Here are the differences between the draft we gave the faculty 2/23/15 and the revised draft
7/13/15.
First paragraph:
1) the first sentence has been simplified;
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 2 (“The first sentence is problematic…”), 7 (“I worry a bit
about the language of intellectual maturity…”), 11 (“rephrasing would be helpful…”), 12
(“The statement strikes several good notes: in speaking of the ‘mental agility and moral
strength…’”)
2) “in the Catholic tradition” has been added to the second sentence.
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 2-4 (“The Core at the Catholic institution is a specifically
Catholic thing…. King’s does not offer a liberal arts education [simply] but a liberal arts
education in the Catholic tradition…”)
Second paragraph:
3) “more generally” is now “more fully”;
Why? Faculty comments, p. 2 (“The reference here is not towards something generic or
general, but personal, integrated, moral, spiritual, etc. Nothing general…”)
4) “shared” has been replaced by “to which diverse disciplines contribute”;
Why? Faculty comments, p. 4 (“unsure what ‘shared’ exactly means here…”)
5) “emphatic” is gone;
Why? Faculty comments about length and concision (e.g., pp. 1, 6), p. 16 (“I don’t really
know what this [that is, the sentence as a whole] is trying to say…”)
6) “mindful of life’s great questions of meaning and purpose” — language from the new mission
statement.
Why? Faculty comments commending the statement’s presentation of the core as
“mission-driven” (p. 3), urging engagement of “the big picture questions/answers that
give a life specificity” (p. 3)
Third paragraph:
7) “inquiry” has been deleted.
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 16-17 (differentiating critical inquiry and analysis and
going on to call instead for “critical thinking, inquiry, and analysis”)
Fourth paragraph:
8) the sentence, “The Core works toward…” is gone;
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 1, 6 on length, 7 (“loop-hole wherein most classes are
mostly discussion…”), 8 (“rambling”), 13-14 (“no reason to include the statement about
discussion and reflection…”), 15 (“the 4th paragraph should be removed…”)
9) “Ideally” has been added;
Why? Faculty comments, p. 20 (“we cannot state with certainty that all our graduates…”)
10) “think outside the box” is gone, replaced by “solve problems imaginatively.”
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19
Fifth paragraph:
11) “most clearly” has been added;
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 3-4 (“[paragraph five] suggests…that moral and spiritual
formation…are an addendum to the learning…”)
12) “philosophical, theological” has been replaced by “intellectual”;
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 5 (“What, exactly, does [the ‘Catholic philosophical
tradition’] mean today?”), 11 (“‘the Catholic philosophical, theological, and social justice
traditions’ feels redundant and also doesn’t seem to be completely accurate…”)
13) “toward the end of making our global world a better place” has been replaced by “for the
sake of the common good.”
Why? Faculty comments, pp. 9 (“‘global world’…seems redundant”), 12 (“‘making our
global world a better place’ sounds like an advertisement for Coke. Why not use
‘common good’ language, which has venerable history in Catholic thinking?”), 15 (“The
last sentence strikes me as too wordy and a bit precious. How can you read it and not
break out into ‘Heal the World’?”), 15 (“The last sentence dealing with the ‘global world’
can be reworked a bit. That term in particular seems redundant”), 16 (“The last sentence
is very long and especially the last part…is wordier than it probably needs to be”), 16
(“‘Global world’?—isn’t that redundant…?”)