Neighborhood Schools, Local Business

Over at The League, the (extra)ordinary Mr. Kain has a splendid piece on “the concept of the school itself as an essential part of one’s community.” It is, rest assured, well worth the read. (At Front Porch Republic, Professor Fox offered, a couple of months ago, the very interesting “A Partially Localist Defense of Public Education”, wherein, discussing Mike Huckabee and school consolidation, he notes very reasonable, troublesome reasons to support consolidation; that’s neither here nor there (Well, not here, but maybe there!), but the posting is worth your time, too.) My favorite passage from E.D.:

I’d like to see, quite literally, corner schools – kind of like the days of “corner stores” which have now all vanished in the face of big grocery chains and super Wal*Marts. Because corner schools would be personable. They’d be right there in your neighborhood. Elementary schools tend to be closer to this model. For some reason we go from a dozen or so elementary schools in a mid-size town to one or two high schools. It doesn’t make sense. And if you’re worried about sports, there’s really no reason why schools couldn’t team up to create a good football team. But even better than that, you’d have lots more sports teams and lots more kids would get a chance to play – even if the teams themselves weren’t quite as star-studded, and the games were not quite as good. Still, it would level the playing field, so to speak. And that’s a good thing.

One thing upon which E.D. touches not (though one can infer it, perhaps, from this earlier line: “Schools should be more responsive to their communities needs and vice versa.”) is the particular connectivity between the school and the local business community. Before the 1974-75 academic year, students at North Judson-San Pierre High School (a product of the dreaded mid-century consolidation movement: San Pierre could hardly support a high school, by the advanced standards of the education technocrats) attended classes, concerts, and basketball games in the middle of town, at the corner of Keller Ave. and Central Ave, just a block from Lane St., our main drag. (The football team played on a field now replaced by residential blocks some number of streets to the west; the baseball team, on the same large town block, on WPA-built Norwayne Field.)

My father, oftenly enough, has spoken of lunch hours spent at Pell’s Sweet Shop, the local diner at Lane St. and Adair St. (See map linked to above.), to which he and friends would race to save a booth and where they’d play Edgar Winter’s “Frankenstein”, Grand Funk Railroad’s “Flight of the Phoenix”, and Deep Purple’s classic “Smoke on the Water” on the jukebox, all three for a quarter. Old Man Pellegrini worked the fryer, calling out “French-a-fry, French-a-fry!” in broken English between quarrelsome verbal bouts with his wife. In the mid-Seventies, in time for my father’s class to be the first to graduate, the school board replaced this downtown facility with a presumably state–of–the–art (Read: Barns–with–lean-tos–looking bit of totalitarian architecture; insufficiently fenestrated, natch!) building on the southwestern edge of town, with cornfields on two sides!

The Keller Avenue building then housed middle school students — to wit, continued to operate, but not with students likely to be trusted to venture forth from an open campus for lunch —, whilst the secondary-education students had no choice but to lunch daily on remarkably cardboard-esque mass-produced cafeteria food — served by ladies kindly enough, but many packs of Virginia Slims beyond their prime, with all the enthusiasm of a reluctant mortician into whose hands the family business fell —, imprisoned (a verb all too regrettably à propos of the school’s æsthetic character) by the closed-campus restrictions I assume were imposed de jure (By my time in high school, anyway, the school compelled students to remain on the premises at lunch, and otherwise, without a legitimate excuse.), and, certainly, were discouraged, de facto, from enjoying lunch served by a local restaurateur by the reliance upon an automobile (paired with a relatively short lunch hour) that this anti-communitarian location required of students. The students lost “choice”; the diners and restaurants, customers.

Troublingly enough, returning our schools to neighborhoods — or, in smaller towns, nearer our business districts — is, presently, rather impractical. Doubtless, the school district here could not at all easily build new schools in downtown North Judson, and if they could, likely would construct buildings so atrocious that one easily would mistake them for anything but. (See here about architectural ineptitude in North Judson.) This is saddening. Notwithstanding the very real objections found in Prof. Fox’s disquisition, E.D’s case is quite compelling; what I’ve discussed hereabove only strengthens it. Methinks an incredibly sensible, could-be-practical way to help to revive our local economies without furthering the often onerous regulations employed — sensibly enough — to level the playing field for local businesses is to bring our schools back. As Mr. Kain properly proclaims, the school is an essential part of the community, and as Mr. Kunstler, that pugnacious prognosticator of Peak Oil and maligner of modern massacres of the public realm, echoing Mr. Wendell Berry of Kentucky, asserted, in The Geography of Nowhere, “Community is Economy.”

Post-script: I’d certainly love to see a return of Catholic education, even if only at the elementary (and middle-school) level, as was the case in the past, to North Judson. Paul Barnes, commenting on E.D’s piece, broaches this topic.

Porn, Rights, and Higher Education Or, Thank God I’m Gone in Two Months


The University of Maryland: Our basketball team fails; featuring two socialists, a communist, and left-liberal constitutes intellectual diversity, and we like to show xxx-rated porn on campus.

