Talk:Catholic University of America/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Bravo to those making recent changes to the article; I admit my changes were pretty minor and I wish I'd have had the time to make such a comprehensive article as now exists. Again, thank you for your efforts. --Sarcasticninja 03:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info box. Maybe we can make this as comprehensive as Georgetown's. --Jonathan.King 00:13, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

lol, oh my, i should start making corrections. --Evesummernight 04:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)--evesummernight

Can someone put together a notable faculty list? People like Oleg Kalugin, former KGB spy

If a notable faculty list is ever made, don't forget Clyde Cowan!!--Optiksguy 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

alumni

I've put together a much more comprehensive alumni page at List of notable CUA alumni. In addition, at the bottom of all their pages you will see a new category for CUA alumni. Every article that links to CUA and IDs the person as a CUA alum is included, so it was far too much to include on the CUA home article. Briancua 02:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

board of trustees

I've added the list of trustees and tried to link as many as I could. I had trouble finding info on some of them - if anyone can help that would be great. Briancua 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Should the sections about academic freedom and the AAUP sanction be on a separate “controversies of CUA” stub? Ericsean (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Bias

Why does this article read as though it was written by admissions?

I do not understand what you mean. Few other univeristy webpages have their speaker policies and other criticisms discussed. Ericsean (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not begin this strand but have some suggestions that might help the article regarding this criticism. I agree that this website offers more in regards to criticisms of the school than most other university websites. I think the concern is with loaded language like "boasts a world class faculty." Such language is a value judgment and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. If you are still trying to get this to GA status, I would recommend making the first few sections more NPOV, and adding more facts and citations. Otherwise I think this article is really coming along. --Burnsie510 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This seems like a pretty biased page for a university. You don't see sections for other colleges labeled "academic freedom" which seems only to take jabs at the school for being heavily Catholic. Also the section "in the news" just seems like an excuse to mention that some alumni or student had nude pictures. Honestly, you don't see that kind of smear for other college pages and it doesn't help to provide anything informative or important about the school itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy one first. The media section was essentially a trivia section and I deleted it. I don't think anything was important. In the future, anything that IS important can be placed under "history" or some credible subsection.
The academic freedom subsection is another matter. Catholic University is the largest ex ecclesiae corde school in the country. It follows the pope. Most large Catholic universities do not. They follow a separate magesterium and tell their students "read what the pope says. If you agree with what he says, follow it. If you don't, so what?" CU disagrees. This raises issues which are documented here. I'm on CUs side, but don't see how this section can be reduced that much. It is important. Nothing wrong with controversy BTW as long as it is handled in an unbiased way. And yes, other schools aren't concerned with academic freedom because "anything goes" at those schools! Student7 (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

The following articles have been nominated for deletion. Editors' participation is welcome in the discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination

Sorry, but with no references and being dominated by lists, I feel that this article doesn't meet the criteria. Once these issues are fixed, please feel free to renominate. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just happened upon this article today, and I've got to reiterate the concern about the excessive lists. Why not condense it down the the general schools? With all of the offerings dragged out in the encyclopedia article it's starting to look like a lot of the embarassing, for-profit college websites I patrol (DeVry, ITT, etc). --Bobak 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'm trying to get this article up to GA standards. I've moved the two huge lists (schools and academic programs) to it's own stub, which is linked from the Academics section of the CUA wikipedia article. I'm going to keep working on it to try an include more information and less of a PR piece for the university. -- CFM865 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but when you made them a separate list, they got deleted. Racepacket (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization

If you look at other University articles, they tend to put the campus and academics sections toward the top, and the student life and athletics sections toward the end, because of the relative importance of the former. This is a Division III school, so I would recommend switching the order of the sections. Does anyone object? Racepacket (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems to agree with Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure. Sounds good! Student7 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bar

Doubtless someone thought he was being funny when he inserted the piece about students no longer being welcomed in a nearby bar. Looking quickly at the reference though, it becomes clear that the bar deliberately located in order to cater to students, priced drinks to cater to students, served minors without checking closely and got into trouble for it. Then, and only then, does the owner claim that "students are no longer welcome. They tore up my bar" = his argument before some licensing organization. Oh, really? The blurb probably ought to be removed. Kids in cities frequent bars and some underage people get served. This doesn't seem like an important part of what CUA is all about unless they are highly ranked for booze or something (they aren't). Student7 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaker Policy

I just added a section on it, as that's unfortunately what CUA is best known for these days, at least in the media. Psjalltheway 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As a student at CUA when Del. Norton was uninvited it is my understanding that: 1) she was not invited by the University, but by the company running the bookstore; 2) the event was to be a book signing, not a lecture. Ericsean (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)ericsean

Surely the section about the speaker policy should include President O'Connell support for the Republican party and that only Democrats are uninvited under the speaker policy. Then Vice President Dick Cheney spoke on campus despite supporting what the Pope called an unjust war. 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)~

So far the above sounds very WP:POV and WP:OR. Hard to believe that this is a major issue for anyone except the media, maybe. The article is supposed to be predominately about a school where people attend, take courses and (presumably) graduate. This other stuff is side issues which the media loves to use to fill up space or time, but has little to do with the university or students generally. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

List of speakers

An editor removed a very terse list of prominent speakers. Other colleges do have these and have not nearly been so modest about them. I agree that the list shouldn't be long, but this one wasn't. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman/Catholic

Ok. I've protected the article until you fine folks can figure out how to settle this issue. Feel free to commence civil discussion below. --Moni3 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Alma Mater

This material should not be reinserted. It is not germane to CU. It is more like WP:MISSION. It may be WP:COPYVIO. It adds nothing to the article. It detracts from objective material. It is fluff, at best. This is not the place for promotional material. Please use .com for that.

