Skip to main content


ICC 650
Box 571014

37th & O St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20057

maps & directions

Phone: (202) 687.6400



A Transition in Oversight of Research

Posted on

Yesterday we celebrated Janet Mann, in her completion of a term as Vice Provost for Research. The vice provost roles are designed as three-year terms of senior faculty who want to improve the university through applying their energy to key aspects of its work – education, faculty affairs, and research. Each of the vice provosts lead a group of permanent staff, who are the real heroes of all the work of the provost’s office. A time of transition like this prompts reflection on what changes have occurred over the past few years.

The vice provost for research oversees one of the most challenging areas of the university. Georgetown is a small research university that is striving to increase its impact in the scholarly world. Much of the effort of the provost’s office, which Janet led, had the goal of supporting our faculty in increasing applications for external funding. In doing this we learned that basic processes supporting research could be improved. We had work to do.

Part of the challenge in growing research activity is that it has an administrative character that is quite different from that of the educational mission. External grant opportunities are a 12-month phenomenon. They do not disappear in the summer months. They are quite diverse in their time constraints. For example, some research contracts are one-year agreements; in that year, staff resources must be assembled, subcontracts let, space utilized, and research products delivered. The pace of academic administration typically does not have such time pressures.

Staffing decisions for externally funded research teams also produce different personnel issues. Commonly, research teams are assembled for projects and then disassembled when the project is completed. Thus, the notion that each position fills a permanent need doesn’t usually apply. Further, often the team proposed in the grant proposal is a large part of the reason that the grant was awarded. If one of the proposed members of the team was not a current university employee, unusual speed of hiring them is an important attribute of conducting the research. Over the past three years, we’ve made some progress on describing how research activities pose different administrative challenges, but much more is needed.

Janet and her colleagues also launched other mechanisms supporting faculty to increase their scholarly impact. The main campus tripled the number of internal Senior Faculty Research Fellowships for faculty, providing needed time to start or finish key research projects. We’ve attempted to improve the evaluation process for these, using best practices from other grant programs. We’ve created a course banking program for tenure-line faculty, which allows them flexibility to assemble more time for non-teaching research activities, under their own control. We’ve created partial sabbatical draws, which allow faculty to piece together other time for intensive research activity, when it can best benefit them.

Finally, it’s worth noting efforts to improve the practices of the Institutional Review Board for behavioral and social science research. This is an area undergoing external changes in policies for human subjects’ protection. An external review group connected to an accreditation group, the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, helped us in identifying a set of practical changes that would serve the institution well. We’re pecking away at that list, attempting to provide better services for researchers, while strengthening the protections of human subjects.

Of course, there is much work remaining to be done on all the issues above. We thank Janet for launching work that will keep the provost’s office busy for many years.

Time Available to Students

Posted on

Georgetown, among all research universities, has an unusually strong commitment to the formation of its students. By this is meant a deep attention to the intellectual and field-knowledge component of the student’s growth, a care about enhancing their resilience to setbacks, a shaping of their values-based discernment of the best choices for themselves, and attending to their development as a leader in service to the wider world.

This takes faculty time – meeting with students, listening to their concerns, shaping their attention to the best ways for their own learning, coaching them in career and life choices, and supporting their research and scholarly efforts.

Such meetings, as well as classes, are the vehicles by which the role model of critical inquiry and research is communicated by the faculty to the students. In short, faculty are always teaching, whenever they are in the presence of students.

Of course, email and other electronic communication occurs 24/7, so that faculty can interact with students without being face to face. Much of the transactional nature of the relationship between faculty and students can easily be handled via electronic media. These include specific questions about course material and protocols. However, special impact often lies in the moments of face to face interaction – these are the moments that can be life-changing for the student.

On some campuses, there has been a confusion about the role of the student in the life of a faculty member. When faculty cultural norms evolve that threaten the integration of research and teaching, there is often a tendency for faculty to work outside their offices, advancing their scholarship in isolation of students. On such campuses, faculty office hallways tend to be sets of closed doors to empty offices. Faculty come to campus for teaching and a preset limited number of office hours to meet with students. Separating teaching and research cheats the students of insights into the life of an academic, with all the joys and sorrows of discovery and creation. Once again, when face to face time between students and faculty is maximized, students can see faculty doing their research and faculty can communicate their passion about their work.

