Conservative Student News

Photo credit: Katie Kieffer

As I helped my sister carry food and laundry up to her dorm room in Morrison Hall one cold, Sunday morning in December, I couldn't help but notice a large sign that a student had placed over his entire dorm room window. The student couldn't have lived in a better room to make a statement: His large picture window was located right next to the high traffic skyway/walkway area on the second level of Morrison Hall. The sign read: "Dear Board of Trustees, Just Stop It ... We WANT Nienstedt."

Clearly, the sign is in response to the Oct. 25, 2007 decision by the St. Thomas board of trustees to amend its ex officio bylaws. As a result of the board's decision, the reigning archbishop will no longer automatically be appointed as chairman of the board. The sign was clearly a loud plea from a distraught student who needed a voice and felt that the best and most peaceful way to be heard was to post this sign. The Standard wanted to give this student a real voice, so we took a photo of his sign and then knocked on his door for an interview.

The student responsible for this sign is Jordan Crow. Jordan is a friendly, outgoing junior at St. Thomas who is majoring in chemistry. His goal is to someday be a university professor. He's a smart, thoughtful young man who merely wants a voice and he's concerned about the board's decision.

Crow told me that, "The biggest concern at this point is that they (the board of trustees) still haven't addressed the way they can insure the Catholic heritage for the future. We as students aren't assured that St. Thomas will have a Catholic identity. I'm really worried about it. People can have the best intentions in the world now ... it would be subtle, but things could definitely change. Before (this decision) we were assured (of St. Thomas' Catholic identity). The archbishop is effectively chosen by the pope, but now that the link is severed we don't have that assurance."

Jordan Crow is not alone in feeling confused about the board's decision and fearful for St. Thomas' future Catholic identity. As I left Morrison Hall that day, I picked up a copy of the student newspaper, The Aquin, and found several mentions of other students expressing similar concerns.

According to the Dec. 7, 2007 edition of The Aquin, the St. Thomas Undergraduate Student Government "voted to encourage discussion between the Rev. Dennis Dease, university president, the board of trustees and the university community, so that people can understand the decision and why it was made and be able to voice their concerns. Senior Class Senator Susan Slattery said she has been speaking with many concerned and confused students. She said many students are worried about maintaining the Catholic identity of the university and the possibility of losing ties to the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis."

The Aquin also mentioned a student movement called "Apologia" (named after the Greek word for defending a position under attack) that sprung up in response to this decision. Members of Apologia wrote letters to both Rev. Dease and Archbishop Flynn expressing their concerns over the board's decision. I attempted to get in touch with one of the student organizers of Apologia, Jim Schultz, a Catholic Studies and philosophy double-major. The Apologia organizers were unwilling to speak on the record with either The Aquin or the Standard. Regardless, the Apologia movement is another clear sign of student distress and outright confusion regarding the board's decision to amend its ex officio bylaws.

I understand that the board of trustees cannot publicly disclose the full contents of their board meetings or the particular details behind every board decision. The board has a right to confidentiality. However, in this case, there is clearly a need for more communication, dialogue and open discussion with students. The board should know that to many students, their decision appears to be an attempt to secularize St. Thomas by severing ties with the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Archbishop Nienstedt is the incoming archbishop who, under the old bylaws, would have held the position of chairman when Archbishop Flynn retires. Perhaps Nienstedt is simply too busy to take on this role. In his Dec. 14, 2007 article in The Aquin, the Rev. Dennis Dease explains the board's decision by saying that, "ordinaries of dioceses typically chair so many boards and are so inundated with the demands of their jobs that it has become increasingly difficult to be actively involved as university board chairs. It is for that reason few Catholic colleges and universities, even those considered ‘conservative,' have their boards chaired by an ordinary."

This is fine, and perhaps Archbishop Nienstedt communicated to both Archbishop Flynn and to the board of trustees that he was too overwhelmed to take on the role of chairman. However, Dease did not say this was the case. He only said that very few other Catholic colleges are chaired by the ordinary.

