Copy of Rev. Aloysius P. Kelley’s Inaugural Address
September 28, 1979
The Oxford English Dictionary provides many definitions and syno-nyms
for the word " inaugurate. " Towards the end of a rather lengthy list
it suggests that sometimes it is merely a grandiose way of saying "begin. "
We might be inclined to agree this afternoon as we look at ourselves
dressed in gowns and robes almost as archaic and quaint as the Roman
practice of omen-taking which gave us the word. Our ceremony is tradi-tional,
formal, stylized -- much removed even from the daily life of the
educational enterprise in which we are all engaged. And yet what we do
is appropriate. There is a basic human need to celebrate. Costume and
ceremony symbolize continuity -- a blend of the old and the new. This
is especially appropriate for Fairfield University -- thirty-seven years
young but in a direct and ancient line which goes back to the universi-ties
of Salamanca and Bologna and Paris. And so we celebrate ourselves
and our commitment to one of the oldest and noblest achievements of the
human spirit.
The occasion prompts us to pause and to reflect on the past, the
present and the future. History is a part of everything -- of individuals,
of nations, of ideas and of institutions. There is no full and accurate
understanding (and, some times, no survival) apart from history. There
is, then, not only a need but a certain urgency to ask where we have
come from so that we may more clearly see where we are and where we
are going.
There is, as always, a context for our questioning. The immediate
occasion is perhaps less significant than the general mood of crisis
which is so typical of higher education in this country. Prophets of
doom abound. It seems that we are reminded, at least weekly if not
daily, by all the news media that the "golden age" of higher education
has passed. Students are dissatisfied, government and other external
' forms of support are weakening, society at large is disillusioned, and '
faculty are reported to be confused, demoralized and defensive. A
Classicist can find at least some initial consolation by reflecting that
in western literature the "golden age" concept originated with Hesiod,
a bad-tempered farmer poet of eighth century B .C . Greece, who was only
the first in a long line of pessimists who have 'invariably located any
"golden age" somewhere in the past. Most of us know that "the good
old days" were seldom as good or as golden as claimed. This is not ta
say that there are no problems with higher education. Its plight is part
of a more general malaise. A troubled economy, the energy shortage, de-creased
prestige and influence abroad, all suggest the beginning of the
end for the American dream. Higher education is, in a sense, an Ameri-can
success story gone sour. And the cause is typically American -- a
fundamentalist belief in the never-ending expansion of the market. Quite
simply, we have overproduced and retrenchment is not only more difficult
than expansion but it is also painful and, we feel, somehow un-American.
The demographic tables, so long ignored, have finally caught up with us.
As Harold Hodgkinson has wryly observed, the sixties produced the "green-ing"
of America; in the late seventies we developed the "graying" of
America, and as we move into the eighties and beyond we look forward to
a future that could be described as the "balding" of America. I might add,
i
parenthetically, that there are some of us for whom that last phase cannot
come too quickly. 'The numbers problem is not going to go away. he "bell
curve" of the traditional college age population is moving slowly but relent-lessly
to the right of the graph.
Ad hoc solutions to our problem will not suffice. There are not enough
band-aids to go around and no academic band-aids are ouchless. There is
a danger that non-radical (in the etymological sense of the word) solutions
will only aggravate the problem. Short range measures may trigger addi-tional
long range problems. It is time to ask basic questions and to pro-vide
meaningful answers: what kind of education will students be looking
for as we move into the eighties ? what kind of education does society ex-pect
us to provide and, perhaps more importantly, for private and -public
educational institutions alike, what kind of education will society be will-ing
to support? how can colleges and universities respond to these needs
and expectations in a way which is appropriate for the individual institu-tion?
The last question, I believe, is the most important. Each institu-tion
must remain faithful to its established mission. If it is to serve the
needs of its students and society effectively -- often, if it is to survive --
it must draw on the best in its history and traditions and commitments with
the strengths and resources available. To use the imagery of Lewis
Mayhew, if the ivory tower mentality is partially responsible for our
problems, they will not be solved by converting our colleges and universi-ties
into academic shopping centers.
What we need, now more than eve+, is a clear statement of purpose,
a statement of goals and objectives and priorities. The need is not uni-versally
recognized and a not uncommon reaction to the suggestion is
cynicism. An article in this summer's Chronicle of Hiqher Education en-titled
" Mission Madness" is among the most articulate, entertaining and
cynical expressions of .dissent. It is maintained that such statements
are of interest primarily to trustees (who are charged with assuring that
an educational institution is going someplace), to presidents (who wish
to be seen as agents of change, at least of some kind of movement, pref-erably
forward) , and to regional accrediting associations (who cannot
carry out their function of measuring without some kind of academic yard-stick).
It is claimed that consensus is too difficult to achieve and the
inevitable compromise statements are models of admissions-brochure and
catalogue-rhetoric generalities. It is said that the concept of "uniqueness"
is overdone. It is argued that operational definitions are better than unreal
theoretical goals and objectives . And, finally, the most cynical comment
of all: anything and everything is ultimately reconciled with an institu-tion's
mission because the real mission is survival.
I believe, however, that an institution's accountability to itself and
to its various constituencies is justified and necessary. Difficulty of ac-complishment
does not excuse us from the exercise or diminish its need
or value. The aim is more distinctiveness than uniqueness. The evolu-tionary
approach -- discover who we are by doing without any normative
guidance or direction -- may, by happenstance, get us where we want to
go but aimless wandering is not the best way to reach a definite destina-tion;
it is antithetical to the highly disciplined nature of our profession
and, in large measure, responsible for the crisis of confidence we are now
confronting and for the charges of unresponsiveness and irrelevancy. And,
finally, I believe that to have survival under any circumstances and at any
cost as "the" goal of an educational institution is hypocritical, quite
possibly unethical, and, ultimately, self-defeating.
Meaningful statements of institutional purpose are the result of a
considerable amount of effort. They evolve over time and do not spring
suddenly and fully-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. I wish, this
afternoon, merely to open the dialogue, to initiate the conversation by sug-gesting
general directions in broad outline.
The eighties should be for Fairfield what may be called "the coming
together" of the University. In its thirty plus years this campus has ex-perienced
phenomenal growth and all of us here are indebted to the vision
and commitment of those who have preceded us. Fortunately for Fairfield,
its growth has been measured and orderly, as was noted in the regional
accrediting association's report two years ago. It has retained those
qualities which make it so attractive as an institutioiand which are the
firmest guarantee of its future.
Fairfield will maintain its basic commitment to the liberal arts, as
traditionally conceived and as fostered in all Jesuit institutions. This
means that it will continue to be dedicated to the education of the whole
person. It will strive to prepare free persons for a full life in a free society,
helping them to become more completely and consiciously human. It will
therefore attempt to develop the human potential in every way possible --
intellectually, esthetically, emotionally, physically, socially and spiritu-ally
-- and to lay the foundation for a life-long quest for continuing and
fuller development. It will provide the elements of a life-plan, a life-pattern
to be shaped and refined by each individual. It will be conscious
of the necessity of bringing its students not only to a heightened aware-ness
and acceptance of themselves but also of their obligations to the
world around them.
Fairfield will constantly reflect on what means by liberal educa-tion
and review the effectiveness with which it transmits this basic and
central component of its educational philosophy. It will be especially
sensitive to the need to demonstrate to an increasingly skeptical society
the relationship between liberal education and real-life problems.
Fairfield will continue its Jesuit tradition and affiliation. It rejects
the notion of the inevitable secularization of American higher education,
viewing this as a loss both for the individual and for society, and a
diminution of the r i ~ hpl uralism which is so much a part of this nation's
strength. A university in the fullest sense of the word, a Jesuit university
is something more. Committed to a thorough and rigorous intellectual for-mation,
i t also provides an environment sensitive to moral and religious
growth. In a true ecumenical spirit it encourages men and women of
every religious persuasion in the free development of their beliefs and
moral convictions.
Fairfield will continue to be moderate in size so that it can preserve
the personalism which is one of its hallmarks and which makes possible
the warm and friendly ties which unite faculty and students and everyone
who contributes to the educational process in an academic community of
mutual respect.
The University will continue to be primarily an undergraduate ins titu-tion
with an emphasis on teaching and the scholarship and research which
supports and sustains it. Its professional schools and division of continu-ing
education, at the undergraduate and graduate level, building on and
incorporating into their curricula the principles of liberal learning, will
provide the specialized preparation necessary to meet their students'
" needs and those of society.
In the years of their formation and growth the energy of the University's
schools was necessarily concentrated on establishing and enhancing the
quality of their individual programs and disciplines. The next decade will
draw on an as yet largely untapped potential for cooperation across school
and department lines so that the educational experience of every student
at Fairfield will be strengthened and enriched by the interaction and contri-butions
of all of its faculties, undergraduate and graduate, liberal and
professional.
Fairfield, like every educational institution, must be sensitive to the
neighborhood in which it lives. The University has several -- the town of
Fairfield, the greater Bridgeport area, southwestern Connecticut, and, in a
sense, the entire state. For every college or university there are points at
which its resources and needs intersect with those of the community.
Fairfield will seek to develop these points of contact with the community in
a way that is beneficial to both. It will also continue to look to the
State of Connecticut for support. Although a private institution, it
exists to advance the public good. A large proportion of Fairfield stu-dents
come from Connecticut and more than half of its graduates remain
here to contribute to its civic, economic and professional life.
When I was here but a few days I attended the dedication of a new
Town Hall in Fairfield. It was a moving and inspiring experience. In the
historic center of this New England town, two hundred years after it had
been burned by British troops in the War of Independence, now stood a
new and striking symbol of the vision and courage of our founding fathers
and of the fundamental principles which gave birth to this nation. The
creation of this republic would have seemed presumptious had it not been
grounded in a centuries-old tradition of basic human rights and democratic
institutions of which it was the conscious heir. That I may end where I
began, it seems to me that Fairfield University is a symbol of this vital
blend of the new and the old. Part of an ancient tradition, it preserves
the idealism and enthusiasm of youth. Strengthened by the past, it looks
to the future with the talent and confidence and optimism which will cause
it to flourish in the challenging years ahead.
Plato has placed.-in the mouth of Socrates a prayer which seems
1
especially appropriate for us : "Make me to be beautiful within, and
may outward things chime with the inward ." The outward beauty of this
campus is a reflection of the inward beauty of all those who labor here
for the education of youth. I am honored and humbled by the trustees'
invitation to become a part of this great enterprise.