At this moment in the university, we are all working quite diligently to integrate teaching and research. We’re called to do this by our students, who are increasingly asking us for research-based experiences as part of their curriculum. New course formats are arising throughout the university. These changes in pedagogy will increase the likelihood that our faculty can communicate their deep interest and passion about their fields of expertise. At the same time, students will be exposed to more role modeling of the life of the mind. Indeed, our hope is a new integration of research and teaching, viewing them as partners in achieving the university’s mission.

We have ample evidence that when faculty interact with students in the area of research, students learn more, become more excited about the field, and develop more critical thinking skills.

All of this, however, requires faculty and students working together. Maximizing the number of moments that faculty have in meaningful interaction with our students must be our goal.

Values Animating Healing

Posted on

It’s difficult to get through a day at this moment of history without being exposed to some anxiety among those around us. Many people feel that things are a bit “out of kilter;” folks are on edge. Cable news outlets are reporting record viewership; people talk about the need to detach from the continuous news feed. Little of the news they see is uplifting.

Some of this comes from political actions here in the US, but reports from outside the US seem to demonstrate a similar unease. There are reports of higher stress levels among students in higher education. Incidents of conflicts among racial, ethnic and religious groups seem to be rising. People seem afraid to talk to one another unless they already know the other agrees with them on key issues. While the US has seen weakening trust among the people toward institutions, there seems to be a more widespread breakdown of trust among individuals. Questioning the motives of another person seems more acceptable, even expected.

Durkheim forwarded the notion of “anomie” as a negative outlook formed by a society that offers little moral guidance to its members. Some of the examples of stressful events seem to be violations of a set of norms that were uniformly honored in earlier eras – how strangers interact with one another; what defined deference to one another; what allegiances bonded together those in a nation-state or a community or a city block.

Given these developments, higher education institutions clearly have a new obligation. Since they educate the next generation of leaders and the society is exhibiting these new features, they need to devise ways to arm students with the necessary skills to lead in such a society. I’ve written earlier about the importance of skills in talking with those who have different perspectives than you. It seems most important in navigating this new society.

However, the more I reflect on this, it is not merely a set of skills – at least, the skills alone will not improve the society. Real listening to another person requires a set of values animating how we approach another person. The Jesuit notion of “presupposition” seems useful here. It’s necessary to approach another with the respect for their humanity and legitimacy because of our shared origins. Assuming their good will and their attempts to find truth facilitates a genuine listening to them. Because each of us share day-to-day struggles, each of us fails and picks ourselves up, each of us cares about those close to us – we share much of the joys and challenges of being human. Arupe’s call to be “women and men for others” enlarges the group of those for whom each of us should care — from those who are close to us to a much larger set.

Anomie is a state of normlessness that is painful. For norms to be sustainable (or re-established), shared values are key. Higher education institutions, if they are to help prepare students for leadership in such an endeavor, need themselves to be certain of their shared values. In this regard, Georgetown has the great advantage of a set of values that animate our work. Following them, we know why we need to train leaders for a world that has lost its way in the midst of fractured and isolated groups.

Taking Charge of Change

Posted on

Cathy Davidson, the author of a new book, The New Education, visited Georgetown today. In a conversation about the book, she reviewed the historical roots of many of the practices of the modern university, many lying with Charles Eliot at Harvard in the late 19th century. These include the organization into departments, fields that separated the humanities and sciences, testing, grading systems, faculty career lines, tenure, and the devotion to research activities among faculty. Her thesis is that this organization was appropriate for the dawn of important industrial developments and global financial systems at the time. It seems less well suited, she argued, for a world in which communication across the world is available to all with an internet connection, when much of human knowledge is digitally documented, and when technology is redefining how different pieces of knowledge might be combined.

Much of the message is not new to those in higher education. Indeed, we at Georgetown are thickly in the discussion of alternative ways forward. (We’re proud that part of her book describes pedagogical innovations led by some of our own colleagues.) The linking to the historical roots of the current organization of universities was new to me and provoked many thoughts about what has enduring value in what we now do and what is acting as a drag on the impact that higher education has on the world.

