MENUS

Last Summer (2004), Mr. John Affleck-Graves informed Board members of the University Club that the University's administration intended to close the Club and to raze its Clubhouse in order to make way for a new academic building. In a more recent conversation with members of the Committee for the Future of the University Club, Affleck-Graves modified his earlier statement, suggesting that the "University Club" would likely continue to exist but almost certainly not at the same site but in some other location. Affleck-Graves allowed that it is not wholly impossible that the University Club, organized as it is, could continue to exist at its current site, but that the odds are very slim ("less than 5%").

Mr. Affleck-Graves' words bear great weight, for he has been appointed Executive Vice-President in the new administration of the University's President-Elect, the Revd. John I. Jenkins, CSC. In his new position, Affleck-Graves is a successor of the late Revd. Edmund P. Joyce, CSC ( 2 May 2004). In the University's recently-issued Annual Report for 2004, titled Fulfilling the Promise: Leadership, Vision, Faith, Fr. Joyce is honored in a special section devoted to his memory, wherein he is called "the consummate `Notre Dame man'" (p. 21). In the same publication Affleck-Graves himself speaks of the "legendary Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, C.S.C.," who "set the standard for what an executive vice-president should be" (pp. 22, 21). Members of the University Club especially will share Affleck-Graves' sentiments, for Fr. Joyce was the close friend of Governor Robert H. Gore, who donated the funds for the present University Club along with its magnificent Stein Collection, paintings, etc. Fr. Joyce, who remained a lifelong friend of the Gore family, was a strong supporter of the Club that his good friend donated to the University of Notre Dame.

In response to Affleck-Graves' notice to Board members of the University Club in the Summer of 2004, a special committee was formed to consider the Club's future. Members of the Committee for the Future of the University Club were proposed at a town-meeting of the membership in November 2004, and were subsequently appointed by the Board. The Committee comprises members of the CSC, a member of the Board of Trustees, faculty and representatives of the alumni and alumnae and of the Club's local associates. The Committee met several times before Christmas 2004. In their meetings, Committee-members gathered information concerning the status of the Club in respect of the University's development plans, developed arguments for the preservation of the Club, and explored what would be involved in any move to another location, on- or off-campus. Having gained much intelligence and thoroughly deliberated all of these issues, at its meeting on 21 December 2004 the Committee strongly resolved that in order to preserve the independence and integrity of the University Club "as we know it" it had no other choice except to propose to the University administration that the Club continue to exist, as presently organized, at its present site in its present building. What follows is an explanation of that decision.

Members of the University Club must understand that our Committee has no status within the University itself; indeed, there already exists a Committee on the University Club appointed by President Malloy and chaired by Prof. Affleck-Graves. Our Committee's mandate derives solely from the membership of the University Club, which, under that name, is an independently incorporated entity under the laws of the State of Indiana. The Committee's charge is to represent the interests of the current membership of the University Club, not the imagined interests of some hypothetical future membership. Because our Committee has no official status within the University itself, it has no authority, for example, to determine a new site on campus for the Club; any new site for the Club would be determined by the University's administration, in consultation with the University's Committee. Should the University propose a new site, the Board of the Club could decide whether to accept or reject it, and individual members could decide whether or not they wished to join the new entity (if membership remains open to all of them).