Obama at ND — Or, Everyone Is Wrong

Joining the fray late, but better (I hope) than never, and probably nowhere near the end of this tortuous, torturous, obscene debate, I feel, if only to keep promises that I have made, that I need to say something about the matter of President Obama’s presenting the commencement address at my alma mater and receiving an honorary degree.

First, Fr. John I. Jenkins, c.s.c, president of Our Lady’s University and, by most measures, I think, a let-down to those many of us who thought that he’d represent a shift back toward “conservatism” — by which we, or at least I (I doubt, actually, that this is true of some of the partisans of the Catholic Right), meant orthodoxy — deserves a good scolding. This I say not necessarily (at least yet) because he invited a president — invited anyone — whose beliefs, comments, and policies on such fundamental issues of life stand in such stark contrast to the Teaching of the Holy Mother Church, but because he lacked the foresight and compassion to realize that such a controversial choice, no matter how it may further Notre Dame’s prestige (at a cost, no doubt), would so inundate the University and the student body — especially the seniors — precisely when they ought to be granted at least so brief a reprieve from the weight of the world to be able to enjoy their last week and ceremonies as undergraduates. Maybe, notwithstanding the obvious reasons to challenge the president’s presence at and participation at commencement, this is a great choice, insofar as, doubtless, Obama will offer some wise words worthy of consideration and, maybe, his experience at Notre Dame will have some positive impact on him as a human being, however seemingly immeasurable it may be. Nonetheless, the benefits, I submit, are simply not worth needlessly furthering the divide between more conservative and more liberal students and alumni/ae or between the University and the Church’s hierarchy; most definite, it is not worth burdening the senior class (and all students) with such divisive tension. Shame on you, Fr. Jenkins.

For accepting the invitation, then, President Obama and his people deserve to be excoriated, too. Surely, a man who has spent time in academia, who is purportedly so very attuned to the concerns of this generation, and who, through his work as a community organizer — and an alleged common-ground-seeking candidate —, understands the need for unity, rather than division (He is, after all, the new Lincoln! United we stand, y’all.) — should have recognized how much unwarranted consternation his involving himself at an ostensibly Catholic University’s commencement would cause and, in as elegant a manner as possible, have declined.

***

Now, what about the decision to invite someone whose positions on abortion and stem-cell research place him opposite the Roman Catholic Church to address the audience at commencement in violation of a prohibition on granting a platform for pro-choice individuals to speak, even if on matters wholly unrelated to abortion? Well, I think it was a poor choice on the part of Fr. Jenkins, et alios. We pride ourselves on being a Catholic University par excellence, even nonpareil, and Fr. Jenkins has found himself having explicitly to assure the world that welcoming the president to speak, and awarding him an honorary degree, does not mean that Notre Dame endorses or approves of his views on abortion, et c.. Something dreadful, perhaps portentous, inheres in this. On the other hand, President Obama, as Fr. Jenkins has noted, has displayed a concern for the poor, for the maltreated (except for those not yet born), that echoes the Church’s social teaching (even if he’s more reliant on heavy government intervention than many who have embraced Catholic social teaching have historically been). Moreover, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the president of the United States of America, a man with an impressive academic background and more than enough interesting “real-world” experience, has nothing worthwhile to offer a batch of the world’s future leaders.

That being said, I’m still concerned that the University made a decision in direct rejection of the Church’s prohibition, whether or not that interdiction is appropriate or short-sighted. Universities, Catholic or otherwise, need to be places — or, at least, this has become so, perhaps without the necessary boundaries — for sensible, dispassionate discourse, open to opposing points of view. However, an institution purportedly loyal to the Holy Mother Church needs to be just that, too. It raises a fundamental question that, I contend, no one seems to be willing to admit underlies this entire debacle, to wit, whether “Catholic University” has not become a contradictory term, an impossibility in the modern world. (More on this later. I promise.)

***

Now, having said all of that, I have two things to say. First, the Catholic Right needs to shut the eff up. I sympathize, as I think I’ve made clear, with their cause, at least in part. I’m all for tilting at windmills (as the banner on this humble Weblog suggests), certainly when something as big as this is at stake. But knowing that nothing is going to change, can’t they (including students who, admirably as much as annoyingly, are leading the charge) admit defeat and let the students have their graduation in peace? Let Bishop D’Arcy, Cardinal George, et alios, have their say as members of the hierarchy; let Fr. Jenkins and other University leaders and the hierarchy enter — at least I’d like to see this happen — into constructive, productive debate, muchly needed, over questions about balance and the Catholic identity of Notre Dame — and, really, Catholic Universities, period — away from the limelight and under the light of the Holy Spirit.

