Earlier this month, the SLU chess team continued their hot streak as they competed at the Midwest Collegiate Chess Championship at the University of Missouri. Held from Oct. 6 to 8, SLU’s chess team was met with tough competition from Washington University and Mizzou, all three teams fielding their strongest players. 

The Midwest Chess Championship was the first event of its kind, and the inauguration represents a push to bring together the best collegiate chess players in the Midwest for competition. According to Mizzou chess coach Christian Chirila, “Collegiate chess tournaments are generally rare, with only a handful of important events per year. For this reason, the best way to get the players, the fans and their respective universities involved is to create more tournaments.”

The tournament was divided into two back-to-back events: a five round classical tournament, where games last several hours and mental stamina is a key factor, and a nine round “blitz” tournament, where the games are much shorter but the pressure is often ramped up. 

Players from each school competed individually, and both the classical and the blitz events were won by SLU players. Sophomore Benjamin Bok, who recently made St. Louis headlines for his performance at the FIDE World Cup in Russia, built on his strong performance there by capturing first place in the blitz section, winning seven of nine games.

With this victory in the blitz event, Bok edged out fellow teammates, including sophomore Akshat Chandra and senior Dariusz Swiercz, who took second and third place, respectively. Bok’s victory came down to the wire, as Chandra and Swiercz both won their final game, each finishing with a score of 6 ½ points out of 9. Bok’s winning score of 7 points out of 9, just half a point ahead of his nearest competitors, meant that his final round win clinched the victory—had he lost or even drawn that game, the blitz event might have ended much differently. Another strong showing for SLU in the blitz section was made by sophomore Nikolas Theodorou, who placed inside the top ten with 5 ½ points out of 9. 

Commenting on his victory, Bok said, “I was happy to win the blitz tournament ahead of several strong Grandmasters, but also because I moved up to number 64 in the world blitz chess rankings.” 

After the blitz event, players moved to the classical event, where five games of chess were played. Classical chess is played at a much slower pace than blitz, and for that reason endurance and mental stamina are key factors for success. In the blitz section, each player began with three minutes on their clock, with two seconds added to their remaining time every time they made a move. In classical chess, on the other hand, each player starts with 90 minutes on their clock, with a thirty second increment each time a move is made. This difference in the duration of the games meant that players had to adjust their mindset and strategy as they moved from the blitz section to the classical section, an adjustment that SLU’s team made quite easily. 

Swiercz added to his second place finish in the blitz section by taking first place overall in the classical section with a score of 4 points out of 5. His victory featured three wins and two draws, including a final round draw against teammate Theodorou, who took second place overall in the classical section. The final round draw between Swiercz and Theodorou meant that each player had scored 4 points out of 5, and as a result, a playoff was needed to decide the overall winner. 

The playoff between the two players was tense, made more exciting by the fact that both players were teammates. The playoff consisted of a two games of blitz, with the same time format that was used in the blitz section. Swiercz backed up his strong finish in the blitz section by winning both playoff games, thereby earning first place in the classical section.

With SLU players taking the top three spots in the blitz section and the top two spots in the classical section, the SLU team secured the top team prize in both sections. Such a successful showing against the top chess players in the Midwest is a testament to the depth of talent and versatility found in SLU’s chess team. Even though SLU came into the event as the favorite to win, Bok made it clear that such success is never taken for granted. Bok noted that “coming into the tournament, we were the favorite to win both sections, but living up to that expectation is never easy.” 

The chess team hopes to carry their momentum into the next event on their calendar: the 2019 World Prestigious University Chess Tournament, hosted at Nankai University in China. Summing up the competition, Bok said, “We will be playing against some of the top collegiate chess teams in the world, and our goal is to win.”