Members of the Club may have heard that the University Committee in August 2002 recommended that the Club be moved to the Morris Inn. That recommendation evidently was on-hold in the Summer of 2004 when Affleck-Graves issued his notice to members of the Club's Board. A move to the Morris Inn depends upon the fate of the Morris Inn itself, which seemingly is "up-in-the-air." Our Committee has heard variously (a) that the Morris Inn will continue to operate where it is, in which case the University Club could scarcely move there; or (b) that the University will build a new hotel on the lake (out-sourced to the Marriot Corp.), in which instance the building of the Morris Inn will be used for another purpose (as the Dean of the College of Arts and Letters has repeatedly stated) or (c), like the University Club itself, will be razed to make way for another building. Again, with all of these contingencies and interests at play, it would be an empty gesture for our Committee to propose moving the Club to the Morris Inn. In any event, a decision to move the Club there would be made by the University Committee on the University Club. It may be that that Committee's recommendation is not foreclosed, for in its report of August 2002, a clause states that if "future events render the proposed relocation... ineffective", the Committee will be "reconstituted." As far as we know, that Committee has not been recalled.
As stated, the funds for the Club's present building, along with the renowned Stein Collection etc., were donated by Governor Robert H. Gore. (The Governor's son, Robert H. Gore, Jr., was a generous benefactor to the University's Library.) The Clubhouse, designed by the esteemed architect from the University's School of Architecture, Robert Schultz, with its finely-pointed brickwork, rich redwood woodwork, grand sunken fireplace, et al., perfectly embodies the traditional atmosphere of a club and is the major reason for the "ambience" so enjoyed by the Club's members. The Clubhouse has already been recognized for its architectural distinction; indeed, our Committee has learned that the building would likely qualify for designation as an "Historical Landmark" in respect of buildings erected in the 1950s and 1960s (no other buildings erected on campus in that period would so qualify). The Committee has determined that the cost of actually moving the prime elements of our Clubhouse to a new site would be prohibitive; further, the cost of duplicating the quality of the Clubhouse's construction at a new site would today be extraordinarily high. What might replace our Clubhouse at another site, the Committee is convinced, would likely be sorely disappointing to the current membership of the University Club.
The University Club is a faculty club but it is more than that. Since its founding, the Club has played a vital social role in the life of Notre Dame. For years, on a regular basis, it has brought together members of the CSC, administrators, faculty, staff, donors, alumni and alumnae, and local citizens for free, informal conversation. In so doing it has notably realized the oft-expressed ideal of "the Notre Dame Family." In recent years, many have wondered whether that professed ideal still means anything. I am happy to note that, according to the Annual Report of 2004, the ideal still seems to be in force: the administration says that it is dedicated to preserving the reality of Notre Dame as a "community," which relies on the contributions of "the loyal members of the Notre Dame family" (Fulfilling the Promise, pp. 6-7, 28 et passim). Mr. Affleck-Graves, in turn, states that he intends to preserve "the small campus and family feeling long associated with the University" (Ibid., p. 21). Reading these renewed professions, we are confident that University administrators will recognize and confirm the University Club's role in making the idea of the "Notre Dame Family" a living reality.
The Annual Report also highlights what has been "a hallmark of Malloy's administration: "drawing `town and gown' closer together as partners in a shared vision" (Fulfilling the Dream, pp. 16-17 at 16). For more than four decades, during which time that "vision" was often neglected or merely in the planning stage, the University Club has been the regular meeting place of "town and gown," not in occasional, structured events but daily, not off-site but in the very "social corridor" of the University campus. For that reason, the University Club should be considered as an already established corner-stone upon which to build closer relations with the citizens of the surrounding community.
The key to the University Club's being able to play its vital social role amidst the Notre Dame Family is its independence and self-governance. In that regard, the Club is a unique institution on campus, especially in being thoroughly democratic. Members meet at the Club as equal citizens, irrespective of their rank in the University hierarchy. The Club is not managed by some administrative office but by elected members for the members. This rare independence yields tangible consequences. For example, although the Club is financially solvent, it does not aim to generate maximal profits. The Club functions rather like a co-op, exclusively for the benefit and enjoyment of its members. Accordingly, members may compare the quality of food at the Club and its price structure with those at official University eating outlets or facilities on the campus. The Committee is convinced that should the Club be moved to another site it will lose its independence and self-governance. Funds for the move and the construction of a new building necessarily would be raised by the University's Development Office. Having provided the funds, the University administration inevitably would set the conditions of membership and determine the Club's organizational structure. What those terms and conditions would be may be inferred from recommendations made by the University's Committee in August 2002. That Committee mandated that the Club "explore the transfer of operation of the facilities to Notre Dame Food Services" (Rec. VI); moreover, the Committee recommended that the Club be put on a three-year probation during which could be measured "the utilization of the facilities, the volume of meals and services provided, and the financial performance of the Club" (Rec. V). Failing to meet the criterion of "maximal profit"--as it would if it remained true to its founding intention--the Club would inevitably experience a corporate take-over by the Office of Auxiliary Services: Business Operations. Something called the "University Club" might then exist, but it would be nothing like the historic University Club that our Committee has been charged to preserve.
The preservation of the University Club "as we know it" depends upon the support of its members. Thus we ask that members indicate their support for our Committee's proposal--that the University Club remain as it is where it is--in letters or e-mails addressed to: Kent Emery, Jr., 336 Decio, Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; or emery.1@nd.edu (e-mail). In your letters or messages, please indicate whether you are a member of the CSC, an employee of the University (administration, faculty, staff), a member of a donor group (Sorin Society, Thomas More Society, Cardinal O'Hara Society et al.) and/or an alumnus or alumna and/or a local associate of the Club.
The University of Notre Dame famously celebrates the notion of "Tradition." Like all real, actual traditions, in its service to the Notre Dame Family the University Club embodies a continuity in form and a "spirit of place" (another notion celebrated in the University's literature). The tradition of the University Club cannot be re-invented, out-sourced, re-marketed, sold to the highest bidder or turned into yet another revenue-generating (high-end) "attraction" at Our Lady's Theme Park and Visitors' Center. We are confident that the new administration of the University, when it reconsiders the matter in light of the support of the Club's manifold constituencies, will accept the proposal of our Committee, made on behalf of all of the membership of the University Club.