I think people are concerned because it appears that Nienstedt wasn't given a chance. How does the board know how good he will be balancing multiple leadership roles with the role of university chairman? Archbishop Flynn seemed to be able to do a fine job of presiding as chair of the board while also fulfilling his other leadership roles.

The timing of the board's decision also raises eyebrows. Why didn't the board make this "discovery" and change its bylaws many years ago? Nienstedt has a reputation for being very conservative and somewhat outspoken. Is the timing merely coincidental, or is it an attempt to distance St. Thomas from Nienstendt and conservative Catholic values? These are the speculations that the public and students are free to make because there has been insufficient dialogue with the community explaining this decision.

Students like Crow find a real value in receiving a degree from a distinctively Catholic institution. Crow told the Standard, "A lot of students value this connection. The value of the degree (from St. Thomas) will change 10 to 25 years from now. I heard one of the reasons they did it (changed the bylaws) was to legitimize the degree. It's ridiculous to expect us to change just because other colleges have. Plus, a secular consulting committee was influential in the board's decision." St. Thomas 1951 alum, Dr. Thomas Votel, M.D., of St. Paul, echoes Crow by saying, "The primary reason I chose to go to St. Thomas was my assumption that it was Catholic, and it was." Today, however, Votel says that he would not recommend St. Thomas to his grandchildren because he believes it's losing its Catholic identity.

St. Thomas' tagline is: "Challenge yourself, change our world." The reason that people donate to St. Thomas is because they feel that there is something different about this place. Donors believe that students are not only getting a solid academic education, but that they are also getting a faith-based education that provides them with the morals and values they'll need to be good leaders. Employers want to hire tomorrow's future leaders. They don't want to hire the next group of Enron executives. That is why the St. Thomas degree has so much value: It represents the solid educational and moral grounding that employers believe is necessary for outstanding leadership.

I am not privy to the discussion the board of trustees had on Oct. 25, 2007 when they made this change in the bylaws. I can only hope that the board did not make this decision in an attempt to distance the university from the Catholic faith. In October, St. Thomas also launched an ambitious $500 million fundraising drive called Opening Doors. Without further explanation from the Archdiocese or St. Thomas, many students and alumni are speculating that the board's decision was made in an effort to make the school appear more compatible to donors who may not be Catholic. This is pure speculation, but when the biggest Catholic and private institution in the state abolishes its long-standing tradition of appointing the head of the Archdiocese as the university chairman - and offers vague and insufficient reasons for doing so to the public - people will begin to wonder.

Since I was not at this board meeting, I want to give a fair voice to the St. Thomas decision makers. For example, Archbishop Flynn wrote a letter to the editor that was printed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Dec. 7, 2007 reiterating that: "The Saint Thomas board will always include bishops or priests. Any rumors or speculation about the ‘de-Catholicization of the University of St. Thomas are ill founded, inaccurate and ludicrous." Furthermore, the Winter 2008 edition of the St. Thomas Magazine, stresses that: "The board did not stipulate that the ordinary (head) of the archdiocese could not serve as chair, but specified only that the chair will be elected. Similar by-law changes were made for two other board positions (vicar general and president). Lastly, Dr. Mark Dienhart, executive vice president and chief administration officer, emphasized in the St. Thomas Magazine that the Opening Doors Campaign will ensure the Catholic identity of St. Thomas. Dienhart states, "our campaign themes of excellence and access address so many vital elements of our university's life that are absolutely essential to our Catholic identity. ... Many of our campaign priorities will enhance the Catholic identity of St. Thomas, how it achieves and sustains that identity, and how it remains true to its mission."

As I've noted above, while St. Thomas has made some attempts in writing to explain the board's decision, students and alumni are still confused and concerned. There is a real need for public discussion and dialogue regarding this decision and the future of St. Thomas' Catholic identity. Students, alumni and donors need to be able to voice their questions and concerns. I'm sure Crow would like to get some sunlight in his room, so a little public dialogue would be helpful. Ultimately, it is to St. Thomas' and the Archdiocese's disadvantage to let people speculate on why the decision was made and its long-term impacts on the Catholic identity of the university.