College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Notre Dame leadership

By Frank T. Pimentel

Guest Columnist

Print this article

Published: Monday, November 2, 2009

Updated: Monday, November 2, 2009

 In The “Abolition of Man,” C.S. Lewis argued that modern education produces “what may be called Men without Chests. It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her.” Sadly, we see this in full effect at Notre Dame today. 

First, in their initial bumbling attempt to defend the Commencement invitation to President Obama, the University distributed laughable “talking points” to the Board of Trustees, which managed, in one swipe, to insult the intelligence of anyone who questioned the propriety of the invitation and to directly insult the initial Laetare Award honoree. 

Then, Fr. Jenkins compounded the error by issuing a statement to the effect that he, presumably in contrast to the shanty Catholic rubes who saw through the artifice concocted by Notre Dame in its perpetual desire for respect by those whose opinions matter in academia, was going to deliver an “inclusive and respectful speech.” In other words, as Lewis predicted, those who attack him, attack “Intelligence.” Alas, the commencement debacle was not the most recent example at Notre Dame of Lewis’ foretelling. 

Last week Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick announced that next October Notre Dame would be fortifying its football schedule by playing Western Michigan University. (Parenthetically, I’ll state that for all I know, WMU is a great school and runs a fine football program. But that’s kind of the point; about all I know of WMU is that it is in Kalamazoo — and I doubt that most anyone not from Michigan or northern Indiana even knows that.) Of course, that announcement understandably caused instant deflation among nearly anybody who harbors hope that the Fighting Irish will once again become the team it was under Rockne, Leahy, Parseghian or Holtz. (By way of brief examples, on our way to the 1988 National Championship, Notre Dame played Michigan, Miami and USC in the regular season. The next year we played Michigan, USC, Penn State and Miami before the bowl game. In ‘90 we played Michigan, Miami, Tennessee, Penn State and USC in the regular season.) 

But that wasn’t the end of the consternation. Instead, echoing Jenkins’ pronouncements surrounding commencement, Swarbrick announced with respect to the inevitable blacklash, “It reflects a not very sophisticated view of what’s going on out there.” As with Jenkins, those who attack him attack “Intelligence.” But I am not fooled. In the case of football, the problem isn’t finding opponents on short notice, it’s finding opponents who will be bought, not expecting a return visit by Notre Dame. This scheduling philosophy, deemed “7-4-1” for shorthand, meaning seven home games, four road games and one “neutral site” game televised on NBC (amounting in substance then to eight home games and four road games), requires materially watering the schedule down and making it, frankly, boring. 

But this was intentional. Notre Dame knew that if it shorthanded itself by establishing a Potemkin 7-4-1 “requirement,” it would eviscerate future schedules so badly that, by contrast, a league schedule (Big 10? Big East? ACC?) would be appealing. Of course, this is a false choice. Simply returning to a more balanced home/road schedule (6-6, or even 7-5), with the historical norm of playing home-and-home series with marquee schools, would immediately solve the problem. But that itself is the problem. 

The powers that be don’t want that problem — the supposed scheduling problem — solved. Rather, while alumni have always overwhelmingly opposed joining a conference for football, those in the Dome and JACC — specifically John Heisler — “know better” and want it (and for reasons having nothing to do with athletics and everything to do with those whose opinions matter in academia). They don’t want to solve the scheduling “problem” that they created themselves. Rather, they have set us up to “solve” the scheduling “problem” by, sooner rather than later, throwing up their hands and arguing that the only feasible solution left will be to, surprise, join a conference. 

But my Intelligence will not be insulted. Moreover, until Notre Dame decides to place Men with Chests back in leadership, my checkbook (which had heretofore been wide open) will remain closed.

 

Frank T. Pimentel is an alumnus of the Class of ‘84 and ‘97 and can be contacted at frankinlaredo@gmail.com

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

 

Comments

15 comments
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:30 again
Tue Nov 3 2009 09:14
Alex,

With all due respect, abortion is not nearly as preventable by the federal government as are civilian deaths from a war, or prisoners' deaths from capital punishment, or citizens' deaths from malnutrition. There are many test cases worldwide of countries with high abortion rates where abortion is outlawed, and low abortion rates where it is not. This suggests that making abortion illegal is but a single though important step in reducing abortions. In fact, President Obama's commencement address largely focused on the other, less controversial factors which government can clearly control, and with which any well-meaning Christian could not argue.