Professor Kent Emery, Jr., Chair
Committee for the Future of the University Club

FinalReport and Proposal:
Committee on the Future of the University Club

On Tuesday, 20 April (2 pm--), Professors Donald Sporleder and Kent Emery, Jr., members of the Committee on the Future of the University Club, and Mr. Todd A. Zeiger, Director, Northern Regional Office of the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, met with Executive Vice-President, John Affleck-Graves. The purpose of the meeting, scheduled some weeks before, was to enable Mr. Zeiger to speak directly with Mr. Affleck-Graves concerning the historic architectural value of the clubhouse of the University Club. Inevitably, the subject of the Committee's work and intentions arose in the conversation; during the meeting, Mr. Affleck-Graves requested (if it would be possible) that the Committee on the Future of the University Club submit its report and documentation to him in time for his meeting with members of the Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees on Wednesday afternoon, 27 April 2005. Herewith is our Final Report and Proposal, accompanied by supporting documentation. We are deeply grateful that our Committee has been invited by Mr. Affleck-Graves to submit this report, and we hope sincerely that our arguments and proposal will be considered seriously, and that you will take time to read the large correspondence that we have received.

Our Report and Proposal comprises the following items:

(1) this covering document, which includes a thematic summary of the correspondence that the Committee has received;

(2) a copy of the Report to the Membership that was sent with billing-statements to members of the University Club at the end of January 2005, and which was posted on the Club's Web-site. This document states clearly the circumstances surrounding the formation of the Committee, announces its decision concerning the proposal it would make to the Administration of the University, and explains the reasons why it reached that decision.

These reports are accompanied by several dossiers containing:

(A) correspondence from members of the Gore family, descendants of Governor Robert H. Gore, who donated the present University Club, its precious stein collection, etc., to the University;

(B) letters, certificates, etc., proving the architectural distinction of the present clubhouse;

(C) copies of the letters and e-mails received by the Committee in response to its Report to the Membership;

(D) copies of the letters and e-mails received by the Committee in response to a letter sent to members of the Sorin Society who have recently been active at the Club; this letter was sent before the Committee had determined what its proposal would be, and thus before the Report to the Membership was sent out. We point out that many members of the Sorin Society responded to that later Report, and copies of their letters will be found in (C).

(E) Finally, we include a copy of a petition supporting the Committee's proposal signed by over 400 members of the University Club.
***

It is important to state expressly the intentionality of this Report and the institutional realities that defined the parameters of the Committee's deliberations. First, the Chief-Officers of the University are appointed precisely to determine and execute, with the approval of the Board of Trustees, the common good of the University and its long-term welfare. Secondly, all subordinate (e.g., faculty) committees within the University are essentially advisory and consultative, in that none of their decisions has binding force on the decisions of the Chief-Officers of the University and the Board of Trustees; a fortiori, this is even more the case with our Committee, which is an independent committee within a Club which in its governance is itself independent from the University. For that reason the scope of our Committee has been narrowly focused: our mandate was to deliberate and articulate what we judged to be best for the future of the Club and in so doing to represent its membership. To confirm that our decisions indeed represented the membership, we sought its response before proceeding any further. Thirdly, the proposal of our Committee in no way implies that the construction of a new facility for the Engineering faculty is not a great good that the Administration should accomplish. It would be presumptuous and vain, however, for our Committee to suggest where the new Engineering building should be located. We are aware, of course, that if our proposal that the University Club remain in its present location in its present building should be accepted, current development plans for the location of the Engineering building would need to be adjusted. In effect, we are asking that you do all you can so that the achievement of one good, the construction of a new Engineering building, does not require the destruction of another good, the institution and tradition of the University Club, which, we have concluded and the membership has confirmed, are inseparably linked to, and are embodied in, its present location and its present building.

Evidently, some in the Administration perceive the University Club to be nothing more than another "dining facility" on campus; on the contrary, our Report argues that the University Club plays a unique, vital role in the life of Notre Dame, a role that it will continue to play only if it remains "as it is where it is." In service to your decision-making, this Report and its documentation will alert you to a long-term risk you might well be taking should you decide to destroy the present Club. One cannot be unaware that in recent years a perception has grown among members of the Notre Dame Family that the spirit and life of the University have changed fundamentally, that the "New University" has severed its continuity with its past. According to this perception, the "New Notre Dame" has become obsessed with imitating "prestigious, aspirational peer institutions," thereby evincing an inferiority complex about its own past; in its efforts to purchase the status of "superior universities," the University, it is perceived, has become concerned mainly with generating revenue and with the "bottom line," thereby becoming more and more like any routine American corporation. The old rhetorical tropes concerning the "tradition of Notre Dame" continue to be uttered, of course, but when people begin to perceive that they mean little in relation to what the University actually does the tropes eventually become empty and impotent, and their audience becomes skeptical and disbelieving.

The perception that Notre Dame is changing for the worse weaves its way through many of the letters we have received, which bespeak a certain disenchantment--or in some instances, an outright disaffection--with the "New University." For these persons, the destruction of the University Club will be yet another proof--for some, a decisive proof--that the University is re-inventing itself at the expense of traditions that created it in the first place and caused it to become the national icon of American Catholic culture. This is so because, as is evident from the correspondence, members experience the University Club as the prime locus where, in an actual and personal way, they belong to the University and partake its life. We know that the disaffection of "old-timers" can easily be discounted as insignificant. But one should be careful, for perceptions are altered one act at a time, and it is not the case that the young do not form impressions and draw inferences from how they see their elders treated: it seems to us that if the general perception of the "New Notre Dame" continues to persist and expand, it will have a corrosive effect on the long-term welfare of the University.

