Any student considering attending Georgetown should realize at first glance that the Catholic tradition is necessary to the University’s mission. The admissions brochure celebrates Georgetown’s 1789 founding by Catholic Bishop John Carroll and his staff of Jesuit teachers, and the school’s web site details the array of Catholic offerings, including chaplains-in-residence, retreats, lecturers, and a Catholic Studies Program. Worship gatherings include five daily Masses, eight Sunday Masses, Masses on the new school year, Masses at commencement, Masses for all holidays, nightly Rosary, and weekly adoration hours, to name but a few. While Mass participation is not compulsory, and services for other religious groups are also publicized, the emphasis on Catholicism is clear, unsurprising, and wholly appropriate. After all, Georgetown is the oldest private Catholic university in the country. Yet in the spring of 1996, Georgetown did not feel Catholic enough for at least one student. Liz Fiore, then a freshman, sat down during Lent to say a prayer between classes, and, to her dismay, found no cross or crucifix on the wall of the classroom. Fiore walked around the building, but the crosses were nowhere to be found. After airing her concerns in a letter to the administration, Fiore was disappointed by what she felt was a “touchy feely” stock response about the obvious religious symbols on campus. The administration insisted that they had no policy against crosses and that none had ever been taken down, except for building maintenance. Not satisfied, Fiore composed a harshly-worded article for a conservative campus publication, fanning the flames of an ongoing emotional discussion regarding the role of the cross as well as Georgetown’s often competing aims of religiosity and academic excellence. The next semester, Fiore joined forces with three other students in what would become the “Committee for Crucifixes in the Classroom.” They spent much of the year writing letters to the administration, with unsatisfactory results. When religious publisher Sophia Press heard the story, the company offered Georgetown a gift of $10,000 to purchase crucifixes out of a catalog they sent along. According to Fiore, University officials passed up the gift, saying that they would prefer to go about the process in their own style. Persisting, the committee organized a forum during which four keynote speakers from the major religions represented on campus spoke in support of crucifixes in the classrooms.
Judged relative to the clamor generated by other campus issues, Fiore feels the campus was and remains overwhelmingly supportive of her effort to place crucifixes in all classrooms. Still, her committee was frustrated by what they saw as deliberate attempts by the University to slow down the process. Fiore was particularly upset when she saw an actual box of crucifixes in an administrator’s office and was told that he was not authorized to put them up. While not refuting Fiore’s contention of support, Georgetown spokesperson, Dan Wackerman, defended the University’s actions. “Did we slow down the process? Absolutely. That was intentional,” Wackerman said. He attributed the University’s decision to move cautiously to the administration’s desire to be inclusive of all groups and to ensure both that the process was thoughtful and that decisions remained consistent with the school’s founding traditions. As part of their efforts, the administration held a number of special forums on the issue and sponsored an art exhibit, “Behold the Wood of the Cross: The Crucifix in Art and Worship,” in the Bunn Intercultural Center. The exhibit, which displayed representations of crosses from a number of cultures and nationalities, is intended to be only one of several shows highlighting symbols of all religions. Dean of Students James Donahue and University Chaplain Rev. Adam Bunnell also began assembling a task force to asses the questions raised by the crosses. The recommendations issued in the task force report, which Jared Hendler, a Jewish senior on the task force, believes “enrich Catholicism without seeking to impose it on anyone,” were then considered by Father Leo J. O’Donovan. O’Donovan, the president of the school, released his response in the “New Policy on Religious Symbolism” in February, 1998. He concluded that the cross and crucifix are central symbols which should be placed in all classrooms with the exception of Bunn, where founder Carroll’s vision of diversity be paid tribute through rotating exhibits of the symbols of various faiths. Additionally, the campus development committee will identify appropriate places to add outdoor religious art, and a spring festival of religious art will be sponsored by the University. Senior Jacqueline Kaufman, president of the University-funded Jewish Student Organization, sees the cross movement in a generally positive light: “When faced with others with different beliefs, we’re forced to question our own, and often strengthen them as a result,” she said. Kaufman, a government major, found that the debate has prompted her and her peers to confront the extent of the role Judaism should play in their lives. But not all Jewish students are ready to see the crosses as a blessing. Jewish law student Mik Moore explains that the environment causes some to “not want to be ‘out’ as Jews.” The crucifixes and other public symbols, he asserts, reveal a “hegemony of the church,” which Jewish students may find alienating. Approximately 2,800 of Georgetown’s 12,00 students consider themselves Jewish (composing roughly 12% of the undergraduate population and nearly 30% of graduate students), although the actual number is difficult to determine because religious affiliation is voluntarily self-reported to the administration. Moore believes that the great majority of these students are, at least outwardly, non-practicing and non-religious, implying that they are likely not concerned about the issue as long as it does not interfere with academics. Hendler, for one, said he came to Georgetown for its top-notch international politics program. For those who do wish to be involved with the Jewish community, the influence of a more liberal Jesuit order fosters a policy of openness and the acceptance of what Caroll referred to as “citizens of every class and