This is an update to the February 8th post on the General Faculties Council discussion of the proposed Peter Lougheed “Leadership” Institute.
On February 12th, the student newspaper The Gateway quoted President Samarasekera declaring that the Institute has “garnered” the support of the General Faculties Council. This affirms that GFC should always vote on issues brought before the council so that its views may be formally recorded.
Here are two further items that pertain to the issue.
Oxford University is currently running a series of round-table discussions on the importance of the humanities. Next in the series, a discussion of how the humanities contribute to “virtuous leadership”:
Whether in banks or on the battlefield, in the NHS or in national newspapers, the need for virtuous leadership is now patent. An education in the humanities is, in fact, an education in virtues that are at once intellectual and civic, underscoring its importance fornon-economic public flourishing. Such moral formation would be much more effective, however, were it openly professed and discussed. But the predominant liberal ideal, aspiring to neutrality on the Good Life, tends to suppress such profession. How, then, can Liberal Humanities own up to – and promote – its public service as a matrix of civic virtue? [my emphases]
And Stanford University is currently running a series of talks on “The Ethics of Wealth” under the auspices of the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society.
Wouldn’t it be something if the Administration, in its pursuit of its initiative, considered what truly great universities do to address the issue of “leadership,” and what they choose to offer with philanthropic gifts bestowed under a family name?
I for one am more convinced than ever that the name of the proposed institute to be hosted by the University of Alberta should be the Peter Lougheed Institute for Ethical Leadership or Ethical Global Leadership — and that the qualification crucially matters.