The various ways in which it is the continuity of the life of the University from one generation to another (or its "tradition") that is perceptually at stake in the destruction or preservation of the University Club will be remarked in the following summary of correspondence received by the Committee.
***

Thematic Summary of the Dossiers of Correspondence

Dossier A: Correspondence from the Gore family. The present University Club, with its stein collection, etc., was donated to the University by Robert H. Gore, Sr., appointed by President Roosevelt as the first Governor of the protectorate of Puerto Rico. Governor Gore was a close friend of Fr. Ned Joyce, who remained a close friend of the whole Gore family. Governor Gore was not a graduate of Notre Dame, but like so many Catholics across the nation who never attended it his devotion to this University is explained by his conviction that it represented a great common cause: the advancement of Catholic culture in the United States. He envisioned that the faculty Club he donated would serve that larger end well, and he saw to it that its building would be worthy of its high purpose.
This dossier contains letters from Mr. Paul A. Gore, the grandson of the Governor and his biographer, whose father (Robert H. Gore, Jr.) in turn donated a fine coin collection and a special collection of rare books concerning orchids and their cultivation to the Hesburgh Library; from Mr. George H. Gore, the son of Governor Gore; and from Dr. Robert H. Gore, III, another son of Robert H. Gore, Jr. and grandson of the Governor. All three of these gentlemen (two lawyers and an oceanographer) are alumni of Notre Dame. Their responses to the news that the Administration intends to raze the University Club that their grandfather donated are not, as it were, "pleasant." That no member of the Gore family was even informed by the Administration about its plans for the Club reinforces, I fear, the image of the "New Notre Dame" as having a cold, heartless "that was then, this is now" attitude.
Early-on in their deliberations, members of our Committee judged that the way the University treats its benefactors and past benefactions is a central moral issue involved in the question of the Club's survival. That is precisely the issue that the letters from the Gores emphasize. In his letter, Paul A. Gore (whom we subsequently appointed as a "long-distance" member of our Committee) sharply delineates the logical consequences entailed by the destruction of his grandfather's gift to the University. Will future benefactors of the University realize that their legacies are merely provisional, respected until something better, i.e., a larger gift, comes the University's way? Many who wrote our Committee have likewise discerned that this logic is at play in the intention to destroy the Club, and it has caused them to wonder about their own donations to the University.
In our conversation on 20 April, John Affleck-Graves emphasized that all administrative decisions at Notre Dame will be made according to two guiding principles: that Notre Dame is a Catholic institution, and that it is a university. (Personally, those words were music to my ears, as anyone who knows me would attest.) The way in which the University treats its benefactors and benefactions has deep Catholic dimensions, indeed. The early Fathers of the Church, who formed Catholic theology, in a rare instance embraced unequivocally the ancient gentile virtue of gratitude towards personal benefactors. Augustine, in turn, theologically elevated this virtue, positing gratitude as the essential posture of the human creature before the face of his Creator and redeeming God. To this day, the monastic orders at Lauds recollect and pray for the personal benefactors of their monasteries and foundations, including those who have died centuries before. And at the heart of the Catholic literary tradition is a famous negative corollary: those who have betrayed personal benefactors dwell in the deepest pits of Dante's Hell, far below those, even, who have devoted their lives to greed. Doubtless, in Hegelian (or Nietzschean) fashion the destruction of Governor Gore's legacy can be dismissed as a regrettable but "necessary" casualty in Notre Dame's upward-and-onward progress towards bigger and better things. Even so, the reaction of the Governor's son and grandsons should give one pause to think about the long-term consequences of demolishing their grandfather's legacy to the University, and the implications it might have in the minds of future benefactors, especially since the University Club is such a well-known and beloved feature of University life.

