The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman

Background:  John Henry Newman, while a scholar at Oxford University, was one of the leaders of the “Oxford Movement” which eventually led to his conversion to the Catholic Church in 1845.  The Catholic hierarchy of Ireland asked him to come to Ireland to establish a Catholic University there.  While that effort was not successful (in great measure because Newman wanted to establish an institution of genuine inquiry while the bishops were more intent on an institution where they controlled the agenda), it did lead to a series of lectures on the nature of a university which have become a classical expression of the ideal of a liberal education.  In part, Newman’s lectures attempted to counter the cultural movement of “utilitarianism” which was behind the “new” University of London, whose purpose was to train young men [sic!] so that they would have skills which served the booming industrial markets of the British empire.  

Web resources:  A John Henry Newman page maintained by David Armstrong contains images of Newman, biographical information, links to his works that are available on-line, interpretative essays, and much more.

Discussion questions:

At the beginning of section 1 (24), Newman refers to the “cultivation of the intellect”?  He claims, further, that this can be pursued “for its own sake” (24).  What does he mean by this?  Do you agree that this is possible?  Desirable?  Why or why not?

What does Newman say the purpose (24) of a liberal education in a university is supposed to be?  What does he mean when he thinks that this may be achieved through a process of training?   While you were in high-school, did you ever consider your purpose in attending college along these lines?  

At the beginning of section 2 (25) Newman declares that “some great men” insist that college education should be confined “to some particular and specific end” and that it should issue in some definite work that can be “weighed and measured.”  This view upholds the value of “utility” in education.  What do you think of this understanding of the purpose of a college education?

In sections 3-4 (25-9) Newman provides recent historical background to this debate as it developed in England between more pragmatic thinkers (expressed through a “great northern review”) and reformers at Oxford (with whom Newman aligns himself).  If you are pressed for time, you may omit studying these pages, although there are valuable points affirmed in passing that indicate how Newman tries to discuss “utility.”  This includes the observation (based, as we shall see later, on Aristotle) that the goal of a university education as he has described it is good in itself and by that very fact is “useful” (29).

In section 5 (30) Newman suggests that what “pragmatists” often mean by “useful” is what he means by “good” or “liberal” education.  What is the crux of this claim?  Note, in particular, Newman’s observations that while “the useful is not always good, the good is always useful.”  Note also his observations that the good is “prolific” in that it “overflows” so that a cultivated intellect is a “diffusing good” both for the individual person and for the world around that person.  What do you understand this claim to be affirming?  Do you agree with Newman’s interpretation of the “usefulness” of a liberal education?  Why or why not?

How does Newman’s use of the analogy of “health” (section 6, 30-1) allow him to assess the value and purpose of professional education?  How does Newman’s approach to the purpose of university education allow him to address the societal value (section 10, 32-3) of a liberal education?  Based on his understanding of a university education, do you believe that the system of higher education in the US fosters such a goal?  What evidence can you bring forward to support your judgment? 

Now that you have examined the overall pattern of Newman’s argument, what is your assessment of it?  Is the argument valid?  Does it meet the concerns or the objections of those who insist on the value of utility?

Do you believe this reading contributes to a course trying to introduce students to intellectual inquiry today?  Why or why not?  Do you believe it bears any relationship to the Bonaventurian themes of the prologue?  How? Or why not?