MARK W. ROCHE

Should Faculty MembersThat Is the Wrong Question

Despite theircaution, reticence,^nd open denials,faculty members3re heavilyengaged in themoral formationof students

Two conflicting perspectivesln Save the World on Your Ouni Time (2008),Stanley Fish argues that faculty members shouldnot educate students in values hut should focuson instructing them in the methodologies ofthe disciplines. In a recent faculty survey, 99percent identified developing the "ability tothink critically" as "very important" or "es-sential." Only a fraction of the same facultymembers viewed "enhance students' self-understanding," "develop moral character," or"develop personal values" as "very important"or "essential" (Lindholm et al. 2005). An in-creasing consensus in the academy is that fac-ulty members should not help students discerna meaningflil philosophy of life or developcharacter, but should instead help them mas-

tor the content andmethodology of a

given discipline and learn critical thinking.Academic professionalization and special-

ization recognize the faculty member's master^'of method and a discrete sphere of knowledgewhile insisting that ultimate questions bebracketed from the academy. Early in thetwentieth century. Max Weber (1946) arguedfor the separation of knowledge and morality,insisting that values are not scientific andcannot be defended via reason. In The Makingof the Modem University (1996), Julie Reubentells the story of how American higher educa-tion has increasingly moved toward thisseparation of knowledge and morality.

Faculty reticence about addressing valuesand virtues is understandable from a numberof additional perspectives. The view that moraldevelopment is or should be off limits makessense from the perspective of faculty members'unease with reductive versions of characterdevelopment, which tend toward ready-madeanswers and moral indoctrination. The hesita-tion may be reinforced by an unwillingness to

MARK W. ROCHE served as dean of the College ofArts and Letters at the University of Notre Damefrom 1997 to 2008. His most recent book is WhyLiterature Matters in the 21st Century (YaleUniversity Press, 2004)-

32 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2009

Teach Virtues and Values?

impinge on sensitive areas, which, it is be-lieved, have as much to do with the privatesphere of religion as with any other factor.Further, much of what was once promulgatedas virtuous was not virtuous at all, and manymoralists are themselves not models of virtue.The fear of hypocrisy diminishes the voices ofthose who are modest enough to recognizetheir own weaknesses.

At the same time, academic leaders trum-pet that college develops students as personsand helps them become better citizens. Al-though not unaware of the extraordinarychallenges, books by prominent former presi-dents, such as Derek Bok (2006) and HowardShapiro (2005), do not swerve from embrac-ing the ideals of moral and civic education.

College mission statements and promo-tional materials tell us that a college educa-tion prepares students not only for a job butalso for life. Fish cites—and mocks—Yale'smission statement, which suggests that stu-dents will develop their "moral, civic, and cre-ative capacities to the fullest" (2008, 11 ). Forthe idealists, college is not only about learn-ing a subject but also about articulating ideals,recognizing one's responsibilities to thoseideals, and developing a sense of wonderabout future possibilities for oneself and theworld. In short, it is ahout understanding—through deliberation on great questions andthe develiïpment of new capacities as well asthrough other formative experiences, such asconversations with faculty members and fel-low students—what kind of person one is andwhat kind of person one wants to become.Late adolescence and early adulthood repre-sent a privileged time for the exploration ofnew ideas and the formation of identity; as aresult, for many students, the college years be-come crucial markers for who they are to be-come. During these years students develop, orfail to develop, capacities for integrity andcourage, for diligence and self-sacrifice, for re-sponsibility and service to others. They alsodevelop, or fail to develop, a love of knowl-edge, a capacity to learn from criticism, and asense oi higher purpose.

A recent study entitled The Spiritual Life ofCollege Students shows that students long forthis idealistic form of education; 76 percent ofstudents report they are searching for meaningand purpose in life, and 74 percent state thatthey discuss the meaning of life with friends

(Higher Education Research Institute 2005).In Making the Most of College (2001 ), RichardLight notes that the most common hope ex-pressed by students when they embark on anew class is that it will somehow change themas persons. Developing virtues through educa-tion is an old and venerable ideal. In the mostinfluential early modem treatise on education,Some Thoughts Conceming Education, JohnLocke wrote: "Tis Vertue then, direct Vertue,which is the hard and valuable part to beaimed at in Education" (1968,170).