The discussion and questions were rich in how an elite institution can contribute to social mobility in today’s world. Professor Davidson made the point that a self-acknowledgement of the privileges we enjoy at Georgetown is a good starting point. From that self-awareness, we might focus more consistent attention on how we can do our institution’s part at building a better, more equitable world. How we teach is part of that solution.

She herself moved in her career from Duke to CUNY, two very different institutions. She reported a newly-learned sense of humility with regard to how universities can contribute to social mobility. One unforgettable vignette described a faculty member who noted that one student performed much better with in-class writing than writing assignments performed out of class. This was a puzzle until the instructor learned that the student was a full-time EMT, writing out essays on a cell phone in-between runs to provide emergency medical care. Dr. Davidson said that the discipline and hunger for learning she sees in these students are an ever-present reminder that CUNY is, indeed, changing lives as an engine for social and economic mobility. Elite institutions have the privilege of fully immersive education, with the proportion of a student’s life devoted to their studies being much higher.

Part of her message was to each of us individually. Change in higher education sometimes seems an overwhelmingly complex task, requiring the undoing of old structures, rules, and practices. Taking on the whole project at once is so complex that it is easy for each of us to convince ourselves that we’re not responsible for innovation and change that we ourselves think would be useful. She flatly rejected this posture.

In a short exercise, she illustrated a technique of exchange of ideas within a group setting that assured that each member of the group would have a voice – even the shy, even those who felt marginalized, even those who display very different cognitive styles. It was a simple writing down of key issues by each member of the group, a discussion in dyads of each other’s comments, and a reporting out. The goal: feedback to the instructor about what content was being absorbed and truly uniform participation. Gone was the domination of the class by a small number of members.

Her point – this is the type of change that each faculty member can introduce without any alteration of the rules, without any review by curriculum committees. It was just an illustration of how each of us have opportunities to introduce innovation in our teaching, towards ends of greater involvement of students.

Enhancing Impact on the World

Posted on

Georgetown’s distinctive and deeply-rooted attributes have enabled it to thrive over its rich 200-year history. The university’s Catholic and Jesuit values, commitment to academic excellence, capital-city DC location, global legacies, and abiding sense of community have empowered and guided the progress of a well-established, student-centered research university. These enduring attributes have enabled a thriving highly selective undergraduate program and have powered the outsized ambitions of a relatively small institution among the world’s great universities.

The 21st century university has greater demands from society than ever before. Georgetown has the ingredients to thrive in this environment. The Jesuit mission of “setting the world on fire,” of “contemplation in action,” and of “women and men for others” is real at Georgetown. Many come here in order to use their lives in service towards a better world regardless of their faith beliefs. Any vision of the future for this community should create ever-stronger activities and structures that enhance the mission of service to others. “Values-Based Solutions to the World’s Problems” thus should be a fundamental centerpiece of a vision.

This focus requires unusual reliance on academic excellence to act as a magnet for the best minds to be at Georgetown. Fulfilling the mission of women and men for others in an increasingly complex but interconnected world will demand cutting-edge knowledge from all the disciplines and fields that constitute the modern university. This means that faculty must be thought-leaders in their fields and engage with the best students in combining their expertise with those from other fields. It means that we must build environments where out-of-the-box solutions and high failure tolerance will be supported.

There are few better geographical locations to a mission of “Values-Based Solutions to the World’s Problems” than Washington, DC. It is the home of the central government of one of the world’s great societies. It is the home of scores of international non-governmental organizations and national governmental research organizations who themselves are devoted to common goods. Georgetown is centered within this global city and is better positioned than most to play an important role in tackling problems on a global scale.

Universities have the task of formation of their students’ minds, bodies, and spirits. Universities have the societal obligation to foster ongoing inquiry that advances human knowledge. Universities advance the common good. Formation at Georgetown arms students with understanding of domains of timeless knowledge, the fundamental questions, animating values of life, basic theories, and conceptual frameworks about how the world works. The core curricula deliberately include foundational knowledge useful in countless applications throughout life. Unsurprisingly, Georgetown, like all universities, organized itself into relatively homogeneous departments, fields, and schools.

