NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON SPIRITUALITY
IN HIGHER EDUCATION

A National Institute on Spirituality in Higher Education was held at UCLA on November 14-16, 2006. The Institute is part of an ongoing national study of students’ spiritual development conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) under grants from the John Templeton Foundation. Institute participants included speakers, consultants, HERI staff, and teams of faculty and administrators from ten institutions: Bates College, Carnegie-Mellon University, Florida State University, Grinnell College, Furman University, Miami University of Ohio, Spelman College, University of California-Los Angeles, University of California-Irvine, and Wellesley College.

The Institute opened on the evening of November 14 with dinner and remarks offered by Gene Rice. On the morning of November 15 the 65 participants met in a plenary session. Following Jennifer Lindholm’s presentation of current empirical findings from the UCLA project and brief remarks by Arthur Chickering and Scotty McLennan, the remainder of the morning session was devoted to a lively and thoughtful conversation on the topic of how to incorporate spiritual perspectives into the curriculum and co-curriculum.

For the opening afternoon session four participant subgroups were formed to discuss aspects of institutional structure and culture that can facilitate or impede efforts by colleges and universities to focus more attention on issues relating to students’ spiritual development. Some of the ideas that surfaced included the use of theme courses, approaches for dealing with disciplinary differences, and strategies for forming closer links between curricular and co-curricular programs. A structural issue that received a good deal of discussion was institutional size. It was suggested that larger institutions could utilize core courses as vehicles for focusing on spirituality.

Building bridges between the curriculum with co-curriculum was seen as a promising vehicle for thinking about and introducing spirituality perspectives on campus. Other venues where the topic of spirituality could be addressed included discussions of service learning, involving students and faculty in curricular planning discussions, and a systematic examination of the institution’s mission statement and the role of senates shaping this statement.

Several other institutional issues were seen as potential barriers. On the structural side, lack of resources was perceived by many as a major barrier. On the cultural side, one of the issues that surfaced was the feeling that many faculty may be uncomfortable discussing issues related to students’ spiritual development because they feel they lack expertise in the area. Nevertheless, other participants voiced the opinion that it is ok to “show your discomfort” and “to make space for the not knowing.”

The third day of the Institute was devoted to team discussions with the consultants and the drafting of team action agendas—plans for action that would be appropriate to the institution’s mission and “do-able” for each institution. To accomplish this, each team met individually with one of the invited consultants. There was a great deal of thoughtful and creative planning of programmatic efforts to be undertaken by the various institutions represented at the Institute, from revisiting and revising the institutional mission statement, to introducing new courses, including spirituality perspectives into existing courses, and engaging others on campus in dialogue about spirituality in higher education.

A copy of the Institute proceedings is now available. The research team and Institute consultants are also preparing to do periodic follow-ups with the institutional teams to learn about their progress and continue to provide assistance in reviewing and implementing their action plans.