"...And we shall lead a life uncommon"
"A Life Uncommon", by Jewel
Why did the university go after this $2m grant from the Lilly Endowment?
| Several faculty and administrators, particularly Patricia Killen, then of the
Religion Department (and current provost) and then-provost Paul Menzel, became aware of the Lilly
Endowment's initiative to foster the exploration of vocation on undergraduate
campuses. When it became clear that the Endowment conceived its objective to be
broadly to stimulate students' reflection on larger questions about meaning and
purpose in relation to educational and life choices, an objective deeply
congruent with PLU's understanding of its mission, the President's and Deans'
Councils authorized pursuit of planning and then implementation grants. |
What assumptions were made in the initial conception of the project and
construction of the grant proposal?
| It was quickly determined that any PLU project would have to (1) grow organically out of currently valued activities and initiatives, not be an “add on”; (2) involve a significant number of people from many parts of campus; (3) provide adequate resources for all proposed activities undertaken; (4) be authentically inclusive, in the best tradition of the Lutheran sense of vocation and of PLU's principles, not “parochial”; and (5) aim to nurture students in the critical capacity and contextual sensitivity required of future civic, community, professional, and congregational leaders. |
Who was involved in putting the proposal and the project together?
| Early
on, after consultation with the Deans' Council, an ad hoc planning group was
formed to solicit ideas from around campus. Based on input from those
conversations, Patricia Killen and Paul Menzel authored a $50k planning grant
proposal. Upon receipt of that grant near the end of 2001, a ten-person
planning team including faculty, academic support staff, and student life staff
was formed to develop the implementation grant. Through June 2002, planning
team members met with over 50 faculty and staff to develop and refine
conceptual and functional elements of the project, bounced their lead ideas off
the Deans' Council, and applied for the $2m grant in August, 2002. |
Will the project tread on my [PLU faculty & staff members'] ground?
| No—and
to insure against that, anyone who thinks it is doing so needs to communicate
that to someone on the project coordinating team. For one thing, almost all
activities for faculty will be voluntary, and all activities that directly
relate to existing programs will run through the offices currently responsible
for those programs (e.g., student “returner” reflection groups will run through
the Wang Center and Center for Public Service,
and enhancements of service learning will be directed through Public Service). |
Will the project try to milk faculty and staff for more time, energy,
and resources?
| No. The planning team deliberately constructed a project
and budget in which every new activity created by the project—anything that
adds to a person's workload—would be accompanied by either full replacement
funding or additional compensation (preferably the former). A very high
proportion of the budget for the project goes to living up to that principle. |
Will the project add to the proliferation of courses at PLU?
| No.
Any “new service learning courses” referred to in the grant, for example, will
be courses that would be offered anyway; “new” refers to service learning
elements newly incorporated in them. Any “gateway” or “vocation of leadership”
courses in particular disciplines and professional schools that will receive
faculty development support from the project will either be revisions of
courses that already exist or replacement courses designed for a program's
revised curriculum. |
Will the project make PLU more “religious”?
| No, not in any sense
that should cause people to object, or to see things as being subtly imposed on
them. But definitely yes, in the sense that searching for and thinking
critically about meaning and purpose in our lives is always arguably a
religious activity. Then, too, the project will not mince words about the
challenge to Pacific
Lutheran University
in a contemporary society where religion is often seen as neither significantly
engaged in societal needs nor constructively inclusive of intellectual reflection.
PLU's challenge as a unique institution of higher education is to bring all
parties, from secularists to the most personally devout, into a circle of
intellectually rigorous and societally engaged inquiry that is ultimately
concerned about service to others. The Lilly-funded Wild Hope Project certainly
aims to assist the university in doing that. |
