Notes from a recent meeting with alumni about the Alexander Hamilton Institute
Supporters might be interested in these notes from a recent meeting hosted for the Fellows by alumni supportive of the Alexander Hamilton Institute.
In response to specific questions about the mission of the Institute:
i. There is a difference between advocacy and scholarship. For example, the difference between the Institute and the Heritage Foundation is that the Institute will not issue policy papers or take positions on political issues. Our mission is scholarly.
ii. We are not a right-wing counterpart to the Kirkland Project. The Kirkland Project advocates; the Institute informs and analyzes.
iii. The Institute provides benefits for students at Hamilton through the four groups that meet periodically at the Institute to discuss issues based on prescribed readings or to present speeches.
iv. The Institute does not offer courses for credit.
v. We rely on the generosity of donors to fund operations and are grateful for their support.
vi. A donor has indicated that he intends to support programming at the Institute by providing a series of gifts of $100,000 per year for the next five years. The first of such gifts has been completed. Those monies are not available for bricks & mortar or other occupancy expenses.
vii The AHI has reached an agreement in principle for a long term lease of its headquarters at the former Alexander Hamilton Inn at favorable rates. The terms will include an option to buy its headquarters, and we expect to close on the lease shortly. The annual cost of operating the building is for the account of AHI, and is an ongoing funding requirement.
viii The directors of the Institute welcome questions from prospective benefactors about the governance, organizational, and financial structure of the Institute.
Members of the alumni group were generally concerned by Hamilton’s open curriculum and what was perceived as a lowering of academic standards. The group applauded the effort of the Institute to address the deficiencies of intellectual life on the campus of the College. We emphasized that the Institute is not an adversary of the College, that the Institute is not an ‘anti-Hamilton’ at the foot of the Hill, that we look to provide opportunities through which the students can enrich their education.
hb
38 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (38)
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/26074024.html
Yet, when interviewed by a newspaper, Stewart denied that activism existed in Hamilton's classroom. When will the lying stop?
** Hint: you would do well to quote or cite verifiable documents or sources to establish the credibility of your ‘understanding’.
“What proportion of the Kirkland Project’s support came from the Kirkland Endowment I do not know...”
** Why not? Why is this information not disclosed? Is it top secret? Or are the numbers of uncomfortable magnitude? Hint: the numbers are in the report on the Kirkland Project.
“you can rest assured that the Kirkland Project (now DSJP) was/is monitored as closely as you say the AHC might have been -- which was the locus of the dispute between the AHC and the College, was it not?”
** You are incorrect. After the President and the Dean of Faculty agreed to and publicly announced the opening of the Alexander Hamilton Center, the College reneged on the deal and tried to assert day to day control over the scholarly operations of a programmatic initiative sponsored by three senior faculty members. It was an unprecedented intrusion on academic freedom of the Founders. “We believe that it would be dangerously inappropriate for a liberal arts college to restrict the kinds of points of view expressible in the missions of established or broadly supported campus organizations.” (1)
“The relative independence of the Kirkland Project was a function of its role as the only active legacy of Kirkland College post-merger.”
** You are incorrect. The failure to supervise was just that, a failure of the control & administrative process, not a function of its status as, putatively, the only active legacy of Kirkland College. The Kirkland Project went without organizational review for more than 7 years...essentially, its entire existence. You will find the annual budget of the Kirkland Project well over $100,000 of tuition, trusted, and alumni monies. (1)
“Apart from his “zero” [ed - Paquette was denied a raise this past year], the relations seem to be calm right now. This is a most provocative statement…
** At an institution of higher learning denying a raise to a respected professor and scholar without proper cause is a non-trivial event ... for a variety of constituencies.
“why given the innocuousness (in Churchillian terms) of the DSJP programming, why do you believe that it should not exist? “
** I’m not sure there is widespread agreement that the new Kirkland Project has transformed the radical pursuit of ‘social justice’ to ‘innocuous’ programming ... mediocre perhaps, but not innocuous. There is a difference between education and advocacy. It is an educational distinction that the College seems not to have understood for too many years, or at least willfully ignored. You assert it is no longer so. Forgive me for suggesting the need to verify such an assertion. Perhaps a better informed reader can cite a policy statement that is credible to this end. We have neither a good history with either proper policy or from an operational perspective, compliance.