I absolutely cannot say all of this and then let the Catholic Left off of the hook. First, though many, I am sure, are sincere in their defense of bringing President Obama to campus in light of the issues where he does agree with the Church, I’ve grown rather weary of the loosely defined notion of “intellectual freedom” as a defense of this. Most important (at least to me), it’s ineffably painful to watch these leftists who objected to George W. Bush the warrior so vehemently defend Barack Obama the abortion-rights-supporting warrior. Blindness and ignorance, my “progressive” friends, is no monopoly held by the mainstream Right.

“A big corporation”

That’s what one Maryland state delegate thinks of the flagship university of the University System of Maryland!

The Catholic Capitulation: Blame the Leadership, Part I

A few weeks ago, I conversed online with a friend from Notre Dame, a devout, knowledgeable Catholic (undeniably better than I), who is married and the young mother of two adorable children, whom she and her husband intend to raise, and already raise, in the Faith and traditions of the Holy Mother Church, when she inadvertently tested my knowledge of Catholic Teaching. I forget the particular context, but she made some comment about spoiling herself by consuming meat on Friday, remarking that she’d now have to confess her violation of Friday penitence-by-abstinence. I, who had been voluntarily abstaining from meat on Fridays to offer a minute sacrifice of penitence (I’m a professional sinner.) — and as a nod to old-school Roman Catholicism —, urged her not to be so hard on herself, reminding her that the Church long ago rescinded this Friday requirement outside of Lent. She quickly disabused me of this misbelief, as did Wikipedia

Specific regulations are passed by individual episcopates. In the US in 1966 the USCCB passed Norms II and IV that bound all persons from age fourteen to be bound to abstinence from meat on Fridays of Lent, and through the year. In September 1983, Canons 1252 and 1253 expressed this same rule, and added that Bishops may permit substitution of other penitential practices on Fridays outside of Lent only, but that some form of penance shall be observed on Friday in commemoration of the day of the week of the Lord’s Crucifixion. —,

which directed me to the USCCB’s “Penitential Practices for Today’s Catholics”, from 2000, which reminds us that

If we are serious about embracing the penitential discipline that is rooted in the call to discipleship, then we will identify specific times and places for prayer, penance, and works of charity. Growth in spiritual maturity demands a certain level of specificity, for it shows that we take seriously God’s call to discipline and are willing to hold ourselves accountable. In our Catholic tradition we specify certain days and seasons for special works of penance: Fridays, on which we commemorate the death of the Lord, and Lent, our forty days of preparation for the Easter mysteries.

Recalling our Lord’s Passion and death on Good Friday, we hold all Fridays to have special significance. Jesus’ self-denial and self-offering invite us to enter freely into his experience by forgoing food, bearing humiliations, and forgiving those who injure us. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, the principal agent of all spiri-tual transformation, this can be done—and done with a spirit of quiet joy. For Christians, suffering and joy are not incompatible. [My emphasis. – NPO.]

I, a professing, Mass-attending, doing-my-best Catholic had no idea that this very simple, evident, slackened obligation exists. Suffice to say I’ve continued, without lapse, to abstain from meat on Fridays; I suppose that I could proffer some alternate form of penitence (I’m trying to supplement my abstinence with Mass attendance on Fridays, but have yet to turn theory into practice.), but the connection, tenuous as it be, that this creates to the Church’s historical traditions has sufficient meaning for me that I’ll continue to substitute salmon for chicken — unless, you know, someone plops some prime rib on my plate.

I offer this silly little anecdote, and revelation of my own ignorance, not to indict myself, or my parents, but to offer a relatively minor example of a much greater problem: The Church’s hierarchy’s (and lay leadership’s) failure to sustain a rich, vibrant Catholic culture, one imbued with respect for the teachings — and spiritual significance thereof — of the Holy Mother Church; a real, deep appreciation of family and community — both spiritual and social, the latter within and beyond the parish; deep reverence for Christ and His Bride, and the many avenues available to us (e.g., Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament); and active political, civil, and social engagement rooted in and loyal to the Magisterium.

(Second page)

Even More Academic Insanity

Again from the University of Maryland’s daily FYI e-mail

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:01:11 -0500
From: fyi-poster@umd.edu
Subject: Where My Girls At?: A Comedic Look at Black Lesbians

Subject: Where My Girls At?: A Comedic Look at Black Lesbians
When : Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Where : Clarice Smith PAC : Laboratory Theatre
Event Type(s) : Special Event

The African American Studies Department presents “Where My Girls At?: A Comedic Look at Black Lesbians,” written and performed by Micia Mosely, Ph.D.

The event will be held in the Laboratory Theatre in the CSPAC. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the performance will begin at 7:00 p.m. There will be a Talk Back with the artist following the show. Advance ticketing is recommended!

This performance is sponsored by the African American Studies Department, Department of Theatre, Department of American Studies, Pride Alliance, LGBT Studies Program, the Office of LGBT Equity, and the Department of Women’s Studies

Ticket Information:
Charges: All tickets $7.00; ;
Available at: Clarice Smith Box Office
Phone: 301-405-2787
Website:
http://claricesmithcenter.umd.edu/2007/c/performances/performance?rowid=8301