Conservative Thought and Policy

Todd Zywicki named new visiting scholar in conservative thought, policy

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Jun 2023 19:25:53 +0000

Todd Zywicki named new visiting scholar in conservative thought, policy Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 06/06/2023 - 13:25

Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law, will join the Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization at the �鶹ӰԺ as the Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy for fall 2023.

Zywicki is described as a distinguished legal scholar with expertise in law and economics, the regulation of consumer finance and bankruptcy law. He has testified before Congress on consumer-bankruptcy law and consumer credit and is the author of more than 130 law review and peer-reviewed economics journal articles.

At CU �鶹ӰԺ, Zywicki will offer undergraduate courses on "The Rule of Law" and "Hayek and his Critics" and host public events for students, faculty, staff and the broader community.

"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to join the CU community for the fall semester,” Zywicki said, adding:

“For years, I have watched the Benson Center grow as an intellectual force on the CU campus and the national academy. In this time of national polarization, I applaud the support of the university administration to encourage dialogue and diversity of thought on campus and to do my part to live up to that charge."

Zywicki received his JD from the University of Virginia, an MA in economics from Clemson University, and an AB from Dartmouth College.

Top of the page: Todd J. Zywicki is an expert in Bankruptcy Law, Consumer Credit and Consumer Lending, Consumer Protection Law, Law and Economics, Obesity and Advertising.

Off

Traditional

White

Scholars ask if America has a ‘national character’

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 22:08:21 +0000

Scholars ask if America has a ‘national character’ Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 03/31/2020 - 16:08

Clint Talbott

CU �鶹ӰԺ visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy to address the topic in Zoom event on April 18

George Washington argued that America should establish a “national character.” Did the nation ever do so? If it did, has the national character improved or decayed over time?

Colleen Sheehan

William B. Allen

Two scholars at the Bruce D. Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization at the �鶹ӰԺ have spent four years asking those (and related) questions.

The American National Character project (ANC) began as a collaboration between Villanova University's Colleen Sheehan and William B. Allen (through the auspices of the Ryan Foundation and with support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Bradley Foundation). Sheehan, CU �鶹ӰԺ visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy, and Allen, senior scholar in residence at the Benson Center, have organized a series of colloquia and the 2019-20 Benson Center Lecture Series, through which they engaged prominent academics to assess the present state and future prospects of an American national character.

Allen is scheduled to give a one of these lectures on the subject, titled “Down with Diversity,” on April 18 at 7 p.m. MDT via Zoom. Participants must register via Eventbrite. After registering, they will receive an email with information on how to join the lecture.

Writing together, Allen and Sheehan recently answered five questions about the project, its genesis and its results, which follow:

1. What was the impetus for the American National Character Project?

The ANC project reflects a response to the repeated directions provided by George Washington at the founding of the United States, that "we have a national character to establish." It would be fair to say that some intelligent observers doubt whether that task was ever accomplished; still others affirm that it was established but has since been undermined; and still others consider it a work in progress, never yet consummated and still weighing in the balance. The ANC project aims to resolve those differences in an intellectually compelling manner.

We can only say that we prefer hope over despair, optimism over pessimism, trust over cynicism."

2. Over the four years of the project, to what extent did the ANC project resolve those differences?

The American National Character Project began in 2014, spurred by concern for the growing divisiveness and ideological polarization in America. The idea became a reality when Professor Sheehan secured a 2016 Hewlett Foundation grant. As a result of that grant, the first colloquium was held in 2017, with associated publications following. And we have continued since that time (having secured additional funding along the way).

The main question of the project is whether Americans are still, or whether they can again be, a united people. To answer this question in the affirmative requires that there are some fundamental principles that Americans hold in common, principles which in turn stimulate concord among the citizens and shape a healthy civic life. Perhaps needless to say, if this is the great challenge facing America today, the ANC Project has not yet succeeded in resolving either the theoretical or the practical components of this challenge.

3. As your project observed them, what are defining characteristics of an American national character?

Great question. That is what we are asking Americans of 2020 to conclude for themselves. Are there still defining characteristics that constitute something we could call the American character in 2020? In the past, Americans were fairly clear on what constituted these virtues or qualities. The list included things such as the love of freedom, love of family, love of God; it also included both hard work, independence and neighborliness, maybe even a certain kind of persistence, if not stubbornness. Certainly, the American character has always been one of daring and spiritedness.

4. As we head into the November elections, how optimistic are you about the future prospects of an American national character?

Another great question. We can only say that we prefer hope over despair, optimism over pessimism, trust over cynicism. But that doesn’t answer your question, does it?

5. What’s next for the ANC?

The Benson Center and the Ryan Foundation are continuing their collaboration with a conference this fall in Philadelphia and a forthcoming publication with contributions from participants in the ANC lecture series. We also hope to reschedule a few of the speakers whose CU �鶹ӰԺ lectures were canceled due to concerns over the coronavirus.

CU �鶹ӰԺ visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy to address the topic in Zoom event on April 18

Off

Traditional

White

Let Your Light Shine: My Year As the Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought at the University of Colorado

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 20:54:23 +0000

Let Your Light Shine: My Year As the Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought at the University of Colorado Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 07/05/2017 - 14:54

Francis J. Beckwith

A little over four years ago, the University of Colorado, �鶹ӰԺ began a three-year pilot program that I believe has no precedent in American higher education. With the help of private donors, and the support of the university’s board, president, and chancellor, the school created the position of Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought and Policy.

According to its supporters, the chair’s purpose is to advance that type of diversity—political and ideological diversity—that seems a natural fit for a public academic institution that has the motto, “Let Your Light Shine.”

Francis J. Beckwith. CU �鶹ӰԺ photo by Patrick Campbell.

With its fifth year beginning in the fall of 2017, it is safe to say that this is no longer a pilot program, but a permanent fixture of the university. I was honored to have served as the 2016-17 occupant of the chair, which is a full-time faculty appointment with a regular 2-2 course load.

With all my grades now turned in, I’d like to offer some reflections on my time in �鶹ӰԺ.

Having taught full-time for seven years at a large public university (UNLV, 1989-1996), I was delighted to be returning to a similar sort of institution. I look back fondly on those UNLV days because, as one of the few self-identified conservatives on campus, I felt I had a special obligation to represent my tribe with not only careful scholarship and good teaching, but with a public persona that exuded the joy that was in my heart. I really love being a professor, and that has nothing to do with my politics.

I found myself with the same sense of mission and determination when my wife and I arrived in �鶹ӰԺ last August.

In the fall, I team-taught the course “Thomas Aquinas” with philosophy professor Robert Pasnau, one of the world’s leading Aquinas scholars. As I told Bob when he invited me to team-teach with him, “You know, you’re the Aquinas scholar; I’m just the Thomist.” He responded, “But you have skin in the game.”

The class went marvelously. I lectured on the aspects of Aquinas’ philosophy I knew best and that I’ve taught before—on God and the nature of law—while Bob focused on Aquinas’ views on human nature, free will, and right and wrong action.

The other fall course I taught was “Philosophy and Religion” (which I also taught in the spring). Offered in the philosophy department, this course dealt with philosophical issues in religion, such as the concept and existence of God, the relationship between faith and reason, miracles, God and ethics, and the problem of evil.

Because I do not often teach this at Baylor, it was exciting to get back to those issues that originally drew me to philosophy. What amazed me was how interested the students were on the topics we covered in class, especially in comparison to my Baylor students, virtually all of whom would identify themselves as serious Christians. My guess is that because CU is a public university—and thus unlike Baylor does not require its students to attend chapel and take six credits of theology in order to graduate—the issues we discussed were new to many of my students.

My other spring course, “Religion and the Constitution,” was offered in the political science department. A constitutional law class focusing on religion cases, most of the students were pre-law political science majors.

Of all my CU classes, this one had the most enthusiastic participants.

Although there were many interesting exchanges, one in particular stands out. It involved the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While I was trying to delicately explain to the students the four types of birth control to which Hobby Lobby objected and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had mandated the company purchase for employees who wanted them, a young lady in the front row raised her hand and interceded.

After announcing to the class that she was at that very moment wearing an IUD—one of the birth control methods in question—she proceeded to explain precisely how it functioned. While she was speaking, I began to consider what I should say in response to her personal disclosure.

I concluded that I should say nothing except, “Thank you,” and then go on to ask if any other students wanted to contribute to the discussion. For I thought to myself, “What if it were the other way around? What if I were a very liberal, perhaps irreligious, professor, and one of my students—let’s say, a devout Evangelical Christian—boldly announced his personal faith to the class and went on to explain the theological reasons why his brethren at Hobby Lobby hold the views that they do?

Would it be right for me to respond by saying, “Sorry, that’s too much information”?

The answer is obvious. If you want a classroom where students can speak freely about the topics under discussion—a place in which we can with integrity assess dangerous ideas—then you cannot be a helicopter professor, whether you’re a liberal, conservative, or something in-between.

Three days after the final exam, I was so pleased to receive this message from one of the students in that class: “I have never seen a class in which the students spoke more freely. They (we) truly felt their ideas were welcomed and matter.”

In addition to teaching, the visiting scholar’s position comes with other responsibilities: (1) inviting guest speakers to campus, and (2) accepting as many invitations as possible to speak to local civic, political, and religious groups.

Concerning the first, I decided to invite speakers who touched on cultural themes that are rarely entertained in a serious fashion by the popular conservative television-radio media complex (which, for most people, especially in the academy, represents the essence of conservatism).

I am happy to report that the lectures were well-attended and that there were none of the disturbances or protests that we’ve seen on other campuses throughout the U.S. over the past few years. Audience members asked probing questions, but they were clearly offered in a spirit of inquiry and truth-seeking, even when it was obvious that the questioner strongly disagreed with the speaker. That’s the sort of critical dialogue that many of us—regardless of our political views—believe to be integral to university life."

So, in the fall I brought George Yancey (University of North Texas) and Patrick Deneen (University of Notre Dame) to campus. Yancey spoke on “Conservatives in Academia: Is There Bias Against Them?,” while Deneen gave a talk on “The End of Liberalism: Why the World is Falling Apart.”

In the spring, the university hosted lectures by Elizabeth Corey (Baylor University), who spoke on “Can Conservatives Support Diversity?,” and author Rod Dreher, who discussed his New York Times bestseller, The Benedict Option.

I am happy to report that the lectures were well-attended and that there were none of the disturbances or protests that we’ve seen on other campuses throughout the U.S. over the past few years. Audience members asked probing questions, but they were clearly offered in a spirit of inquiry and truth-seeking, even when it was obvious that the questioner strongly disagreed with the speaker. That’s the sort of critical dialogue that many of us—regardless of our political views—believe to be integral to university life.

As for local talks, I gave plenty of them, most often about our fundamental freedoms and why everyone should defend them.

What became my standard “stump speech” focused on the growing indifference to the attacks on freedom of speech, association, and religion in the wider culture, but especially on our college campuses. As far as I could tell, my message was well received, even by many listeners who do not identify as conservative or libertarian.

I believe the main reason for this is that I framed this talk as a defense of what I like to call “rock-ribbed liberalism,” about which I have written elsewhere: “I miss liberalism. Real liberalism. Not this namby-pamby, afraid-of-your-own-shadow faint-hearted liberalism. What I miss is the rock-ribbed, truth-seeking, justice-pursuing, rights-defending, I-don’t-agree-with-you-but-I’ll-defend-your-right-to-say-it liberalism. It was the liberalism that defeated Nazism and Communism. It was your daddy’s liberalism….”

This approach resonated with a lot of people.

From what I could gather, and from my numerous conversations on campus, the administration, faculty, and staff are generally supportive of the visiting scholar program. Although there is no doubt that CU, like virtually all public universities, is overwhelmingly liberal in its political composition, I never felt unwelcome or out of place. For me, it was almost as if the campus was whispering in my ear, “Let your light shine.”

This essay was originally published by the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal and is reprinted with permission.

Visiting scholar's stump speech: "I miss liberalism. Real liberalism. Not this namby-pamby, afraid-of-your-own-shadow faint-hearted liberalism. What I miss is the rock-ribbed, truth-seeking, justice-pursuing, rights-defending, I-don’t-agree-with-you-but-I’ll-defend-your-right-to-say-it liberalism."

Off

Traditional

White

‘You can create your own cognitive cocoon’

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 17:55:00 +0000

‘You can create your own cognitive cocoon’ Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 09/06/2016 - 11:55

Clint Talbott

Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy is disappointed by the state of political discourse, aims to help to improve it while at CU �鶹ӰԺ

Francis Beckwith, the 2016-17 Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy, is now on campus teaching courses, arranging the appearance of guest speakers on campus. He is the fourth person to hold the one-year visiting-scholar position.

Beckwith earned a PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and a master of juridical studies from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He is professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University in Texas.

Beckwith recently won the American Academy of Religion’s 2016 Book Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in the category of Constructive-Reflective Studies. The academy recognized Beckwith’s book Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith, published by Cambridge University Press in 2015.

The American Academy of Religion’s awards for excellence honor new scholarly publications that make “significant contributions to the study of religion,” particularly those of “distinctive originality, intelligence, creativity and importance.” The awards will be formally presented at the academy’s annual meeting in November.

Beckwith fielded five questions about his book, his appointment and the state of political discourse. Following is the exchange:

1. One of your book’s reviewers praised Taking Rites Seriously as clearing away “many of the misunderstandings of religion that have marred discussions of faith and public life and corrupted the constitutional law of church and state.” What is the most common misunderstanding of religion that has corrupted the constitutional law of church and state?

I think the most common misunderstanding is that the views of religious citizens, especially on contested public questions, are never the result of rational reflection. There are numerous U.S. Supreme Court opinions over the past 70 years in which some of the justices treat religiously informed views in this fashion. So instead of thinking of the separation of church and state as a wonderful institutional arrangement that allows for the flourishing of religious diversity and a robust and active religious citizenry, it is presented as if it were a proxy for the separation of faith and reason. That’s not to say, of course, that there may not be religious views that one may think are in fact unreasonable. But, as I argue in the book, there’s no one-size-fits-all way to figure that out.

Francis Beckwith, this year's Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy, teaches a course in "Philosophy and Religion" this semester. University of Colorado Photo by Patrick Campbell.

2. You were reared Catholic and later became an evangelical leader who rather famously returned to the Catholic Church, thereby generating a good deal of feedback. For those who might not understand the intensity of the reaction from some Protestants, how would you characterize the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism today?

Although there was indeed intense reaction from some Protestants, many others reacted with a great degree of charity and kindness. But I think both reactions are entirely defensible. If someone thinks it was a horrible mistake for me to revert back to Catholicism, I would be surprised, and disappointed, if they had not reacted intensely. I have too much respect for serious Protestant believers to expect any of them to pretend as if their own beliefs are false. On the other hand, there are many Protestants who, though disagreeing with my reversion, continue to remain my good friends and academic collaborators.

As for the relationship between Catholics and Protestants, it is in general very good, especially in comparison to 40 or 50 years ago. There are, of course, religious divisions in this country, as there have always been. But, ironically, the divisions are probably more pronounced between traditional and progressive factions within specific religious communities rather than between the communities themselves. So what results is the odd phenomenon in which certain factions of American Protestants hope that a Catholic candidate for public office agrees with the Pope on social issues while certain factions of Catholics hope the candidate doesn't. This would have been unimaginable in the 1940s or 1950s.

3. You are this year’s Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy: How did your religious and academic training shape your views on or understanding conservatism?

Probably my most formative influence is the family in which I grew up. My parents were regular mass-attending Catholics who were conventional Democrats. So they had both a sense of historical continuity with tradition as well as an appreciation for the role that government could play in making society more just. My siblings and I were always encouraged by our parents to read, discuss and debate the political and social issues of the day. So this sort of openness made it seem perfectly natural for me to explore conservative ideas as I entered my mid-20s.

4. When you were appointed to this position earlier this year, you made this statement: “With a presidential election upon us, an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy changing the year’s political trajectory, and so many public questions with which to wrestle, I cannot imagine a more exciting time to be the Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought & Policy at the University of Colorado.” Do you think the political discourse in the United States is adequately wrestling with these issues?

Whether one is a conservative, a liberal or a progressive, you can create your own cognitive cocoon. You can literally edit out of your life web sites, networks, radio shows, newspapers, etc. that may challenge your point of view and/or push you out of your comfort zone."

I don’t think so. And I think the main reason is because it has become much easier to insulate oneself from the more thoughtful versions of contrary points of view. Whether one is a conservative, a liberal or a progressive, you can create your own cognitive cocoon. You can literally edit out of your life web sites, networks, radio shows, newspapers, etc. that may challenge your point of view and/or push you out of your comfort zone. Combine this phenomenon with the fact that virtually all news is presented as if it were a form of entertainment intended to move the emotions rather than the mind, what results is a toxic brew that makes clear thinking and serious debate nearly impossible.

5. Also at the time of your appointment, you praised the university’s leadership for striving to “create an environment in which true intellectual diversity can flourish.” In the short time you’ve been on campus, have you made any observations on the state of its intellectual diversity?

My first couple of weeks on campus have been terrific. I’ve interacted with many members of the campus community in a variety of contexts, including new faculty orientation, teaching my classes, meeting with students, and leading a lunchtime seminar in the philosophy department. Obviously, my experience has been limited, but from what I have seen so far I’m pretty impressed with the campus environment. I have been especially taken by how some faculty members and graduate students have gone out of their way to offer me a warm welcome.

The Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy is housed in the Center for Western Civilization, Thought & Policy at CU �鶹ӰԺ. The program has upcoming events scheduled, and interested people may stay abreast of events by subscribing to the CWCTP newsletter. The program’s next events include the following: George Yancey of the University of North Texas will give a presentation titled "Conservatives in Academia: Is there bias against them?" on Sept. 21; and a panel of experts will discuss "Why are College Professors Liberal?" (a Western Civ Dialogue Series Event) on Sept. 22. Francis Beckwith's next public speaking engagement, titled "The Future of Conservatism" will be held on Oct. 17 at Colorado Christian University.

Francis Beckwith, the 2016-17 Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy, is now on campus teaching courses, arranging the appearance of guest speakers on campus. Beckwith fielded five questions about his book, his appointment and the state of political discourse.

Off

Traditional

White

Beckwith named new scholar in conservative thought

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:00:00 +0000

Beckwith named new scholar in conservative thought Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/17/2016 - 00:00

Clint Talbott

Francis Beckwith will serve as the Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy for the 2016-17 academic year. He is the fourth person to hold the position.

Beckwith earned a PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and a master of juridical studies from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University in Texas, will succeed Brian Domitrovic, whose appointment ends this academic year.

When he learned that CU-�鶹ӰԺ sought a visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy, he was immediately drawn to the position, he said.

“I was impressed by the effort made by the university leadership to create an environment in which true intellectual diversity can flourish,” Beckwith said, adding that he looks forward to getting to know CU’s students and faculty, in addition to many of the university’s Colorado constituencies.

With a presidential election upon us, an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy changing the year’s political trajectory, and so many public questions with which to wrestle, I cannot imagine a more exciting time to be the Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado.”

He is scheduled to teach two courses per semester in fall 2016 and spring 2017. In fall, he will teach two courses in philosophy. One is an upper-level class on Thomas Aquinas and the other is an introductory course on “Philosophy and Society.” Additionally, he will be encouraged to foster discussion by hosting public events in the campus community and perhaps around the state.

Beckwith said he plans to continue the tradition of bringing first-rate speakers to campus “who can help advance our public conversations” on important issues of the day.

“With a presidential election upon us, an unexpected Supreme Court vacancy changing the year’s political trajectory, and so many public questions with which to wrestle, I cannot imagine a more exciting time to be the Visiting Scholar of Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado.”

Francis Beckwith

Beckwith is the author of numerous publications and books, including “Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith” and “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice,” both published by Cambridge University Press.

Among other academic appointments, he has served as the Mary Anne Remick senior visiting fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture and as visiting research fellow at Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

Robert Pasnau, professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Western Civilization, Thought and Policy, which houses the Conservative Thought and Policy Program, said Beckwith is a “distinguished philosopher and legal scholar who will broaden the intellectual conversation on the �鶹ӰԺ campus.”

“We’re delighted to have recruited such a worthy successor to the previous three visiting scholars,” Pasnau said.

In recent months, an advisory committee has been working to identify finalists for the next visiting scholar, who holds a one-year appointment. The committee has sought a “highly visible” scholar who is “deeply engaged in either the analytical scholarship or practice of conservative thinking and policymaking or both.”

The advisory committee includes five faculty members and four community members. Pasnau chairs the committee.

Non-university committee members include: David Pyle, founder and CEO of American Career College; Mike Rosen, long-time radio host on AM 850 KOA and Denver Post columnist and political commentator; Bob Greenlee, former �鶹ӰԺ City Council member and mayor and current president of Centennial Investment and Management Company Inc.; and Earl Wright, CEO of AMG National Trust Bank.

CU faculty members on the committee include: David S. Brown, professor and chair of political science; Daniel Kaffine, associate professor of economics; Benjamin Hale, associate professor of philosophy and environmental studies; and Patricia Limerick, professor of history and director of the Center of the American West.

The Conservative Thought and Policy Program is supported by private funds.

Clint Talbott is director of communications and external relations for the College of Arts and Sciences and editor of the College of Arts and Sciences Magazine.

Francis Beckwith will serve as the Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy for the 2016-17 academic year. He is the fourth person to hold the position.

Off

Traditional

White