P«j?e 4 - t^OSSROADS - December. 1977
Insight
Court Ruling Aids Students
By FR. JOHN P. BRAI)LF:Y
The United States Supreme Court recently upheld the
decision of a three-judge federal court which ruled as
constitutional certain financial aid programs funded by
the State of North Carolina which benefit students at
tending J’feiffer College and Belmont Abbey College.
The case was initiated by Mr. Michael Smith, formerly a
profes.sor at Pfeiffer College; Mr. Smith was later joined
in the suit by Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State. The plaintiffs charged that the,
financial aid programs in question, which provide some
direct aid for students attending Pfeiffer, a Methodist
college, and Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic college,
were in violation of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution (forbidding the establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).
The first intimation we had of this suit at Belmont
Abbey College was in April 1976, when a United States
marshal! appeared on our campUs and served us with
papers. From then on, a great deal of the College’s
and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the
transcendent goal that gives meaning to life.
Before answering the attorneys’ questions on this, I
asked Judge McMillan's permission, which he readily
gave, to make what I regarded as a necessary clarifying
statement on the essential role of any college or
university. Catholic or otherwise. Briefly, the points I
tried to make are these: if an institution intends to
conduct itself as a college or university, it must seek its
educational goals through methods that are proper for
that kind of institution. These methods must include
such educational approaches as analysis, criticism and
questioning. Indoctrination, which is an acceptable
method for other kinds of institutions, simply is not an
appropriate method for a college or university. If in
doctrination is what people want, then I believe they
ought to set up some other kind of institution, but not a •
college: nor should they call it a college. Provided a
college such as Belmont Abbey adheres to its proper
administration’s time and energy was taken up with the methodology, there are many suitable ways in which it
seemingly endless legal processes required. After
preliminary legal motions were determined by the
court, an evidentiary hearing was held in Federal
District Court in Charlotte before Judge James Mc
Millan. This hearing lasted one full day. during .which
witnes.ses representing the .State of North Carolina,
Pfeiffer College, and Belmont Abbey College were
((uestioned at length by the plaintiffs’ and the defen
dants’ attorneys. The next hearing took place, before a
three-judge federal court, and arguments pro and con
were presented by the attorneys. When the opinions of
the three judges were handed down, we learned that all
three judges, basing their opinions on a previous ruling
ol the U. S. .Supreme Court in the Roomer case - a
similar case involving State aid to .several private
colleges in Maryland - decided that the financial aid
programs in qu(*stion were not in violation of the First
.Amendment. The plaintiffs promptly appealed this
ruling to the U. ,S. Supreme Court, which decided by a six
to thrw vote not to review the decision of the three-judge
court. This was tantamount to an affirmance of the
decision of the three-judge court.
The foregoing is, of course, a very brief account of the
entire proceedings, and perhaps one has to become
personally involved in such proceedings to appreciate
the great amount of time, expense, work, and worry
exacted by the entire process. Now that the case has
t)een decided-in our favor, thank God-I felt it might be
useful to record .some of my reflections on it and express
my opinion on the implications for Catholic higher
education.
A practical reflection comes to mind at once: our
gratitude to those church-related colleges in North
Carolina which contributed to a legal defense fund
established to help Pfeiffer and Belmont Abbey with
legal costs. Appreciation, too, for the competent legal
defense conducted by Mr. Joseph Grier and Mr. William
Kikard of a Charlotte law firm, and also for the constant
assistance and expertise of Mr. Basil Whitener, Belmont
Abbey College’s attorney. Of more widespread interest,
however, particularly to Catholics, is the question: Did
you water down your Catholic identity in responding to
the plaintiffs' charges’.' .So let me address myself
specifically to this aspect of the case.
The (.’atholic Identity of Belmont Abbey College was,
no doubt, of great interest to the plaintiffs: a college in
whicli so many priests "with that long i)lack religious
garb” work as teachers and administrators; a college
that has "religious symbols” throughout its entire
campus. From the plaintiffs’ point of view it made much
sense to include us with Pfeiffer in their suit. I was not, ■
theretore. surprised when their attorneys concentrated
on our Catholic identity when I took the witness stand in
the first hearing. In their questioning, they focused
strongly on a section of Belmont Abbey College’s official
statement of identity, goals and purposes, which
maintains that if a Catholic college or university is to be
true to its identity, the following four characteristics
must be present:
1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but
of the college community as such;
2. A continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic
faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge;
J. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us
through the Church;
4. An institutional commitment to the people of God
can implement its Catholic identity. It is my contention
that Belmont Abbey College conducts itself in this way:
that it strives to implement its Catholic identity through
a methodology proper for a college and in other suitable
ways, and so, as previous decisions of the United States-
■Supreme Court seem to indicate, its North Carolina
students should not be barred from benefiting from State
or Federal funds.
The position I applied throughout in answering the
long and persistent questioning on the four essential
characteristics of a Catholic college endorsed by
Belmont Abbey College’s official statement of identity,
goals and purposes. Incidentally, we incorporated these
characteristics in our statement from a document issued
by the .Second Congress of Delegates of Catholic
Universities of the World which met in Vatican City in
1972. Reading over the transcript of my testimony, I
noticed that at one point in the questioning I told the
attorney that if he sought to have me deny or dilute in
.any way Belmont Abbey College’s identity as a Catholic
college, he just would not succeed. 1 said this because I
am convinced that if Belmont Abbey College cannot
operate as a Catholic college in ways proper for a
college. I feel sure that the Board of Trustees would
decide to close it down, and rightly so. in my opinion.
