Democratic corrections: College presidents might help bridge a chasm

by Stephen J. Nelson

What is the meaning of "moral values," the catch phrase that entered our post-election vocabulary? Has the chasm in our society become so broad as to be unbridgeable? Such questions got my pragmatic side running and it led to this modest proposal: College and university presidents can lead the way in addressing this dilemma in a democracy.

I find inspiration in a simple story from a bygone era, but one with some provocative implications today.

In the late 1960s during the height of Vietnam War protests, a group of students at Notre Dame approached then President Theodore Hesburgh about an on-campus petition drive opposing the war. The students' request was that Hesburgh agree to convey their petitions, presumably signed by an overwhelming majority of Notre Dame students, to President Nixon, with whom they knew "Father Ted" had a close personal relationship. A campus rally was to be held the next day. The students wanted Hesburgh to speak.

In typical fashion, Hesburgh presented a brief but powerful message. He supported their intentions and passion, but countered that as simply a group of college students, their voice was neither surprising nor unexpected: Of course a group of university students could get an overwhelming majority of their peers to support the U.S. withdrawal from the war. For precisely this reason their point would fall on deaf ears in Washington.

What would be tougher, Hesburgh challenged, would be to obtain 40,000 signatures (about 80 percent) of the residents of surrounding South Bend. His argument was simple: Everyday folks, many of them immigrants living immediately outside the gates of the campus in this conservative part of the Midwest, were voices that, if they could be persuaded to support the petition, would carry vastly greater weight in the halls of power than a mere batch of students.

Taking up Hesburgh's challenge, the students went door to door in the community, discussing the war and arguing their case. Within a week or so they collected more than Hesburgh's target of 40,000 signatures. True to his promise, Hesburgh hand-delivered these petitions to the Nixon White House.

What does this story and image from four decades ago have to do with what some believe is today's massive national divide on moral matters? We may need another block-by-block conversation - this time on a national level - about our divisions and the passions that attend them. If "moral values" is political code for assumptions about gay and lesbian rights, a woman's right to choose, stem cell research and other tough issues, what would happen if we truly talked them through?

Who better to lead the charge but a coalition of academic leaders: the presidents of colleges and universities across the country. Suppose a group of them gathered their moral public capital and voice to challenge and encourage an army of college students to go into communities to engage in a conversation about "moral values." Suppose these presidents organized their campuses in conjunction with local communities and community leaders to match these students with fellow citizens to carry on civic (and presumably civil) conversations about what are popularly viewed as divisive issues. The timing could not be more precipitous: These college students are engaged in the issues.

The bottom line is that this is not about people with values and mores versus those who have none. Rather, it is a contest about values and civic mores, a battle at the heart of the Republic's founding and history. Our "democratic experiment," still quite young in the history of the world, is shot through with questions about what are or should be the mores of a diverse, tolerant and inclusive nation and society. Presumably it is worth the risk to have such an intentional civic discourse in such a democracy.

College and university presidents, supported by other educators, could seize this as a rare national opportunity. It is a way to put democratic rhetoric to work in addressing complex, perplexing and inherently divisive issues. It is a way to see whether there is common cause and ground, things that look illusive at best against the heated argument, contention, and chasm of the day. And I would argue that the presidents of our colleges and universities are in a perfect position to take the lead in a bi-partisan effort dedicated to a greater good. Would hearts and minds be changed? No one can say, and there would certainly be no way to control the outcome.

There are courageous, committed, and concerned college and university presidents today who understand the spirit of Father Hesburgh. Maybe we all could follow his example. I think such a step is worth some significant contemplation and action.

Stephen J. Nelson is a research associate in Brown's Education Department and assistant professor of educational leadership at Bridgewater State College. He is the author of "Leaders in the Crucible: The Moral Voice of College Presidents," and is working on another book about college and university presidents: "Character and Courage in the Academy."