I don't know. But I do know that the article by Peter Laurence does close to nothing to answer the question.
After some gratuitous throat clearing, Laurence dives into what he means by spirituality. Briefly stated, descriptions of spirituality cluster around three themes: (1) inner (2) nonrational experiences of (3) connectedness. (Laurence also includes holism, but I think it's redundant with connectedness.)
If this is all that is meant by spirituality, however, it doesn't seem that we have a dearth of spirituality whatsoever in higher education. After all, a person participating in a typical sports team may feel exactly these experiences whenever they step onto the field/court and play with teammates. A person in a fraternity or sorority may feel these experiences when talking to their brothers and sisters. A person attending a party may feel exactly these experiences when dancing with friends. A person may feel exactly this experience when having sex with their partner. These aren't unique experiences.
Of course, we know that this isn't what Laurence really thinks spirituality means. After all, he begins his article with a survey of chaplains who reported about religious diversity, formation of religious groups, and student interest in religion. And the solution he suggests to this growing diversity is...*drum roll*...religious pluralism (what this means is left conspicuously undefined).
So we're left with a dilemma: either talk of spirituality is an attempt to shoehorn religion into the classroom or spirituality (broadly construed) is already pervasive in college.
To his credit, Laurence does devote one sentence in defending the view that spirituality (broadly construed) is lacking on campus. In a quote by Parker Palmer:
The first thing to note about this quote is just how expansively Laurence intends to stretch the word "spirituality". This quote suggests that by changing grading systems, interdepartmental cooperation, and faculty/administration bureaucracy, we can foster spirituality. The second thing to note, even granting this absurdity, is that there are opportunity costs. Maybe abolishing grades will lead to spirituality, but what will it do for job prospects and admission to grad school? Maybe interdepartmental cooperation will lead to spirituality, but what about research that faculty find more worthwhile and productive? The pithiness of Laurence's attention to this position suggests, however, that he would be more comfortable defending the first horn of the dilemma previously stated. Perhaps religion should be considered a legitimate topic of discussion in classrooms; perhaps there is room in the curriculum for religious education; and perhaps extracurricular religious events should be more enthusiastically encouraged. I actually partially agree with all three statements. But it would behoove Laurence to address the issue directly instead of hiding behind a potemkin village.
[We] are distanced by a grading system that separates teachers from students, by departments that fragment fields of knowledge, by competition that makes students and teachers alike wary of their peers and by a bureaucracy that puts faculty and administration at odds.
The first thing to note about this quote is just how expansively Laurence intends to stretch the word "spirituality". This quote suggests that by changing grading systems, interdepartmental cooperation, and faculty/administration bureaucracy, we can foster spirituality. The second thing to note, even granting this absurdity, is that there are opportunity costs. Maybe abolishing grades will lead to spirituality, but what will it do for job prospects and admission to grad school? Maybe interdepartmental cooperation will lead to spirituality, but what about research that faculty find more worthwhile and productive? The pithiness of Laurence's attention to this position suggests, however, that he would be more comfortable defending the first horn of the dilemma previously stated. Perhaps religion should be considered a legitimate topic of discussion in classrooms; perhaps there is room in the curriculum for religious education; and perhaps extracurricular religious events should be more enthusiastically encouraged. I actually partially agree with all three statements. But it would behoove Laurence to address the issue directly instead of hiding behind a potemkin village.
Laurence ends his article by approvingly describing a celebration at Wellesley College, the theme of which was Beyond Tolerance. In his introductory remarks, the dean of Wellesley says that "tolerance is ultimately not the basis upon which we can build a pluralistic community." As the argument goes, tolerance merely leads to ignorance of others, failure to cooperate, and disdain for interdependence. I completely disagree.
I am an atheist, a demographic shown to be among the most knowledgeable about world religions. I tolerate other religions. I tolerate people who think I'm immoral and should be killed. I tolerate people who think I shouldn't hold a political office because I'm an atheist (a provision in 8 states' constitutions). I tolerate people who continue to believe and espouse silly unscientific claims because of their religion. On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to cooperate with these people. I've gone to more religious services than some of my Christian friends, and I know more about their religion than they do. But insofar as I'm dependent on religious people, it's not in virtue of their religion. I have very little doubt that the cashier at Wegman's identifies as Christian. And I know that many of my friends are religious. But I don't depend on their religiosity. They could just as well be atheists for all I care. I have healthy relationships and close connections. That's where my tolerance has led me: not ignorance, not conflict, and not isolation. Interdependence may be a fine goal for a university to have, but it’s not inimical to toleration. And insofar as there is interdependence, it probably won’t be driven by religion (or spirituality).