I take little comfort in the public assertions by the administration that there is no politicization in the classrooms on the Hill. This is the same crew that was telling us ‘everything is fine’ during the Great Unpleasantness.
_______
(1) source: Read the Kirkland Project Review Final Report – April 26, 2005. Good luck. It’s not released, consequently, the reader can not know whether these are accurate or completely made up. It’s your school…or maybe not.
1) This statement comes from any number of conversations that I have had with Kirkland Endowment Committee members.
2) I believe I have said enough about the release of the Kirkland Project Report in prior postings. Use the organization of a mid-size corporation for a model: they don’t release internal reports prepared for the chief executive.
3) Ditto. Ultimate authority rests in the Board.
4) To clarify, I suppose I should have qualified my statement with the phrase, “in the wake of the Ward Churchill affair.” The AHC/I situation arose later. New rules were put into effect: they were intended to apply to all.
5) My understanding is that funding of the KP had been a significant portion of the Kirkland Endowment’s annual spending (and similarly, the KE’s contribution was a significant portion of the KP’s budget). Source: see comment #1 above. [Aside to Historian: thanks for the clarification, however the Kirkland Project was indeed the only active legacy of Kirkland College: the Kirkland Endowment is a funding vehicle only and does not organize any programming itself.] Again, read Sam Babbitt’s book to get a sense of how this came about.
6) I have no intention of going into the “zero”, although it seems ominous. The provocative part was the assertion that once Professor Paquette is confirmed, he might “publish the documents in his possession on this tawdry affair.”
7) Take a look at the programming I noted in an earlier posting.
8) I reiterate from my last posting:
“What is striking is the scholarly snobbishness evidenced here. To be sure
constitutional craftsmanship is on a different order from the cancer epidemic; both very serious, both of great import. The uses in practical life of the latter are more superficially evident however, and more immediately requiring of action for significance to society than the former.
“What is also striking is in denying value of the KP/DSJP, you loudly deny the ability and right of others of your cohort to be supportive of the work of the KP/SDJP. You are not affording those with equal education and intellect (a degree from the Hill) the respect of allowing them to have an opinion. It’s all or nothing; our work is more scholarly and important than yours; we can’t live together; it’s all your fault.”
9) Another Historian: look to the corporate model for your answer.
You're wasting your time trying to have a logical conversation with these people. They are old boy, frat - sexist alumni who want to return to yesteryear.
RK
Spoken like a true progressive!
It's tough to get your assertion about 'these people' to foot with the facts of these profiles or the Charter of the AHI:
Directors of the AHI http://www.theahi.org/board-of-directors/
Fellows of the AHI http://www.theahi.org/fellows/
Board of Academic Advisors http://www.theahi.org/board-of-academic-advisors/
Board of Legal Advisors http://www.theahi.org/legal-advisory-board/
or the participants in the AHI's Colliquium, both scholars
http://www.theahi.org/news-events/2008/3/4/conferees-announced-for-ahi-colloquium.html
and students (both of whom who really enjoyed it by the way)
It might surprise you, but I support AHI - the more voices, perspectives, the better. What I do not support is the illogical arguments based on prejudices that are used to tear down the college.
RK
But it's good that you are a supporter
I'd be happy to consider a feature posting of any open letter/emailed to this site in support the AHI or to direct any donations in support of the AHI to http://www.theahi.org/how-you-can-help/
The mission of the AHI quite clearly stated in its Charter.
It is about high quality, traditional scholarship (not advocacy) pertaining to the interrelations of markets, democracy and freedom.
I doubt St. Vincent de Paul would ever use the phrase "social justice" in its modernist meaning. Justice for him would have been one of the cardinal virtues, together with charity, which would, and did, govern his actions. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia,"...justice has reference to others. Together with charity it regulates man's intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbor in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him." The ultimate purpose was / is for the salvation of souls. The modern Church somehow keeps leaving that out.
Modernist use of the term "social justice" is a form which translates into taking from our neighbor and giving to our other neighbor that which does not belong to him. It is neither voluntary in its nature, nor equitable in its distribution. So called "liberation theology" has its roots is Marxism.Its goal was redistribution of wealth - not the salvation of souls.It borders on theft - which is a sin.