If Georgetown retains only the traditional disciplinary units, it risks deemphasizing the focus on solving world problems. On the other hand, if it organized itself only by units devoted to different world problems, it risks losing advancement of the basic disciplines key to future world problems. It must do both.

There are probably many different ways to achieve this. One vision is an organization that permits dual citizenship of faculty and students in both discipline/school units, but also in university-wide centers and institutes whose missions are totally focused on a given world problem. Some centers and institutes (i.e., collections of centers) would likely be enduring over many decades (e.g., an institute on racial justice); others might have shorter lives. The centers would have faculty research appointments of variable duration; the centers would be filled with student (both undergraduate and graduate) affiliates, working side-by-side with the faculty. These institutes would offer credit-bearing courses for minors and majors affiliated with the disciplines contributing to the solution. The units would form partnerships with global institutions in the Washington area, to enhance the likelihood that Georgetown-invented solutions would actually be implemented. The centers and institutes would have space devoted to them, with offices for faculty, carrels for graduate students, design spaces, ideation laboratories, computational facilities – all forming a home for those wanting to work together and teach one another within interdisciplinary groups solving the world’s problems. Whether permanent or transitory, creating opportunities for faculty and students to work side-by-side in this manner is key for our future impact.

None of these ideas can proceed with success without continuing to strengthen the traditional disciplines of our faculty and students. Indeed, working collaboratively on the world’s problems without deep knowledge of individual fields eliminates the value of collaboration. However, with such collaboration our service to the common good can be greatly enhanced.

Progress: Fast and Slow

Posted on

Kahneman’s book, Thinking: Fast and Slow, spread to a broad audience the cognitive psychological research findings that humans have capabilities to make very quick decisions based on superficial review of the merits of alternatives. These decisions rest on generalization of past experience to a specific newly-encountered phenomenon. These fast decisions serve us well, except when the new phenomenon exhibits key differences, which, upon deeper and slower reflection, dominate the tradeoff decision.

The book seems to have an analog in societal-level decision making. Over the past few years “fast” seems to dominate over “slow.” Our communications and information flow are faster than ever before — texts, instant messaging, news alerts, an hourly news cycle, digital platforms disrupting the print media. The length of the communicated message tends to be shorter than before; book-length writing is a smaller portion of the communication volume. The speed of technological change seems breathless at times, far outpacing the typical density of change based on basic research. The private sector touts “failing fast,” and moving on to a new challenge if the old isn’t achieved. CEOs of publicly-traded firms feel the pressure of quarterly profits much more than pressure on the health of the firm 10 to 20 years out.

Some of the increased pace is wonderful and has produced positive change for individuals and societies throughout the world. But increasingly, I begin to worry about what innovation, what improvements, such a culture might not support.

Last week, as part of my National Science Board duties, I visited the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) facility outside of Baton Rouge. This facility was key in detecting gravitational waves from colliding black holes in 2015 and from the collision of two neutron stars more recently. It was connected with the awarding of Nobel Prizes recently. It exemplifies the opposite of “fast” in one important sense. The vision of LIGO was set before the 1980’s, with initial funding. There was, as with all breakthrough ideas, with all deeply reflective thinking, opposition. The project was high risk. Once built, the facility detected nothing at all of consequence for seven full years. Consistent attention to improving the quality of the measurement yielded success in 2015, nearly 30 years after inception of the idea. Far from fast.

Another example: In 2002, the idea of building longitudinal data sets, based on student records, that would allow researchers to track the experiences of children in school was formed. Better understanding of the drivers of performance was sought by studying the progress of students over years, seeing whether it varied greatly by different teachers and schools, and measuring their job experiences after they left school. The US Department of Education sponsored the construction of such longitudinal record systems, creating a data infrastructure, taking many years and millions of dollars. Now the states and the country have data resources to answer questions about the performance of educational institutions they never had before.

A final example: Data infrastructure is not unlike physical infrastructure. In the 1950’s the plan for the interstate highway system was a vast investment, building capacity that was not fully needed at the time, but the infrastructure led to vast economic and social changes in the country. A decision was made by people, some of whom would not be alive when the benefits of the decision were achieved.