Dossier B: The architectural distinction of the Clubhouse. In itself, the present University Club is a fine building. That is why upon being built it received a citation of design excellence from the American Institute of Architects (Northern Indiana Chapter). Members of our Committee estimated that the quality of the Clubhouse's construction--with its curved redwood ceilings, brick roman arches, extraordinary sunken fireplace, distinctive bubble-glass windows, etc.--would be very costly to duplicate in any new Clubhouse (if any such should be conceived), and that, in the end, the cost would probably prove to be prohibitive. The enduring quality of the Club's brickwork is indicated by the Golden Trowel Award it has just received from the International Masonry Institute (22 April 2005). As many letters we have received comment, it seems wasteful to raze such a distinctive building if doing so can be avoided.
In his letter to the Committee and in his conversation with Mr. Affleck-Graves, Mr. Zeiger of the Historical Landmarks Foundation advocated the preservation of the building in terms of the principles of historical preservation. As he points out, succeeding periods of architecture record the continuum of life in a community, each generation making its own distinctive contribution. All too often, a generation of architectural style is wholly effaced before, from a later perspective, people begin to understand what has been lost (consider the examples of Victorian "gingerbread" and Art-Deco). At the moment the architecture of the 1950s and 1960s does not stand in high favor; for that reason, historical preservationists are especially concerned for the fate of fine buildings from that recent past. As Zeiger remarks, most of the buildings on campus erected in the 1950s and 1960s are in fact not worthy of preservation. (One must wonder, for example, about the architectural merit of the Hesburgh Library, which, we are repeatedly told, is inadequate in terms of space, and the floors of which regrettably were not constructed strongly enough to sustain collapsible shelves. But precisely for historical reasons, one cannot imagine that that building will ever be demolished.) In respect of buildings of the 1950s-60s, Mr. Zeiger judges that the University Club is one that should be preserved, and that it is the only building from that period on the Notre Dame campus that is worth preserving. In sum, the historical architectural value of a building must be evaluated in chronologically relative terms; what, should we imagine, will people think thirty years from now about the actual architectural value of the post-modern neo-neo-Gothic buildings currently being built on the campus?
Once more, the principle of continuity is at jeopardy in the decision to raze the University Club. The architects of the University Club, Frank Montana and Robert Schultz, were esteemed and distinguished faculty members "in their day." Like so many from past generations of Notre Dame faculty, they devoted their efforts not only to the advancement of their personal academic careers but to the particular, institutional cause and common good of this Catholic university. As many colleagues have observed to me, it is dispiriting to see that the significant institutional contributions of faculty from prior generations can so easily fall into oblivion and be dismembered as soon as they are off the scene. The contributions of Schultz and Montana are scarcely the only ones at Notre Dame to suffer such a fate, but the symbolism of bringing down a building will be especially vivid. Such perceptions among present faculty do not raise morale, nor do they encourage one to devote his or her labor to the particular "cause of Notre Dame." As the distinguished philosopher John Searle noted in a lecture he once gave here, contemporary faculty have little loyalty to their particular universities; their institutional loyalties are towards their professional associations. It is easy, Searle remarked, to attribute this change to academic "individualism" and "careerism," but one must wonder whether the administrative policies and attitudes of universities have not exacerbated the phenomenon, even at "special places" like Notre Dame. In any event, among the letters our Committee received are several from architects, who make interesting comments about the architectural distinction of the University Club, about the legacy of Montana and Schultz, and about the quality of the new buildings now being constructed on the campus.
***

