Father Theodore M. Hesburgh and the University of Notre Dame's Change in Governance to a Predominantly Lay Board of Trustees Mary Patience Hogan Seton Hall University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) 2009 Father Theodore M. Hesburgh and the University of Notre Dame's Change in Governance to a Predominantly Lay Board of Trustees Mary Patience Hogan Seton Hall University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons Recommended Citation Hogan, Mary Patience, "Father Theodore M. Hesburgh and the University of Notre Dame's Change in Governance to a Predominantly Lay Board of Trustees" (2009). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 431. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/431 FATHER THEODORE M. HESBURGH AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME'S CHANGE IN GOVERNANCE TO A PREDOMINANTLY LAY BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY MARY PATIENCE HOGAN Dissertation Committee Joseph Stetar, PhD, Mentor Martin Finkelstein, PhD, Committee Member Rev. Monsignor James Cafone, STD, Committee Member Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Seton Hall University SETON HALL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AM) HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES APPROVAL FOR SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE Doctoral Candidate, Mary P. Hogan, has successfully defended and made the required modifications to the text of the doctoral dissertation for the Ed.D. during this FaU Semester 2009. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE @lease sign and date beside your name) Mentor: Dr. Jomh Stetar //- Committee Memba: -A Dr. Martin Finkelstein Committee Member: Rev. Msm. James Cafone Committee Member: External Reader: The mentor and any other committee members who wish to review revisions will sign and date this document only when revisions have been completed. Please return this form to the Office of Graduate Studies, where it will be placed in the candidate's file and submit a copy with your final dissertation to be bound as page number two. ABSTRACT FATHER THEODORE M. HESBURGH AND THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME'S CHANGE IN GOVERNANCE TO A PREDOMINANTLY LAY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Father Theodore M. Hesburgh served as president of the University of Notre Dame from 1952-1987 and is recognized as one of the most successful university presidents in history. He was very involved in both matters pertaining to the university and those affecting the larger world. One of his most important achievements during his tenure was turning the University over to lay control. In this study an attempt was made to understand how Hesburgh evaluated the need for the governing structure of the University of Notre Dame to be changed from a clerical Board to a predominantly lay Board of Trustees. Not only are the pragmatic pressures and stresses of the time that influenced the decision of interest, but factors related to Hesburgh's personal philosophical viewpoints that had developed over a longer period of time as well as what he envisioned for Notre Dame's future are also targets for analysis. The method involves analyses of three selected works of Hesburgh as well as several interviews with close observers of Father Hesburgh and the transition process. The findings support that Hesburgh's philosophical ideas, concern for pragmatic pressures, and his vision for the future of the University of Notre Dame all impacted his evaluation in deciding to shift the governing board of the University to a predominantly lay Board of Trustees. In particular, this study highlights how Hesburgh's personal philosophy regarding the idea of change and the role of the laity contributed to the decision. The dynamics that surround this transition mesh well with Baldridge's conclusions regarding university change (1971), leading to an analysis power loss and power gain among Hesburgh and other stakeholders, supplemented by a consideration of how well this change in governance fits the literature on "radical change." DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my favorite partner in learning since English 109, my husband, Brendan Browne. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I could not have completed this work without the support and guidance of so many people. I wish to formally thank: Dr. Joseph Stetar, my Committee Chair, for his sharp eye and the depth and breadth of his knowledge. Monsignor James Cafone and Dr. Martin Finkelstein, my committee members, for their careful reading, as well as their interest and enthusiasm for my topic. My family members, especially my Godfather, my grandmother, my aunt, my parents, my brother, my sister, and my parents-in-law, who all have a knack for knowing when to critique and when to compliment. My husband and children. Their love fueled my determination. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................... 11 DEDICATION ....................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................... V CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Primary and Subsidiary Research Questions .................................................................. 4 CHAPTER I1 A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE TOPIC ............................................. 6 Literature Related to Biographies of College Presidents ................................................ 6 Literature Related to Organizational Radical Change and Political Models .............. 13 Literature Related to Hesburgh and the Lay Board .......................................... 18 CHAPTER I11 PROCEDURE ........................................................................................... 25 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 25 Method of Analysis ....................................................................................................... 26 Sources of Evidence ...................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 31 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 1 . Subsidiary Question 1 ................................................................................................... 33 Change ....................................................................................... 33 Role of Catholic Laity ...................................................................... 36 Catholic Intellectual Life ................................................................. 41 .............................................................................. .Change . Theory 45 Subsidiary Question 2 ............................................................................................... 46 Collabortion Toward Radical Change ............................................................... 47 Catholic Identity .................................................................................................... 50 Financial Success of the University ...................................................................... 51 Change Theory .................................................................................................. 54 . Subsidiary Question 3 ................................................................................................... 56 Changes in Power Relationships ........................................................... 57 Changes in the Trajectory of the University ............................................. 59 Change Theory ............................................................................... 63 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 65 The Research Question ............................................................................................. 65 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 67 Limitations of the Methodology .................................................................................... 68 Summary of the Results ................................................................................................ 68 Discussion of the Results Within theTheoretical Framework ....................................... 76 Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................. 81 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 82 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 84 APPENDIX A .GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................. 91 APPENDIX B .SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY ......................................................... 93 APPENDIX C .SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR HESBURGH ......................................................................................... 95 APPENDIX D- CHART LINKING RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND BALDRIDGE'S CONCLUSIONS .......................................