Reflecting on this phase of the case, it strikes me as
interesting that the position of the plaintiffs was that if
we are a Catholic college, we ought to indoctrinate our
students i many of whom, by the way, are not Catholic);
in other words, operate like a seminary or some other
form of non-college institution. I find this interesting
because this seems precisely to be the position of
numerous Catholics also, and so, it seems to me that
because of the failure of many people to understand
clearly the .fundamental nature of an institution of
higher education, the Catholic college is assailed on all
sides. The fact of the matter is, however, at least at
Belmont Abbey College, no one-students, staff, faculty,
administrators, trustees-has any doubt whatsoever that
we are indeed a Catholic college and that our philosophy
of education insists that moral and spiritual growth are
just as important as intellectual development.
Furthermore, I believe that Catholic educators
working in the field of higher education today would
agree with me that if a Catholic college is true to its
identity and expresses this identity in all the ways that
are possible and suitable for an institution of higher
learning, it can be most effective in leading young people
in our time to gain for themselves a mature appreciation
of their faith and also a grasp of sound moral values
consonant with their faith. Needless to say, in times
such as these when our young people are constantly
exposed in our culture to deep confusion about the
meaning of life and to many values that oppose or un
dermine Christian teaching, a Catholic college that has
some success in battling such a deluge of rubbish per
forms a most important task, not only for its students,
but also for our society.
I believe that this kind of education, so critically
needed by college-age students in our times, is what a
Catholic college can and should do well. It seems to me
that this is what Pope Paul VI had in mind when, in a
letter to the Rector of the Catholic University of Milan,
he described the work' of the Catholic college as
“irreplaceable and urgent,” and in an address to
Catholic educators from all over the world pledged his
strong support and asked for similar support from
Catholic bishops everywhere for what he beautifully
described as the Catholic university’s “pastoral
ministry of thought.” The Holy Father’s support was
echoed in a letter I received from Cardinal Garrone,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic
Education, to whom I had sent a copy of Belmont Abbey
College’s statement of goals and purposes. The Cardinal
wrote: “We want to say to you and your collaborators
and associates that we deeply admire those who give so
much of their lives and resources to the precious
apostolate of Catholic higher learning. To maintain and
develop a university-level institution that is truly up
dated and modern while penetrated with the Catholic
faith and guided by Catholic truth is not an easy task in
face of the uncommon difficulties, opportunities, and
challenges of our time.”
In the light of the foregoing, it would seem to me that
the implications of the favorable decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court, not only in the case of Belmont Abbey
College but also in various other cases involving Catholic
colleges in other parts of the country, are most im
portant. As I see it, this means that Catholic colleges
and other church-related colleges which conduct
themselves as colleges and at the same time strongly
implement in suitable ways their denominational
identify, can do so without rendering their students
ineligible for State funds. Theoretically, I see no reason
why public funds which go to the student who then
chooses to attend a church-related college should
threaten that college’s independence, for these funds go
not to the institution but to the student. Nevertheless, in
practice, I believe a church-related college should avoid
excessive reliance even on those public funds that are
given not to the institution but to their students.
That caution being entered, I believe that the
availability of a certain amount of State funds for a
student who chooses to attend a church-related college
furnishes two important benefits for our society. First,
there are today many thoughtful people who understand
that our kind of society can only be viable if a certain
minimal reservoir of sound values are accepted and
shared by the American people, and they rightly worry
about the serious erosion of these values in our times.
Church-related colleges, in virtue of their history and
tradition, are in a position to reinforce these values in a
way State colleges and universities are not so able to do,
and hence, church-related colleges which seriously
pursue their mission have much to contribute to the well
being of our society.
Secondly, a relatively small amount of financial help
from the State to our students can enable church-related
colleges to share more of the load of higher education
which is borne in great measure nowadays by the tax-
supported State institutions. Particularly in these in
flationary times, it is clearly a great benefit, for in
stance, to the North Carolina taxpayers to find con
stitutional ways of curbing the ever-increasing costs of
education paid for by the State, especially since the
State’s education budgets are already so burdensome.
This situation can be helped by making it possible for a
North Carolina resident to choose to attend an in
dependent college rather than a State institution, and
this is precisely why the State Legislature in North
Carolina enacted the programs recently declared
constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. For instance,
this year every student attending a State university in
North Carolina had his or her tuition costs subsidized by
the State in an amount exceeding $2,400. If a student by
receiving from the State $300, for example, chooses to
attend Belmont Abbey College or another private college
in North Carolina rather than a State university, the
taxpayers are thereby saved something over $2,100.
This figure takes into account only tuition costs and
prescinds entirely from the enormous capital costs
required by the State university system, costs that are
also, of course, borne by the taxpayers.
A final reflection on the implications of the case
focuses on a particularly Catholic point of view. When
the pioneer Benedictines came to North Carolina over a
hundred years ago to establish here a Catholic college,
surely their hopes of survival must have been largely
based on faith, for even today North Carolina has the
lowest percentage of Catholics of any state in the nation.
K ontinued On Page 5)