In short, one of the distinctions between fast and slow payoff often centers around who will benefit. The impact of technology on the speed of much human activity may be making it more difficult to gain support for common good activities whose payoff may be years away. The examples above make the case that some benefits require patient, consistent, adaptive effort over many years. Their benefits to human society, however, seem so important that they deserve our stopping and reflecting about how much time we spend on the immediate and how much time we focus on the long term.

Promoting the Interdisciplinary Faculty Member

Posted on

One of the most important features of the academy is its relentless pursuit of answers to new questions. There are no bounds to this quest; scholars pose questions regardless of their relevance to the mainline questions in their discipline. Many of the unexplored knowledge domains, however, mix traditional units of the academy, and every university is examining ways that scholarship across the units can be valued in faculty reviews. Hence, a common problem facing universities is how the tenure and promotion process can fairly evaluate scholarship that combines multiple fields.

We have recently redefined the types of joint appointments possible at Georgetown. Some of these speak to how joint appointment candidates will be evaluated at time of tenure and promotion.

Upon reflection, it may be time to become more specific on the practices involved in evaluating joint appointment candidates. Here are some initial speculations.

First might be comments on advice to give to assistant professors whose scholarship bridges two (or more) different fields. For economy of language, let’s call the interdisciplinary domain the “bridge field” and the constituent domains the “mainline field.” Mainline fields tend to be important in defining the central important questions to be pursued; they have agreed upon forms of research output (e.g., proceedings papers, journal articles, books) with attendant prestige rankings. They generally have their own professional societies, whose set of awards for success manifest the values of the field and define what an “important contribution to the field” means.

An assistant professor working in an area that combines two mainline fields usually has fewer publication outlets that support the bridge area than the mainline fields. However, those outlets will have a peer review process that respects the blending of two fields together. Correspondingly, the flagship journals in the two mainline fields will publish fewer such articles. Further, it is common that the prestige of the bridge field publication outlets is lower because of their relative newness.

A good piece of advice to a junior scholar blending two fields is to attempt some publications in the single mainline fields as well as in the bridge field outlets. Typically, I would expect a strong interdisciplinary candidate to have proportionately fewer products in outlets of the two mainline fields and more in the bridge domain. On the other hand, a scholar with no contribution to the mainline field risks the criticism that he/she is not really enriching one or the other of the mainline fields. In essence, there should be an expectation of being evaluated both from the bridge area and the mainline fields. Help in navigating the blending of fields is often obtained from professional associations that have arisen blending the two fields together. Junior scholars should reach out to senior scholars in the bridge field to get advice on how to blend together the fields effectively.

It is common that young scholars working in interdisciplinary areas are involved in more team-based work than those working only in a mainline field. For that reason, Georgetown needs to develop more effective ways of determining relative contributions of team members. Other things being equal, one would expect that scholars working in teams would produce more research products (albeit jointly authored) than those working alone.

At the time of promotion review, Georgetown has an obligation to make sure that senior peer scholars are carefully evaluating the candidate. For candidates who are blending multiple fields together, we need to assemble outside reviewers who represent the two mainline fields, but we also need senior successful evaluators from the bridge. The letters requesting external reviews should note that Georgetown has appointed and supported the scholar in building a bridge between the fields, and that it seeks evaluation of the scholarship in light of that fact. (We should note that we expect that the amount of product contribution to only one of the fields is less than that of someone totally embedded in the field, but that the contributions that are present to be of high quality.) Those letter writers who themselves work in the bridge field should comment on the candidate’s contribution to the bridge and the candidate’s performance relative to others working in the bridge area.

On the Georgetown side, we need evaluation processes that similarly offer peer review of the scholarship in the bridge area. If the units involved in the joint appointment don’t possess deep knowledge in the bridge area, we should repair that weakness with more external review from senior scholars in the bridge area.

As we attempt to improve our evaluation of interdisciplinary scholarship, we have other questions that need answering. How can new faculty communicate their intention to blend together fields so that the university can provide useful evaluative feedback throughout their pre-tenure years? How can Georgetown assist pretenure faculty in getting mentoring for their attempts to bridge multiple fields? How can we publicly honor successful interdisciplinary scholarship to offer role models to younger faculty? How can Georgetown incentivize interdisciplinary groups to work together?