Three years ago, the University Undergraduate Core Committee began work on a new core curriculum, which the SLU community saw in proposal form earlier this month. From the outset, the UUCC was ostensibly committed to preserving SLU’s Jesuit identity and mission. The first Core Student Learning Outcome reads, “All SLU graduates will be able to examine their actions and vocations in dialogue with the Catholic, Jesuit tradition.” The problem is not with the Student Learning Outcomes themselves, but with their implementation. When we evaluate whether the proposal remains faithful to SLU’s Jesuit mission, we must resist the temptation to revert to vague platitudes about what the Catholic, Jesuit identity means, as I think has been the tendency. We need to be precise in our language and honest in our assessment when discerning whether this proposal, which will be voted on next March, upholds the values that a Jesuit institute of higher education should uphold.  

   This problem of ambiguity over what a Jesuit education should look like is not unique to the UUCC, or even to SLU in general. “Jesuit Education” has long been a mindlessly familiar couplet, cheapened through constant use without reflecting on what it actually means. There is simply no excuse for this neglect. We have an entire body of literature at our disposal, beginning in 1586 with the first draft of the “Ratio Studiorum” and moving all the way into the 21st century, which spells out clearly and unambiguously what a Jesuit education looks like. We have the “Spiritual Exercises”, the “Constitutions” of the Society of Jesus and the writings of countless generations of scholars who have studied, interpreted and adapted these original writings in a coherent articulation of how the Jesuit educational philosophy should be implemented. In other words, while the discourse surrounding the Jesuit ideals that underpin the core proposal has tended towards ambiguity, what these ideals themselves actually are is decidedly unambiguous. It has become apparent that the proposal for the new common core curriculum, in reducing philosophy and theology requirements to one course each and abandoning completely any sort of foreign language requirement, fails to remain true to several of these key Jesuit values. 

   In offering this criticism, I am fully aware that as it stands, many majors and programs which are not in the College of Arts and Sciences do not currently require more than one philosophy and theology course and that it would be unfair to call this aspect of the proposal a blanket reduction when in some cases no reduction has been made. That said, I think this objection misses the point. Our current practices aside, what we include in a University wide core at this critical juncture, and, perhaps more importantly what we leave out, is a reflection of what the University itself values. Whether or not it is a current practice for some programs is irrelevant; we have an opportunity to fix what isn’t working and to keep in place what is, and the bottom line is that giving insufficient attention to philosophy, theology and foreign languages in a University wide common core at a Jesuit university is unacceptable.  

   I should also say at the outset that I do believe Jesuit pedagogy must evolve to meet the demands of the 21st century. At its most basic level, the function of an education is to prepare a student for the life that is ahead of them. The “Ratio” was written nearly nearly five hundred years ago, and it is beyond dispute that as modes of living change, so too should educational philosophy adapt to meet those changes. But just as tradition for tradition’s sake is pointless, and often even harmful, so too is change for change’s sake. We must find a balance between a forward facing stance which anticipates the needs of a constantly transforming job market and one that cherishes the facets of Jesuit education which have worked for centuries. 

   Competency in a foreign language has been at the heart of Jesuit education since the 16th century, and it is just important now, arguably even more so, than it was when the “Ratio Studiorum” was first penned. Of course, Jesuit pedagogy has had to adapt since then, and rightfully so. We no longer require a strict and rigorous diet of Latin and Ancient Greek, something that was a staple of Jesuit education since the beginning. However, adaption to the demands of modernity must be made cautiously, and eliminating the foreign language requirement in its entirety is simply antithetical to the Jesuit ideals which the UUCC professes to defend. At the UUCC open forum earlier this month, a spokesman for the committee said that the absence of a foreign language was a “lamentable” but necessary step that other peer universities have taken when standardizing a core. Setting aside the fact that other peer universities (Boston College, Georgetown, Fordham, etc.) have not completely abandoned a foreign language requirements, this would not be a valid justification for SLU if it were true. SLU cannot claim to be an educational frontrunner, a phrase I heard repeated at the core proposal open forum, if we attempt to avoid culpability for compromising on key Jesuit values by appealing to the actions of other universities. Even if the absence of a foreign language requirement was a trend among peer Jesuit schools, which it is not, that should have absolutely no bearing on SLU’s decisions. The UUCC’s decision to include or exclude a foreign language requirement should be motivated by an evaluation of the position that foreign language study has occupied in the Jesuit tradition, and throwing our hands up and saying “but Georgetown did it too” is not a valid response. 

   The proposal’s diminished emphasis on philosophy and theology is equally troubling. If the proposal is accepted, SLU will fall well behind our peer Jesuit universities in terms of philosophy and theology requirements. These classes are essential to the intellectual growth of SLU students, who are afforded the opportunity to critically engage with and reflect on questions like  “How should I live?” and “What makes my life meaningful?’ or “Why should I be moral, and what does it look like to live morally?” These requirements also distinguish SLU graduates from graduates of other universities by training students of all backgrounds to approach their respective disciplines with a firm grasp of the ethical and moral issues a stake. 

   In 1981, Leon Kass addressed an incoming class of University of Chicago students on the aims of a liberal education, cautioning them on the dangers of emphasis on the selective acquisition of technical skills: “The technical expert who is liberally educated to the habit of thoughtfulness is less likely to become that most dangerous fellow, a specialist without vision who knows how to get rockets up but cares not where they come down.” Almost 40 years later, these words are eerily prescient. To take just one example out of the many that litter current headlines, Boeing has come under fire after two 737 aircrafts crashed just months apart, with a final death toll of 346. In the wake of these tragedies, it has become apparent that rampant corruption and deceit, originating at the top of the corporate hierarchy, was to blame. It was the abandonment of ethical principles, rather than any lack of technical knowledge, that led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent passengers. Tragedies like this are a harsh reminder that the neglect of ethical and moral considerations can have disastrous results, and that we should be apprehensive about a core curriculum which does not place enough emphasis on ensuring that graduates are thoroughly experienced in dealing with moral and ethical concerns.

   The Boeing incident also reminds us that the debate over the core curriculum is not an ivory tower affair. It has real world implications, and the stakes are gravely serious. When evaluating the core, we must return to the characteristics that are supposed to distinguish a SLU graduate from a graduate of any one of Missouri’s top public schools. These distinguishing characteristics are attributable to SLU’s commitment to providing an education rooted in the Jesuit tradition for students in both STEM and non-STEM majors, and the common core proposal leaves this commitment in doubt.

In November 2017, the University Undergraduate Core Committee was established and charged with the development of a new common undergraduate core which, if implemented, would standardize core requirements across all twelve of SLU’s colleges and schools. At the beginning of October, the UUCC presented a detailed proposal to the SLU community. 

The desire to transition towards a common core model is motivated by feedback from current and former SLU students who, according to the UUCC, “desire greater agency, flexibility and conceptual clarity in our Core structure and delivery.” Students also experienced difficulties when changing majors between colleges or schools, and are often dissuaded from doing so because of the current core, which is not standardized. 

This proposal is a culmination of a rigorous and involved process which began when the UUCC was first convened. The committee was chosen with cross-campus representation as a goal, and to that end, the University selected representatives from every college, as well as an SGA student representative, to collaborate on the development of a core curriculum which encourages students to be “intellectually flexible, creative and reflective critical thinkers in

the spirit of the Catholic, Jesuit tradition.” 

After the committee was chosen, Core Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) were ratified.These nine outcomes essentially functioned as an enumeration of the objectives that any Common Core proposal should meet. The SLOs stress a commitment to SLU’s Catholic, Jesuit tradition, the development of critical thinking skills and the general attributes of a liberal education. 

Once the committee had a ratified set of goals from which to base the common curriculum, they began the difficult process of creating a proposal. The committee engaged in research on core practices at other universities and gathered models with which useful comparisons might be drawn. The committee encouraged campus wide conversation, hosting workshops, guest lectures and other events. To complement the knowledge gained from community outreach efforts, the committee sent out an open call for design submissions, and after receiving thirty-six individual submissions, presented three “Core Prototypes” to the SLU community for additional feedback. 

With an abundant amount of feedback, the committee set to work on a synthesis of their research and the feedback kindled by outreach efforts into a Common Core Proposal, which is the product that was first unveiled in an email sent to the SLU community on Oct. 1.

That proposal contains the detailed plan for a thirty-five credit general education experience completed by all baccalaureate students, regardless of major, college, school or campus. The proposed core consists of a number of core areas: the First year experience, Theological and Philosophical Foundations, Eloquentia Perfecta, Ways of Thinking and Collaborative Inquiry. These core areas provide structure and academic rigor while still promoting flexibility and ensures that all students, regardless of major, will be able to complete the core and graduate in four years. 

The UUCC hosted two open fora on Oct. 10 and 11 in order to review the development of the proposal and open a dialogue for assessment and critique. Faculty and students from across the SLU community were in attendance, and a number of critical disputes were raised.

For example, some faculty members from the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures seemed to be more concerned with what was kept out of the core, rather than what was included. If the proposal is accepted, proficiency in a foreign language will cease to be a requirement, regardless of college or school. 

A number of LLC faculty members at the open forum viewed this decision as a betrayal of SLU’s commitment to the Jesuit educational tradition, one of the foundational elements of the nine Student Learning Outcomes. The importance of foreign language study has been integral to the Jesuit vision of education since the first draft of the Ratio Studiorum in 1586, and many faculty members argued that the complete elimination of a language requirement is a step in the wrong direction. 

The committee response reasserted that the core is “deeply Jesuit,” both in the theories which underpin it and the courses which students will be required to take, and that the absence of a foreign language requirement is a lamentable but necessary step which other peer universities have taken during the implantation of a common core. 

These open fora were a useful opportunity for faculty and students, both undergraduate and graduate, to participate in a vital conversation with the UUCC that ensures all those who will be affected by the transition to a common core have an opportunity to make their voice heard. 

The proposal which was sent to the SLU community on Oct. 1 is not the final proposal which will appear to be voted on next year. Feedback received from outreach events, open fora and assemblies will be considered before a final proposal appears, most likely at the start of the spring semester. By Mar. 1, 2020, faculty councils and assemblies from each college or school will hold a “Yes/No” vote on the question of whether the proposal will be adopted as SLU’s Common Core.

In 2016, SLU joined the Jesuits USA Central and Southern Province (UCS) in launching an initiative to confront a joint history of involvement in the enslavement of African Americans that dates back to the founding of the university. 

The initiative, called the Slavery, History, Memory and Reconciliation Project (SHMR), seeks to uncover and share a more complete picture of Jesuit involvement in slavery, honor the memories of those individuals held in bondage, and find a path toward reconciliation. 

Early last month, President Fred Pestello, P.h.D., wrote to update the SLU community on the progress of the project, announcing that researchers believe they have successfully traced several family lines to the present day.

The Jesuit UCS provincial superior Ronald Mercier, S.J. has therefore begun sending letters to those individuals believed to be descendants with the aim of sharing the inspiring stories of their ancestors.

While the SHMR project is not the first effort to comprehensively investigate a history of involvement with slavery, even among institutions of higher education, the partnership between SLU and the Society of Jesus in accomplishing these goals is something quite unique to the SHMR project. This collaboration has increased access to valuable documents and information, allowing the SHMR project to make significant headway in putting together a more complete picture of Jesuit involvement with slavery. 

The Society of Jesus, whose involvement in the institution of slavery can be traced back to the colonial era, expanded into Missouri in 1823 and brought with them six enslaved men and women: Thomas and Mary Brown, Moses and Nancy Queen, and Isaac and Susan Queen-Hawkins.

From there, the number of slaves rose as new slaves were born and others were purchased.  According to the project’s website, by 1831, there were at least 26 individuals held in bondage by the Jesuits. 

In 1829, the Jesuits began operating Saint Louis University. They transferred several enslaved people from the St. Stanislaus Novitiate in Florissant, where the majority were forced to work, to St. Louis, where they did laundry, cleaned, farmed and drove wagons. 

There is a daunting array of obstacles for researchers as they attempt to piece together a complete historical picture. To begin with, researchers must reckon with a documentary record that is fragmented and often inconsistent. Slaveholders often changed the names of the enslaved individuals, and it was also not uncommon for slaves to change their names after emancipation. 

Since 2016, faculty members, archivists and researchers have worked tirelessly to overcome obstacles like these and shed light on the untold stories of the men and women who were enslaved. 

The project itself is based in St. Louis, which means researchers work in close collaboration with the Jesuit Archives and Research Center. Utilizing receipts, census records, letters and other documentary clues housed in the Jesuit Archives, Saint Louis University Archives and Missouri State Archives, researchers have made significant progress uncovering family history that has previously been obscured. 

As Jonathan Smith, Ph.D., Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement and SMHR project director, emphasized, this research is extraordinarily meaningful for the descendents of those who were enslaved. “To give people the knowledge of their family stories is an incredibly important gift,” and it is in giving this gift that Smith finds the most personal fulfillment. 

As a descendent of slaves, Smith has experienced firsthand the complications that arise when attempting to uncover personal ancestry. Smith referenced an 1870 wall that prevents many individuals from tracing their lineage past the 1870 census, as the 1870 census was the first to record the black population. Before 1870, Smith said, “people like my ancestors were property” and, as a result, were denied legal recognition. One of the aims of the SHMR project has been to assist those individuals descended from slaves owned by the Missouri Mission in overcoming this 1870 barrier, and owing to the dedication of project researchers, significant progress toward this end has been made. 

Though Smith is not descended from slaves owned by the Missouri Mission, his personal tie with the broader institution of slavery means this project takes on special significance. Yet, he approaches his work with no personal animosity. “This is not a project I undertake with anger or any sense of surprise. Rather, it is a labor of love for all those who helped build this university.”

Indeed, it is this special admiration for those enslaved people who helped build SLU that fuels the SHMR project. Smith pointed out, “None of us were here when Bishop DuBourg founded this university, but we remember his name and work to honor what he did. It’s only that we work to honor all the people who built this university.” 

Now that preliminary efforts have been made in establishing contact with descendents, the next step for the project, according to Smith, is to put together a working group that will include students, faculty, alumni and hopefully descendents of those who were enslaved in order to collaborate on an appropriate university response that aligns with SLU’s values as a Jesuit institution. 

Students can expect an update in the near future, as President Pestello’s last community letter promised an update before the end of fall term.

To learn more about the SHMR project, visit the project’s website:

http://shmr.jesuits.org

Last week, students and faculty members associated with SLU’s Chinese Program learned that after the 2019-2020 academic year, SLU’s Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures will no longer offer Chinese language courses for an indefinite period. 

The program’s future is in jeopardy after financial difficulties influenced the decision not to renew the only full-time Chinese faculty member, Dr. Lili Guo, who is the primary Chinese language instructor. As a consequence, the Chinese program will effectively cease to function after the current academic year. 

Dr. Michael Lewis, Interim Dean of Arts and Sciences, who was interviewed on the future of the Chinese program, said “At this point, the future of the program remains in question. It is not officially being cut from the books.” 

Lewis explained that since the only full-time faculty member will not be renewed, incoming and current students will not be able to take courses in Chinese beginning in the fall of 2020. This nuance might give some hope to students, since a complete cut of the program would be significantly more difficult to reverse. 

Still, Lewis said, “I know this is no solace, especially for those students who would like to declare the minor but cannot.” As it stands, Lewis is continuing to work with trustees and other concerned parties to determine if the program has a future.

To students and faculty involved with the Chinese program, especially the seventy current minors, the decision represents a tacit cancellation of the program, the ambiguity notwithstanding. Soon after the announcement, senior Malaya Siy, currently nearing completion of the Chinese minor, created a Change.org petition, called “saveSLUchinese,” in which she voiced the displeasure felt on behalf of the faculty and the student body. Since the petition was launched, it has gathered more than a thousand signatures, with the number growing daily. 