It is also not standard for university articles for the above reasons. Student7 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient source?

"The speaker policy gained national attention again in 2008 when the CUA College Republicans, the University's largest student organization, hosted former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge once campaigned on a moderate pro-choice platform despite being a Catholic. In spite of this, school officials still approved Ridge to speak. Members of the Cardinal Newman Society heavily criticized the organization. The College Republicans responded with a statement criticizing the restrictiveness of the policy.[1]"

The source cited does not seem to support (1) the claim that the Cardinal Newman Society criticized the organization (I assume that "the organization" is the CUA College Republicans), (2) the claim that the College Republicans "responded" to the criticism (the source does mention the Republicans complaining about the speaker policy, but it doesn't say that they were "responding" to the issue of Tom Ridge), or (3) the claim that the College Republicans released a "statement" with regard to the issue (the source simply quotes the "Republican Chairman" complaining about the policy; it doesn't say that the organization released an official "statement").

I don't doubt that the events described in the article occurred, but we need a source that actually reports them. The source that is presently cited does not. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Catholic U. Extends Speaker Ban To All Political Candidates". CBS News. 2008-04-18.

Undue weight on Curran

This article is supposed to be about the Catholic University of America. The incident with Charles Curran is not that notable and is way out of proportion to what should be an article about the University. The Association of University Professors is a lobby group. It is not a regulatory agency. This is, after all, a Catholic university and one that is in America where the separation of Church and State is well founded. The Catholic Church should not in any way have to defend it's doctrines and practices anymore than any other religion. It speaks very well of the Vatican that Father Curran was not defrocked. He was merely discharged from his position for essentially breaching his contract with the University. That he has also breached his sacred vows to the Church has apparently been forgiven by the Vatican. This would explain why he's still a Catholic priest.

The context of these two sections leaves out completely the University's rights as a Catholic institution and the fact that the University prevailed on legal grounds. The University and the Church did not wrong Father Curran. It merely held him to the standards for which he'd long ago agreed, and taken sacred, consecrated vows. He caused the breach, not the University, and not the Church.

Perhaps a separate article on this is in order with a very brief paragraph about it left in this article. But the paragraph would have to be neutral. There's really no notability to support this large a section, which in fact, merely repeats itself. There are no reliable sources from mainstream newspapers to suggest this was the explosive, huge event the size of the section, with it's rather melodramatic headings, suggests. I've searched several newspapers, including the Washington Post, and I can't find anything that suggests this event was all that notable. This is from the '60s, and skirmishes between the Vatican, which was already progressing through the very liberal changes of the 1962 Vatican II, and it's priesthood and religious affiliates, were no more common then, than they were in any other time. Same story, different day. The Catholic University of America is a great institution. That the Church continues to keep Father Curran as a fully vested priest speaks very well of how tolerant it is of dissent in its ranks. That a left wing lobby group wants to "censure" the administration is rather laughable. The Catholic University has as much right to it's opinion and it's First Amendment right to free speech, as does Father Curran. Or the AAUP, for that matter. Shame on them for promoting fascist ideology by "censuring" rather than promoting dialogue. 64.134.233.50 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You may have a legitimate point about due weight but I'm afraid it's lost in your biased, off-base, and bizarre accusations that the AAUP is a "left wing lobby group...promoting fascist ideology." Your bias for this university and the Catholic Church is so strong that it's impossible for me to believe that you're able to make neutral and objective judgments regarding the content of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be your failing then.64.134.233.50 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be in there, but I agree that it seems a bit too long since Curran's position was an "in your face" disagreement. No surprise at CUA reaction.
Like someone with a legal permit and carrying a concealed gun trying to walk into an anti-gun convention. The convention sets the rules. The gun carriers long-persisting court cases and picketing and what-not, should be "condensed" at best. Student7 (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really need to be there. It can be on Curran's page, or on the page for AAUP. But to make this a central feature of the article under the heading of "Academic Freedom," is over the top POV pushing. This is a Catholic institution asserting it's constitutional rights. It's not doing anything wrong. Father Curran is doing something wrong. What was the guy doing there in the first place if all he wanted to do was protest the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic Church? And just what is the AAUP anyway? They have no regulatory role in anything. It's simply a lobby group for professors. So what? It's totally bogus. If the federal government sanctioned the university for being against a race or gender in student admissions, that would be notable. But not a "censorship" from a lobby group.64.134.220.80 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Knights out

Apparently, the KofC has been heavily involved with CUA. So someone added everything detail possible about the linkage. I tried to rm some of it, but need help. It appears WP:UNDUE. Article is about CUA, not KofC, not people who were Knights, etc. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section

I don't want to engage in an edit war with you, User:Thebrycepeake but I am struggling to see why you are so insistent that information regarding a Title IX investigation be included. There is a "possible violation" of federal law involved. That's not exactly noteworthy. There are myriad investigations taking place every day all across the country. I don't mean to minimize the seriousness of the allegations, but I think you might be a little aggressive in pushing this issue. The category for the schools involved you created was deleted, and your proposal to add a line in infoboxes was unanimously opposed.