Changes in Students over Decades

Posted on

I’ve been in many meetings over the past few weeks with senior administrators from other universities. Our discussions often contain observations about how newer cohorts of students appear to differ from earlier ones.

Some of this discussion pertains to countable volumes of student services. For example, it is common across universities in the past few years to see an increase in student demand for mental health services. It’s common that student accommodations for testing and other educational activities are increasing.

It’s also common for faculty to comment on the constant internet connectedness of our students (and themselves), with jokes about students running into one another walking across campus as they stare at their mobile phone screens. Increasingly, there are observations that students are talking less to each other, as the grid intervenes in social relations more fully.

These latter comments are the casual observations of campus life by those who’ve been around for a while.

I began to wonder whether there were any consistent measures that might answer the question of how current students different from earlier cohorts. This was really an attempt to understand more fully the casual observations we all make.

Former colleagues have been measuring the attitudes and behaviors of high school seniors for some time, as part of the Monitoring the Future research program, funded by parts of the National Institutes of Health. Periodic self-administered surveys are conducted of high school seniors in a national sample of schools, attempting to represent the entire population of seniors. I downloaded statistics for the subset of those seniors who say they were planning to attend college after high school, for the year 1996 survey and the year 2012 survey. I perused the findings looking for attributes that show large differences between the 1996 cohort and 2012 cohort.

Perhaps one of the most interesting changes is the decline in the percentages of high school seniors who were currently working for pay – in 1996, 59%; in 2012, 41%. The survey has little detail on what kind of work for pay the high school seniors were engaged in, but other questions imply that the amount of experience in work settings for entering cohorts of college students is different now than in earlier years. With somewhat smaller differences, the 1996 cohort reports spending more time with adults (over 30) on a typical day than the 2012 cohort. Further, more of the 2012 seniors spend an hour or more of leisure time alone, in a typical day, than the 1996 cohort. A possible correlate of less work for pay (and the resulting less discretionary cash) is that the 2012 cohort reports less frequent social activities in “bars and nightclubs” than the earlier cohort. Relative to the 1996 cohort fewer of the 2012 seniors find a career built on self-employment as desirable. Obviously, the causal links among these different attributes are unknown, but one can see a consistent pattern among them.
One weakness of the time comparison is that the 1996 survey understandably has no measure of internet connectivity, but 74% of the 2010 seniors planning to go to college report social media use every day. Some of the greater reported “alone” time is probably filled with such activity.

With smaller portions of entering students having experience in work organizations, one might suspect that the lessons one learns in such situations need to be a more intentional part of the undergraduate experience. Some of the moves Georgetown is making toward experience-based, group learning built around real-world projects seem attractive in this regard. Working in teams, with requirements of rich interpersonal interaction, with a mix of adults and student collaborators, might be more valuable for the incoming stude

Formation, Inquiry, and Service to the Common Good

Posted on

I just returned from a meeting of the Provosts of the Jesuit colleges and universities across the US. It is a wonderful event each year, giving those of us who serve in these unusual roles a chance to compare notes, to share our joys and sorrows inherent in any such position, and to renew our aspirations for our institutions. At the meeting, we deliberately take time to share questions with each other and provide advice when we’re confident of it.

The institutions around the table display many differences. Some are singularly focused on undergraduate education; others have graduate programs in diverse fields. Some are quite small; some are quite large. Some serve predominantly first-generation populations and adult learners in a region; others attract students nationally and internationally. Despite these vast differences, I come away each year with a renewed sense of the commonalities among the institutions.

One of the differences between this set of institutions and others in higher education is their focused devotion to the formation of the next generation devoted to service to the common good. Most all take this seriously, with programs designed to expose students to the real lives of those less fortunate than others. Sometimes this takes place within nearby neighborhoods; sometimes in other countries far from the campus.

A common challenge that we all face is to continuously adapt these efforts to the changing cohorts of students coming to our institutions and to the changes in higher education occurring throughout the country. All of us face issues of keeping tuition as low as possible while still permitting innovation. All of us face increasing numbers of students who have lived their lives in relatively homogeneous neighborhoods, schools, and larger communities. All of us face increasing numbers of students with relatively few “real-life” experiences in the working world.