Such a positive response to the petition indicates a widespread belief that no longer offering Chinese is antithetical to SLU’s values as a Jesuit institute of higher learning. SLU’s mission to foster “programs that link University resources to local, national and international communities” is a fundamental aspect of our identity, and the Chinese program is a direct manifestation of this commitment.

Since its inception in 2003, SLU’s Chinese program has blossomed into a vibrant and engaging curriculum with the dual purpose of preparing graduates for employability in today’s globalized job market and enriching cultural interactions on SLU’s campus. 

Siy stressed the numerous advantages that will be lost if the program is cut. “The practical side is significant. Chinese is the second most spoken language in the entire world, which yields enormous practical value for students entering the job market.”

But, Siy added, the practical angle is only the start. Through classes that satisfy the minor requirements, SLU students have the opportunity to participate in a unique cultural dialogue. As SLU’s last remaining Asian language, the program is a vital linguistic component to bridging the diverse backgrounds that characterize SLU’s campus. 

With 8 percent of SLU students arriving from outside of the U.S., and an Asian population of almost ten percent, the Chinese program affords the Asian community important linguistic representation. 

Students enrolled in Chinese classes are taught not only the basics of reading, writing and conversation, but are also exposed to Chinese history, literature and culture. And for students,  it is this cultural component that has been the most fruitful part of the Chinese program. 

A striking example of the cultural engagement that makes the Chinese program so essential is Guo’s Cultural Comparisons class, which takes an interdisciplinary approach to comparing social relationships, education, food and other prominent cultural features in the United States and China. 

Siy, who is currently enrolled in the class, said that it has been a wonderful opportunity to bridge cultural gaps between American and Asian students. “The relationship is reciprocal. Both sides add unique insights, and everyone leaves knowing more about the other’s culture.”

Siy went on to add that SLU’s vibrant Asian community is especially stimulating for the Chinese program.  “There are some things that just can’t be taught in a normal classroom setting. The cultural comparisons class and other opportunities through the Chinese program bring the two communities together. For example, we can teach each other slang. It’s interactions like these that make the program so enjoyable.”  

Beyond losing out on concrete benefits that the program yields, Guo is most concerned that losing the Chinese program will have grave implications reaching far beyond the program itself. Elimination of the program, Guo argued “not only affects the Chinese language program, but other important affiliated programs, and the effect will be far reaching.” 

Guo pointed to the Asian Studies program and SLU’s 1818 program as those which will be most adversely affected by the elimination of the Chinese program. The Asian Studies program is a key component of SLU’s area studies programs, which equip students with necessary regional knowledge in preparation for a diverse array of careers, including foreign service and international business. 

Moreover, SLU’s 1818 Advanced College Credit program will be negatively affected if Chinese is no longer offered. Over 100 schools across the country have partnered with SLU to give their students an opportunity to earn SLU credit for their work in high school. 

In years prior, high school students have taken advantage of this opportunity to get a headstart in the Chinese minor. By eliminating study of the language at SLU, Guo fears that students with a passion for Chinese who have participated in the 1818 program will pass over SLU as a potential college option. 

Indeed, this fear is not limited solely to 1818 participants. In the St. Louis area alone, Webster University, UMSL, Washington University and Lindenwood University all offer courses in Chinese. While SLU students do have the opportunity to take Chinese classes through these universities, incoming students serious about Chinese might decide the extra hassle is simply not worth it. 

SLU’s Jesuit heritage is also a factor when thinking about incentives for incoming students. Out of the twenty-seven Jesuit institutions of higher learning across the country, SLU will become one of only three that do not offer courses in Chinese. With no lack of opportunity to study Chinese at other Jesuit institutions, SLU might lose more than a few potential students.

As the current academic year unfolds, current and potential Chinese minors will have a better idea about the future of Chinese at SLU. Until that point, students and faculty remain committed to raising awareness about the indispensable role that the Chinese program plays in putting core SLU values into action.