When working at Archives & Special Collections, it’s hard to finish a shift without learning something new. Since I’ve started working here, the nature of my job has taught me so much about our university’s history. Where else could I learn about the activist origins of the Multicultural Center or about the time that students from St. Mary’s snuck fish into our card catalogs and reference books about 40 years ago?
While these events have definitely been talked about and covered in-depth, every now and then I come across something that seems to have gone under the radar. While rehousing some material for the McKevitt collection I came across a particularly angry letter from an alumnus.
I want no part of a befouled Santa Clara University that provides a platform for an Aptheker and a Pike. Regarding the 1967-68 Alumni Loyalty Fund, I suggest Fr. Donohoe (sic) obtain the needed financing from the Communist Aptheker and the apostate Pike whose work he does so well.”
(Bianchi 3)
My initial discovery of this letter piqued my interest, after all, coming across such a heated public message while doing archival work is a dramatic benefit of the profession. There was so much I wondered about this short note. What is “an Aptheker and a Pike”? Was “Communist” used as an insult here or in a literal sense? But most importantly, what drove this person to call Santa Clara University “befouled”? I immediately began to look through the rest of the collection to see what this message was in response to. I had assumed that SCU’s administration would provide a regretful response to quell the alumni’s anger, especially because this was a possible donor threatening to withhold their funds. Surprisingly, what I found was an unapologetic response directly from the former president, Fr. Donohoe.
“The university is not a planet spun off from the world. It is part of the world, and its formal work is preparation for the world. It would be false to itself and its clients if it failed to ready its graduates for a non-sanitized existence.”
(Donohoe 6)
At this point, I had become completely immersed in these correspondences. What triggered such heated writing?
After diving deeper into the rabbit hole, I discovered that these messages were in response to a Christian-Marxist dialogue held on campus in 1967. The colloquium had the uniting theme of “New Humanism” and aimed to introduce students to various perspectives during a tumultuous time for American foreign politics. The dialogue, which was only the second of its kind in the United States, lasted for three days and hosted a panel of scholars that spoke on the historical and present problems of Christianity and Marxism (“Dialogue opens Tuesday”, The Santa Clara). The most notable guests were Herbert Aptheker, a known American communist and national director of the American Institute of Marxist Theory, and Bishop James A. Pike, a controversial Santa Clara alumni due to his “unsavory” opinions on the Catholic education system—these men were the aforementioned “Communist Aptheker” and “apostate Pike” (Bianchi 6). Organizers of the event hoped that holding a space for this dialogue would grant students a deeper understanding of the world and also foster a new sense of understanding through critical discussion.
Overall, it seems that the conference succeeded in its goal to expand the viewpoints of the students, as some walked away from the event with “new hope for the future” due to the discussions that were held (“Dialogue Closes: Notes New Hope for Future”, The Santa Clara). In total, there were about 450 students who attended and many appreciated the opportunity to learn more about historically opposing viewpoints, however, the nature of the conference did attract some disillusioned attendees. Immediately after the event, students from the SCU Young Republicans Political Action Committee passed out papers that discussed the traditional opposition to religion and denouncing the idea that early Christians were alike with Communists. SCU Young Republicans leadership would later come out to say that the actions of those members did not constitute the opinions of their organization and that they used the SCU Young Republicans logo without their permission (“YR’s Speak Up”, The Santa Clara).
The internal dispute between the SCU Young Republicans reflected the mixed opinions of the greater SCU community. After the three-day conference, both outrage and support poured out from alumni. Some had expressed their appreciation for President Donohoe and his dedication to providing an education that would prepare their students for the real world.
It is important to us that our son be exposed from his freshman year throughout the rest of his college stay to all philosophies, in order to better appreciate and understand his own role as a Roman Catholic…”
(Donohoe 6)
While others expressed their disgust towards current SCU President Donohoe for giving a Christian-Marxist the platform to speak on campus. James E. Donati ’49 stated:
Lending the good reputation of Santa Clara University to one who supports the worst tyranny ever visited upon the world is an incredible breach of trust. Without a doubt, the Communists will squeeze every ounce, of propaganda value from this imprudent affair because that’s the nature of the Communist game. Communist espousal IS dialogue. Not to understand this is not to understand the essence of Communism.”
(Bianchi 7)
Soon after Fr. Donohoe would personally give a response to everyone who criticized the administration’s decision to hold such a conference. Fr. Donohoe wrote “Academe Revisited,” which was an open letter first published by the Santa Claran (the alumni newsletter) and later reprinted by The Santa Clara student newspaper. The open letter attempted to explain not only how holding a Christian-Marxist conference was beneficial for SCU students, but also necessary to the mission as a Jesuit institution to properly educate students. To President Donohoe, it was important that students be exposed to new ideas and argued that this exposure is “being true to ourselves as a university” (Donohoe 8).
How is it that men and women who have no reliable credentials for curricula planning can suddenly interpose themselves in the intellectual arena where ideas are measured, not by personal income, but by validity? Have they so little confidence in the world of American academe that they really think that a talk by an accomplished Marxist can convert to Communism an American sophomore or senior? If this were so, the American proposition must indeed be vulnerable. I am quite certain it is not.”
(Donohoe, 7)
Looking back at the colloquium ten years later, Fr. McKevitt expressed how this controversy highlighted the difficulty many Jesuit universities had adjusting to an increasingly secular society. McKevitt wrote, “They had brought storms of controversy as the institution struggled to retain its distinctive Catholic character while at the same time making its education relevant to the needs of a rapidly changing world” (304). Today, I see the winds of change continue to sweep through campus as a recent announcement by the Board of Trustees stated that the SCU bylaws will no longer require university presidents to be Jesuit priests. While this isn’t exactly an unexpected change because other Jesuit universities have already welcomed female lay presidents, it does further illustrate Fr. McKevitt’s point on how Jesuit universities continue to adapt in changing times.
I think Fr. Donohoe’s decision on “opening up the campus to the world” captures a particular aspect of Jesuit education that I’ve always appreciated: the dedication to educate the whole person beyond the classroom. Personally, I want an education that challenges me. I’d rather think through a complicated topic than be spoon-fed information that Catholic doctrine wants me to believe. The Christian-Marxist conference was only one instance of difficult dialogues taking place on campus, but the response of Fr. Donohoe and SCU community members showed that this information was necessary.
I wonder how else our school will continue to change?
Header image: Aerial View of Santa Clara University, pre-1950 adapted from SCU Digital Collections.
Works Cited
McKevitt, Gerald. The University of Santa Clara: A History, 1851-1977. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA: 1979.
Donohoe, Patrick. “Academe Revisited.” The Santa Claran vol. 16, Oct. 1967, pp. 6-8.
Bianchi, Eugene C. “Christian-Marxist Encounter.” The Santa Claran vol. 16, Jan. 1968, pp. 3-7.
(The Santa Claran is available for consultation in the Archives & Special Collections Reading Room)