There are some Catholics who would argue that the U.S. Catholic bishops are hardy a scion of orthodoxy. I will leave it to future doctors of the Church to judge Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa actions and orthodoxy. Post Vatican II church has changed the rules.
As to the WASPish culture of Hamilton professors during your term: while they made errors in pronunciation it was more out of ignorance than prejudice.It was your job as a Catholic to instruct them. To instruct the ignorant is a spirtual work of mercy. After all it was founded as a Protestant school.
As a Catholic, I feel compelled to respond. I don’t see how you can possibly assert that, “I doubt St. Vincent de Paul would ever use the phrase "social justice" in its modernist meaning.”
Below is one definition of Social Justice:
From the Center for Economic and Social Justice website: www.cesj.org:
“Defining Economic Justice and Social Justice
“Defining Our Terms
“One definition of justice is "giving to each what he or she is due." The problem is knowing what is "due".
“Functionally, "justice" is a set of universal principles which guide people in judging what is right and what is wrong, no matter what culture and society they live in. Justice is one of the four "cardinal virtues" of classical moral philosophy, along with courage, temperance (self-control) and prudence (efficiency). (Faith, hope and charity are considered to be the three "religious" virtues.) Virtues or "good habits" help individuals to develop fully their human potentials, thus enabling them to serve their own self-interests as well as work in harmony with others for their common good.
“The ultimate purpose of all the virtues is to elevate the dignity and sovereignty of the human person.
“Distinguishing Justice From Charity
“While often confused, justice is distinct from the virtue of charity. Charity, derived from the Latin word caritas, or "divine love," is the soul of justice. Justice supplies the material foundation for charity.
“While justice deals with the substance and rules for guiding ordinary, everyday human interactions, charity deals with the spirit of human interactions and with those exceptional cases where strict application of the rules is not appropriate or sufficient. Charity offers expedients during times of hardship. Charity compels us to give to relieve the suffering of a person in need. The highest aim of charity is the same as the highest aim of justice: to elevate each person to where he does not need charity but can become charitable himself.
“True charity involves giving without any expectation of return. But it is not a substitute for justice.
“Defining Social Justice
“Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.
“Defining Economic Justice
“Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.
“The Three Principles of Economic Justice
“Like every system, economic justice involves input, output, and feedback for restoring harmony or balance between input and output. Within the system of economic justice as defined by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, there are three essential and interdependent principles: The Principle of Participation, The Principle of Distribution, and The Principle of Harmony. Like the legs of a three-legged stool, if any of these principles is weakened or missing, the system of economic justice will collapse.”
I am no theologian nor am I an economist. But I can state unequivocally that the root of Catholic teaching is respect for fellow human beings. You say, “The ultimate purpose was/is for the salvation of souls. The modern Church somehow keeps leaving that out.” As the definitions above state, “the ultimate purpose of all the (‘religious’ virtues of faith, hope and charity) is to elevate the dignity and sovereignty of the human person.” I don’t think the modern Church “leaves that out”. Clearly, a person must be of a certain mindset in order to accept religion. The modern Church has been reaching out to other faiths, and this is based upon respect.
“Social Justice” does not mean “taking from our neighbor and giving to our other neighbor that which does not belong to him. It is neither voluntary in its nature, nor equitable in its distribution.” It means treating those who are different with respect. It means giving people who are capable and willing an equal opportunity. It means giving people the tools to survive and thrive. And education is the key, whether one wants to be a farmer, banker, carpenter, lawyer, doctor, educator or fisherman, no matter the culture. I would rather give someone the tools necessary for self-sufficiency, and I suspect most people would rather have those tools, instead of a hand-out. That is self and mutual respect.
"Welcome to the Web site of the Center for Economic and Social Justice. CESJ is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization and think tank, with a religiously and spiritually pluralistic membership."
The Church teaching is one of order, not random dispensation as those who preach "social justice" today.
Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The exercise of charity would soon become injudicious and inoperative unless there be in this, as in all the moral virtues, a well-defined order. The ordo caritatis, as theologians a term it, possibly from a wrong rendering into Latin of Cant., ii, 4 (ordinavit in me charitatem), takes into account these different factors:
1. the persons who claim our love,
2. the advantages which we desire to procure for them, and
3. the necessity in which they are placed.