If something is to come from the investigation, and CUA is fined or sanctioned, that would be noteworthy. See the section on the Curran controversy, for example. As it stands now, however, there isn't much there. I'm reverting, and ask that you wait until there is more on the topic before you add it back in. --Briancua (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Briancua, I was starting to feel like the edit fighting in the comments was just dickery (needs to be a WP: policy). My justification for adding this info is that it occurred on a historic event -- and maybe I can do a better job editing that in. There was a long discussion on WT:UNI about the information, and consensus was that it should be added to the pages. The reason behind this is that an investigation for Title IX (and Clery) violations is not like a criminal investigation: when investigations occur, they are focused on where possible non-compliance exists, not just IF non-compliance exists. See, for example, the Congress woman Jackie Speir's collection of IX and Clery investigations, where even those universities and colleges found in compliance were required to make substantial shifts in their handling of sexual violence. Like I said early on, though, if you feel like it would be a better fit in another section, I'm all ears (and willing to help with the work of moving it, of course). Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That the OCR released the list is in itself historic. For that reason, I think the List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations is a good idea, although I worry that it will quickly become outdated. The fact that this, or any, particular school is on the list is not historic, though. I think in this case we need to take into account the WP:10 year test. Ten years from now, will it really be notable that any particular school was investigated? Who knows? The allegations could be proven to be completely baseless. Once again, I say that if something comes from the investigation then it would be appropriate to include this information. Until then, just saying that there is an investigation results in the first thing that WP:RECENTISM warns us about: overburdening articles with documenting controversy as it happens. --Briancua (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the article fails WP:THE. Cúchullain t/c 14:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


The Catholic University of America → Catholic University of America – I don't believe this topic meets WP:THE. Criterion 1 is definitely not met; as for criterion 2, the T is capitalized inconsistently. As for WP:CONSISTENCY, other universities who typically insist on the "The" in their names don't have them in their Wikipedia titles, such as George Washington University and Ohio State University. And Catholic is commonly abbreviated as CUA (cf. lede and Brookland–CUA station), not TCUA (cf. The College of New Jersey, which has the common nickname of "TNCJ".) Other related RMs can be found at Talk:College of William & Mary#Requested move and Talk:Oldham College#Requested move. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose This clearly meets criterion 2. Look, for example, at the Visitor's Guide for Pope Francis' recent visit. The word "The" is capitalized in running text everywhere you look. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
In its own branding, yes, but reliable sources don't tend to follow that practice. Just looking over some recent news articles on the school, they either don't capitalize the T ([1], [2]) or omit it entirely ([3]). --BDD (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but if I was to write about a review of "the Beatles" in "the New York Times" instead of "The Beatles" in "The New York Times," to give an example from WP:THE, would that make it right? It is a proper noun, with a capitalized T. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, consensus on Wikipedia is to write "the Beatles" in running text. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Although I really don't care about this issue and think there are innumerable things that are vastly more important for Wikipedia editors to spend their valuable time working on I find BDD's argument and evidence to be convincing. ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. There are very few instances where the definite article is required in article titles. This is not one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • But, AjaxSmack (talk · contribs), #3 says that "do not use The before the institution name unless it is the commonly recognized name of the university" and you determine the common name of the university "by looking at current branding of a university via their website, published documents, and advertisements." As pointed out above, in CUA's own branding, they use "The." --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before and the consensus for other similar articles has been to not use the article before university names. See multiple discussions at Talk:Ohio State University:
Also note WP:OFFICIALNAMES vs. WP:COMMONNAMES. —  AjaxSmack  01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Academic Freedom

I just made a few changes to this section to clarify some points that I feel made the section biased. First, the reason CUA excludes 'theologians' from the statement on Academic Freedom is that it is a Sacred Theology department, and one needs a license from the Vatican to teach theology there. The same is true for the school of Canon Law. Second, I specified that Rev. Curran lost his job because he lost his license to teach Catholic Theology.

falling standards

There should be something in here about the fact that the Business school lost its accreditation and the mass transfers as a result.

Brookland

It appears, according to the wiki article on Brookland, Washington, D.C. that CUA is not within the bound of Brookland because Brookland stops at 9th street, on the other side of the metro. --usertalk:stoopidemu 13 August 2006

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic University of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

this reads like an ad

pretty sure this was mostly written by their staff or something 107.12.51.118 (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_University_of_America/Archive_1&oldid=1177116288"