Dossier C: Responses to the Report to the Membership. By any account, the response to our Report to the Membership has been extraordinary; perhaps most extraordinary is the fact that many of those responses take the form of long, substantial letters. Overwhelmingly, respondents indicate their support for the Committee's proposal that the University Club remain "as it is where it is." In their e-mail messages and letters, Club-members confirm and elaborate, in personal terms, the various points articulated in the Committee's Report to the Membership. Rightly, our dossiers include every piece of correspondence sent to the Committee; thus among the messages and letters one will find those very few which opine that the Committee's proposal is hopeless, inasmuch as the Administration apparently has already made up its mind, or which imagine a newer, better University Club at some choice location on campus. (Committee-members have been told that no plans for a relocated Club are currently on the drawing-board.) The Committee received responses from every component of the Club's membership: administrators, faculty, staff, members of donor societies, alumni and alumnae, local associates. Here I shall comment upon the responses of three types of members.
Not surprisingly, the Committee has received support and encouragement from distinguished senior faculty members, whose long experience at Notre Dame (and in university life in general) enables them well to understand the significance of the University Club within the life of the University. I mention some of those whom I know personally, e.g., Fr. D. Burrell, CSC; M. Crowe; J. Dolan; A. MacIntyre, the very first person to respond to our Report; Fr. R. McBrien; R. McInerny, who serves on our Committee; Fr. M. O'Connell; D. Sniegowski (whose message makes an especially acute observation). All of these faculty have achieved personal academic distinction, and, in current common parlance, could have fished "job offers" (and doubtless have received them) from "aspirational peer institutions." These professors, however, understand themselves as Catholic intellectuals, and chose instead to dedicate their labors to the institutional cause of Notre Dame: the advancement of Catholic intellectual and literary culture in the United States. In sum, they embody an oft-repeated ideal for Notre Dame faculty, and in this respect their regard for the University Club is telling. Their example continues a tradition from the prior generation of faculty, and reminds me of two professors from that generation whom I have known. No more distinguished scholars than James Carberry and Abbot Astrik L. Gabriel have ever taught at Notre Dame. They too could have taught at more "prestigious" universities, and were often invited to do so, but they rather dedicated themselves to the institutional cause of Notre Dame. Like Montana and Schultz, through his labors Gabriel has bequeathed a magnificent concrete monument to the University, the Medieval Institute Library, which one hopes will long-survive his death (as Montana's and Schultz's contribution may not). Significantly, these scholars were likewise prominent members of the University Club; Carberry was the founder of the legendary Algonquin Table.
Faculty membership in the University Club follows a natural cycle. Typically, young faculty with children scarcely have the time (or the means) to stay on campus for dinner at the Club; nor do young faculty, for their first six or seven years living in fear and anxiety of their impending tenure reviews (see the letter of Sniegowski), have the luxury of enjoying leisurely lunches at the Club (even though, as the eminent Thomist Josef Pieper argues, "leisure is the basis of culture"). It is usually when faculty have become established at Notre Dame and have committed their futures to this University, and when they have become older and their children have grown, that they become active at the Club.
Noteworthy amidst the correspondence are the many responses from members of the Sorin Society (and see Dossier D, below). Their enthusiasm for the University Club is understandable. As many of their messages attest, membership in the Club is the one concrete token they receive for their membership in the Society and for their donations. Now, anyone can visit the campus, buy tickets, attend athletic events, purchase items at the Bookstore or drop-by to see the sites on a stop on a mid-west bus tour (these phenomena are the source of the longstanding faculty joke that Notre Dame is the "Catholic DisneyWorld"). A similar experience is available at many universities, say, for example, at the University of Nebraska. For members of the Sorin Society, when visiting, the University Club is the choice place on campus for meeting their old classmates, for entertaining their families and dining with their student children, for experiencing their on-going membership in the Notre Dame Family and partaking its "sense of place."
The natural cycle of membership in the Club among graduates is analogous with the cycle of membership among faculty. Still today students at Notre Dame arrive with the generic expectation that they will become "part of a tradition." Their understanding of what that "tradition" means must develop over time, in hindsight after they have long left the campus. Undergraduates can know nothing about the University Club, and unless they live in the local area, there is no reason they will know much about it for many years after they have graduated and scattered across the country. Graduates, then, typically come to know about the Club and what it represents and join it when they become members of a donor or other University society, which is usually when they are older and are in a financial position to make heftier donations to the University. The natural cycle of faculty and alumni-ae membership in the Club has been repeated in every generation of its existence, and there is no good reason to believe that it will not continue to do so in the future.
Especially remarkable are the responses to our Report from widows of former faculty or University employees. In their letters, these ladies indicate that the University Club is a favored place for their social lives, and that it is at the Club that they experience their continuing membership in the Notre Dame Family, to which they and their families devoted so much over the years. I can give a personal example as to how the widows, a font of memory within the University community, give much in return. My wife likes to play bridge; when we arrived at Notre Dame (with six children), we joined the Club for that reason alone. As it turned out, her bridge partners at the Club mainly were widows of former faculty (including the former Mrs. Caponigri, now Mrs. Farquhar, whose letter you should read). It was from them, more than from anyone else at Notre Dame, that my wife and I learned about the history of the University, what its traditions and folkways actually mean for families, the issues and controversies that have persisted in each generation of faculty life. The membership of widows is an often remarked-upon special feature of the University Club, which seems especially appropriate in a Catholic University. Our Committee is pleased by our Report to have earned the title "Protectors of Widows," an ancient epithet in the Church conferred upon chivalric saints (e.g., St. Martin of Tours) and still common in the Eastern liturgies ("He is a father of the fatherless, and defendeth the cause of widows: even God in his holy habitation," Ps. 68:5, BCP). In any event, the membership of retired faculty and widows in the University Club, which enables them still to participate actively in the life of the University, establishes an important link in the continuity of institutional life at Notre Dame.

Dossier D: Responses to a separate letter sent to members of the Sorin Society. Prof. Paul Conway, member of the Club's Board of Directors, sent a letter to members of the Sorin Society who had recently been active at the Club, advising them of the Club's current situation. This letter was mailed before the Committee had reached and announced its decision to propose to the Administration that the Club remain "as it is where it is." The responses to Conway's letter, contained in this dossier, nearly all express the importance of the Club to members of the Society, and the desire that, should the present Club be destroyed, a University Club continue to exist at some other good location on campus. Interestingly, the majority of the responses anticipates the Committee's decision, and those writers state their preference that the Club stay in its present location and in its present building, if that be possible.
***

Dossier E: The petition in support of the Committee's proposal. That the Committee on the Future of the University Club represents the sentiment of the Club's membership is verified not only by the number of letters in support of its proposal that it has received, but by the large number of signatures on the petition affirming its proposal, a copy of which is contained in this dossier. It is instructive to note that in the last election for membership on the Board of the Club (autumn 2004), 83 members voted, and the winning candidates received ca. 40 or fewer votes. Those numbers put the response to our Committee's Report in perspective.
***

Conclusion. This commentary on the correspondence received by the Committee on the Future of the University Club necessarily has been long, for this is the last chance we shall ever have to articulate what the Club means to its members, and to argue that the University Club, modest institution though it be, "stands for all that is best at Notre Dame," as one correspondent puts it. In our conversation on 20 April, John Affleck-Graves remarked that respect for past traditions is a good thing, but traditions of the past cannot be allowed to impede the good of students and faculty in the future. John is certainly right if "tradition" means only a nostalgic memory of past times. We hope that we have convinced you that the University Club represents far more than that. It is the genius of Catholic institutions, moreover, to understand that well-founded traditions, "ever ancient and ever new," continue to yield fruit generation after generation. The tradition of the University Club was well-founded by Governor Gore, who was devoted to the cause of Catholic culture, by Fr. Joyce, by faculty of that time, and by the architects of its Clubhouse, Frank Montana and Robert Schultz, who designed the building with Governor Gore's precise intentions in mind.
Americans especially experience how in the name of "expediency" the goods established in one generation are effaced for the sake of those pursued by the next generation. The great moral virtue of prudence, on the other hand, always finds a way of preserving goods established in the past while creating new goods in the present. We therefore urge you to exercise that virtue of prudence, and to discover a way to preserve the University Club "as it is where it is," while at the same time constructing a fine new Engineering building, at some other location, which might even be more advantageous to its purpose.