students of every religious profession,” consistent with the Jesuit vision of diversity and scholarship. Beyond granting all students the same privileges enjoyed by Catholics, the University now maintains and funds Jewish as well as Protestant and Muslim ministries led by “chaplains” of the respective faiths. Though not fully funded by the University, student organizations, activities, and forums representing diverse faiths and cultures are also supported. In fact, part of what drew Kaufman to Georgetown was the emphasis on spirituality with an “acceptance and acknowledgment that religion can and should matter.” Having experienced more secular environments in the past, she feels students can benefit from spiritual surroundings, even when the focus is on a religion other than their own. Kaufman has found, especially among the most devout Catholic students, a high level of tolerance and understanding. While Moore recognizes such tolerance, he believes that Georgetown’s environment does not promote spirituality among most non-Catholic students. He theorizes that, instead, it “decreases net spirituality,” because students are made uncomfortable by the school’s public emphasis on Catholicism. Most Jewish students are seemingly less concerned with the crucifixes themselves than with the motivations behind the decisions of all parties involved. Kaufman explained that if the intent was simply to increase recognition of the religion, she did not see it as a problem, having chosen to go to a Catholic school. However, both she and Moore expressed concern about a potential alternate scenario in which the movement was part of a conservative political agenda. “I don’t see it as a political issue,” countered Fiore. She asserts that Georgetown’s administration may have turned it into a political issue by arguing that it would offend faculty and create dissent among students. While it has been suggested that the University is motivated by a fear of losing top students and faculty if it were to become more religious, no evidence of political motivation by any party exists. Indeed, Fiore’s aims seem genuinely religious in nature. She disapproves of what she sees as a turn towards secularization of the University, a shift which she believes has also impacted on the educational environment. She feels, for example, that the content of some of her theology classes promote pluralism contrary to the traditional Catholic doctrine. Citing another case, she said that the Bunn Center Exhibit, with its implication that “it’s just art, everybody— don’t worry,’” also demonstrated a decreasing emphasis on religion Still, a number of complicated religious, if not political, questions are raised by the original request for the crucifixes. Why, for example, are publicly-mounted crucifixes necessary for personal worship? Fiore responds that the issue is not why the request was made but why, as she saw it, the University tried so hard to prevent crosses from going up. She explains that the crucifix is a hugely important central symbol: “life, death, and resurrection all in one.” While the cross alone is important as a Christian figure, Catholics revere the image of the crucifixion captured in the crucifix as a sign of Christ’s suffering and faith. But many Catholics and non-Catholic Christians are themselves ambivalent about the request. Kaufman observed that some Catholics were concerned that the potential discomfort of certain groups might outweigh any spiritual benefits and thought it might be more “Christian” to leave things be. Similarly, some of the liberal Jesuits on campus have protested the request in recognition of the history of the cross and the potential impact upon sensitive groups of an official move by the administration. Used as an anti-Semitic sign during persecutions such as the Crusades and pogroms, the cross and crucifix have become imbued with meanings beyond those of innocuous Christian signifiers. While there have been no outspoken opponents of crucifixes in general at Georgetown, some Jewish leaders took a stand in favor of what they represent. Among the early supporters was Rabbi Harold S. White, Senior Jewish Chaplain, who sees value in the crucifix for all faiths as a reminder of suffering and believes that a crucifix can function similarly to Holocaust imagery. Author Chaim Potok, speaking with Chris Roberts of PBS’s “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” in a report entitled “Christian Only,” admits that the crucifix “triggers images of rivers of Jewish blood” for most Jews, but goes on to suggest that it serves the purpose of “a universal symbol of mankind yearning for meaning in this world, of the suffering humanity on this planet.” Similarly, Rev. Bunnell tells Roberts, “My religious symbol cannot necessarily become yours, but it can help you understand me. And in understanding me, I think our religious experience can be deepened.” Though the crucifixes are going up, and the right and propriety of Georgetown to erect additional symbols of its religious heritage are generally undisputed, parties on all sides of remain concerned about the implications for the political climate, and primarily, the academic environment at the University. The administration must make a decision if they want to “maintain Catholic traditions or plant some ivy up the wall,” opines Fiore. Wackerman disagrees. “We think we can [maintain tradition] and be a great university at the same time,” he asserts, adding that “academic freedom is alive at Georgetown.” In fact, he feels that the balance creates a unique environment conducive to open expression and discussion of all religions. Jewish students may not be fully comfortable with the crucifixes in their classrooms, but they all knew what they were getting into by attending Georgetown. “In all fairness,” admits Assistant Jewish Chaplain Judy Wendkos, “it is a Catholic university.” And even those who feel strongly about the issue might take comfort in the words of Dan Porterfield, Associate Vice President of University Communications: “Is it better to have people work with new perspectives on the identity of the institution?” he asked in a student publication. “Or better to have no clear identity at all? These aren’t bad things for college students or faculty.”
Suzann Moskowitz is a senior at Cornell University.