it would be a mistake to assume that the Catholic schools' recent conversion to the principles of academic freedom are some cen- turies behind the rest of the American academia. Academic freedom as a commonplace or phase in the American higher education certainly does not date much beyond the l930's and, as the witchhunt of the late forties and the early fifties demonstrates, it was by no means assured even 185 in major universities during the post—World War II era. While the leaders of influence that were interviewed were often very critical of Catholic higher education in many respects, there was a great insistence by them that the Catholic professor today enjoys a complete andtotal freedom in the choice of texts, in his lecture notes, in his grading and in the kinds of examinations he ,gives. They also believe that the faculty members personal lives and political beliefs were not subject to scrutiny by the schools. Andrew Greeley, in his most recent study, found the same sentiments among the faculty members whom he interviewed in his survey. However, even with these sentiments, in the last two or three years, academic 19 One of freedom has become a pressing and controversial subject. the reasons is that the Catholic college has begun to realize its intellectual goals and at the same time it must function within separate and different authority structures: the religious and the professional. This problem of the organization's structure and authority is unique in Catholic colleges primarily because of its relationship to the extra- academic power of religious superiors. Its analogue in public insti- tutions is the extra-academic powers of political bodies in state legislatures. Academic freedom, historically, has become a new problem in Catholic institutions with the advent of the lay professor and the new emphasis on the adaptive functions of Catholic higher education. The big question in this section of the scheduled interview was, can the professor in Catholic higher education function as a free professional within a structure of religious authority. Ideally, the answer, of course, is “Yes," provided his teaching does not threaten the official 186 dogmas Of the Church or invade Faith or Morals. This literal qualifi- cation is essentially no different from that restricting professors in the publicly supported institutions from advocating anarchy or premis- cuity. The outer limits of academic freedom in both these cases are easily drawn and are subject to various definitions. Many Of the leaders (and some of them non-Catholics) insisted that they encounter greater classroom and personal freedom than that which could ever be found in State or non-Catholic private institutions. It can be concluded in this study, as we will see shortly, that academic freedom in at least the strict meaning of the words is the rule rather than the exception at the Catholic college, and any Opinions that Catholic institutions of higher learning do not enjoy academic freedom is based on a biased perception or, at least, outdated facts and figures. At this time, no claim is made in this study that there are no prOblems in Catholic institutions. As we will show, there will be more problems in Catholic' institUtions in the futUre than there are now. Andrew Greeley points ‘ out in his book, as the quality of the faculty improves and as the faculty members become more sensitive to their rights, the freedom and privileges of the faculty are more likely to be jealously guarded than before. But conflict over academic freedom is hardly a monopoly of Catholic institutions and, by and large, their problems do not seem to be very different from those to be encountered at any American col— lege or university.20 With Greeley, it should be noted that on "virtually all campuses we visited, the fact, if not always the spirit, of academic freedom was in evidence; and while the atmosphere at some of the schools indi- cated that neither the faculty nor administration were secure in their 187 academic freedom, in some there was both the reality and the atmosphere of academic freedom which was as much in evidence as in any university in the country (in Institutions C and E)?1 As was pointed out in Chapter III, in reality there does not seem to have been too much difficulty with the manifest abuse of academic freedom within Catholic institutions dealt with by the A.A.U.P. to warrant a substantial analysis in the book, Academic Freedom and the Catholic College. However, there is a threat to academic freedom in Catholic colleges, as in state institutions, ariSing from extra-academic officials who are Often professionally and intellectually naive or inexperienced. This is very true in thecases involving the disciplines of theology, philosophy and the social sciences. While such instances have been relatively few in Catholic higher education, not because Of borderline issues, and informed faculty to interpret them were not present, but because the faculty members were considered "safe" theologically and philosophically. Caution has been the byword of the administration ’and their priestly concerns not infrequently have been aroused by the "different," "unorthodox," "relativistic," "existential" intellectual positions of some of their professors, religious as well as lay. The prospects that such different positions will increase in numbers and significance as Catholic colleges and their professors confront the challenge Of transition and change recommends a careful restudy Of the boundary lines defining the structures of religious and professional authority. If new goals are to be established, new structural framef works must be redesigned for their realization. It is the expressed purpose of this section to review the per- ceptions of the leaders of influence in six institutions to gain an 188 insight as to what this structure might be in relation to academic freedom. Part of our interview schedule was devoted to the area Of academic freedom. It consists of five question: l2. How do you conceive and interpret academic freedom? 13. Can a professor in a Catholic college function as a free professional within a structure of religious authority? l4. Is academic freedom according to the A.A.U.P. statement of l940 fulfilled in this institution? TO what degree? (high, low, etc.) l5. DO you believe that in order for a professor to enjoy academic freedom as in non-Catholic institutions Catholic institutions should be secularized? 16. DO you believe that the provisions to generate academic freedom are now adequate? Each of these questions were designed to give a comprehensive view of the academia in each institution. Question l3 was considered to be the most important and significant question in this section. It is fast becoming the question which puts the greatest limitation and strain on academic freedom in Catholic institutions. 12 How do you conceive and interpret academic freedom? The responses to this question were placed into thirteen cate- gories. The first six categories are not very different; in fact, they actually represent the same basic points of view. The first cate- gory is really inadequate as a definition or an interpretation Of aca- demic freedom. The second category is certainly evaluative and still inadequate. Category three seems to be the most complete of the first six categories. 1. An honest and integral pursuit of truth; 2. To teach, write, research in the area of one's competence; 3. To teach, write, research in the area of one's competence with responsibility; 4. To teach, write, research with r95ponsibility; 5. Freedom to teach within the aims Of the course; 6. It is twofold: freedom to teach and write, etc.; freedom as a private citizen; 7. Perceived and interpreted as the A.A.U.P. statement; 8. Ability to adhere and to work within the boundaries Of one's conscience; 9. Freedom of expression as long as it does not everstep the bounds of prOpriety, convention, and as long as it seems skilled in one's field; 10. Lack of censorship in performing academic duties; ll. Academic freedom with the limitation of the religious beliefs of the institution; l2. Freedom to teach as one sees fit; 13. Did not answer the question. The first five categories are expressions of the same interpre- tation: the pursuit of truth within one's competence and with responsi- bility. Forty-four of the total pOpulation perceived and interpreted academic freedom in this way. Thirty percent alone thought it to be the right to teach, write, research in the area of one's competence. It is surprising that only twelve percent of the total population per- ceived it as the same as the A.A.U.P. statement Of 1940. In fact, it 190 was surprising in this study how many could not remember it and some even had never heard of it. Nineteen percent of the administrators and eighteen percent of the religious did perceive it as such, as con- trasted to eight percent Of the faculty and ten percent of the laymen. There was no question in all the interviews that the administrators and the religious were more sensitive to the demands and the restric- tions Of the A.A.U.P. than the faculty as a whole. It might be said that the administrators had an unwarranted fear of the A.A.U.P. direc- tives and many decisions were being influenced by this fear. By far the greatest percentage of perception rests in Category 2: "to teach, to write, to research in the areas of one's competence.“ This takes care Of, however, only 25 of the leaders (30.l2%). Eighteen of this twenty-five were among the faculty and seven, the administration. This represented 34.62% of the faculty and 22.58% of the administrators. Among the lay-religious grouping this was repre- sented by 18 Of the laymen and seven of the religious. This represented 29.15% of the laymen and 3l.82% of the religious. l3 Can a professor in a Catholic college function as a free professional within a structure of religious authority?. This is by far the most important question in this section; the reason for this is that, as stated before, academic freedom in Catholic institutions does not seem to be an internal problem as much as an extra-institutional problem for the future. The perceptual answers to this question were arranged into seven categories: 191 l. One can function as a free professional in a structure of religious authority; 2. One can function as a free professional except in theology or philosophy. 3. Yes, except for clerics; laymen have more freedom; 4. In practice, yes; theoretically, no. There is conflict between the magisterium Of the church and free inquiry; 5. No, they cannot practice as free professionals; 6. In practice, no; theoretically, yes. 7. Unsure if they can function as free professionals. Forty-nine of the population, representing 59%, said yes with- out qualifications. Ten said yes with the qualification, except for theology and philOSOphy. It is interesting to note of these ten only three were religious. Two Of the laymen felt that one could function as a free professional except for the clerics. Five Of the population ' felt that one could practice as a free professional in practice but not theoretically because of the teaching arm of the church:. the magisterium. Therefore, eighty percent of the population felt that one could practice as a free professional with or without qualifica- tions. Ten percent were unsure that they could practice as a free professional. Only nine felt that they could not function as a free professional out of the entire sample. It is interesting to note that, among the institutions, two institutions, B and E, had less than 50% of their leaders of influence who believe that they can function completely and freely as free pro- fessionals. Institution E, in addition, has thirty percent of its leaders of influence who are unsure that they can function as a free 192 professional. If we look in depth at the interviews, we see that, on the whole, the consensus is strong that a professor in a Catholic institution can function as a free professional. There is some concern, however, in regard to the academic disciplines of theology and philOSOphy as enjoying the freedom that they need. While this concern is not unduly warranted, nevertheless it remains a concern. All agree that the reason for any lack of freedom as a professional is for the most part from the outside and extra-academic. Some Of the remarks of the interviewees were as follows: A full professor from Institution F said, "If I did not think that I could, I would not be here.” An assistant professor from the same institution said, "Absolutely,Yesf' Certainly more so today than before. Vatican II has done a great deal to establish rapport between the lay and the religious, not only in the educational establishments, but the parish level also." Another said, ”Yes. I dO not see that religious authority in any way should be concerned with the discovery of truth except to promote it; religious authority has nothing to do with research; the boundary as to what a person teaches is not set by reli- gious authorities but by departments in which he teaches. What one publishes is not the concern of the university and when you get to mat- ters of sedition and obscenity, this should not be of professional con- cern.” Some gave an air of being insulted by being asked this question. I think that some of the following excerpts demonstrate this; ”I would say that I better! In the academic disciplines I had better! In schools of theology which are preparing for the priesthood there is a different 193 problem. It is the right of the bishop as the representative of Christ to define or identify what is or what is not heresy. His right to say whether or not what should be taught by a particular professor at a particular university is a different matter. In other words, I don't consider, except in the deliberate area of identifying, what is doctrine Of the church; I don't believe religious authority has any jurisdiction over the academic process." Again, a young assistant professor with a doctorate said the following: "This depends on the individual. One always is circumscribed by a power structure in any organization, even in a secular institution. One can function as a free professional, depending upon the religious authority; one may not with impunity or successfully. I personally have no qualms as to what I say or do because I am in a Catholic university or that I am a Catholic. Some Jesuits might feel differently. The day I feel that I cannot feel free, I will go elsewhere." 'A dean at Institution C said, “I feel that I can function at this institution. However, I could not say at every place this is possible, including the state colleges." A middle-aged cleric had this to say: "Absolutely, this whole issue of academic freedom is a spurious one. The real problems Of academic freedom in the future will come from the interference of the government in the running of the univer- sities. It is quite likely that Catholic institutions will become the great defenders of academic freedom in years ahead." In another insti- tution, an associate professor of business administration had these comments: “Yes! There is no question as far as I am concerned. I have objected to starting class with a prayer and I do not; and no one has said anything." Another in the same institution had this to say: ”Yes.” 19.4 ”Professional competency is not in terms of religion." A young clerical associate professor in philosophy felt that he could function freely as a professional. However, he posed another question. "Does he?” He believed that this was a psychological question. The bigger Catholic schools do not bother even to consider this question. Mental blocks have arisen fOr the professors who do not know the theology and they have come into conflict with imagining problems in theology. There are those who say "Yes" that they can function as a free professional but with qualifications and express it in the following ways. An associate professor in Political Science: ''In certain dis- ciplines of a scientific nature, such as physics, the chances are high; as long as one does not touch on philosophy and theology. In the social sciences there is a 50/50 chance of functioning as a free profes- sional. In philosophy and theology there is a minimal chance." "I think that this is a difficult question. In only certain areas; one must give all the OpiniOns and the opinion of the Catholic Church. The only areas that would be in question is philOsOphy and theology. In this area, there would be conflict." Again, another in history says, "The church has not solved the problem Of absolute freedom of inquiry with authority. This is especially true with professors of philOSOphy and theology who take positions that are not identical with the Christian position." It is interesting to note that this last respondent asked Andrew Greeley in his survey in preparation for his book, The Changing Catholic College,concerning this very question, bishops vis-a-vis Catholic institutions. Greeley answered that he thought that the university would have to take a position against the bishops if they tried to interfere with natural inquiry. A lay adminis- 195 trator responded: ”This depends on the area. In business administra- tion there is no problem. However, a professor of theology and philo- SOphy cannot function as a free professional. One of the aims Of the university is to get across this institution's point of view on this thing--there is a conflict of interest.“ The next group that needs to be analyzed are those that say that they cannot function as free professionals in a Catholic insti- tution. In one of the universities, a professor of psychology said that in “the vast majority of Catholic colleges there is not the freedom that there should be. There is the implied threat of sanc- tion when one teaches or espouses causes that show apparent conflict with Catholic doctrine. Again an associate professor of education said that "This is very difficult in the present structure. I can- not see that one is free if the control and the direction of the university is in the hands of the hierarchy.“ Another associate professor Of education said: “Probably not as religious authority is understood in the Catholic church. The question Of authority is in a state Of change but that the tradition of authoritarianism is strong and has been assimilated by a great many clerics and hierarchy. As long as these attitudes prevail, there is little hOpe that the academic community can exist.” He really does not see the church as a sponsor of universities. A non-Catholic said, when asked this question: ”NO, it is not possible right now. I feel slight pres- sures as a non-Catholic." An associate professor of economics at one of the liberal arts colleges commented that he has been thinking about this very question. An absolute answer would be, No, one cannot function as a free professional. On the other hand, he is not cer- 196 tain that this is much different in a state or private institution. Comparatively, it is as free in a Catholic college as any place else. A priest in one of the liberal arts colleges felt that one could not probably function as a free professional. He wants students to read French books that were on the index at one time and could not get permission from the bishop. Yet he felt that they should have read these books for the sake of French literature. It is interesting to note in all of these interviews that claim that they are not free as professionals that there is a high correlation with the fact that they feel that the church-related institutions should be secularized for the church has no business in higher education. The main reason being extra-academic interference. l4 Is academic freedom according to the A.A.U.P. of l94O fulfilled in this institution? TO what degree? (high, low, etc.) Ninetycsix percent of the population believed that academic freedom was practiced in these six institutions. Certainly, there was no conflict in this regard. All did not agree as to the degree that it was practiced in their institutions. Fifty-eight percent of the population believed that it was to a high degree. One-quarter of the population do not comment as to the degree that it was present. Only one percent of the population felt that it was to a low degree, while ten percent felt that it was in a moderate and fair degree. I do not believe any of the empirical evidence would support conflict in this regard. 197 l5 DO you believe that in order for professors to enjoy academic freedom as in non—Catholic institutions, Catholic institutions should be secularized? This question was included in the scheduled interview as a reaction to Rosemary Lauer, formerly of St. John's University Of New York and Jaculine Grennan Of Webster College in St. Louis. Both of these educators believe that Catholic institutions are contradictions in terms and that they should be secularized because of the academic freedom issue. Webster College in St. Louis was already secularized on this premise. This question demands an in-depth study. There were four categories of responses by the leaders of influence which composed the pOpulation. They are: l. No; it does not have to be secularized. 2. It is not necessary. 3. Yes; theyshould be secularized. 4. Yes; in the sense of worldliness. Seventy-one percent of the population responded that "they do not have to be secularized." This was composed of sixty-nine percent of the lay leaders and seventy—seven percent of the religious. Only 13% of the pOpulation, eleven out of eighty-three, felt that Catholic institutions should be secularized. By the word secularization, we mean the same definition as used by Rosemary Lauer and Jaculine Grennan-- meaning from under the control of the religious orders and the hierarchy. There would be a complete severance from the control of the church. The surprising statistic that emerged from this inquiry is that nine percent of the religious population believed that these institutions should be secularized, as compared to fifteen percent of the lay leaders of influence. 198 It can be safely said that there is no conflict concerning the seculari- zation of Catholic institutions because of academic freedom. A closer analysis of the interviews themselves gives greater in- sights into the secularization question. Many of the leaders believe that probably these institutions should be secularized but not because of academic freedom but because Of financial resources. For instance, a professor Of political science at one of the institutions said: ”There is no need for secularization. There should be secularization only in the cases of finances; and this only when the sources are reluctant to give to Catholic institutions. Secularization might then open the doors to these financial sources. However, seculariza- tion does not preclude the presence of Jesuits here. Academic free- dom is not a reason to secularize." Another said; "The question is not relevant. Many peoplebelievetmat.they have more academic freedmn (here) than at any other college. We may be secularized because of 4 financial or political questions and not because of academic freedom.” way: “No; the only reason for secularization is for survival. This institution's too important to be ended. Secularization would come about only because of financial reasons." One of the insights then afforded by the leaders of influence concerning this question Of secu- larization was not the academic freedom problem but rather the serious- ness of the financial problems for them to think this way. The plural- ism Of American education is in real jeopardy because Of this. Some of the interviewees were very vociferous about this question when it was asked and some appeared to be insulted or at least hurt that some peOple would even question academic freedom at Catholic institutions. 199 A professor of economics at one of the universities said, “No, absolutely not. Professors in non—Catholic institutions do not have more freedom. In the l950's there were inquiries about un-American activities among university professors, especially at state univer- sities." An associate professor in physics felt that there was a need to educate church leaders in the function and role of a true university. He said that "if this done, there can be no advantages in having a secularized Catholic university. In fact, it is doubtful that such an institution will remain Catholic in any meaningful sense." A professor in political science in Institution B did not ”believe that there is a cause and effect here. It will not come about because Of academic freedom." This is in the same vein that a young teacher in chemistry says, "It does not have to happen." He is in favor of secularization only to secularize it, not because of academic freedom. ‘All agree that the state universities are no better Off than the church-related institutions in regard to academic freedom. A full professor in education commented: “I have worked with the state institutions; the people there run scared. Absolutely not." A Jewish professor of chemistry in Institution A maintains that the thinking is too much in terms Of secularization. A question Of control was brought in when one of the young assistant professors of English said: "Church affiliation does not need to be done away with completely and entirely. If lay professors are brought into a higher degree of policy making and made members of the board of trustees, I see no reason why full academic freedom cannot be enjoyed." Finally, a priest in Institution B put his finger on the central problem 200 when he says that ”it does not make a particle Of difference whether you are a cleric or not. In the end you have academic freedom. Catholic institutions or any other church-related institution must be open to revelation as a possible source of knowledge; this is academic freedom. Professors who have cut themselves from this valid source Of knowledge do not enjoy academic freedom.” I think that this is one of the troubles of academic freedom in that professors in church-related institutions and in public institutions must acknowledge revelation as a valid source of knowledge and not just human inquiry. A priest in Institution A in administration maintains that there is ”no inherent conflict, no grounds for secularization. All this stress is from the dollar sign and in most instances, despair over getting state and federal money. We are selling our birth rights for a mess of porridge.“ It is important to stress that those that favor secularization would still like to see Catholic colleges but not under diocesan or religious order legal control. Some even went so far as to say that they would still want the clerics still in charge and teaching. The following excerpt is a good example Of this prevailing thought: “Yes. Not under diocesan or religious order legal control and authority. I still would like to see the hierarchy in teaching and in fact in charge. To exclude the religious from functioning in any capacity at any institution is to be discriminating. I am interested in the religious as a man and as an administrator and not as a religious 'per se'.” However, there are those who want a complete break: "I believe that all Catholic universities are going in this direction and that it is necessary. They are going to cease being church governed. 201 In the process, some will cease to be Catholic. There are by and large far too many Catholic colleges; there should be fewer but better colleges.” A priest in Institution 8 said, "It should be secularized in that it be run by Catholics without the control of the church-- independent of all dictation from a religious authority and superiors.” He would want to see complete severance. 16 DO you believe that the provisions to generate academic freedom are now adequate? In this final question, 77% of the leaders of influence felt that the provisions for maintaining academic freedom were sufficient. Seven percent felt that they were not adequate. The majority felt that the faculty senates, A.A.U.P. chapters, and various faculty councils and committees were no problems. Most of the respondents admitted that they were never tested and, therefore, no one could really judge whether they were adequate. However, the majority did not know of any provisions that should be established. Any interference from extra-academic sources would not be the concern of these internal mechanisms. The interfering sources which are extra- academic would have to learn the hard way that their authority does not encompass the institutions of higher education. As one priest put it, ”given the need of the bishOps today, you can't tell them any- thing; they must go through the process of learning the hard way of what an education process is.” The hypothesis that the leadership of influence among the adminis- tration and the leadership Of influence among the faculty perceive the definition and interpretation of academic freedom in the same ways holds. 202 There were no differences perceived among the groups interrogated. This does not mean that there is no potential for confict; there is tremendous latent conflict arising with extra—academic circles, namely, the institutional church. In summary, then, the leaders Of influence perceived academic freedom as the right “to teach, to write, to research in the areas Of one's competence." The majority of the leaders felt that they could function as free professionals within a structure of religious authority. In fact, eighty percent Of the pOpulation perceived that they could practice as free professionals with or without qualifications. Likewise, the vast majority Of the leaders felt that academic freedom was practiced in their institutions; also, they did not feel that Catholic institutions need to be secularized in order for academic freedom to exist as in non—Catholic institutions. However, it came out that secularization might come about not because of academic freedom but if Catholic institutions could not develop an access to new finan- cial resources such as state and federal funds. There was also con- sensus that the present provisions for maintaining academic freedom were sufficient, although all would readily admit that they have not been really tested or tried. ’) ’3 zOs Identification of Problems in Catholic Higher Education in General and In Particular Institutions The four issues which were discussed earlier in this chapter were selected because of their pOpularity in the professional and popular literature as problems. We tho gutit necessary for the leaders of influence, however, to identify problems that affect Catholic higher education in general and problems that affect their institutions in particular. The reason for this was to see if the issues of conflict as identified by the press were in conformity with the perceptions of the leaders of influence within the Catholic system. In order to do this, each member was asked to identify four problems facing Catholic higher education at the present that they considered to be the leading ones. Likewise, they were also asked to identify four major problems facing their institutions. The reason for this latter question was to see if problems of the individual institutions were perceived to be the same as for the rest of Catholic higher education. If, however, there was anything special that was indigenous to any one of the six institutions of the sample, it would have been identified. We will analyze the responses Of these two questions separately. Of the problems facing Catholic higher education at the present time, what do you believe to be the four leading ones? Each leader was asked to identify four problems; there was a total of 332 possible responses to this question Of Catholic problems in general. There were, however, 315 actual responses; hence, there were 204 seventeen instances of no reSponses. Some of the leaders gave only one, two or three responses instead Of the four. These 315 responses were then placed into nine categories. Table 5.17 presents a summary of the breakdown Of these reSponses by categories. The rank Of fre- quency was determined by the percentage of the greatest number of re- sponses to any one category. For instance, the greatest problem per- ceived by the leaders was in the financial area. A further breakdown of this category would have revealed that sixty-eight of the seventy responses had to deal with the financial stability and new resources. In other words, the leaders, both in the administration and the facul— ty, were concerned about the present state of finances and the sys- tems ability to tap new resources. This problem is somewhat in con- formity with the data that were gathered in the section on academic freedom. When the leaders were asked if Catholic institutions should be secularized because of academic freedom, the consensus of percep- tions was "NO“; but a number did not rule out secularization because of finances and the lack of ability to tap federal and state funds. The second problem that was mentioned with the greatest fre- quency was the problem concerning the lack of clear cut goals and purposes. This problem certainly was related to the issues of the philosophy of Catholic higher education and the issue concerning in- stitutional goals and purposes. A further breakdown of this category would show that twenty—four of the reSponses out of fifty-nine showed concern about the lack of clarity of the goals and purposes in parti- cular, and sixteen about the identity crisis. The third problem that was most frequently mentioned was the problem of control. A further breakdown of this category would reveal 205 that the leaders were most interested in the ownership and relationship of the institution to the Church, the bishop and the orders or diocese. Fourteen of the responses were concerned with this item. The second item most frequently mentioned in this category was the role and the degree of the laity in control of these institutions. Again this problem of control is related to the issues Of loci of decision-making. As was shown, there is no doubt that the institutions are bringing more and more Of the laity into the control of the institutions. The board Of trustees Of four out of the six institutions in the sample have already laicized their boards. Laymen are now becoming vice presidents and some of the institutions eventually will have lay presidents. More and more the religious orders and dioceses are relin- quishing control over these institutions and they are becoming more and more autonomous concerning their future and destinies. The fourth problem that had the greatest amount of frequency Of response concerned the faculty. This is not a problem that is indigenous just to Catholic higher education. It is a problem for all higher edu- cation in the near future. The main item mentioned in this category was the problem of recruitment and retention of faculty. Other items mentioned was the lack of vocations among the religious and thereby a lack of clerical teachers; an item of pluralism among the faculty was also mentioned. By the latter item, pluralism, is meant that there are not enough non-Catholic professors in the Catholic system. However, all the items in this category can be reduced to one problem already mentioned, the problem of finances. , The other problems, such as administration, students, planning, are problems that are not indigenous to Catholic higher education and 206 can be found in any institution of higher learning. It is interesting to note in Table 5.17, the lack of response concerning academic free- dom. This certainly would be in conformity with the data accrued earlier in this chapter concerning academic freedom. Any problem with academic freedom will be extra-academic interference and not arising from the system or the institution itself. Taking into consideration the amount of time you have been a member Of this University, what do you believe to be the four major problems Of this University as a Catholic institution? Again, the respondents were asked tO name four major problems of their institution, as a Catholic institution. There was a possibility of 332 responses; actually, only 2l6 were given. The major difficulty was that the respondents found that the major institutional problems were the same as for all Catholic higher education. It can be seen in Table 5.l8 and Table 5.l9 Of ten categories there is an added one called ”The same as for national Catholic problems.” The responses are sum- marized and ranked in Table 5.l8 and the frequencies of responses recorded by institutions in Table 5.l9. It can be seen that the prob- lem showing the greatest number frequency of responses was again the financial problem. This is the same as for the problem in all Catholic higher education. The second problem mentioned with the greatest fre- quency was that the institutional problems were the same as for the national problems. It is interesting to note that among the institu- tional problems, control, goals and purposes, academic freedom, were ranked at the bottom of the list. There was more concern over adminis- tration; the item most frequently mentioned in this category was the communication and socialization of its members within the institution 207 and without the institution in the community at large. The items within the category Of faculty and students would be the same as for any institution of higher learning, Catholic or non-Catholic. The items most often mentioned were faculty-student relationships, unrest and recruitment. The problem of planning was that the Catholic colleges should not be proliferating any more and the existing ones should seek academic excellence. In summary, then, each leader of influence was asked to identify four major problems which confront Catholic higher education and their own institutions. These problems were certainly not unanimously per— ceived as problems. The greatest concern was the one on financial stability and resources. The problem Of academic freedom both on the national and local levels ranked very low. A big concern was over the control of Catholic institutions. Finally, a third concern was the identity crisis--the lack Of clear cut goals and purposes. One of the purposes of these questions was to ascertain a difference between the individual institutions and the problems Of all Catholic higher educa- tion in general. Outside Of a slight difference in emphasis in the ranking of the problems, they were the same. Therefore, it can be assumed that the perceptions of the administration and faculty members Of these institutions can be generalized to include all of Catholic higher education. 208 Summary This chapter attempted to identify latent conflict arising over four major issues which were thought to be critical to Catholic higher education. It was seen that a new philosophy of Catholic higher education is emerging. One pattern that seems to be predomi- nant is the philosophy which is advocated by the Danforth Study, ”The Free Christian University.” The goals Of Catholic higher edu- cation are definitely in conflict. The one that seems to be emerg- ing is a goal that would be commensurate with the Danforth study: free inquiry in a free value-oriented institution. At present, the leadership has only the vaguest idea of what the goals are. Part III in this chapter points out that the process by which goals are given priority and resources allocated to the attainment Of these goals, is organizational decision-making. This study definitely indicates that the Catholic system is moving from an authoritative-benevolent pattern as defined by Likert to a consultatory system of decision— making. For the most part, the academic area, curriculum and faculty policy is deliberatively determined by the faculty. The conflict that is arising is whether the faculty should have a consultative or deliberative role in the administrative and non-academic area. It was seen that at the present time most of the Catholic institu- tions are practicing a consultative system in decision-making. The professional and popular press has Often presented academic freedom as a critical issue and has often suggested that a Catholic univer- sity is a contradiction in terms because of academic freedom. This study definitely demonstrates that this is not an issue and conflict does not exist. It is quite definite also that conflict does exist 209 and will increase from extra-academic sources, such as the diocese, order or the church at large. An analogue to this is the public in- stitutions and the state legislatures. This is especially true in the academic disciplines of philosophy and theology. Finally, this chapter has presented the problems that the leadership thought exist- ed both as a system and in the individual institutions. These prOb- lems were certainly not unanimously perceived by the leaders. The greatest concern was the financial stability of the institutions and their access to new resources. There was also a big concern over the control of the institutions and the relationship of the institu- tions to the diocese, orders and the church at large. The third concern was the identity crisis: the lack of a clear philosophy and goals. The leaders perceptions of the problems in their own insti— tutions were the same as for the system as a whole, with the excep- tion of emphasis. It then can be assumed that the perceptions of the administration and faculty members which compose the leaders of influence in this study can be generalized to include all of Catholic higher education. In all the interviews, there was no question as to whether Catholic education should exist or not. All agreed that it should exist. Therefore, the hypothesis that the conflict within the leadership Of influence among the administrative and faculty do not affect the basic assumptiOns upon which Catholic education rests, holds. All agree that it should exist but not in a pastoral pattern- maintenance sense but in a value—oriented academic sense. There is, then, a question as to the form it should take, its support, and, finally, the control over it. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 210 Citations-—Chapter V John D. Donovan, The Academic Man in the Catholic College (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), p. 195. Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960), passim. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Guild Press, 1956), p. 648. Richard Robbins, “American Jews and American Catholics: Two Types of Social Change,“ Sociological Analysis, Vol. 26, No. l, (Spring, 1965), pp. 8-9. Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l964), p. 5. Ibid,, p. 6. Robert Hassenger, The Shape Of Catholic Higher Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, l967). Andrew M. Greeley, The Changin Catholic College (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967 , p. 208. Ibid., pp. ll6-ll7. Rensis Likert, The Human Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l967) pp. 20-2l. Ibid., p. 50. Faculty Participation in Academic Governance (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, l967). Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., pp. 11-12 bid., p. ll Likert, 9p, ci ., p. 5l. 121g , p. 51. Greeley, 9p, £13,, p. 142. Ibid., p. llO. H D. bi Ibid., p. 114. ., p. lll. 211 :5ch ac: 3Q .5. "oucomoum no whosmmoEum an «an $35qu .o 6me :9.quon new :oBmOsvo Homodoo wcmEuSHMIcoc 0:8 .m ”0029.3:me cumuumanudmcofimfigocofl :v 3.58.335. :mflmwuso ovum 9;: .m ”fidmuozcb @336.” £9230 mnuuofiumfl 9:. ”13.83:: wcwcmoe mm uflofimu .N 503339: on» .«o oocodccm £039, .msowmzou van dmuEQOmofina m mofimc: "who? minis»: 4 4 "mHHmOOHHkHV x 02 mm 2: a on: ,5 com S 02 3 03 3 cod 2 GE @N o2 vm on: NN cod 1» OS mm cod an Sim N u l n f u .. 33¢ M em.m ~ u u n - 23m N a n w~.m N mw.m N n u s. _ ~o.m m l . oo.o~M~ n u u n om.m fl ho.@ A m¢.m fl ow.m N u u ~¢.v m mw.m N mm.m fl 0 No.8 m - - - - 3.3.: 35 A $8 a - - 38 m 3;. a £8 a 35 m - - m 36m om NN.NN} oo.0mwm .. . mm.mm~. m>.~.mm oo.o~m v~.:m w>.h~ m_ m~.-m momémmm 3.20 mv.mm : v v~.om om mm.mmmm oo.om m oo.o>.> ow.~v o NN.NN v hc.om v mw.v¢ mg w¢.~m pd mm.vm NH ~m.o~ m~_vm.om ¢~ wv.mm Ag m _ . . a mm.v v :~.-W~ oo.o_4~ Moo.o~ d u i u - >o.o g wm.o~ m mw.~ a mm.¢ d N¢.¢ m 0@.h v a u m ow.- S mmémnm oo.o-Woo.o~N 33¢ q mm.mmo mm.mmm :éNF NN.NN NH voédm m~.o~x: mHJN : ~9me ~ 2 2 «caspaszgweasswoswsscssmssmosmememento 1:309 m m _ a u m < 1300 >2: 4mm >3 cad 2Q< 62 2:82am 5:3: swm:um3< mxh .._o ozfizfiz mzh mm #4:: 22on «20> E “F 22.530 0... mmmzoammm .. —.m WEE. 212 .owcmnu o: 3 0.358 .w nomcmno m 3 ouofi 9:5 uoz .N. 33:0me 3 u: .mmocodgcn mud. «mod can u: .. no? :0 6:339: Ho mEoEOum of o» «Em 5. acoEufiEEoo Jcogo>~o>§ momuouum .. 033583: 3 omcmnu 05 n no? .m noocoaficm >3 m mommouum 09556 05 n no» 6 2.8309500 ma omega of .. no? .m 655.5 :m .«o flame?“ ovum or: madame»; «Engage cm Ou vomcmnu .. no? .N ”oco OMEovmom an o» camouamm Eggnog m Scum woman—U u no». A "mmHmODMHafiu cod mm cod o oo~ o~ cog so“ oo~ AN cod _w~ oofi em“ com oN fizz“ vm oo~ NN ooq fie oofi Nm oo~ am MN.» o NN.NN N l . oo.o~ d _o>.v d om.m u .po.o H VM.o~ m om.m m u . vw.o o oo.> v m¢.e N m do.m m n - oo.o~ ~ oo.0~ ~ I n i u wo.e g 00.0 N mm." a a u No.¢ m N@.fi H mv.o N h fiv.w h NN.NN m c u oo.o~ d Nm.@ N I 1 No.0 ~ o~.mu v om.m m v@.m~ m om.o v oo.w v No.0 m o mv.w h s a oo.oN N u u .Nm.® N -.- N No.0 m oo.o N oN.a m mm.v ~ .vm.¢ o N©.@ m mv.c N m Tag: my :.:~ ooddfi todm m - l 2.: N mmg: N «N.: m 315 «a ooé N 3a.: N. 09w v mag: m w ~o.m m u i u i u . ©>.v ~ .. . mm.m~ N .. . om.m m n n No4. m mw.m N NN.m u m Wmém 0N - n oo.omm oodmm ddem vvévw NN.NNm mm.~.Nw NN.NN 2 maimv S MN.cN A: oon S modev N AméN NN NN.NN m oo.o- 693“ Neg? 2 NN.NN m mmgg N vN.: m wvém : NN.NN @ MNéN A: mw.wN ma meN N. fl fi. m fl. m g. a fi. m g. m fi. w fl. m &. m .§ 2 fl. m §. m fi. m k. u” awn. A~ZD AH“ >3 Um3wm 30> on 213 Sm 20:52.8 5sz: no >zaomodza 3.51.59 < 959.5 SE: 2358 ~5o> 5 um 235mg 2. mumzommum . m.m 39: 000003502 0.43:“ .0 652—005 m0 «008.8300 05 .43 40:33.05 0:» m0 00080040560 0 can 003080.24 < .m 833005 53, 00300300 .3533 .v 50300300 .353: you an 0800 04:. .m ”005.300qu 039» n 00:03.2: 0:04.300 0 Jam? 00300300 Honmfi Hem um 0:23 05H. .N 303:0 «0 than 05 u: muwzmmOEam 0304.300 .0 cm 435.3 :0 m0 ”54.6th 2:. 4 003000940 2: mm 2: 4012:: S 2: 42:2 4: 2: m: 2: 2 2: «UN 2: vm 2: MN 2: 3 2: Nm 2: 2” 36; 2.204485: - - 3.4. 44 3.wa - - $.24. £5 m 2.2v 84w m S.» ¢ 2.2m c mo.~_o4-.-~ - - oo.o-. - - - - 8.2; 232*. :4; $6: 3.4:. 3.4; 8.2v m 34. m :4: - - 8.8m $6; - - $5 4 3.24. 3.... 4. 3a; 31w m 84. m 34. m 4. $4M 2 - - 8.80 8.0: 3.30 $.03 2a: EQNF ~m.o~4_$.2m omém 28.3 22.3w. m 3.23 - - oo.o- 8.24 2.me 3.5m - - X5: 8.3 22:” N mo.-3wm.m4w 493m N $13 3 2.2m 86: 8.8m Siw 3.220 8.210 3.34. mpgmflggmp omém 22.8 23.20 4 g. 44. 4.x. “$444.24. 44. 4.x. 44.. 4.4. 4.4.4..» 4.4. 430 45.09 .m m 0 0 m < 4400 >475 4mm .34 0,3 20< 214 .020: 5033903 «0 33m m 5 3 3 u: “Cowman um “~30 ea: 3 3 .h 50:28:32 cuvuumnu .0 .5 mw>3 m: 3.83 05 van vegans mo Sarcasm-03 m5 “Om 3533ch on”. .«o acuEQO~m>vv m cam comuoEoum < .m ”E3005 5“? coflmgfio nonwfim .v Eoflmasvo umnwmn yew mm 05.3 03H. .m Eofimucomuo 03m> 60.33%: 030530 a so“? ”:5 coflmuavu .8sz new ad macaw 038 .N “3350 mo than 05 .- ouvsmmoEu< uSonumU .m 5 can: mo $3935“ 05H .~ "mmfimoomfiwu 2: ”81:: .m we: .o: 2: S 2: N 2: $2. 2: .2 2: .722: «3 2: NNJS 3:2 332: S J 4 [w . + F » . fi 1 L «r r 5.27.: - m- .8.ON.N .85: 3.3% NN.NN; 2.2m 3.2; NN.NN N266 N NN.NNWm:m~.~N:.Hoo.N_¢ N. _ . H m . _ w. * M . M M l 36:32.2} wood: Sod: 22¢ d NN.Nva $5 : 3.2; :4; NN.NN... 3:. o .34; “2.2m o w . . _ F . . _ . . a _ . _ u _ . _ .H H 3.221363 _. - - ‘8de - - ”9...... w“ $.37. $.83 36 m NN.NNm 3:. o 71...“: ”2.3m m . . m u w w w . . 86 .m .M - h - - 392.: Nmé N u - - NN.NsN m: N :1. v 86 N 84. N 36 N 85 N w n ‘ . . a u _ ._ H $.26 _ - ,- ”8.8.; - - 2.2T. m - - ”$6 : 35:. 35 m 85 N 3.4:. 3.2» 36 N m _ . 1 h u . w m . {3.85.2.2: oo.oNN SodNMN 3.93 3.2:. . - .1 «N: m NN.NN 29.3. N “NNéN 22.: :26; N _ m _ u . todjmfiNNNNmN 8.0: WooéNN 2.8% 5.2m NN.NN vNim $12 2 NN.NNm $.22 8.2m. 35: H _ , w a , h m r.» 2.1.x. C .x. N gL gJLJHgbngJ .x. N.» N a. N a» N gl .x. N 30 35.09.? m m a u + m H < 1300ng gum >3 0.: » <34 :Eomodzm m2... mm 2. mmogmzou 20> ca .213 20:22.55 25. .5 20:61.58 5:3: 032.53 .5 ”e 22.530 2. mmmzommua u ¢.m gm: 215 $5523 5 23.—.533 5sz: 83:58 no m._mo~om£u van >£m0modna 030330 515 £33360 .8me mom mm QEMm on» 0.3 Emom «PH. .m .mucvdmoxm #3500235 .1. coflmusvm .8an: 2m new mm 05.3 ms... and admow 23. .v “Satanic: Gmdugufiv .m new wad Snow 03H. .m ”comumusvo voucomuo 0:1; m ma «H .N .mmmuoua MEN—dump: m mm a.“ “xHOBQEmum cmflmCSU no 33de a :33 55.5 Sm mo fiduusm on» mm 3 :mduouzgcm mum mumom ash. J ”mmHmOOMHfiu Ix: m9. 2: o _ 2: 4,2 2: Tim 2: a.” 2: M2,. 2: .2 2: 6m 2: i}; 2: ”NA 2: 3 2: Nm 2: S o~.~_ - u. .. - 8.2:.1- g-_ - 4-- - _- flimfl - -. - 423; H 84A - - . p M _ _ . _ H . u .. a _ 8.3 2 2.2" Wood: 3.37 ”3.21. “3.6 1 “2.23 $.S m «mg: 2 34 L 13.3 E 3.2 m mm.- N. M o . m w m ” . . _ 3.2 a 2.2" - - 8.22 . - _- 3.51.. .mm.2_~ cod N oo.- p 2:. ~ 3.: p “3.: e 34. m _ m _ w . . M 8.3.: :.:~ 86mm - .- @934. 2.25 MWSHN 222v >m.o~:$.2.m 3.22.2.3 23.2“. w u . . . U . w W n , N m _ _ 3.2 2 2;: oo.o- - H- .84. W. -.-T. 2.2: 3.3 m 3.3 m 86 WN M222 o 3.: o 2;: m . m. _ . . n W . .. _ . 3.3 - 3.3 m 8.3 m 8.8.? _¢~.E.m 3.33. 8.31 3.3. 2 $612 3.3.3 3.2 2 8.3 2 3.3 o m . _ . . . . , _ _ a w . _ _ a 8:: S - - 8.0: 8.2: a...» .UN _.:.:.~ 2.0.3. ¢ 2...» N 3.23 3.84. ”3:. .w 3.2 p 36 m : L L axe m a.» m .x. .m..» ml. on. WH.$%.« om. _.« flat.“ .5 whom. M Q: m K. H «MD 3,30 f m m a _ u m . < r .300. 22: 4mm w 33 BE 35¢. 216 ”xHOBNVEmum :mflmmusU mo 0:0:me M £53 53.3 2m «0 «Mania 0:» m“ i .cofimodv of umBmcm no: En— ”omoausm .No amow oficaoc OZ "mum Emow 9.: ans? Bocx No: muon— Cmvmofl oSocumU voom m5 .No 020530 voow 2: u- 00:952me cumflma m vusvoua 0» mm £25 0.3 mgmom mFH. 6mg; >mo~oofi cam >5Q0m02r—Q uSofimU £33 cofimuscv .353: 2m New mm 05.3 ms» was admow 03H. ”mucoZono 3303135 .3 cofimuznm .253: :m uOm mm 08mm 05 mum mamow NEH ”Emwcmeqi cmflmflnnu a new mum mdmow NEH. ”coflmuzvo vuucomuo 03m>m 3 NH NMfi‘mCl‘wO‘ ”m mvuoua wcfimanS udmsuumfioug mum mdmom MPH. J m: 2: RN 2: mm 2: "NN: o2 m2: :2 WNW 2: Mo Nmé T a - m- Nmé N - m- 86 Mm - _. £2; .2 :4: m “36 N :4: p 3.: N_ - - “3.2 : mNN.NN N “£51,: "3.3. m _ H “3.25“ - _- r P Si”. «KN: - m- :. 2 .o (5.0 T «r : is; 3.3135 N - __ . ; W_ “main d pm. GMT: v¢.m;m . . m 3.2} 2.23 2.2? N _ m w . ”NN.NN 2 2.23 3.3? $.2v 3.25 2 2 v 4»- -— fl.-._._,.+ V V” _ . n u [ N 4 . . ,.$ M. g 1 «DAVIS. L. a» ,N mfibeH m 1300“r >29. 4mm ”mmEoomafiv .3, 2: 3 2: in £5 3 MSNVM - - No6 _N mmma "N ”3. .o N ON.N m W25 N 3.0 N $.S_NNMNN.2N 8.2 N 3:. o “34; 36 N .36; 3.2? 092*. m3. 2 N. W36 Mm 3.2.0 W12 N W342? 8.3? Wm¢. N“ N rmm.m~_m “wo.o Wm Wg MN N. U. N. .N p >3 H. 92 , 2Q< mzozazmzm 039:5 m2: mo mmmoamsm oz< m._ o: 30: no zozmmzo op mmmzoammm m6 m._m<._. -_ .. .-. N- 217 . 32.—Gov uoz . m OZ . N no? . g "mHHm8QH275“ 4mm . N23 . um§u< E 598 E mm:~>:u< .5 um: .58”. m5. 5 wzmogzm oz< @2533:an 75:3sz m2; 2 4::on «so» 2“ ”<5 ”5:330 S. mmmzommmm .. 29 .32 E SE 29‘ . NzH mw~hu< mo ma>p H0v 359$ 333533960 2.8 330.8 mo uc0fiumnn00u .3303 033 Edonm "Shannon.“ 3.22300 @3058“. 3595 3303a 8:3 «03:00 u0ua0uw new 000: 4 “530.3 $53 2595 60630 03325525 .auum 3.39: no 0A 3252; awngmgm 30513006 02.3 03:0853 EoNNmuNNNcNEvm and 32:03 05 2.002509 82330355500 05 0Nm0u0a~ ”53:03.30 N83002: can >nmoNo~Em 05 QEM>0H 32.—cam unEaumoum 330520220 0.32.: 03.3 359$ 32080302.: 3238500 «Em >NSN£Ncomn0u 600232270 NSOON 300302: “3.3 05“ E. 30032.6 23330 0.32 3035:; 0:0 0.32 30653 .5350325 05 mo mcmusuosuunou van 2530395 3:83:00 .m~ .N: .m~ .N~ .: O‘O pg HNMV‘MOF” "mMHmOUnmhth 2253 wzH ”5(me oz< uN~m2b< mo NEE. .213 ”ms 225mg 0.— mmmzommmm n mm...“ #35. 220 mm 25 «232mm no mg... .213 "w 280.33 9... mmmzommmm u m.m 39: 0030000 05 003000 uoc BO .0 "030 m0 095 undaumuudm OZ .w 50.250 05 mo 0“: 33002005 05 00 0030330 .5 ”3003305 00 300030 E V0un0u0ucm .0 25358500 05 5 3050302: ammuom .m 30080302: agomuaumuuan .v “300030 w02000000 can 93:000..- 0um=vMumu0vcs 5 00000000”; .m Ewe—0:0 00 033000." can 00058-008 .N $53300 3:30:00 000 >00000m800 4 fiMafiOOHmeU ‘ . 4 . + 0 .02 cm" 00— mi 03 2 com :72: o0 03 mm o3 0N o3 Nm on: .2: com 3103 0: on: mm. 2: 3 ~N.m m u a .. .. .. .. om.~. m owN _ main d .. - ~90 m mm:v N SUN m o~.m m wN.m N o om.N # c - and a u u oo.m N u .. mv.m a N04 ~ mm.N m u . «$6 0 "NJ. v n a m Ehm o u .. - u oh.:N om.N~m Chm N .. .. mw.m N 2.0 h :.N d 5N.» m find. N. NN.m N N. . A 20.3 S and a ww.m _ ob.:N cod—v “3.20 0m.c~m 00;. v om.N_ 2 #9420 cog: : 3.6 m0 :.m~m o mm.m~ vN NN.NN¢ mm.MNv SKZN om.N~m 21:0 vN.:m MNAL A: “3.: a; NN.m~h 3.4.: E «5.: S 31:» m 20$ 3 :.:N me.:m AKUZN oo.m N hmé m cad N 00.25 2...» b 00.20 NN.NHN 3.6 0 CNN m w. _ . u had v~ 20$ 3 mad d wad u om.N~m :6 N cad N No.0 6 modwo 00.27» NNE m ~N.w. v aria: A: n . . No.0 2 No.0 mu “IUZN @FJTN oo.m N hmé m vméflm cm.m~> «$.th Nmé m 20.2 Na N¢.m w mw.:~. N N@.¢m vm Nodm vm ~v.mN m oN.mm o oo.om N~ oo.ov v~ mmév N" 2.6m A: vmémmwm $.Nm..m~ mv.mm 0m 0h.mm X” thm 0N ~ _ _ . r g 0 0. 0+...» 0 g. 0 0.1.0.: a. 0 .x. 0 g: o.» 0%.» 0 a. 0 a. 0:3 45.00. m M m 0 .. 0 fl 0 < L 1300 >35 4mm :4 0.: Zeal” ~m4m~ru< z~ 28.5555 mark “5 mammzmz no ouhummxm 221 uh<~maomma< z< mm 0h «unamzoo so» on N~hhummm>mza 2H w40¢ >h4=uwuogaav_mu o .m ”mpog m>vuau—=m:ou m .< "mocha Lmzuo mg» cw Nuwgo;u=m mewo— No use mumo> m m>oz vpaogm Nun» mumsmuaua mg» mw xp—aumy mg» mo upon gowns van Nguspsa on» .N mwpog m>puogmnwpou a .m “upog o>wuoup=mcou a .< "mango muss» ppm :N mcomm_umu ucm Nowpoa No :o_me=EgoN mg» :_ :oNamnwuwpgma N—aN m>az apaogm appsuuN ugh .p "mummowuNHz= gum ><4 u5; >532... mi. 38 ”.58. :23 nop 202.33 2. mmmzommmz u 97m 39:. .305” 3: v5 .5 “2a: 0.32 .o “30." ZNEn huo> < .m “30." 033m 0.38 m c.3253 matron» and >23. .v “ouch 03.203250 03¢ 38va0< 05 :0 .m .30." wcflvcoEEoumu van .3033; cm ESQ nooufiEEoo 315.3 vcm nfiucsou UMEovmu< 23. .N “30." mica—055000.: vcm wcfimgvm mcmuduuucw cm Panda 0360» 3153 0:8 4 umMHmOUHHHZD AHm W3 USN 2Q< 223 495.. 