On the other hand, outlawing capital punishment or sticking to catholic teachings on just war would directly eliminate the death caused by those practices. Speculating about the deaths that Saddam may have caused is not useful here, in my opinion--Catholic teaching on the morality of war makes it pretty clear that a war such as the one prosecuted by President Bush was absolutely not just.

Terry--I'm not sure what your "biological fact" was meant to say. Is it not also a biological fact that a child's life ends when she's hit by a cruise missile or dies of preventable infectious disease or malnourishment? At what age does the Christian call to respect life no longer apply?

-Jeff

Alex
Tue Nov 3 2009 00:31
ND 82 - Your "more enlightened" worldview of the many facets of being pro-life exemplifies exactly the sort of condescending attitude the article was railing against. I think it is fair to assume that almost everyone reading the Observer is aware that many decisions of our political leaders make have direct or indirect life and death implications even though they are not traditional "pro-life" issues. Environmentalism, Health Care, and Disaster Management could all have life or death implications. Certainly Hurricane Katrina was a painful reminder of this fact. However, while 1,800 died in Katrina and thousands have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, over this same period millions have died in abortions (sorry for not having a stat on the wars, but I have not seen a recent number including Iraqi and Afghan casualties). While I certainly believe that these other issues are tremendously important, abortion is still the 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to life issues. Also, with wars and natural disasters it is much more difficult to judge the consequences of not taking action or taking a different action. How many of his own citizens would Saddam have murdered if we had not removed him? Would Al-Queda have launched another attack on us had we not intervened? With abortion, the casualties are almost all preventable. While I agree with ND 82's sentiment that many issues not explicitly labeled as life issues can have tremendous impacts on life, given the scale of the problem, I do not believe this can be used as a rationalization to ignore a politician's support of abortion.
Go Irish
Mon Nov 2 2009 21:48
The watering down of the schedule and 7-4-1 format does align ND's oponent caliber with that of other upper echelon teams (a few tough teams, a few midlevel and a few schleps). Also, the immediate gratification/justification that has now infected business seemingly everywhere encourages the pursuit of profits now without sights on the overall longterm implications. The neutral site may actually be helpful for recruiting, opening new markets, etc. and those things are good. However, we need to respect our opponents (home-for-home/neutral) and more to the point have opponents worthy of our respect. We don't have to be like everyone else. We need only surrender to excellence. We are ND.
ND '09
Mon Nov 2 2009 15:21
Direct quote from Gregg Easterbrook (of Tuesday Morning Quarterback fame):
"Cupcake Watch: Reader Tom Lewis of Seattle notes that the University of Washington just dropped BYU, a tough opponent, from future schedules, while adding two Division I-AA cupcake schools, Eastern Washington and Portland State . Notre Dame, UCLA, USC and Washington were the sole remaining Division I football programs that had never played a lower-division school; so scratch the Huskies off the we've-still-got-our-pride list."

You can complain all you want about ND scheduling WMU, but at least they don't stoop to the level of, well, just about every school in the top 10 of the BCS by scheduling 1-AA opponents.

I mean, I understand your frusterations with the football team, but scheduling weak opponents sure hasn't hurt Florida's recruiting class.

ND 06
Mon Nov 2 2009 13:02
To ND 82 -
Recruiting sounds nice, and is a convenient talking point, but the bottom line is that a neutral site game is another home game, with home game ticket revenues, home game broadcasting money, and home game merchandising deals. Just like the Western Michigan game, the only place Notre Dame really lost money was in paying a terrible team to show up and get killed. Hopefully in the future they can find cheaper teams and make EVEN MORE money. The golden goose at Notre Dame is bleeding a slow, painful, and shameful death.
Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 12:32
I think a 6-5-1 model is perfectly reasonable. That requires only 1 game to be played home-only, plus one bowl-like off-site game. If the off-site game is handled correctly, it will take a game to a big market fairly close to the opponent's campus. ASU in Dallas is much better than WSU in San Antonio. It would be great to have someone like WVU in D.C, FSU in Atlanta, or Oklahoma State in New Orleans. Not close enough to be a home game for them, but close enough for them to bring a strong contingent. If Western Michigan is the one school that we convince to play home-only, we are doing well for ourselves. They are a solid mid-level program right now. The problem comes when we have to play several mid-level teams in a single year. It's also disrespectful and irresponsible not to extend home-and-home offers to the teams we play. If you're not willing to play away games against at least 10 of 12 teams on your schedule, you need to reevaluate things.
ND 82
Mon Nov 2 2009 12:27
"This "cafeteria Pro-Life" worldview ignores poverty, war, capital punishment, global economic injustice, and all of the other ways that government policy directly decides the life or death of the world's citizens."....Amen. I assume this poster also believes, as I do, in the sin of abortion, but that one has to weigh the entire panoply of a politician's views. In this regard, Father Jenkins and the administration have done a good job, with little support from the "cafeteria pro-lifers."

As for the schedule, the neutral site game is being done for one thing above all others -- recruiting. Get the local kids in, at locations other than South Bend, where they might not be interested in going initially. Then, when they are interested, get them to the Dome for a big weekend, i.e., Michigan, USC, etc., and seal the deal

Terry
Mon Nov 2 2009 11:24
it is a biological fact that life begins at conception - always has, does now and always will

Altho I did not graduate from ND, I did go there for a few years - anyone remember "Ara stop the snow"? - and I do love her but if I did have children, which I don't, and I wanted them to get a good Catholic education I would NOT send them to notre dame. IMO she has been shedding her catholic skin for about 40 years - this last spring made it official.

ND '89
Mon Nov 2 2009 10:15
I am assuming the author is criticizing the handling of the Obama invitation from a Public Relations standpoint, which was clearly a disaster, not the event itself of which the merits should be debated elsewhere.
Savvy Jack
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:55
Much like Jenkins' passing out of 'talking points" to the BOT, "talking points" have been sent to people within the AD to explain why scheduling pansies like Tulsa and WMU is acceptable (i.e. WMU won a bowl game in 1922, etc.).
Slacker
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:50
Get our AD a telephone to call Miami and some grad assistants to check the file drawers for lost envelopes with contracts.
Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:30
It's hard for me to understand the continued dwelling on the Obama invitation as anything but sour grapes from those whose pro-life Catholocism begins and ends with abortion. This "cafeteria Pro-Life" worldview ignores poverty, war, capital punishment, global economic injustice, and all of the other ways that government policy directly decides the life or death of the world's citizens. George W. Bush, that champion of "life" according to those who march on Washington each January prevented zero deaths with his abortion stance, yet was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands with his war in Iraq. As a Catholic, I refuse to partake in the "call yourself pro-Life and all sins are forgiven" political mentality.

I'm with you on the scheduling, though. See you on NDNation.

Edward Fitzpatrick III
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:11
Frank certainly echoes a growing opinion that university administrators often exhibit a lack of candor when discussing some of their decisions and agendas. In the case of President Obama's commencement invitation and the systematic dilution of the football schedule, characterization of alumni dissent as "unsopohisticated" only serves to increase feelings of mistrust and gives pause to those who have supported the University for many years.
80's Alum
Mon Nov 2 2009 08:56
Very well said. The pursuit of money has altered the reality in their minds of that which makes Notre Dame unique among major football powers. Mr. Swarbrick implies that unless you embrace the current scheduling model you are not "suave" or "sophisticated". Yet on the front page of CNNSI is an article how Miami has tried to schedule either a home and home or neutral site game, but Mr. Swarbrick won't even return their calls. Certainly, I believe it must be very difficult to schedule traditional high quality opponents when you do not return phone calls. The inexplicable pattern of scheduling can only lead one to assume ulterior motives. I believe the truly suave and sophisticated are those who remember what made Notre Dame great, and refuse to sacrifice those principles by taking a stand to change the scheduling direction and effectively block any such attempts
Joe Cool
Mon Nov 2 2009 07:54
Bravo!!!!






log out