But how does one rhyme these two conflict-ing worldviews? On the one hand, college doesnot and should not teach values. On the otherhand, college helps .students develop valuesand become better persons.

Given our tendency to compartmentalize,a common strategy is to parcel t)ut criticalthinking to the faculty and distribute charac-ter development to residential life and theextracurriculum. In activities ranging frommusic ensemhles and student publications tovarsity athletics and community service, stu-dents find outlets to develop personal habitsand social qualities that they will need aftercollege. These activities, as meaningful as theyare for students, are not necessarily linked,however, to the distinguishing characteristic ofcollege, which is intellection. Faculty stime-times lament that residential life does not doenough to keep the intellectual flame alive.The tables are rarely turned. Hardly, in thecurrent climate, will someone in residentiallife criticize faculty for ignoring moral forma-tion. The increasingly accepted position afterall is that faculty members are no longer re-sponsible for moral formation, and if they wereto engage in it, they would surely do a poorjob. But faculty members do not ignore moralformation. Despite their caution, reticence,and open denials, faculty members are heavilyengaged in the moral formation of students.

Character and intellectual virtuesThe critical inquiry model and the moral for-mation model are not so easily separated. AsMark Schwehn notes in Exiles from Eden(1993), many intellectual pursuits presupposevirtues of character, and so the two often de-velop in tandem. For example, to prepare wellfor each class by completing all assignments,rereading materials, making appropriate notes,and reflecting thoughtfully is to elevate study

34 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2009

over other available pleasuresand is as such an illustratitm oftemperance. To renounce suchpleasures, despite their legiti-mate allure, for a higher valueis both a character virtue andan intellectual virtue.

Discussion classes test and develop manyadditional virtues. To listen carefully to theviews of others and to weigh them honestly,giving them a full hearing with your utmostattention, even if they should contradict yourinitial inclinations, is to practice a form ofjustice. To participate in the give-and-take ofdiscussion by asking clarifying questions ofother students, offering evidence to supportyour own positions, or proposing altemativeperspectives in light of disagreements is to ex-hihit respect for other people and for the com-mon value of truth. To encourage effectivelythe participation of others and successfullydraw good ideas out of them is tii exhibit in-tellectual hospitality. To challenge the viewsof interlocutors without making the attackpersonal, and thus without drawing them awayfrom the search for truth, is to practice diplo-macy. Humility is evident whenever studentsrecognize that they must withdraw an idea fromdiscussion in the face of decisive counterargu-ments, that they haven't discovered the an-swer to a particular puzzle, and that they mustcontinue to listen attentively to the views ofothers. To hold on to a view even against con-sensus when one is convinced of its validity isto experience social isolation for one's beliefin truth and is an act of civil courage.

To search for truth is to be engaged in a va-riety of character virtues. The decision to pur-sue all evidence, even if it should contradict orweaken one's initial claims, is a mark of hon-esty and integrity. To think an issue through tothe point where all angles have been exploredand every ramification considered requiresdiscipline and perseverance. A willingness toabandon previous beliefs in the light of morecompelling evidence presupposes a capacityfor flexibility and self-overcoming. Patienceand striving are both fostered when studentsrecognize that, despite their best efforts to date,their tentative answers to a given puzzle re-main inadequate, and they must continue todelve further.

Similarly, if we lack certain character virtues,then we will make intellectual mistakes.

The critical inquirymodel and the

moral formationmodel are not soeasily separated

Arrogance leads us to thinkthat our abilities ate greaterthan they are and that we seemore than we really do, whichcan lead to our dismissing ar-guments that might indeed beworthy of our attention. Simi-

larly, if we become defensive or emotional, theclarity of thought needed to make a wise deci-sion suddenly becomes cloudy. An indulgencein worldly things disproportionate to their ac-tual worth can distract students from the fo-cus and concentration necessary to handledifficult and compelling questions that re-quire extended attention. Complacency canresult in students not devoting the effort anddiscipline to understand an issue fully. Greedcan lead us to elevate extemal recognitionover ideas themselves and can even tempt usto dishonesty and the fabrication of data, a vi-olation of one of the necessary conditions fortruth and a culture of truth.

Along with academic preparation, motiva-tion is the greatest indicator of success in col-lege (Kuh et al. 2005). For faculty members toignore motivation as irrelevant or to overlookthe wide array of character traits noted aboveis to lessen chances for student learning. Suchabandonment may also reduce opportunitiesfor postgraduate employment, given the inter-est among employers in integrity and motiva-tion, passion and discipline, and interpersonaland teamwork skills. ]ob Outk>ok, the annualsurvey of prospective employers published bythe National Association of Colleges and Em-ployers, regularly lists among the most desir-able traits of future employees such personalqualities as "strong work ethic," "teamworkskills (works well with others)," "initiative,""interpersonal skills (relates well to others),"and "flexibility/adaptability."

Teaching virtues and vaiuesNot only do we as faculty members educatestudents in virtues and values, we want to doso. The very faculty members who stress criti-cal thinking and often shy away from discus-sion of values lament that today's students aretoo oriented toward material gain and insuffi-ciently interested in values. When 1 served asdean, overseeing some five hundred facultymembers, 1 had a simple box lunch with a ran-dom group of seven or so faculty membersabout three times a week. The full hour was

SUMMER 2009 LIBERAL EDUCATION 3S

(rtUJ

uUl

a.It)

Ul

0 .

Southern IllinoisUniversity,

Carbondale

devoted to whatever topics faculty memberswished to discuss—questions about policies,suggestions for improvements, whatever wason their minds. At least two-thirds of the time,the topic was how to get more out of our stu-dents, how to help them leam more, flourishmore, become more ambitious, develop as in-tellectuals. That is a faculty that cares aboutstudents and about student learning beyondthe simple acquisition of technical skills, afaculty that wants to have a broad and lastingimpact on students.

Little has pleased me more than receivingnotes from former students thanking me forhaving played a formative role in their devel-opment. My experience is not isolated. Thedesire to have a salutary impact on students iswidespread, and so it is perhaps fair to say thatfaculty are as conflicted as students: while stu-dents seek financial gain and answers to theirgreat questions, faculty members want to focuson di.sciplinary knowledge and critical thinkingbut also rejoice when they have connected witha student in a deeper and more meaningful way.

The idea that one can teach virtues in anintellectual context is an ancient one. Platowrote dialogues partly to exhibit the ways Inwhich ideas relate to various life-forms. Platointerweaves the criticism of ideas with theevaluation of persons. Individuals who are fullof themselves, dogmatic and self-assured, arenot likely to uncover truth. Interlocutors whoare insufficiently self-confident to entertainviews from the opposition will also fail to gainknowledge, as will those who have no serious

interest in the genuine pursuit of tmth. Some-one, on the other hand, who is willing to admiterrors and give up false claims to knowledge ison the right path; and a person who is willingto risk his or her identity, reputation, and lifein the search of truth is also likely to be on ameaningful, if potentially tragic, journey.

Socrates did not separate reason and moralitybut insisted that we must be able to give a ra-tional account of our moral decisions, and notonly give an account: philosophy for Socratesis about how we relate our lives to those ideas.This is clear not only from his discussions ofpiety and justice in the wake of his trial butalso from his subtle portrayal of the intellec-tual values and ethical virtues that are neces-sary conditions of meaningful discourse. Wecannot truly enter into the sphere of dialoguewithout trying to understand the other per-son's position, seeking to make our own posi-tions understandable, evaluating all positionsfairly, elevating the principle of consistency,believing in the possibility of truth, and rec-ognizing that ideas have consequences. It isnot that one chooses to do so; these intellec-tual values and ethical virtues are necessaryconditions of meaningful discourse, an insightthat has been developed in our age particularlyby the German philosophers Jürgen Habermas,Karl-Otto Apel, and Vittorio Hösle.

Because faculty members are sometimes notconscious of their engagement with intellectualvirtues, they often convey such virtues by whatthey do. Things could be worse; unconsciousmodeling can be a more powerful source of

36 LIBERAL EDUCATION SUMMER 2009

education than explicit discourse. One is re-minded of the line attributed to St. Francis:"Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary,use words." Students have an intuitive sensefor the Socratic insight that what is importantis not only how to argue for a set of propositionsbut also how to relate those propositions tohow they live and what they value. Facultyserve as models of scholarly engagement, in-tellectual curiosity, clear thinking, persuasiverhetoric, moral integrity, or community service,to give just a small number of examples.

Modeling is a classic idea in pedagogy; it wasrecognized already by Plato, who presentedSocrates as a model of reason and virtue. Ciceronotes that we tend to imitate those we admireand those admired by our community, for goodand for ill. This pedagogical concept continuesin modernity with classical theorists such asLocke and Rousseau. Locke notes that there is"nothing sinking so gently, and so deep, intoMen's Minds, as Example" (1968, 182). InEmile, Rousseau writes unambiguously that"man is an imitator" (1979, 104). While wehope primarily to model good thinking andgood action, it does not hurt for students tosee our struggles. Rousseau wisely notes, "showyour weaknesses to your pupil if you want tocure his own. Let him see that you undergothe same struggles which he experiences" (334).

Among the basic principles with which weare familiar from pedagogy are that studentsleam more when they have an existential in-terest in the subject matter, are in a diverseenvironment, are actively engaged in thelearning process, leam from their peers, andreceive meaningful feedback toward theirlearning goals. Every one of these principles ispresent in a good discussion class, where stu-dents engage a fascinating topic, experiencegive-and-take with one another and with oftendiverse readings, and receive feedback fromfaculty members and often from peers. In oneof my seminars several years ago a student rec-ommended that, in addition to the extensivefeedback my students were receiving from me,they should give feedback to one another. 1liked the idea, and with some advance notice,I asked every student to offer a sentence ofpraise and a constructive suggestion for everyother student in the class. I reformatted thesubmissions, so that each student received apage of anonymous praise and a page ofanonymous suggestions. I was fascinated by

how insightful the peer comments were andhow meaningful students found the combina-tion of generous praise and diplomatic, butdemanding, criticism from their peers. Eachset of statements required intelligence anddiplomacy, attentiveness and evaluation.

Should faculty members address values andvirtues? We already do, though often unthink-ingly—not a great attribute for a professionthat prizes thinking. But maybe we can borrowa chapter from those who prefer to elevatetechnique over higher purpose and reflectmore fully on how to do better what we al-ready do. Here the question would be, how dowe as faculty members best help students de-velop virtues and values? D

To respond to this article, e-mail liheraled@aacu.cfrg,with the author's name on the subject line.

REFERENCESBok, D. 2006. Our underachieving colleges: A candid

look at how much students kam and why they shouldbe learning more. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 2006.

Fish, S. 2008. Save the world on your own time. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Higher Education Research Institute. 2005. The spin-tiuil life of college students: A national study of collegestudents' search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles:University of California at Lo.s Angeles.

Light, R. J. 2001. Making the most ofcoüege: Studentsspeak their miriíís. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Kuh, G. D., J. Kln:ie, J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, andAssociates. 2005. Stiuknt success in college: Creatingconcilions that matter. San Erancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lindholm, J. A., K. Szelényi, S. Hurtado, and W. S.Kotn. 2005. The American college teacher: Nationainorms for the 2004-2005 HERi faculty survey. LosAngeles: Universiry of Califomia at Los Angeles.

Locke, J. 1968. Some thoughts concerning education.In The educatioruú writings of]ohn Locke, ed. J. L.Axtell, 114-325. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Reuhen, J. A. 1996. The making of the modem unii'er-sity: Intellectud transformation and the mar^ndizfltionof morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rousseau, J. 1979. Emile or on education. Trans. AllanBloom. New York: Basic B<ioks.

Schwehn, M. R. 1993. Exiles from Eden: Religion andthe academic vocation in America. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Shapito, H. T. 2005. A larger sense of purpose: Hi^iereducation and society. Princeton: Princeton Univer-sity Press.

Weber, M. 1946. Science as a vocation. In FTOTTI MaxWeber: Essays in sociology, eds. H. H. Gerth and C. W.Mills. 129-56. New York; Oxford University Press.

SUMMER 2009 LIBERAL EDUCATION 37