25 co cofiflzsguou o: 3 0.838 .m .5153 0:» mo comuum 2: nos mm :ofium 05 ”cu vacuum: was ~53 6315200 and >0£B :v .acmumflmcou Ho: 3 i so: mum >05 moESvEOm new 6333.50 0.3 >05 mmESoEom .M .20550 BEvaUNNmumcmm 05 .3593: «twain ~03: Eucoeuudmov 5 30.” mcflaaouocm cm magma can >038 .N .20550 UMEovaMNvumcvm ms» nmsounu «Yuma/a5 m~m>o~ “mucmfiuummwv 0:» 80am "voidmcou m>m3~m mm Nan—30.3 03H. 4 "mmHmoumeN4=u<2 Qz< zDADUH¢¢=u z: mu¢z<=u m< mamNNN420<2 mm< .>z< m: .pzmpxm NHmuzou 20> on 3o: ”NF zomhmmno 0N mmmzommmm u N—.m m4m2: 4mm N3 05: 29.. 225 .comunonv 05 .3335 No: ED .2 3% nova 0:0 mm sumou o» Eovoouh .N: 832539: of .No 30303 «sowmfiu 3: mo 95352:: 05 55?» Eovuoum oMEovMU< .: 6033.. UMEovmu< 932.30.:on cm mmnuMOucoU no :03 A: . “30¢ Paco 5 @02wa maven um um mac: an new :oScoNEou 333.392“ mo $5309 05 moamuo>o No: Nwov fl a.» mac: mm cownuuumwo mo Eovwvuh .o “oucmmumcoo Peso mo mwmumocdon v5 :33? Jae? 3 van 0.12:; o» 5234‘ .w ”NaoEoumum .nm.D.<.< of mm vuumnmuufi: tam @0300qu .N. Eunflmu mudgud a mm Eovoouh 73¢ .0355 find suave 3 Eovmouh ”339.33: .0 ”emusou on» .«0 35¢ 05 c333 some» on. Eovvmuh .m “Nuzqnwmcoqwon 5T5 nuumvmou .333 £33» OH. .w Madame???“ :33 vucvuvaou 9020 no mmWM oz» 5 noumomou .333 .333» 09 .m moQCmNWmEoo Paco mo mem 05 5 nuudomou 33:3 .5223 OH. .N 23?: .«o finansm fidumofi: van umoaon Ga». 4 "mNHmOUHH on 30: ”up 202.33 o... 3393: .. ~_..m WEE. “00> 233030.305 no: 6300009 0H 300200302“ 00¢ .00 00300.3 000 000 >05 .02 2:39.: 00.: 0:0 53003305 0002500 002.300 “0: $2033.30”? nu 00> 60300.2“ an . £05003 :00 >05 .3 005005 .N. ”800000.” 0.35 0>~£ 005.02 30330 new 30003 .00.». .m 230000350 000 >w0~005 cm «@0003 13030300.“ 00: a 00 003003 :00 0:0 .N 3330500 000mw20u mo 0.250950 0 5 13300302“ 00.5 m 00 003003 000 000 J < m< 23.52:“. 33.—cu 3.55.5 < 5 mommmmozm < 25 ~>._.:_o:._.=< 3894mm no map—bag...“ < 25:: 4585335 mum“. "mp 22.—hug ch mwmzommux n m—.m mans. "002000930 2: NN 2: o 22: 2 2: o: 2: :N 2: 2 2: N: 2: NN 2: «N 2: NN 2: 20%: NN 2: :N SN N NN.NNN oo.oNN - - A - - n0N.N _ NN.N:N NN.N:N SNN N NN.N:N ONN N «NA; NNS N 2. ENJ: - .. - - .. -.- - - -36: .- -mmé: .. -vo.~:~o.- - - 0 SN N - - oo.cNN oo.oNN {é _ $.2N - - NN.N: 2..» v SN N NN.N S NSN N SN N N No6 N - - 20.2: - - NN.N N A0N.N : SS : NN.N : 3.2. v .. - NN.N N SN v NN.N : v . 3N N - - - - _ - n W222. : NN.N: - - - - 2..N N - - NN.N N Na: : NN.N .: N No.N:SNN.NNN - - - - NN.N N NN.NNN ”NN.N:N 23 N $.EN S..N_N 2.4: $2: 3.N:¢ a 22S S NN.NNN 20.21. 8.3m T.: 23.3; 2.2; NSNN :SN.S NN 3.3 ENN.~.N NN NN.NN oN NN.NS oN _ 1M0.»0.2.Hgmwgurgugungmgmfiusmg“:0 .2300. .N m 0 H 0 M m < .300 >95 gum >3 05m 20¢. 227 95.. no .m.:.<.< 9:. o._. szmouu< zooummu qumo~. node Emowdmn mm.mmm 25.2. NN 36¢ em 0052*: «Kim vm No.3 hm vwéo gm N . _ _ om.m~ ~N-.- .. - oo.o- hmdmo _mm.mmc mm.mmm 322v wvém S mmémp mwdwvd mo.m~ Na moémo A . N .m 20.x. ON.N2.N..NNHN.NNNNNNNONNQNNONNON030 AHZD Amm >3 Umn 00: 0000 a: .07: .: ”mmHmOUMH<0 00: mm 00: 00: 0: 00: 0: 00: :N 00: 0:. 00: m: 00: 0M: 00: 00 00: mm 00: :0 00: ~m 00: :m 0~.: : .. . ... - .. 00.0 : n .. .. .. .. - 00.: : .. .. 00.: : - n m~.m : v m~.m: :: .. u .. 00.0: : :0.m~ m 00.0: m mm.m: N 00.0. : N00: 0: 00.0 N 3.4.: 0 3.0: 0 00.0 N m 00.: N: 00.00 00.0: : .. - 3.0 ~ 00.0: m a . v:.v~ h 0~.0 m v0.2 m 2.410 0v.m: h 2.0: m N 00.: 00 mm.mm 00.000 00.000 00.:0m: 00.00 N: 00.00:”: :v.-. :m 5.0:. mm “QC. 0: 00.00 N0 m~.00 0:... 0:41. MN : g. N g. . g. N g. 0 g. N g. : N. 0 0. N 0. N 0. N g. N g. 0 g. 0 “any 4.4.808 .m . m Q U m < 4400 >HZD 4Hm W04 US": 20¢. «03:05:03 um 0.50.35 20:35.52: 0:05.40 «98:32:02: 0303.50-32 .z: m< 20031.... 3598:: >030 0h mxommmuoaa m0... 530 z: 0.5:. m>m3mm 00> 00 "N: zo::NN:o o: NNNzoNNNx - N:.N N:N<: 229 0050000 00» 003000 000 0:0: . 0 “00000000 «00 0: fi .07: .0 "3000: «00 0000 .0 ”0:00:30 000 0000000000 00000 «H .0 “000000000 3000300 0 00 00000.0 .0 33000000: 000 00.00 0000000 3 .0 “030000 00. 0:000 .N “0000:0000 00 fi .00» .: "mm:mOUNH~ZD 4mm >44 04.0 2Q< 00:08:? 302 00¢ 2000000 0:20:20< 0.200200 0... 0293500 0:... 0<=0 05:00 :00 00 ”op 202.0000 00 000200000 u 0:.0 0005. Ir TABLE 5.17 - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES CONCERNING 230 CATHOLIC PROBLEMS IN GENERAL % of Tota1 Rank of Prob1ems EEEHEEDEX. Responses Freguencx 1. Contro1 42 13.3 3 2. Administration 26 8.9 5 3. Financia1 73 23.2 1 4. Purpose and goa1s 59 18.7 2 5. CurricuTum 19 6.03 7 6. Students 27 8.57 6 7. Academic freedom 17 5.39 8 8. Facu1ty 31 9.84 4 9. P1anning 19 6.03 7 TABLE 5.18 - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES CONCERNING INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS IN GENERAL % of Tota1 Rank of Prob1ems Freguencz Responses Freguencx 1. Same as nationa1 prob1ems 36 16.20 2 2. Contro1 12 5.09 9 3. Administration 26 12.03 3 4. Facu1ty 16 7.40 8 5. Goa1s and purposes 19 8.79 6 6. Curricu1um 17 7.87 7 7. Students 24 11.11 4 8. Academic freedom 4 1.85 10 9. Financia1 40 18.51 1 10. P1anning 22 10.13 5 TABLE 5.19 - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES CONCERNING 231 INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS BY INSTITUTIONS Prob1ems 1. Same as nationa1 prob1ems 2. Contro1 3. Administration 4. Facu1ty 5. Goa1s and purpose 6. Curricu1um 7. Students 8. Academic freedom 9. Financia1 10. P1anning Tota1 responses Number of respondents Possib1e tota1 of responses Frequency in Institutions 15 60 B 13 .b ml» 18 122 C 10 3 #03 21 64 D 10 40 E 10 40 36 Tota1 36 12 26 16 19 17 24 40 22 216 332 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study is an attempt to provide empirica1 data on the phenomenon of conf1ict within Catho1ic higher education. There has been some evidence in the professiona1 and popu1ar press that con- f1ict exists over four prob1em areas: 1. 'The phi10$ophy of Catho1ic higher education; 2. Institutiona1 goa1s and purposes; 3. The 1ocus of decision-making and governance; 4. The definition and interpretation of academic freedom. In genera1, this conf1ict is not new. It is one of change between the' new and the on--the traditiona1 and the 1ibera1, between the sacred and the secu1ar. The purpose of this study, in genera1, was to iden- tify this conf1ict that change has brought into CathoIic higher edu- cationa1 structures. The Specific purpose, then, of this study has been to attempt to provide some empirica1, qua1itative data drawn from three Catho1ic universities and three 1ibera1 arts co11eges on the phenomenon of con- f1ict within the organization structure of CathoTic higher education. This thesis tried to identify and measure this conf1ict by the degree of consensus within four major institutiona1 areas--the phi1050phy, goa1s and objectives, 1oci of decision-making and, fina11y, the defi- nition and interpretation of academic freedom, as perceived and repre- 232 233 sented by the 1eadership of the administration and the facu1ty. The conf1ict theory used here was 1arge1y based on the work of George Simme1, Louis Coser, and Louis R. Pondy. Conf1ict as used in this study is a1so used by the above authors as a way of describing antecedent conditions to overt or manifest conf1ict. This wou1d refer to the scarcity of resources, po1icy differences and differences in phi1osophy. Theory a1so sug- gests that conf1ict within any organization can be best understood as a dynamic process. This process may be ana1yzed as a sequence of conf1ict episodes. Every episode has five states: 1. .Latent conf1ict, which are the conditions which 1ead to conf1ict; 2. Perceived conf1ict, which is the cognition of those conditions and conf1ict itse1f; 3. Fe1t conf1ict, which is the affective part of conf1ict; 4. Manifest conf1ict, which entai1s behavior; 5. Conf1ict aftermath, which sets up the conditions for further conf1ict—~1atent conf1ict. The study was 1imited to an ana1ysis of 1atent and perceived con- f1ict in Catho1ic higher education (the first three stages). Whi1e conf1ict itse1f is not necessari1y good or bad, this study emphasizes with Coser that conf1ict may be functiona1 rather than dysfunctiona1 in that it may generate pressures which u1timate1y reduce conf1ict. Another 1imitation of this study is that it confines its investiga- tion to an ana1ysis of in-groups conf1icts. Two of Coser's hypotheses that he1ped to set the direction of this study are: 234 Interna1 and socia1 conf1icts, which concern goa1s, va1ues or interests that do not contradict the basic assumptions upon which the re1ationship is founded tend to be posi- tive1y functiona1 for the socia1 structure. Such conf1icts tend to make possib1e the re—adjustment of norms and power re1ationships within an in—group in accordance with fe1t needs of its individua1 members and sub-groups; and Interna1 conf1icts in which the contending parties no 1onger share the basic va1ues upon which the 1egitimacy of the socia1 system rests threaten to disrupt the struc- ture. The identification and measurement of this conf1ict was by exp1oring the degree of consensus or a 1ack of consensus within the administra- tion and facu1ty which comprised the 1eaders of inf1uence over the four issues. 'The methodo1ogy rested upon certain fundamenta1 propositions in perceptua1 theory. This theory ho1ds that human behavior is a function of perception, and that the perceiver acts in a manner which is consis- tent with his perception. Therefore, our inquiry assumed that: 1. 2. A university is what it is perceived to be by its members; Administration and facu1ty behave consistent1y with their perceptions of the university; Behavior changes when members perceive a need for a change and fee1 a wi11ingness to initiate or accept changes; The e1ements of a member's perception of the institution are: a) a perception of what an institution was in the past; b) a perception of what an institution is as it present1y exists; ' c) a perception of an institution as it shou1d exist idea11y. The samp1e was purposive, 1imited to six institutions in the Midd1e At1antic Association of Secondary Schoo1s and Co11eges, con- sisting of three universities and three co11eges which might be con- sidered representative. The samp1e of respondents was se1ected through a sociometric device for nominating 1eaders of inf1uence. The tota1 samp1e of interviewees consisted of eighty-three members: thirty-two administrators and fifty-one facu1ty members. The instrument used in this study was an interview schedu1e designed to determine the 1eaders' perceptions of the four issues: the phi10$ophy of Catho1ic higher education, institutiona1 goa15 and purposes, the 1ocus of decision-making and governance, and academic freedom. The information gathered from the interview schedu1e pro- vided a basis for the qua1itative ana1ysis of the six institutions and the CathoIic system as a who1e. The interpretation of the resu1ts is based on the notion that where consensus or agreement are found there is at present 1itt1e 1atent conf1ict. 0n the other hand, the 1ack of agreement wou1d be evidence of 1atent or perceived conf1ict. Study Findings The five genera1 findings of this study are: 1. Any conf1ict found within the 1eadership of inf1uence did not destroy the basic assumptions upon which Catho1ic education rests, name1y, that the church has a right to be invo1ved in the business of higher education. In other 236 words, most fe1t that there was a definite p1ace for Catho1ic higher education and as Tong as there were ade- quate resources avai1ab1e to support it, it shou1d remain. Whi1e eighty-nine percent of the respondents be- 1ieved that the phi1osophy of Catho1ic higher education is changing, there was not unanimity as to the nature of the change. The two major perceptions among the total responses as to the nature of the change is the transition from "a pastora1 approach to an academic one"; and a change to an ”emphasis which stresses the free pursuit of truth." The majority of the popu1ation (58%) perceived this as being the nature of the change. Nineteen percent saw the change either as humanistic, which stresses invoTvement, commit- ment in and to the prob1ems of mankind, or it stresses the 1ay inf1uence as the nature of the change. This 1atter grouping of the categories tended more toward the secu1ar- 1ibera1 sca1e of direction in consensus. (See page 130.) The majority of the respondents presented the idea1 phi1o- sophy for Catho1ic higher education as a va1ue-oriented education. It is in this that it wou1d be distinguished from pub1ic and non-church-re1ated education. There was a strong consensus(85.5%) that Catho1ic higher education shou1d not be secu1arized as 1ong as it cou1d be supported financia11y. The 1eadership of inf1uence within the administration and within the facu1ty has different perceptions concerning the phi10$ophy of Catho1ic higher education. As has been pointed 237 out above, 89% of the respondents be1ieved that there was a change in the phi1osophy. There was 1itt1e consensus as to the nature of the change. The administration-facu1ty dichotomy did not present an extreme 1atent or perceived conf1ict pattern in their perception of the change. Both groups are equa11y divided over the nature of the change. 'when their responses are put on the sca1e of direction in consensus, 12% of the administrative 1eaders as compared to 10% of the facu1ty sti11 perceive the phi1050phy in the sacred-traditiona1 manner, the pattern-maintenance concept. Seventy-four percent of the administrative 1eaders and eighty percent of the facu1ty 1eaders present the moderate position, the midd1e of the sca1e. The predominate per- ception in this position was the change from the "pastora1- denominationaT approach to the academic atmosphere"; whi1e other more specifica11y speak of the "free pursuit of a11 truth." Fina11y, 13% of the administrators as compared to 12% of the facu1ty perceive the phi10$ophy as a change to the secu1ar-1ibera1 approach, the same as for a11 higher education. Latent conf1ict was be1ieved to be present among the sub-groups of the administration and sub—groups of the facu1ty. There were definite differences between the 1ay 1eaders and the re1igious 1eaders concerning the nature of the change. On1y 58% of the 1ay facu1ty see the change as mentioned above, “in the pursuit of a11 truth" and "the change to the academic one from a pastora1 one"; whi1e 72.5% 238 of the re1igious see the change in this area. The other significant area of change was in the category, “it has Tost its uniqueness; it is secu1ar.” Fourteen percent of the re1igious perceive this as happening whi1e on1y seven percent of the 1ay facu1ty perceive it this way. The 1eadership of inf1uence within the administration and the facu1ty have significantiy different perceptions as to the goa15 and purposes of the organization. In this study it was found that CathoTic institutions of higher 1earning rea11y do not have a c1ear-cut idea of what the goa1s are. ' It is aTSo true that because of the ambiguity of the goa1$ the 1eadership is not sure of the type of activities that shou1d be emphasized nor the type of behavior that the facu1ty must exert commensurate with the institutiona1 goa1s. A good examp1e of this ambiguity concerning the activities that shou1d be offered is whether theoTogy or phi1050phy shou1d be a required course or courses or simp1y e1ectives. There is conf1ict among the 1eadership concerning the em- phasis of this type of activity. The greatest number of the pOpu1ation, 40%, perceived the goa1s as either promoting Christian humanism or a va1ue- oriented education but not within any type of denominationa1 framework. Eighteen percent of the popu1ation a1so advocated the goa1s as being the same as for a11 higher education; therefore, 58% of the 1eadership tended toward the secu1ar- 1ibera1 side of the sca1e of direction in consensus. Eighteen percent sti11 persisted in advocating a pattern-maintenance 239 type of education. Fina11y, 23% of the tota1 responses favored the ”pursuit of a11 truth within a Cath01ic frame- work.“ Among the sub-groups, the re1igious showed a sur- prising secu1ar-1ibera1 bent with 68% of the re1igious responding as perceiving the goa1$ as Christian humanism, va1ue-orientation and as the same as for a11 higher educa- tion. This is compared to 55% of the 1ay 1eaders. One may infer 1atent conf1ict between universities and coTTeges. Fifty-one percent of the co11ege 1eaders perceive the goa1$ as for Christian humanism and va1ue- oriented education. 0n1y 14% of the coT1ege 1eaders per- ceive this as for the "pursuit of a11 truth within a Catho1ic framework.“ This is compared to 34% and 28%, respectiveTy, of the university 1eaders. It wou1d seem that on1y the reTigious and the c011ege personne1 had any type of firm consensus concerning the goals of Catho1ic higher education in genera1 and on an institu- tiona1 1eve1. There was a1so strong consensus among these groups that the institution shou1d incu1cate socia1 aware- ness, responsibi1ity and community invo1vement. There was 1itt1e agreement outside the areas of schoTarship and pro- fessiona1 competence, in regard to the type of behavior which wou1d be expected of the facu1ty commensurate with the goa1s of CathoTic higher education. On the whoTe, the goa1$ appear disparate, amorphous, and ambiguous. Often they are contra— dictory or in conf1ict. There wou1d appear to be a dire need 240 for a c1ear definition of the goa1s and purposes in Catho1ic institutions. These goa1s must be spe11ed out in operationa] terms so that they wi11 have a definite effect upon the activ- ities of the institution and the ro1e and behavior of the facu1ty members. The 1eadership of inf1uence among the administration and among the facu1ty tend to agree on the Tocus of decision- making and governance in the institutions, present1y and idea11y. One of the most dramatic findings of this study is the marked consensus suggesting that the Catho1ic system of higher education is moving from an authoritative- benevo1ent pattern in decision-making to a consultatory system. In the academic area of curricu1um and facu1ty poTicy, the roTe of the facu1ty is universa11y seen as de1iberative. The seeds of 1atent conf1ict are present in the attitudes concerning whether the facu1ty shou1d have a consu1tative or de1iberative ro1e in the non-academic and administrative area. This study found that, at the present time, most of the CathoTic institutions are practic- ing a consu1tative system in decision-making. However, not a11 of this consu1ting takes p1ace within a group framework. Some of it is done on a ”man-to-man" basis framework. Many of the administrators in practice on1y partia11y support group action. This is changing and in the next two or three years the facu1ty wi11 probabTy enjoy fu11 participation and possib1y a de1iberative roTe, if they wi11 accept the respon- sibi1ity for decision-making. Whi1e the 1eaders of inf1uence 241 among the administration and among the facu1ty tend to share the same perceptions of the Tocus of decision-making and governance in the institutions present1y and idea11y, if any conf1ict emerges, it wi11 come in the area of de1iberative decision-making by the facu1ty about non-academic and admin- istrative affairs. As yet, the administration and faculty and the re1igious-1ay groups do not share the same perceptions concerning this roIe. The 1eadership of inf1uence among the administration and the 1eadership of inf1uence among the facu1ty define and interpret academic freedom in the same ways. They perceive it as ”the right to teach, to write, to research in the areas of one's competence.“ The majority also fe1t that they cou1d function as free professiona1s within a structure of re1i- gious authority. In fact, eight percent of the popu1ation perceive that they cou1d practice as free professionaTS, with or without qua1ifications. They fe1t that academic freedom was practiced in their institutions and that present provisions for maintaining academic freedom were sufficient, a1though a11 wou1d readi1y admit that they rea11y have not been tested or tried. There was a1most tota1 consensus that Catho1ic institutions need not be secu1arized in order for academic freedom to exist, as in non-Catho1ic institutions. This study aiso c1ear1y demonstrated that there is 1atent conf1ict arising with extra-academic circ1es; name1y, the institutiona1 church. The institutiona1 church can no 1onger 1ook upon itse1f as a guardian of CathoTic higher education. 242 Its autonomy and freedom must be maintained. Some conc1usions: 1. There is some conf1ict found between the institutiona1 church and Catho1ic higher education as a system. This is based upon the perception of the 1eaders as they view the dioceses and re1igious orders that try to contro1 these institutions. The conf1ict found between the institutiona1 church and CathoTic higher education as a system is not necessariTy disruptive but hons the potentiaT for being positive1y functionaT. It appears probabTe, a1though this is a sub- jective response to the tota1 mass of data, that both institutions are in the process of re-assessment of their positions and in re-evaTuating or redefining their goa15. The cruciaT breach that might have spe11ed manifest con- f1ict seems to have been averted. Most personne1 inter- viewed feTt that the church can no Ionger Took upon the universities and coTTeges as extensions of the teaching arm of the church. The church must respect their autonomy and their freedom in the pursuit of the truth. The univer- sities and c011eges on the other hand must determine what their goa15 and purposes are and assert them. There is 1atent conf1ict within the 1eadership of the admin- istration and within the 1eadership of the facu1ty over the identification of a phi1050phy of higher education. A11 agree that it has changed and that a new pattern is emerging. 243 4. There is conflict over the identification of goals and purposes within the leadership of the administration and the faculty. Among the college and religious work group there seems to be a pattern of social and community ser- vice and involvement emerging. 5. There is no conflict over the locus of decision-making and governance in relationship to academic affairs among the leadership of the administration and the faculty. There is, however disagreement among the administration and the faculty concerning deliberative decision-making conCerning non-academic and administrative affairs. 6. All agree that the Catholic system is in transition from an authoritarian-benevolent system to a consultatory- participative system. Seeds of unrest are present con- cerning the use or value of a deliberative-participative system. 7. 0n the whole, there is no significant conflict over the definition and interpretation of academic freedom. How- ever, all recognize conflict in regards to the freedom of theology and phi1050phy within the institutional church, extra-academic circles. Implicationsfof Conflict Theory for Catholic Higher Education It has been suggested that every organization must be capable 1 An organization is not only a distri— of satisfying personal goals. bution of power, capacities and rights designed to promote an official system_of goals and values, but also a means of achieving personal n 244 goals. It is also true that the ability of an organization to satisfy personal needs and motives of all its participants is com- promised by the existence of hierarchically ordered roles. These hierarchical roles are best exemplified in the authoritarian- benevolent pattern. within this pattern, the opportunities for job satisfaction other than the exercise of authority may be particularly scarce; the full exercise of hierarchical rights results in auto- cratic rule, In this type of a situation, the superiors have the right to monopolize official communications; this can be damaging to personal satisfactions or goals. As can be expected, any denial of pertinent information to participants within an organization prevents a cognitive structuring of events and this results in emotionalism, lack of direction, alienation, and, finally, conflict. A subordinate denied information is prevented from seeing the relationship between his immediate activities and the larger group objectives and therefore does not have the satisfaction of knowing he is a part of a larger, important cooperative effort. Conflict arises because of differing perceptions of reality concerning the goals of the institution and personal needs among persons within an organization. This is especially true among Specialists who are subordinates and those who are in hierarchical roles and who represent the authoritarian-benevolent pattern. There is no interdependence among the participants of the organization. The adequacy of any prob1em-solving or conf1ict-resolution depends upon a system of adequate communication, participative action, and coordination. Problem-solving and conf1ict—resolution is not an individual action but rather a group action. 245 One of the concerns of this study was to assess conflicts as functional and unifying in Catholic higher education.‘ Unified activity must be built around shared goals. However, personalities function from a systemic point of view, meeting the goals of the organization and from a personal point of view meeting their own needs. When perception within an organization of group and individual goals differ, conflict may emerge. Coser has suggested that conflicts may be pro- ductive in two related ways: 1) they lead to the modification and the creation of law; 2) the application of new rules leads to the growth of new institutional structures centering on the enforcement of these new rules and laws. Simmel has also suggested a third unifying function of conflict, which is that conflict brings into the conscious awareness of the parties and the organization at large norms and rules that were dormant or latent before the particular conflict.2 Conflict then becomes a mechanism through which adjust- ment to new conditions can be brought about. A flexible society benefits from conflict behavior in as much as this behavior, through the creation and modification of norms, assures its continuance under changed conditions. A rigid system, on the other hand, as manifested by the above hierarchical, or authoritarian-benevolent system, by not permitting conflicts, wi11 impede needed adjustments and maximize the danger of catastrOphic breakdown. Conflict acts as a stimulus for establishing new rules, norms and institutions, thus serving as an agent of socialization for the contending parties. Furthermore, con— flict reaffirms latent or dormant norms and thus intensifies partici- pation in social life. As a stimulus for the creation and the modifi- cation of norms, values, conflict makes the readjustment of relation- 246 ships to changed conditions possible. It is within this atmOSphere that conflict in Catholic higher education is functional and unifying. As can be seen from this study, there are diversity of perceptions concerning the four issues which were thought to be all important as seeds of conflict. There is no doubt that they were at one time or another. This was exemplified by the Donovan Study in 1964. It is also true that because there was this diversity of perceptions, conflict was engendered and change was gradually brought about. While this change certainly is not as yet dramatic in regard to the philosophy and goals both for the en- tire system of Catholic higher education and in these particular in- stitutions, there are, however, directional patterns emerging and being defined. There is no doubt from the data that new patterns have emerged in regard to the locus of decision-making and academic freedom. It was also shown, however, that conflict is arising be- tween the extra-academic institutions and the exercise of freedom in certain areas and already this is leading to a redefinition as exemplified by the "Land O'Lakes” conference last summer. Future Trends Towards SeculariZation Significant changes are emerging in Catholic higher education. One of them is the changing values of the leaders, especially reli- gious leaders, in Catholic higher education. In this study, their values seem to be polarized around two positions: the social action Christian position and the traditional inward view of the church's function. These two positions have been previously termed as the liberal-secular position versus the sacred-traditional position. 247 Concomitant with this, is another type of polarity: self-interest versus community or institutional interest. We find individuals in our universities and colleges who are concerned more with market value orientation which fundamentally serves self-interest as opposed to the values or goals of the organization within which they function. Parsons has recognized this pattern variable as self versus collec- tivity. It is also engendered in the notions of the cosmopolites versus localites orientation suggested by Merton and Gouldner among others. These are the individuals who are primarily concerned with their own careers, with success, upward mobility, rewards which are both monetary and prestigious. Unfortunately, this typifies many of the academic men of today in the same way as it typifies "manage— ment personnel“ in private industry and in government. This orien- tation, when held by an individual or an administrator who is guiding the policies of an institution,may lead to an overemphasis upon the 1 success symbols: growth of the institution, grants, and other sym- bols of market success. This is a source of conflict growing in all of higher education, and Catholic education is not immune from it. The leader today seems forced to adopt the market mental- ity for sheer survival of his organization. As a result, he sees the separation of economic, political and religious viewpoints in order to survive. The leader continues to slide toward a market polarity because this is the most pressing need at this time. This seems to be the present position of Catholic higher education. Its greatest concern is for survival; and, in fact, survival at any cost. It is willing to change through its leaders, its philosophy and goals, and even to secularize in order to meet the market values. 248 Related to this, but somewhat different, is the type of con- flict emerging today concerning the sacred-traditional inward view of the church's functions and the new ”social action Christianity.” In this study, there was shown a cleavage within Catholic higher education as a system and in the individual institutions along these dimensions. These differences are held within all the ranks, the religious as well as the lay, the administrators, as well as the faculty. The following fourfold diagram typifies this cleavage. . sacred—traditional versus secular-liberal Interest and traditional action-oriented Goals self A B goals C D The type of person in the “A” square is one that can be typified as for self interest within the traditional organization. He looks upon the organization as a ”safe place" within which to satisfy the self. He is tied to the traditional functions and is not identified with the community-oriented Christianity. The person who would have a place in the ”8” square is one who is interested in the self rather than the institution. He is not interested in maintaining the organization but uses it for his personal needs. He is the type of person who is professionally oriented, a cosmopolitan in Merton terms. The third type of person can be found in the “C” square. He is for pattern-maintenance and not for individual needs or goals 249 but for the betterment of the community as he sees it. He subor- dinates himself to the church and believes in maintaining traditional relationships and structures. The type in “D” square is one who is oriented to the fundamen- tal Christian values and feels that these are crucially related to life in the broader community. He subordinates self to the realiza- tion of these goals. However, he differs from “C” in that he sees the traditional structure as incompatible with the realization of Christian values in the contemporary world. Types ”8” and “D” have often, and erroneously, been grouped together as the “new breed," in that both have threatened the exist- ing institutional structure. But their values are poles apart and for the administration to lump.these together completely obfuscates the meaningfulness of the current “revolt", for the goals are dif- ferent. This new breed can be of two kinds: it may be selfish, self-Seeking professional who is primarily interested in personal achievements, satisfactions and success. He would be the most secu- lar and be market oriented. This would be the "B" type. The new breed may also be the “D" type who struggles to change or modify the organization. He is devoted to Christian values, and subordinates the self to the community. He also seeks change but the organization is conceived as a significant entity. This type is likely to be the most militant or active member and, I might say, the most successful in bringing about change. He believes that the organization must change to meet the goals of action-oriented Christianity. 250 In this study, all four types emerged. Our samp1e respon- dents may be classified in the above manner according to how they perceived the goals of the institution of Catholic higher educa- tion either as a system or as individual institutions, and how they perceived their own roles. As they perceive the institutions and the relationship of themselves to them, so they try to maintain or change these institutions according to their perceptions through their influence and by their actions. If we use the responses con- cerning the perceptions of the goals of Catholic higher education in general and self-orientation, the following proportions seem to emerge. sacred-traditional versus secular-liberal traditional action-oriented Self-goals A (5%) B (18%) Institutional C (37%) D (40%) Goals 42% 58% Very few were found in the ”A” type. These wanted the organization only for selfish reasons. It was a haven and a safe place for them. Only 5% of the pOpulation were placed in this category. Their goals and interest in Catholic higher education was to produce Catholic leaders. The Catholic institution was the place that was looked upon as preserving and strengthening the Catholic faith. 251 Eighteen percent of the individuals interviewed could be classified in the “B” type. These are the people that found the Church as too restrictive and believed with Jaculine Grennan and Rosemary Lauer that all Catholic higher education should be secu— larized. They are also very much interested in the self and the various types of rewards. In the "C" type square, we find 37% of the population interviewed. This type is interested in the broader community but wants to work within a denominational framework. This type insists that one of the important goals of Catholic higher educa- tion is to have Catholic theology and philOSOphy as required courses. This type is not willing for a complete change but seeks rather to modify and to adapt circumstances to the situation. Forty percent of the individuals interviewed can be classi- fied as type ”D”. These are community action-oriented. They see the goals of all church-related education as va1ue-oriented but with very loose ties to a denominational framework. The surpris- ing fact that emerged in this study was that most of the religious could be found in this category. V The above seems to be the present position of Catholic higher education. It seems that its greatest concern is for survival; and some think, survival at any cost. If, however, we interpret the attitudes and perceptions of the persons who fall into the "D" type correctly, we can see a shift of focus from a specific and rigid structure which is represented by the pattern-maintenance concept to the survival of Christian values which they feel are not being realized today in a dynamic community or in an action-oriented 252 Christianity. There is an erroneous opinion that the Cloister has become too secularized. The people in the ”D“ type see the cloister as not being secularized but moving into the secular world. Has this not been a tradition with Christianity? St. Ignatius, St. Vincent de Paul and many of the other bright lights of the church were looked upon as the “new breed” of type ”D” in their day. In other words, they were in conflict with the traditional mentality of their day. Catholic higher education must be willing to change through its leaders, its philosophy, goals and, in general, to meet the demands of the future. This means to a degree secularization in order to meet the new action—oriented Christianity. However, this does not mean that it will be completely secularized unless it is forced to meet the market values. If this happens, then pluralism in the American higher education will be lost. This seems to be the future trend of Catholic higher education. 253 Citations—-Chapter VI Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organizations (New York: Alfred A.Knopf, 1961), pp. 92-93. Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), pp. 126-128. The theory presented in this section is based on the organi- zational models for different institutional contexts cur- rently being develOped by Dr. Sigmund Nosow at Michigan State University. APPENDIX 254 l l '1‘ ll: (’It I . 255 INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (Please read this before you begin) Answer each question, unless you are Specifically instructed that a given question does not apply to you. When answering questions with a limited number of alternatives. please choose the statement which comes closest to describing your situation, even if it does not seem to fit precisely. We know that some of the questions may not be completely ap- plicable to every one of the faculty members. Please note that for some questions you are asked to write in the information (open ended) and for others you are asked to circle a number. For the Open ended questions, the back of the page may be used for additional writing space. If you experience any difficulty with any question, please ask the interviewer to clarify it for you. Except for the interviewer and the typist, your answers will not be read or heard by anyone. The confidential nature of the interview and your personal anonymity are guaranteed. We know that you will be as candid and complete as possible in your answers in order that the study may have a high degree of validity. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP Fr. Frederick R. Clark, C.S.Sp. Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan I‘ 1 II All. ’I.‘ (lull 256 Demographic Information: (please print all information) Name What is your age? Please circle one: 1. 20 - 29 2. 3O - 39 3. 40 - 49 4. 50 - 59 5. 60 - 69 70 and over What is your sex? Please circle one: 1. Male 2. Female How many years have you been employed in institutions of higher learning? No. of years How many years have you been employed in Catholic institutions of higher learning? No. of years In how many Catholic institutions of higher learning have you been employed? No. of institutions How many years have you been employed in this institution? No. of years In what school and department are you a member? School Department Are you a lay or clerical member of the administration, faculty or staff? Please circle one: l. Lay 2. Clerical 257 10. LAY FACULTY ONLY: What is your religion? Please circle one: 1. Catholic 2. Protestant 3. Jewish 4. Other Please specify 11. What is your present position/rank at the University? Please circle one: 1. Administration with professorial rank 2. Administration without profes- sorial rank 3. Full professor 4. Associate professor 5. Assistant professor 6. Instructor 12. How long have you been in your present position/rank? No. of years 13. What is the highest earned academic degree you hold? Please circle one: 1. Doctorate 2. Masters/licentiate 3. Bachelors 4. Other please Specify 14. 15. 16. 258 Approximately how are your professional activities divided over a period of a year? 1. #UJN (please compute by tenths, 5/10, 9/10 etc.) Administration Preparation for teaching Teaching Research and writing Consultation Other pTease Specify Of the problems facing Catholic higher education at the present time, what do you believe to be the four leading ones? 1. boom Taking into consideration the amount of time you have been a member of this University, what do you believe to be the four major problems of this University as a Catholic institution? 1. ROOM 17. 259 Among the present Administration and Faculty which eight persons, lay or clerical, do you consider to be the overall leaders, whether or not these people hold positions of leadership within the University? 1. 2. 3. 260 II Attitudes and Opinions on Issues: A) Catholic PhilOSOphy of Higher Education: 1. In your opinion, what is the meaning of the adjective "Catholic“ as a qualifier of the phrase, higher education? 2. Do you believe that the philOSOphy of Catholic higher education is changing? If so, what is the nature of the change in philOSOphy? 261 3. In your Opinion what should a Catholic philosophy of higher education be? 4. What do you consider to be the philosophy of Catholic higher education at this institution? 262 8) Institutional Purposes and Goals: 5. What are the purposes and goals of Catholic higher education in general? 6. How do you perceive the goals and purposes of this Catholic instituion? 263 7. In your opinion, is this institution emphasizing and engaging in the right type of activities in order to achieve these goals? What type of activities should it emphasize and engage in? 8. What type of behavior can be expected of members of this insti- tution in achieving these goals? 264 C) The Locus of the Decision-Making Process: 9. What do you consider to be an apprOpriate faculty role in University decision-making? With respect to academic, non- academic and administrative affairs? 10. What role does the faculty play in the decision-making process in this institution? 265 11. To what extent, if any, are faculty members consulted on such matters as changes in curriculum and faculty policies, etc.? What would the appropriate procedure be? 266 0) Academic Freedom: 12. How do you conceive and interpret academic freedom? 13. Can a professor in a Catholic college function as a free professional within a structure of religious authority? 267 14. Is Academic Freedom according to the A.A.U.P. of 1940 ful- filled in this institution? To what degree? (high, low, etc.) 15. Do you believe that in order for professors to enjoy academic freedom as in non-Catholic institutions, Catholic institutions should be secu1arized? 16. Do you believe that the provisions to generate academic freedom are now adequate? BIBLIOGRAPHY 268 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, S. J., Walter M. (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Guild Press, 1966. Albrook, Robert C. "Participative Management: Time for a Second Look," Fortune, Vol. LXXV, No. 5 (May, 1967). Anderson, Robert C. "A Method and Instrument for Predicting the Consequences of Intra-Organizational Action." An Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963. Anderson, Robert C. "A Technique for Predicting Intra-Organiza- tional Action," Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Project No. 732, 1966. Anderson, Robert C., Mulvihill, Francis X., and Schwartz, Jack. An Analysis of Interorganization Interaction Patterns. AFPaper Prepared for the Sociology SectiOn Meetings of of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1966. Backstrom, Charles H. and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research. -Chicago, 111.: Northwestern University Press,’l963. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964. Bartley, Harvard 3. Principles of Perceptions. New York: Harper Brothers, 1958. Barton, Allen H. Organizational Measurement and Its Bearing On The Study of College Environments. New York: college Entrance Examination Board, 1961. Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952. Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and'World, Inc., 1964. Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy In Modern Society, New York: Random House, 1956. 269 270 Blau, Peter M. And Scott, Richard W. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Bouscaren, S.J., Lincoln T. and Ellis, S.J., Adam C. Canon Law, A Text and Commentary. Milwaukee, Wis.: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1946. Callan, John H. ”Faculty Participation in College Administration,” School and Society, February 18, 1967. Caplow, Theodore. The Sociology of Work. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1954. “Catholic Scholars Urge University Autonomy,” National Catholic Reporter, Vol. III, No. 39, 1967. Cogley, John. "Catholics and Their Schools,” Saturday Review, October 15, 1966, pp. 72-72, 94-96. Cogley, John. "The Future of an Illusion,“ Commonweal, June 2, 1967. Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw—Hill, Inc., 1960. ' Coser, Lewis. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Cox, Harvey. The Secular City. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965. Cyert, Richard M.and March, James G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963. Danielson, Wayne A. “Content Analysis in Communication Research," Introduction to Mass Communications Research. Edited by Ralph O. Nunfziger afid'DavidiM. White. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1963. Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President: Educator or Caretaker. New York: McGraw—Hill, Inc., 1962. Donovan, John D. The Academic Man in the Catholic College, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964. Doyle, Patricia Jansen. "The Real World of Jacqueline Grennan," Saturday Review, July 15, 1967, pp. 58-59, 70-72. Edwards, Allen L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1957. 271 Ephron, Lawrence R. “Group Conflict in Organization: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Theories," Berkeley Journal of Sociology (Spring, 1961). Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Etzioni, Amitai. I‘Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5, 1960. Faculty Participation In Academic Governance. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1967. ”Faculty Participation in College and University Government," American Association of University Professors, Bulletin 48 (March, 1962). Faris, Robert E. L. Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. Fleming, Thomas J., ”Fordham is Trying to Be Catholic With A Small 'c',” The New York Times Magazine, December 10, 1967, .pp. 32-33, 76-90. Franzblau, Abraham N. A Primer of Statistics for Non-Statisticians. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1958. Freedman, Burton Dean. ”Higher Education in the United States Perceived as a Social System," Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1961. Gleason, Philip. ”Academic Freedom: Survey, RetrOSpect and PrOSpects,” NCEA Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 1 (August, 1967). Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1958), pp. 281-356, 444-480. Greeley, Andrew M. “After Secularity: The Neo-Gemeinschaft Society: A Post-Christian Postscript.“ Sociological Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Fall, 1966). Greeley, Andrew M. The Changing Catholic College. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. 272 GFGEIEY, Andrew M- "Myths and Fads in Catholic Higher Education," America, Vol. 117, No. 20, November 11, 1967. Greeley, Andrew M. and Rossi, Peter H. The Education of Catholic Americans, Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, ATdine Publishing Company, 1966, pp. 368. Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward and McEachen, Alexander N. Exploration in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Halpin, Andrew W. (ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago, 111.: Midwest Administrative Center, University of Chicago Press, 1958. Hassenger, Robert. ”A Rationale for Changing Student Values," American Council on Education, Educational Record, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Winter, 1967), pp. 61-67. Hassenger, Robert (ed.). The Shape of Catholic Higher Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. Healy, S.J., Timothy S. "The Emerging Role for Catholic Higher Education," Fordham, Vol. 1, No. 8 (April-May, 1967). Hengst, Herbert R. A. ”A Measure of Propensity-to-Change in Selected Liberal Arts Colleges in the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,” Unpu- lished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1960. Herman, Harold W. "Interview: The Future of Catholic Education,” College and University Business, Vol. 42, No. 5 (May, 1967), pp. 63-64. Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson (ed.). American Higher Education, A Documentary History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961, Vol. 1 and 2. Jencks, Christopher and Riesman, David. “The Catholics and Their Colleges," The Public Interest, No. 7 (Spring, 1967). Kahn, Journet. The Threat to Academic Freedom. New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1957. Kerlinger, N. Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Kuhn, Manford H. and MacPorland, Thomas S. "An Empirical Investi- gation of Self—Attitudes," American Sociological Review, Vol. 19, 1954. 273 Lazarsfeld, Paul, Thielens, Wagner, Jr., with Riesman, David. The Academic Mind. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1958. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Rosenberg, Morris (ed.). The Language of Social Research. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1957. Leary, S.J., John P. ”The Bishops and the Catholic College,” Ave Maria National Catholic Weekly, Vol. 107, No. 6, February 10, 1968, pp. 6-9. Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper and Row, 1948. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Lindzey, Gerdner (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954. Loomis, Charles P. Social Systems. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960. McCluskey, S.J., Neil G. Catholic Viewpoint on Education. Garden City, New York: Hanover House, 1959. Malone, S.J., John William. "Faculty Participation in Policy Making in Mid-West Jesuit Colleges and Universities," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation- College of Education, University of Minnesota, 1963. Manier, Edward and Houck, John. Academic Freedom and the Catholic University. Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers, Inc., 1967. The Manual for the Twenty-Statement Problem, Revised. Kansas City, Missouri: The Greater Kansas City Mental Health Foundation, 1959. March, James G. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965. March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Maritain, Jacques. Education at the Crossroads. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1947. Mayhew, Lewis B. "Other Recent Books of Interest,“ The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 13, 1967. Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964. 274 Newman, John Henry Cardinal. The Idea of a University. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Newman, John Henry Cardinal. “What is a University?", Historical Sketches, London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1872. Nosow, Sigmund and Forum, William H. Man, Work and Society. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962. The 1966 Official Guide to Catholic Educational Institutions. Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1966. O'Toole, C.S.C., Christopher. “Disappearance of the Catholic University,” The Priest, Vol. 23, No. 9 (1967). Parsons, Talcott. Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1949. Egg; Parsons, Talcott. "Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to a Theory of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 and 2, Parts 1 and II, 1956. Pattillo, Jr., Manning M. and Mackenzie, Donald M. Church- Sponsored Higher Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966. Phillips, Bernard 5. Social Research, Strategy and Tactics. New York: The MacMilTan Company, 1966. Pondy, Louis R. "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models," Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca, New York: The Cornell University, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 296-320. Reinert, S.J., Paul C. I'Lay Leadership for Catholic Universities,” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 48, No. 10 (June, 1967), pp. 518-519. ”Responses to Father Leary,” Ave Maria National Catholic Weekly, Vol. 107, No. 6, February 10, 1968, pp. 11-15. Richey, Herman G. Behavioral Science and Educational Administra- tion, The Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 11, Chicago, 111.: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1964. Robbins, Richard. “American Jews and American Catholics: Two Types of Social Change," Sociological Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 1965). Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1962. Scheff, Thomas J. "Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus," American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (February, 1967). 275 Schrag, Peter. ”Notre Dame: Our First Great Catholic University?" Harpers, Vol. 234, No. 1404 (May, 1967). Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956. Simmel, George. Conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1955. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1954. Simon, Herbert A. ”On the Concept of Organizationa1 5091’" Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (June, 1964), pp. 1-23. Snygg, Donald and Combs, Arthur W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organizations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York: American Century Series, Hill and Wang, 1957. Wakin, Edward. The Catholic Campus. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1963. Wakin, Edward. "How Catholic is the Catholic College?" Saturday Review, April 16, 1966, pp. 92-94, 105. Weiss, Robert S. and Jacobson, Eugene. "A Method for the Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organizations," American Socio- logical Review, Vol. 20 (1955), p. 661. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Zweig, Michael. The Idea of a World University. Carbondale and Edwardsville, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967.