Respectfully submitted, on behalf of the Committee,

Kent Emery, Jr., Chair
Committee on the Future of the University Club: Paul F. Conway, ex officio; Frederick J. Crosson; Arthur J. Decio; Ms. Kelly Foster; William B. Killilea; Ralph M. McInerny; Fr. Kevin M. Russeau, CSC; Donald E. Sporleder; Fr. Anthony V. Szakaly, CSC.

SOUPS and SALADS
House Caesar Salad $4.95
Caesar Salad with Grilled Chicken Strips $6.25
Caesar Salad with Broiled Steak $8.95
Caesar Salad with Chilled Jumbo Shrimp $8.95
“Dr. Joan Raymond “Caesar Salad~with Broiled Tuna Steak,
     Tomato Wedges, & Red Onion $8.95
Albacore Tuna Salad Plate~ with Mixed Greens & Fresh Vegetables $6.25
Louie Sorin Salad~Chilled Crab Blend on Mixed Greens,
     Tomato, Celery, Cucumber, & Sorin Dressing $6.25
House Tossed Salad $1.95
Soup of the Day
Cup     $1.45                                  Bowl     $1.95

LUNCH ENTREES
Served with cup of soup or tossed salad, roll & butter.
Lemon Pepper Salmon Loin with Wild Rice~”ala Castellino” $6.95
Broiled Trout Almondine$6.25
Tavern Battered Halibut with French Fries $6.25
Baked Vegetarian Lasagna $5.25
Georgia’s Red Beans & Rice with Corn Bread~Fr. Joyce’s Favorite $4.95
Omelet~Choice of Three Egg or Egg Beaters with Toast $4.75
Choice of any two: diced green pepper, onion, or mushroom
Broiled Ribeye Steak & French Fries $6.95
Chopped Sirloin Steak with Whipped Potatoes & Gravy $5.25
Grilled Ham Steak with Whipped Potatoes & Gravy $4.95
Teriyaki Glazed Chicken Breast on Wild Rice $5.45
Chicken Parmesan on Pasta $5.45

Cold Sandwiches
Served with chips & dill spear. Choice of whole wheat, white, or rye.
Junior Club with Bacon, Turkey, Tomato, Lettuce, & Mayonnaise $4.95
Breast of Turkey with Lettuce & Mayonnaise $4.50
Tuna Salad with Tomato, lettuce, & Mayonnaise $4.50
Half Turkey or Tuna Salad Sandwich with Cup of Soup $4.25

Hamburger $4.25
Veggie Burger $4.25
Veggie Burger served “ala Barger”~Belgian Mustard & Rye Bread $4.25
Turkey Burger $4.25
Philly Steak & Cheese on French Bread $5.75
Broiled Breast of Chicken Deluxe $5.25
Breaded Cod with Tartar Sauce $4.45
Broiled Tuna Steak Deluxe $5.25
Grilled Cheese~American or Swiss Cheese $3.50
Grilled Portabella Mushroom Open Face on Toasted Whole Wheat $5.25
Add Cheese $.45 Add Bacon $1.50
Add Sautéed Peppers & Onions $1.25

French Fries     $1.25                                 Vegetable of the Day     $1.25
Onion Rings     $2.25                        Whipped Potatoes & Gravy     $1.25
Roll & Butter      $.45                                             Plate Charge     $3.25

Ice Cream or Sherbet     $2.25                       Specialty Desserts     $3.65
New York Cheesecake    $2.95                             Fruit Compote     $2.25
With Strawberries         $3.45                                              Pie     $2.25
Birthday Cake (serves 4-6, order in advance)     $8.95

Baked Brie with Toasted French Bread $ 6.45
Crab Claw Cakes with Dipping Salsa $ 6.45
Egg Rolls Stuffed with Shrimp & Pork $ 5.75
Chilled Shrimp Cocktail $ 5.95
French Onion Soup Au Gratin $ 2.65
Soup of the Day $ 1.65

SALADS
(Served with cheese & crackers, warm bread & butter)
Louie Sorin Salad $ 8.95
Caesar Salad with Grilled Chicken Strips $ 8.95
Caesar Salad with Chilled Jumbo Shrimp $ 9.25
Caesar Salad with Broiled Tenderloin Steak $10.95

