O\u27Keefe, Vincent T., S.J.

English

epublications@Marquette

Conversations on Jesuit Higher EducationVolume 1 Article 54-1-1992Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?Vincent T. O'Keefe S.J.Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversationsRecommended CitationO'Keefe, Vincent T. S.J. (1992) "Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?," Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education: Vol. 1, Article5.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol1/iss1/5 199Februarvmore complex,it becameclearer and clearerthat some changeshad to be made.For a time there was also anational secretary of educationgrew Jesui t schoolsc3wnership  here meant Jesuit con-trol, and this was exercised in decid-ing academic, religious and financialpractices and policy. But it alsomeant ownership in a legal sense, since all Jesuit institu-tions were legally incorporated in the United States, andmembers of the Society of Jesus formed the legal corpora-tions as trustees and officers.The operation of the educational institution was car-ried out within the traditional religious order frameworkof priorities, administrative procedures, and structures ofauthority The key players were numerous. There were,first, the superior general of the order and the provincialsuperiors. (The superior general has authority over theworldwide Society. “General” here is not a military termbut refers to a universal authority A provincial superiorhas authority over a specific geographical and administra-tive unit called a “province,” and thus is distinguishedfrom the “general” or universalsuperior. There are ten provincialsuperiors in the United States).Other key players were thepresidents of the Jesuit collegesand universities, and the provinceprefects of studies. (The presi-dents for a long period of timewere also the rectors, i.e., thelocal superiors of the Jesuit reli-gious community. “Local” meantthey were the religious superiorsof a single house or communityin a province and thus distin-guished from the general and theprovincial superior. The provinceprefects functioned as aides to theprovincials during a certain peri-od of this history.)As the religiosa,  thereligious house or community.SJProvincial Office, New York, New YorkWho OwnsJesuit Collegesand Universities?T his topic involves the obvious question ofwho is liable and accountable in a legalsense for a Jesuit college or university. Italso involves the very pertinent question:Who is responsible for the school as aJesuit institution of higher education intoday’s academic scene in the United States? Someknow-ledge of historical development is required to un-derstand our present position. Such knowledge will alsoprovide enlightenment on the control structures andleadership in these Jesuit institutions.Prior to the 1960s the situationof Jesuit colleges and universities inthe United States was quite clear.The educational institution was iden-tified with the religious congregation,in this case the Society of Jesus. AJesuit college or university meantone corporate body, and the Societyof Jesus owned and operated the en-tire establishment. Jesuits spoke oftheir institutions as “ours.” The Jesuitcommunity and the Jesuit institutionwere one and the same entity. Thesole ownership of the entire complexwas vested in the domus  O’Keeje  T. Vincent 1O'Keefe: Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?Published by e-Publications@Marquette, 1992COKVERSATIOKStt created a separate corporation em-bodying the Jesuit community which thus became legallydistinct from the university The assets of the communityincluded simply its residence and the facilities connectedwith it. All of the other assets of the previously singlecommunity/university corporation were left with the uni-versity alone. As administrators and faculty members theJesuits would contract with the university for their ser-vices and receive compensation according to their aca-demic rank or position. That compensation would go di-rectly to the Jesuit community for its ongoing support.The third major change affected the boards oftrustees of the Jesuit institutions. Again in 1967, SaintLouis University instituted a newly constituted boardconsisting of Jesuits and lay people. The lay memberswere in the majority and the board was assured that itwould have true legal control of and responsibility forthe properties and policies of Saint Louis University. AsFather FitzGerald says, “Contrary to what might havebeen expected, this unusual move involved no change inthe original charter of Saint Louis University, althoughnew bylaws were formulated to ensure the Jesuit charac-ter of the university. Basically, the new structure was aneffort to make the board and its actions better reflectacademtc  pro-grams, changing admission requirements, introducing co-education, building and construction programs, etc.). Inaddition, as an intermediary between the presidents ofthe institutions and theEducational Association. The rector/president was limitedin what he could do on his own.As the Jesuit schools grew and became more com-plex, and as the Jesuit presidents became more and moreinvolved in the national educational scene, it becameclearer and clearer that some changes had to be made.Fortunately, the context in the United States and on theworld scene was one conducive to major changes. TheSecond Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Thirty-FirstGeneral Congregation (the legislative body) of the Societyof Jesus (1965-1966) opened the way for such changes inthe field of Jesuit higher education.Three changes had particular significance for theownership and governance of Jesuit institutions. In thefirst of them, the Jesuit presidents took over from theprovincials as the board of directors of Jesuit higher edu-cation. Father FitzGerald describes this process in detail,and as one might suspect, it was not “a piece of cake.”The second major change was the separation of Jesuitcommunities, through legal incorporation, from the col-leges/universities. Saint Louis University was the first todo this. In 1967  ehminating major  officials, initiating or  (JEA)  in 1934, which was eventually reorga-nized as the Association of Jesuit Colleges andUniversities (AJCU) in 1970. This is by no means abloodless account of facts and figures. To be met through-out the book are many interesting and colorful person-ages who played major roles in the development ofCatholic higher education.Until the 1960s the United States provincials, actingas the Board of Governors of the Jesuit EducationalAssociation, were the key figures in the governance ofJesuit colleges and universities. They had to apply to thesuperior general in Rome for a variety of permissions (forinstance, naming the Jesuit rector/president and otherbegmnmg  in 1920, toadapt what was a European Jesuit model of administra-tion to the colleges and universities in the United Stateswhere the needs and challenges were so different. In hisdocumented study, Father FitzGerald shows how an ini-tial governing body, called “The Inter-provinceCommittee” evolved into the Jesuit EducationalAssociation qfjesuit Colleges in the United States, 1920-l 970by the late Father Paul A. FitzGerald SJ. He traces thevaliant efforts of Jesuit educators,  and the Jesuit Educational Association (with its presi-dent), later to be replaced by the current Association ofJesuit Colleges and Universities (with its president). Thekey players here were all Jesuits.The best and most complete treatment of the way inwhich the Jesuit institutions of higher education wereconducted between 1920 and 1970 is to be found in TheGovernance 2Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [1992], Art. 5http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol1/iss1/5p. 202.1920-1970,  Notre Dame: University of NotreDame Press, 1984, Sk&s, thrUnited ofjesuit Colleges in Governunce  SJ, The FltzGerald ’ Paul A. tt is a much more important question andhas more serious implications than the first one. The re-sponsibility involved here looks to the identity and quali-ty of the institution as a Jesuit college or university. Thisshould be the concern of the whole college or universitycommunity, but it is obvious that the faculty, the presi-dent and his administrative team, and the board oftrustees or directors have a special role to play here. Onlyif together in concert they all “own” the school can it con-tinue to have such an identity and quality as a Jesuit insti-tution. Their endeavor to meet this responsibility is, ofnecessity, a continuing and cooperative effort. It is a partof the ongoing conversation that builds a college or uni-versity, that helps the community which constitutes thatschool to understand its Jesuit character. It is such con-versation that this journal wants to foster and the varyingimplications of that ownership are spread throughout theother essays of this first issue of Conversations.\would be separate and dis-tinct from the educationalinstitution while still cooperatingwith it. It would also permit the revision of the cor-porate structure of the educational institution sothat lay people could be added to the board oftrustees or directors in whatever proportion was decidedupon.The superior general accepted these proposals, but itwas up to the individual institution to submit its requeststo him through the provincial superior of the province inwhich it was located. Approval was given to these re-quests, so that now it is the board of trustees or directorswhich is legally responsible for these institutions. Thiswas a long and difficult process which engendered pas-sionate debate and left many scars.Today all of the Jesuit institutions have such a board,but for precise details the individual charters and bylawshave to be consulted. Although all but one institutionprovide for a majority of lay members, some specify cer-tain percentages of lay and Jesuit members. In addition tothe board of trustees or directors, some few institutionshave a board of members whose prime responsibility is toelect the members of the board of trustees or directors.Most of the Jesuit communities are separately incorporat-ed and some have a sustaining agreement which definesthe relationship between the community corporation andthe corporation of the college or university So much for abrief account of the legal niceties of corporate ownershipin response to the first meaning for Jesuit schools of thatterm “own.”ship asked at the beginning ot this essay refersto the responsibility for the well-being of the school as aJesuit college or university in the United States today Inso many ways  I1’tablish a cornoration thattraduce similar changes. Thiswould permit Jesuit commu-nities whose primary workwas higher education to es-’tions of higher education to in-asArrupe to allow other Jesuit institu--ici als inproviiapnroval the United Statesadopted...bythe 31st General Congregation’.“’Saint Louis University had initiatedthese changes on an expertmental basis.After their  m line with a decree oneducation which was  administration were the same people.]In approving this arrangement,the General [Father PedroArrupe] pointed out ‘that thechange was  of Jesuits only, both the policymaking body and those incharge of the internal  3O'Keefe: Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?Published by e-Publications@Marquette, 1992

Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&amp;context=conversations

Who Owns Jesuit Colleges and Universities?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette