Notre Dame Magazine Spring 2012 : Page 4

LETTERS LETTER FROM CAMPUS FROM READERS Time to Move On B Y D AN R EAGAN ’76 The letters we publish here are edited for space and are representative of those we receive. We print only those letters referring to an article in the most recent edition of the magazine, not those responding to letters or commenting on issues not addressed in the recent issue. For a fuller presentation of letters visit our website at magazine.nd.edu. had thought this would be a healthy, almost cathartic experience but now find myself either too emotional or too scattered to find the right words. I had been asked to write about my leaving Notre Dame after 32 years — four as an undergraduate and 28 as a development officer. One thing for sure, after all this time, I still love the place . . . in a deeper more subtle way perhaps, yet with more objec-tivity. Because I’ve been privileged to have gotten a very close view of Notre Dame, I am sometimes asked to characterize the place. My favorite explanation is to paraphrase a travel guide about Ireland which describes the country as a “beauti-ful, maddening place that once you visit, you fall in love with it.” That’s my version of Notre Dame — a beautiful, maddening place, and one I deeply care about. The place is a little maddening for some obvious reasons. It’s too bureaucrat-ic at times, with occasional incomprehen-sible rules. We hand out tough decisions (think admissions), and fond traditions get eliminated. We can be too overt in our pursuit of the dollar. We are tentative sometimes when we could be more direct and a little too direct when we could be more sensitive. I know that I, too, have added to some of these maddening moments, and I am sure none of us is fully Notre Dame until we have experienced the “maddening” side. However, the University’s beauty far outpaces its frustration. And I think that is always its challenge: to be cognizant of the maddening side so it does not over-take the beauty. At its most basic, the beauty can be found in the place’s people and their expe-riences — the joy of your acceptance let-ter, the pride of graduation, a basilica wed-ding, the response of Notre Dame friends when you are most in need. We have all experienced these types of moments and Dan Reagan retired at the end of March as associate vice president for University Relations, having directed the University’s last two fund-raising campaigns. He and his wife, Margot Fisher Reagan ’87J.D., will stay in South Bend where Margot is a superior court judge and Dan now a consultant. NOTRE DAME MAGAZINE I Call it marriage When I was married in the District of Colum-bia on June 18, 2011, my friend and classmate Lorie Masters was kind enough to write about this joyous occasion in the classnotes section of the winter issue. You, however, saw fit to change the word “marriage” to “united in a ceremony.” Not only is your editorial policy intellectually and logically flawed, it is also downright insulting both to my husband and to me. We are married and have exactly the same legal status as any heterosexual couple married in the District of Columbia. The attitude evidenced by your editorial policy is, in my view, most decidedly hypo-critical and anti-Christian. Please answer me this question: Had I married a Jewish or Muslim woman outside the Catholic Church, would you have edited the column in the same manner? I think not. Shame on this great institution. Our marriage occurred seven months ago. Our “union” began more than 30 years ago. Had I known that Notre Dame considered “union” the celebratory marker of our relationship, I would have asked Lorie to include that in her column in 1981. forward the importance of this issue. There is nothing more central to Biblical teach-ing than our shared responsibility for the commons, and the fact that it comes as a surprise to anyone attending Notre Dame is deeply disturbing. M ICHAEL H OGAN ’80 M ONTPELIER , V ERMONT Rich and poor In her velvet-glove plea for the government to equalize income for all regardless of acu-ity, ability or achievement (“My Fair Share”), Lori Barrett makes a case only Karl Marx, Fi-del Castro, Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama might love. She leans heavily on Columbia University economics professor Joseph Sti-glitz, the liberal writer and perhaps only one of his kind ever fired from the World Bank. In rebuttal, I offer the following precepts — not original to me and of unknown origin: (1) You cannot legislate the poor into pros-perity by legislating wealth out of prosper-ity. (2) What one person receives without working for, another must work without receiving. (3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that it did not first take from someone else. (4) You cannot multi-A LL YN J. A MA TO ’81J.D. ply wealth by dividing it. (5) When half the A LEXANDRIA , V IRGINIA people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to His mother, too take care of them, and when the second I very much enjoyed reading about David half gets the idea it does no good to work Matthews and his development efforts in because what they earned is halved, that is South Bend. That story, however, had a glar-ing omission when citing Pete Buttigieg as the the beginning of the end of any benevolent society. city’s mayor. His father’s faculty status was noted but not the mayor’s mother — J. Anne T HOMAS C. M URPHY ’53 G REEN B AY , W ISCONSIN Montgomery, who earned a master’s in fine arts from Notre Dame in ’91 and taught at the Lori Barrett thoroughly documents the University for 29 years. problems associated with the growing E LL YN S TECKER wealth gap. But, as with all others, the root S OUTH B END , I NDIANA cause eludes her. Rising unemployment, poverty and declining incomes are all a Common grounds natural consequence of an ever-worsening The article on Leo Burke’s work to introduce over-supply of labor. The inverse relation-business school students to the concept of ship between population density and per a shared commons (“A World that Works for capita consumption has been slowly, steadi-Everyone”) was very heartening. Having giv-ly eroding per capita consumption as our en a lecture for the Notre Dame Energy Cen-population soars. And since per capita con-ter in 2005 on energy sector decarbonization sumption and per capita employment are in-— in which I placed the imperative of action extricably linked, rising unemployment and on climate disruption squarely within Judeo-poverty are inescapable as long as econo-Christian and American thought traditions mists mistakenly lean on population growth dealing with the commons — I was happy to stoke macroeconomic growth. to hear that at least someone outside of the Simply put, there are too many workers philosophy and theology faculties is bringing 4

Time to Move On

Dan Reagan

LETTER FROM CAMPUS I had thought this would be a healthy, almost cathartic experience but now find myself either too emotional or too scattered to find the right words. I had been asked to write about my leaving Notre Dame after 32 years — four as an undergraduate and 28 as a development officer. One thing for sure, after all this time, I still love the place . . . in a deeper more subtle way perhaps, yet with more objectivity. Because I’ve been privileged to have gotten a very close view of Notre Dame, I am sometimes asked to characterize the place. My favorite explanation is to paraphrase a travel guide about Ireland which describes the country as a “beautiful, maddening place that once you visit, you fall in love with it.” That’s my version of Notre Dame — a beautiful, maddening place, and one I deeply care about. The place is a little maddening for some obvious reasons. It’s too bureaucratic at times, with occasional incomprehensible rules. We hand out tough decisions (think admissions), and fond traditions get eliminated. We can be too overt in our pursuit of the dollar. We are tentative sometimes when we could be more direct and a little too direct when we could be more sensitive. I know that I, too, have added to some of these maddening moments, and I am sure none of us is fully Notre Dame until we have experienced the “maddening” side. However, the University’s beauty far outpaces its frustration. And I think that is always its challenge: to be cognizant of the maddening side so it does not overtake the beauty. At its most basic, the beauty can be found in the place’s people and their experiences — the joy of your acceptance letter, the pride of graduation, a basilica wedding, the response of Notre Dame friends when you are most in need. We have all experienced these types of moments and plenty of other beautiful events that define Notre Dame. Many of these are connected to another or lead to another, and we are never quite sure when the next meaningful moment will occur. But somehow it always does. Notre Dame’s beauty is also grounded in its ability to renew. I doubt I will ever again work where I experience such a sense of renewal more rapidly than here. I will miss Notre Dame’s uncanny ability to pick us back up after a bad day . . . a conversation with a student, a performance, Mass or event, or the campus itself — the grotto, the basilica — or a good talk at Leahy’s or Legends with colleagues and friends. It took great soul searching to decide to leave here now. But the timing seemed just about right. The University offered a rare opportunity to retire early for those of us who have been here awhile. In the end, it motivated me to step away, to try something completely different. I am grateful for that. It has prompted me to think back, to remember how it starts, this “relationship” with an institution, with a place. Each of us associated with Notre Dame has had someone in their life who introduced us to the University – a parent, a friend, a teacher, a sibling. For me, it was my dad Jim, class of 1948. Dad passed away a number of years ago but his voice is still strong in my heart and my head. When he and mom dropped me off on campus for my freshman year in 1972, he took me aside and said, “You’ll never be alone now.” I didn’t get what he was saying then. I do now. Dad was right. I never have been since, and I don’t believe I ever will be alone again. Notre Dame has taken care of that. Wherever I go, whatever situation I find myself in, I will remain permanently connected to this maddening, beautiful place. So perhaps I am not leaving at all.

FROM READERS

The letters we publish here are edited for space and are representative of those we receive. We print only those letters referring to an article in the most recent edition of the magazine, not those responding to letters or commenting on issues not addressed in the recent issue. For a fuller presentation of letters visit our website at magazine.nd.edu. Call it marriage When I was married in the District of Columbia on June 18, 2011, my friend and classmate Lorie Masters was kind enough to write about this joyous occasion in the classnotes section of the winter issue. You, however, saw fit to change the word “marriage” to “united in a ceremony.” Not only is your editorial policy intellectually and logically flawed, it is also downright insulting both to my husband and to me. We are married and have exactly the same legal status as any heterosexual couple married in the District of Columbia. The attitude evidenced by your editorial policy is, in my view, most decidedly hypocritical and anti-Christian. Please answer me this question: Had I married a Jewish or Muslim woman outside the Catholic Church, would you have edited the column in the same manner? I think not. Shame on this great institution. Our marriage occurred seven months ago. Our “union” began more than 30 years ago. Had I known that Notre Dame considered “union” the celebratory marker of our relationship, I would have asked Lorie to include that in her column in 1981. ALLYN J. AMATO ’81J.D. ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA His mother, too I very much enjoyed reading about David Matthews and his development efforts in South Bend. That story, however, had a glaring omission when citing Pete Buttigieg as the city’s mayor. His father’s faculty status was noted but not the mayor’s mother — J. Anne Montgomery, who earned a master’s in fine arts from Notre Dame in ’91 and taught at the University for 29 years. ELLYN STECKER SOUTH BEND,INDIANA Common grounds The article on Leo Burke’s work to introduce business school students to the concept of a shared commons (“A World that Works for Everyone”) was very heartening. Having given a lecture for the Notre Dame Energy Center in 2005 on energy sector decarbonization — in which I placed the imperative of action on climate disruption squarely within Judeo- Christian and American thought traditions dealing with the commons — I was happy to hear that at least someone outside of the philosophy and theology faculties is bringing forward the importance of this issue. There is nothing more central to Biblical teaching than our shared responsibility for the commons, and the fact that it comes as a surprise to anyone attending Notre Dame is deeply disturbing. MICHAEL HOGAN ’80 MONTPELIER, VERMONT Rich and poor In her velvet-glove plea for the government to equalize income for all regardless of acuity, ability or achievement (“My Fair Share”), Lori Barrett makes a case only Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama might love. She leans heavily on Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz, the liberal writer and perhaps only one of his kind ever fired from the World Bank. In rebuttal, I offer the following precepts — not original to me and of unknown origin: (1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating wealth out of prosperity. (2) What one person receives without working for, another must work without receiving. (3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that it did not first take from someone else. (4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. (5) When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the second half gets the idea it does no good to work because what they earned is halved, that is the beginning of the end of any benevolent society. THOMAS C. MURPHY ’53 GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN Lori Barrett thoroughly documents the problems associated with the growing wealth gap. But, as with all others, the root cause eludes her. Rising unemployment, poverty and declining incomes are all a natural consequence of an ever-worsening over-supply of labor. The inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption has been slowly, steadily eroding per capita consumption as our population soars. And since per capita consumption and per capita employment are inextricably linked, rising unemployment and poverty are inescapable as long as economists mistakenly lean on population growth to stoke macroeconomic growth. Simply put, there are too many workers competing for too little work, and the problem grows worse as the world’s labor force grows by another 100,000 workers every day. There are no solutions to ever-worsening global unemployment that don’t begin with stabilizing the population. PETE MURPHY ’71 CLARKSTON, MICHIGAN Lori Barrett closes her article by telling us that “greed does no one any good.” Except that it does. If there is no benefit to being greedy, the behavior would not exist, and some Americans have grown wealthy beyond the dreams of Croesus because of greed. But beyond this obvious oversight, there is a much deeper aspect to greed. Simply put, a technologically advanced society cannot exist without some of its members being greedy. The greedy accumulate a surplus which can be deployed to allow some members of society to specialize in an activity other than gathering food. So, if properly managed, greed can be harnessed for the good of society. Entrepreneurial greed (good greed, if you will) creates economic activity where none existed before and fosters job creation as a side effect. Financial greed (bad greed) enriches some while passing the costs on to others. It is essentially a form of redistribution where wealth is transferred from the many to the few. The key to a balanced and functional society is to formulate tax policy so that good greed is encouraged and bad greed is penalized. This is quite the opposite to what the United States has now. GUY WROBLE ’77 DENVER, COLORADO Worth fighting for Barbara Turpin’s “How Could They?” essay was a masterpiece for someone like me. Born a Northerner but a Southerner by choice, I’ve lived in the South for 49 of my 74 years. In a short time I learned what Ms. Turpin learned in her pilgrimage to Gettysburg. Although the figures about slave ownership vary, it was clear that the soldiers in the field weren’t fighting so somebody could own slaves. Camaraderie, states’ rights and an oppressive federal government drove the men in gray, not slavery. DANIEL RAPP ’59 TAYLORS VILLE,NORTH CAROLINA While in Charleston, South Carolina, recently, I visited the city’s Confederate Museum, which proudly displays countless uniforms, swords, photographs, bullets, medals and other artifacts from the War Between the States, as some Southerners refer to it. A day earlier I’d visited a plantation where generations of slaves were forced to pick cotton and manufacture bricks. I enjoy history, so this was all very interesting to me. But an important fact crept back into my consciousness. For whatever other reason Southerners supported secession, they knew a Confederate victory would protect the institution of slavery. In an era of heightened reverence for the military, let’s remember there is nothing heroic or noble or intelligent in killing unquestioningly for an unjust cause — no matter how nostalgically later generations may remember it. ED COHEN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA I applaud Barbara Turpin’s understanding of the Civil War, but for some reason she feels compelled to compare the bravery and sacrifice of those soldiers with her stereotypical assumptions about Vietnamera service — that Americans who fought and died in Vietnam did so out of coercion, mindless discipline and unquestioningly obeying orders on behalf of people who did not want us there against an enemy whom we admired for their tenacity in their commitment to a cause. Had she spent as much time studying the Vietnam War as she has the Civil War, rather than merely accepting her 1960s perspective, she would know the answer to the question, “How could they?” As a Marine platoon leader in Vietnam, I saw too many friends and young Marines pay the price for others to not understand the cause we fought and died for. Any reasonable study of American post-World War II history would put that war appropriately within the context of this country’s decades-long commitment to challenge and contain the spread of communism. That era was known collectively as the Cold War, and we won it with the final collapse of communism in 1989. So yes, there was a cause — the defense of freedom and our way of life. Like our forefathers, we fought for a cause, for patriotism and a commitment to our fellow countrymen, whether they appreciate it or not. The sacrifices made in that long ago Cold War protected the rights of a whole generation of self-righteous dissenters to develop and express their cynical opinions — opinions they are entitled to as long as they are not misconstrued as fact. PATRICK J. MCDONNELL ’65 LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS

Previous Page Next Page

Publication List
Using a screen reader? Click Here