(Dinner entrees include cheese & crackers, warm bread & butter, & vegetable of the day. Choice of tossed salad, Caesar salad, or soup of the day. Choice of potato or wild rice. Club fruit salad on bibb lettuce with walnuts~add $1.00)

New York Strip Steak $14.95
Filet Mignon $18.95
Club House Steak Burger $ 8.95
Double Center-Cut Pork Chops $12.95
Broiled Ham Steak with Grilled Pineapple Ring $ 8.95
Breast of Chicken with Lemon & Herbs or Tropical Fruit Chutney $10.45
Herb-Crusted Rack of Lamb with Mint Jelly & Fresh Rosemary $18.95
Roast Prime Rib of Beef (Friday & Saturday only)
Queen Cut $13.95 King Cut $15.95
Steamed fresh Vegetable Plate $8.95; with Portabella Mushroom $10.95

Broiled Whitefish with Lime Cilantro Sauce $10.95
Broiled Loin of Salmon with Lemon Pepper $13.95
Broiled Orange Roughy with Lemon Wine Sauce $12.95
Stuffed Rainbow Trout $10.95
Filet of Trout Almondine $ 9.95
Battered Halibut Strips $10.95
Jumbo Fantail Breaded Shrimp $12.95
Shrimp Scampi $14.95
Oven Roasted Scallops $14.95

(Dinner Petits include cheese & crackers, choice of tossed salad, Caesar salad, or soup of the day, warm bread & butter)

Petit Cut Filet Mignon with Béarnaise Sauce & Baked Potato $15.95
Center Cut Pork Chop with Choice of Potato $ 9.95
Chicken Tenderloin Scampi on Angel Hair Pasta $ 9.95
Baked Vegetarian Lasagna $ 9.95

Specialty Desserts $ 3.65
Ice Cream or Sherbet $ 2.25
Pie $ 2.25
New York Cheesecake $ 2.95
New York Cheesecake with Strawberries $ 3.45
Birthday Cake (serves 4-6, please order in advance) $ 8.95

(For Parties of 8 or more people an automatic 17% gratuity is added to the check)

CHOICE OF THREE
Baked Ham
Steamship Round of Beef
Corned Beef Hash
Sausage
Bacon
Canadian Bacon

CHOICE OF FOUR
Delmonico Potatoes
Vegetarian Egg Casserole
Scrambled eggs
Cheese Strata
Biscuits and Gravy
Hash Brown Potatoes
Spinach Crepe
Cheese Blintz

Mini Danish and Biscuits
Seasonal Fresh Fruit
Sliced Tomatoes
Coffee & Tea

All food and beverage is charged an additional 20% service charge and current sales tax
______________________________________________________________________

Chicken Alfredo
Sliced Chicken Breast on Fettuccini Noodles in Creamy Alfredo Sauce
$11.00

All food and beverage is charged an additional 20% service charge and current state sales tax

__________________________________________________________________________

Choice of
Caesar Salad with Creamy Caesar Dressing
Mixed Green Salad with Raspberry Vinaigrette
Spinach Salad with Bacon Dressing

All food and beverage is charged an additional 20% service charge and current state sales tax

_____________________________________________________________________________

CHOICE OF THREE SALADS
Waldorf
Mediterranean
Caesar
Nicoise
Carrot-Raisin
Sliced Tomato and Basil

CHOICE OF THREE ENTREES
Filet of Salmon
Chicken with Lemon and Herbs
Fettuccini Alfredo
Chicken with Artichoke and Mushroom
Pasta Jardiniere
Pasta Marinara with Meatballs
Roast Beef au Jus
Roast Pork Loin with Apples
Roast Turkey with Cornbread Dressing
Catfish Vera Cruz
Sole Stuffed with Rice and Broccoli
Whitefish Almondine

CHOICE OF THREE ACCOMPANIMENTS
Green Beans Almondine
Roasted Red Potatoes
Glazed Carrots
Mashed Popatoes
Rice Pilaf
Seasonal Vegetable Medley

DESSERT TABLE
Assorted Cakes and Pastries
Seasonal Fruit
Fancy Cookies
Coffee and Tea

All food and beverage is charged an additional 20% service charge and current state sales tax

______________________________________________________________________________

Buffalo Wings Meatballs in Sauce Mini Baked Quiche
$10.50/10 pc. $8.75/32 pc. $25.00/25 pc.

Deep-Fried Sea Scallops Jalapeno Poppers Fried Popcorn Shrimp
$25.00/30 pc. $14.75/16 pc. $25.00/25 pc.

Crab Dip & Crackers Finger Sandwiches Cheese Ball
$35.00 $48.00/48 pc. $25.00

Potato Chips, Pretzels, or Tortilla Chips
With Salsa or Dip
$10.00/bowl
Cookies $9.00/dozen

Private Bars incur a set up charge of $75 per bar per bartender
     Cocktails $4.50
     Beer $4.25
     Wine $4.50
          Soft Drinks $1.50
        Bottle Water $2.50
House Wine and Champagne available $16/bottle.

All food and beverage is charged an additional 20% service charge and current state sales tax