If all goes as planned, the Université de Montréal will soon have a new research chair whose main goal will be to ensure the continuity of the work of theologian-sociologist Jacques Grand’Maison, who died in 2016. This intellectual was one of the most active (about fifty works) and most prominent thinkers in Quebec for several decades. He also distinguished himself by a fight that many other Catholics had abandoned, namely to restore the reign of Christ, but in a renewed spirit, entirely centered on the authentic message of the Church, on a return to its profound values of charity and humility.
This project is therefore commendable, no one will doubt it, the person to be honored being unique in many respects. The chair also promises to be unique, but in a different way, as can be seen from its objectives and the type of research it intends to encourage. I will give some examples based on a text by Loyola Leroux, member of the Committee of Friends of Jacques Grand’Maison, which sponsors the chair project. The text can be found on the Internet at the address of the chair. It was also published in the journal National Action (February 2024 issue).
I would like to point out that this programmatic text has three parts: a) a convincing eulogy of the chair project, b) a description of what it will do, c) a critique of the planned mode of operation. I will focus my commentary on these last two parts, following Mr. Leroux’s text very closely.
An innovative chair…
The chair wants to break with the old tradition of research in the West, which is considered outdated. It will therefore introduce a new model.
Priority will be given to field research in order to fully understand people’s emotions, with the aim of walking with them, helping them, all in close interaction between the researcher and the research subjects.
The “student person” will therefore start from his or her own experience, from his or her feelings, to join the experience and feelings of the subjects. This disposition is in accordance with the reality of religious life, which is nourished by aspirations and beliefs inscribed in a personal journey enlightened by faith.
No more heavy library work, this ivory tower. Also downgraded is theoretical reflection so far removed from experience, from reality. The literature review intended to situate and illuminate reflection, to found new ideas, to justify redefinitions, ruptures, no longer has its place. Turned towards innovation, towards the future, research will be able to dispense with aligning itself with what has been done previously. On this momentum, what will become of the great works, of the great minds? They too will be pushed aside because they are elitist.
Thus freed from the cumbersome burden of theory, theses will be able to focus on the essential, on what really matters. They will also be shorter, and the study time will also be reduced. Obtaining degrees will therefore be easier. In the same spirit, efforts will be made to review the format of exams in order to reduce stress for the “student person”. All this in the name of accessibility to knowledge.
It will also be easier for the “student person” to cultivate self-esteem.
This will take a new step towards the ideal of democratization of education that was at the heart of the Quiet Revolution. And higher education will finally enter fully into modernity.
The field of research will open up to the social sciences, but also to creation (literature, painting, sculpture, etc.). In the spirit of innovative philosophy, the traditional criteria of beauty will be rejected.
Keeping up with the latest developments, the chair will adopt inclusive writing (“iels”, etc.). And since it will rely on subsidies from the Canadian government, it will impose the EDI code as defined by multiculturalism.
Will it be claimed that the future chair, thus designed, will embody the spirit, the approach, the high aspirations and the deep convictions of Jacques Grand’Maison?
A disturbing affair
I initially refused to believe this story. But it was easy for me to verify the source, it is in the public domain, easily accessible. In a time where disinformation, adulterated content on social networks, ideological and religious drifts, intolerance, new horse dealers reign, is it a good idea to relax the standards of scientific knowledge to base it on emotions, feelings, to trivialize the conditions for acquiring degrees, all in the name of an ideal of democratization? I remember a time when science was more concerned with pushing back the boundaries of knowledge and exercising a critical function.
The ideal of democratisation seems to me to be very poorly understood. There are many other, more appropriate ways of serving it, for example by facilitating access to higher education for young people from modest backgrounds who do not have the means. More than half a century after the Parent Report, there are still surprisingly many of them, especially in the regions. This is the kind of intolerable situation that should require a major chore.
All in all, one gets the impression that this conception of the chair project is inspired not by science, but by a philosophy of the child-king who must be protected from the rough edges of life.
It was necessary for such an initiative to come from an establishment like the University of Montreal, a prestigious and highly respectable centre of higher learning, which has always brought honour to Quebec and whose reputation is well established on a global scale.
Finally, if ever the promoters of the project declare that they do not recognize themselves in this presentation by one of their own, we would like them to make it known and remove from their site the document that I used as support (and which is for the moment the only official reference available outside of the text of National Action).