The precedence is plain enough when these factors are viewed separately. Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others. Considering the goods by themselves, there is a triple order:
1. the most important spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then
2. the intrinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life, health, knowledge, liberty, etc.;
finally,
3. the extrinsic goods of reputation, wealth, etc.
Viewing apart the various kinds of necessity, the following order would obtain:
first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing to help himself;
second, grave necessity, when one placed in similar danger can extricate himself only by heroic efforts;
third, common necessity, such as affects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help themselves without great difficulty.
When the three factors are combined, they give rise to complicated rules, the principal of which are these:
The love of complacency and the love of benefaction do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the nearness and need, of the neighbour.
Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God's protection.
We are bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an obligation which, however supposes the certainty of the neighbour's need and of the effectiveness of our service to him.
Except in the very rare cases described above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of inconvenience which is justified by the neighbour's need and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one's life for another's life of equal importance."
Hence, St. Vincent de Paul would not have used the MODERNIST (look up definition of modernism) phrase "social justice". St. Vincent de Paul would never have looked to the state, or any other secular instituion to dispense charity and justice. The ultimate authority on those virtues is the Church. It is based, as stated above, on our neighbors need AND worthiness. NOT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED.
The modern church has allowed the state to usurp its authority. Charity is the job of the Church, not the state, because the ultimate goal is the salvation of souls. Today's secular humanist organizations have no such authority and they invert the order with which charity is to be dispensed.
Read Pope Pius XI "Quadragesimo anno - On the Reconstruction of the Social Order" written in response to the Great Depression.
Your phrase "to elevate the dignity and sovereignty of the human person."is about as secular as it gets. There is no sovereignty in the Church. Authority comes from God, to the Pope to the Church AND then to secular institutions who should be following (if you claim to be Catholic) the teaching authority of the Church.
I must disagree with your statement "that the root of Catholic teaching is respect for fellow human beings."" The basis for ALL Catholic teaching and all other actions is the salvation of souls; and yes, as you so aptly prove by your statements, the modern church does leave that out, otherwise you would have been taught to know that aspect of your Catholic faith."Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else."(quoted above).- Pax vobiscum.
You should know that “one of the chief co-founders of the Center for Economic and Social Justice was Fr. William J. Ferree, SM, PhD,” and that upon his death, he was succeeded by Fr. Joseph McDonald SM. [From a brief history of the CESJ by Paul Merland SM.]
You doubt that St. Vincent de Paul would ever use the phrase “social justice” as you narrowly define it (the “modernist meaning”, and which I infer is how you characterize efforts by the Kirkland Project and the Diversity and Social Justice Project), but I believe that he would indeed use the term as defined in the CESJ in my earlier posting.
You talk about “order” and “random dispensation” and cite my lack of theological expertise as some kind of failure of my Catholic upbringing. But I can tell you that salvation will come to those who are not hard of heart; having a heart means respect for your fellow man, and being by nature a compassionate individual.
You can cite as many Catholic materials as you wish, but I can assure you that without sincerity of heart, no amount of rote recitation of Hail Marys and Our Fathers will bring you salvation.
The traditional enumeration of the corporal works of mercy is as follows:
To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.
The spiritual works of mercy are:
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.
Good works are also necessary for salvation and partcipating in secular organizations that perform good works warrants merit, as long as they do not violate Catholic teachings or put us in danger of sin. The organization you cite with its acknowledgement of a "religious and spiritually pluralistic membership" borders on the heresy of indifferentism. "Extra ecclesium nula salus" - is a thrice defined dogma of the Church. Salvation does not come from secular organizations no matter how many people claiming to be Catholic are members.
As noted above, one of the spiritual works of mercy is to instruct the ignorant. I have a duty, as a Catholic, to warn you, as a Catholic, that your comments on "rote Hail Mary's and Our Fathers" borders on blasphemy. I am also guilty if I have angered you to the point of making such comments. For this I apologize.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet." Matthew 10:14-15
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=315
Authenticity is the key. Matthew 25:31-46.
You are wrong: the root of it all is respect.
Nothing I have written here comes within a mile of blasphemy.