These cross-cutting pressures have created more intentional integration of the mission of nurturing women and men for others into the academic curriculum. Some institutions have built degree programs that allow deep learning into the field of social justice (similar to Georgetown’s Justice and Peace Studies Program). Others have built elaborate immersive experiences exposing students to communities previously unknown to them.

Increasingly common are attempts to integrate such experiences into the academic curriculum more fully. These seek to use the value of mentored experiences combining students with faculty. They construct an intersection of research activities with such outreach efforts. In short, these are efforts to break down an artificial barrier between the curricular and co-curricular.

It became obvious in our meeting that the value of these efforts is magnified by integrating into them the Jesuit mission of the institution. That mission answers the question of the “why” of these research, education, and service efforts. Those values also answer the question of why it is so important to integrate the three efforts seamlessly into the experience of the students. At a moment when all higher education institutions are seeking global impact, the secret sauce of Jesuit institutions is that they know why they want to have global impact, with answers animated by a 500-year tradition.

Moving Ahead on the Institute for Racial Justice

Posted on

Over the past year, the Working Group on Racial Justice of faculty, staff, and students implemented decisions relayed in President DeGioia’s speech of February 4. The working group completed its report in the Spring, and President DeGioia approved its recommendations early in the Summer.

Much of the work of the working group focused on the conceptualization of a new Institute for Racial Justice, a university-level institute that would further the research and outreach initiatives of the University. We identified a set of scholars across the university, active in research and outreach relevant to racial justice, including health equity, D.C.-focused research, performance studies and racial justice, prisoners and justice, and race and migration. We expect that large numbers of them will want to affiliate with the Institute when it is functioning. We have mounted a series of external speakers to visit campus over the coming weeks, to heighten attention to such areas.

The working group conceived of an institute that would be a coalition of research programs with different foci. Key themes would examine racial injustice through research on inequalities (e.g., health, education, income, employment, housing, family, environment) and seek justice through research on social structures (e.g., legal, governmental, education systems, medicine, policy, voting, etc.). Broadly, these are:

  • Disparities, Inequality and Difference. What are the sources and dimensions of enduring racial disparities in areas such as health, education, income, housing and employment? How should we understand the impact of family structures and environmental conditions on social and political outcomes? What are the long-term trends and future projections that define racial inequality in the United States?
  • Structures and Solutions. What legal or political structures perpetuate injustice along racial lines? What proven solutions seem to work in areas such as education and medicine to alleviate the power of race as a determinant to community trajectories? How might areas such as banking and voting regulations be transformed to enable full participation in markets and elections?
  • Diasporas, Migrations, Expressions. To what degree is the U.S. experience of race a national, a continental, or even a global phenomenon? How do cognate ways of perceiving and structuring the world, such as ethnicity and gender, intersect with the past and present? Under what conditions do other social groups and structures around the world, such as religion, become “racialized?” How can we understand and analyze the monumental cultural products of the African American experience and their connections to the struggle for justice?

In addition, the group proposed a set of joint appointments of scholars whose work would propel forward scholarship, collectively making Georgetown one of the world’s premier locations for studies and outreach furthering racial justice. These will likely be multi-year searches targeting senior faculty members with well-regarded scholarly work on racial justice and experience in building research teams. Since the institute will be a university-level entity, we seek scholars who might have affiliations with one of more of the campuses. We will launch searches designed to yield four new faculty members with 50% appointments as research professors in the institute and 50% as tenured professors in other academic units.

Over the next few days, an email from the Executive Vice Presidents (EVPs) will seek proposals from academic units (e.g., schools, departments, interdisciplinary degree programs) for new tenured faculty appointments furthering our work on the institute. These will be vetted by a faculty advisory committee representing all three campuses. The committee’s recommendations for searches will be submitted to the EVPs and the searches then launched.

Our goal is bringing to Georgetown the best scholars in the world working in the areas above. Simultaneously we will build out structures and seek external financial support for the institute. I personally look forward to the submission of proposals for new faculty that will help us build the institute.

Office of the ProvostBox 571014 650 ICC37th and O Streets, N.W., Washington D.C. 20057Phone: (202) 687.6400Fax: (202)

Connect with us via: