This Saturday marked the final colloquium for the 2018-2019 Ramonat Seminar. I was so excited to share my research with my family, peers, panelists, and instructors.
My final presentation reflected a timeline that I established in my paper. My slides showed photos of articles from before and after Humanae Vitae’s release. My main argument here was that the majority of student opinion remained the same over time; that students wanted change in birth control doctrine in the Church. My research illustrated how both men and women at DePaul, Loyola and Mundelein were local representations of Vatican and universal debates among Catholics. My analysis of student reporting led me to conclusions about how students interacted with Church doctrine on campus with Jesuit and non-Jesuit faculty. I was glad to answer questions from the crowd and engage with people who were interested to learn more about my topic. At the end of the afternoon, I felt so thankful for the honorary mention from the judges.
This past year was such a wonderful experience for me. I gained many insights on Chicago Catholicism and Chicago politics in general. This blog shows a large amount of the work and various topics involved in this class that I can now look back at in my future ahead. I intend on revisiting this paper later in my academic career so that I can build from the work I accomplished this year. Looking back on the Open House and Saint Sabina trips, I learned so much more about the city I live in and the Catholic population as a scholarly topic. Last, I am grateful to Dr. Shermer and Ruby for their guidance throughout this year. This class made me a much stronger writer, a more confident speaker, and a more engaged member of the Loyola community.
The revising process was (and continues to be) slow and steady. While the semester comes to a close and Easter break approaches, it was not always easy to find long periods of time to revise as much as I would have liked to. Instead, I found smaller increments of time over the last week to rearrange my ideas and address the comments from my peers and instructors.
As of now, I am trying to work from general ideas to more specific conclusions throughout my project. It is quite difficult to do this because, throughout the first draft, I would often lead-in with a sentence about the schools themselves. The peer review and instructor feedback helped me to realize that I should begin with a general idea and then work my way inward. I am also frustrated with revising my thesis and introduction to match with my conclusion. I am not yet at the point where I can switch them and have a cohesive paper, so there is still more work ahead for my narrative.
After adding a large portion of my revisions, it admittedly felt great to observe all of the progress that I made since when the first draft was due. I found myself omitting certain paragraphs to make room for more pertinent ideas. In addition, I reframed many of my introductory sentences to be less wordy. This topic sentence exercise allowed me to better break up my ideas and unpack more interpretations from the students and scholars of the time. My main goal is for my project to reflect a fluid and concise story from the 1960s to today.
Professor Shermer told us many times that editing and revising takes up more time than writing the paper itself. I can now attest to this fact. Likewise, I learn how each draft comes with even more revisions. This whole process opened my eyes to the importance of knowing your own writing style and your areas of improvement. Revising a twenty-page paper is no small task, but my detail-oriented work ethic is ready for the challenges ahead.
I was delighted to receive feedback on my first draft. All of the notes and edits provided me with the guidance that I needed going forward. Especially with a paper of this length, it is difficult to reread your own work at the same level as someone with fresh eyes on the paper. It is equally difficult to recruit friends who are even willing to read over twenty pages of academic writing. I did not even register most of my mistakes as I was writing, so constructive feedback helped me identify my weaknesses and strengths.
Dr. Shermer and Ruby gave me great comments about reorganizing and omitting certain paragraphs. After leaving my draft alone for a few days and reading their comments, it felt nice to go back to it and know what I needed to do for the final draft. I am currently working on restructuring my paper so that it starts with more general ideas and then goes into more specific arguments. I also reread each of my topic sentences and finetuned them to make them less redundant and more concise.
Another great resource came from my Ramonat peer, Kristin, who kindly reviewed an edited version of my first draft last week. When we met, we first discussed the content and intentions of our papers. Then, we traded papers, and read each other’s papers aloud. It felt weird hearing her orate my project, but it also gave it a breath of fresh life. I read my own words in certain tones in my head as I write, and her interpretation sounded much different. I could also recognize my own errors and the room for improvement in certain areas. Reading Kristin’s paper was likewise interesting because her paper takes place in the 1920s with Catholic women. I think that our papers connected really well with one another, telling how women interacted with the Church over time. Below you can watch a video of me reading her paper to her.
As this semester winds down, the clock is ticking to finish and touch-up the details of my paper. My plan in the weeks ahead is to continue with the process of reorganization and write a few more paragraphs to better establish the introduction and conclusion. Afterward, I will ensure that the paper flows together and actually addresses my thesis. I will then switch my introduction and conclusion, which is a recommendation from our classes on editing and revisions. Last, my process will include looking back at all of the comments from my peers and instructors to see if I have properly answered their suggestions. I intend to get a few more versions in before the final draft so that it is in good shape. With only two weeks left, I hope that I can meet these goals and build from the ideas in my first draft.
The process of writing the first draft was both challenging and invigorating. My first strategy was to set goals for myself and follow my outline. However, early on, I realized that I was not necessarily writing the paper that I thought I was. Ideas–such as 1960s marriage ideals–sidetracked my anticipated progress. Surprisingly, I achieved the majority of my work later in the day than I usually do for research papers. Finally, to edit and remind myself of where I was exactly going, I printed out my paper in a different font and reread it. This step really helped me see the gaps in my argumentation and where to add other primary sources.
I felt most satisfied when I was able to link previous points into the next paragraph because I could see a narrative unfolding. Sometimes a random idea would take me somewhere really valuable and unexpected. Other times, I would reread a paragraph and register that it was not at all pertinent to my thesis. It was hard to keep trudging forward during these moments of self-doubt, but I felt accomplished after turning in the draft, no matter the imperfections.
At the same time, I was frustrated because I found myself doing some last-minute research to build more complexity and credibility. I regret not taking more time over break to find more primary sources, but fortunately, the digital archives and Cudahy Library were available at my disposable. Additionally, I did not particularly enjoy doing last-second touch-ups and edits the day that the first draft was due, but I knew that sticking to my detail-oriented writing methods would be important to save myself from more work later on.
I am aware that there will be more struggles ahead before I turn in a final draft and present my ideas at the symposium. I mainly need to edit myself to better connect Humanae Vitae (1968) to Roe v. Wade (1973). Furthermore, there are areas where I need to stop combining two ideas into one so that my project is more concise. Last, I need to develop my concluding paragraphs so that the ending is less abrupt. Nonetheless, I am confident with what I have so far, and I will fix these mistakes and more within the final weeks. I am also expecting to gain even more progress after completing the peer review exercise.
Through writing this first draft, I learned about the lengths that I can go and cannot go before needing to take a moment for myself. Simple things such as a change in scenery made a huge difference in how I wrote and approached different topics. After taking a few days off from writing, I am now in a great headspace to begin the process of editing and finish the last few pages.
These last few weeks, I worked on the introduction and debut pages of my research project on Humanae Vitae and Catholic students due in April. Beginning to write the first pages of my paper was both challenging and rewarding. This project is unlike any coursework I have done before, so naturally, there has been a bit of a learning curve at times. With more work ahead of me, I feel energized to continue on and reflect on what I have accomplished.
A few of the difficulties that I encountered were mostly related to narrative-building and elaborating on my ideas. In class, we read an article by Meg Jacobs as a model to use for inspiration when seamlessly incorporating primary and secondary sources into our arguments. When I began writing about the college newspapers that I found through my research, I struggled to emulate Jacobs’ style. With primary documents being central to my work, I know that I will have to find a way to express and reinterpret all of these rich sources from the 1960s.
Another issue that occurred while I wrote the first paragraphs was sticking to the one-point rule. This rule essentially states that each paragraph should cover one topic that is relevant to the thesis. I tend to connect one idea to another, and I frequently found myself reviewing my work to separate one paragraph into two or three. I am improving on this since last semester, but I am still adjusting to this method. I am aware of my mistakes so far, and I embrace the challenges ahead in academic writing.
I admit that it was difficult to jump right into writing rather than going to class and discussing with others. However, I think that working individually helped me get to know my sources and be able to communicate that in my paper. Essentially, I noticed that my ideas evolved from research into my own thoughts, which felt fulfilling. Unlike a typical undergraduate paper, the seminar gave me an opportunity to find my own historical sources and reflect on them in my own way.
Furthermore, I gained so many positive and satisfying insights after turning in the first chunk of my paper. I think that all of my research has paid off because I now have many sources to draw from when I write. All of the time-consuming research from the past semester made it easier for me to synthesize my ideas into a historical perspective.
Last Wednesday, class convened to see Professor Winling speak about his research on mapping Chicago politics. His presentation gave me some ideas to consider for when I present my research at the Symposium in April. Although I tend to stay away from data and numbers, Professor Winling’s research was irrefutable because of his historical in-depth analysis of voter data in Chicago. Since my research involves three different Catholic universities in Chicago, it may be a good idea to use a map and show how Rogers Park and Lincoln Park were politically different. In fact, I sourced census data from 1960 to show how racially diverse these neighborhoods were at the time. Drawing from Professor Winling’s presentation, I could incorporate maps and data into my own presentation to strengthen my argument and effectively demonstrate my research to my peers and others.
These past weeks were both exciting and stressful, but turning in the first pages gave me an encouraging feeling of relief. In addition, feedback from Ruby and Professor Shermer helps with the writing process because I can go back and change things as I am working on it instead of editing everything at the end. I intend to set more goals for myself to accomplish so that I can find a balance of writing and reviewing before I turn in the first draft next Monday.
These last few weeks, I have gathered a number of sources to look through for my paper on the Catholic Church and birth control in Chicago. Additionally, I found myself more focused on the debates surrounding Humanae Vitae, as it remains a divisive document among Catholics. Some theologians lauded the encyclical for its insights on human dignity and the Catholic family. Other scholars and parishioners were more apprehensive of birth control restrictions, viewing it as a personal choice. Furthermore, I am currently trying to flesh out whether or to what extent the Catholic church played a role in legislation leading up to Roe v. Wade. While my research questions in my last post are of course still relevant, I have naturally found other topics to look into. This blog will exhibit what I have been working on thus far, in addition to interpreting the structure of scholarly writing.
One source that struck me when I looked through the digital archives for the Mundelein College newspaper, The Skyscraper, was an article about Planned Parenthood visiting campus. This article–published two years before Humanae Vitae–highlighted the future problems between contraceptives and Church doctrine. The article mentioned several common points that have been discussed in other documents; such as population control, economic stability, and the effectiveness of the rhythm method compared to the pill. I think that this article offered a straight-forward reporting of the session, and I plan to use it to set the scene for debate in my paper.
Below I have attached a page of notes on the article.
General Research Report
Although I have not met with any specialists in the field about this topic, I have sent emails to a few archivists of Catholic colleges in Chicago. Unfortunately, St. Xavier lost all of their copies of their student newspaper from the 1960s. Moreover, I intend to visit and sort through Wheaton College’s newspaper The Record later this month. This week, I will reach out to the Hank Center about finding an alumnus to speak to about birth control on Loyola’s campus.
Outlining Scholarly Articles
This week, the class was assigned to read and outline a scholarly journal article concerning the Office of Price Administration during World War II. Below is my outline, using Cornell Notes as a template.
Reflecting on Academic Writing
Historian Meg Jacobs’ article helped me understand what the expectations are for my own work and how to properly structure a research paper of this length. The longest paper I have written at this point in my academic career was about 12 pages long. I noted how Jacobs’ 30-page article clearly articulated the introduction, the thesis, the evidence to support her arguments, and the conclusion. Ensuring that each section is distinct from the next will be relevant once I start to write and structure my paper.
In order to write a paper similar to Jacobs’ article, I intend to follow the one-point rule. Each paragraph will explain and tease out one point. In previous research papers, I erroneously included as much information I could fit in one long paragraph. This article helped me recognize that breaking up evidence and sources will help me illustrate a story. Similar to a novel, Jacobs’ article painted a portrait using rising action, climax, and falling action. In closing, analyzing other scholarly work was beneficial because I feel more aware of the work ahead in order to present a compelling and organized paper.
Last week, I shared a broad blueprint of my ideas for my final project. Essentially, my research topic involves young people’s reactions to Humanae Vitae in 1968. Feedback from my professor and peers led me to narrow down my topic within the metropolis of Chicago. Last semester, we learned about how Chicago was one of the main sites of social movements in 1968, especially seen through the events at the Democratic National Convention. Moreover, Chicago is an overwhelmingly Catholic city, built by Catholic charities and nuns. Due to the importance of local politics, I plan to focus on the diverse responses of Catholic students in Chicago. I believe that through the lens of Chicago and the Loyola community, I will reveal personal experiences that may relate to the larger discussion of birth control. This week, I constructed five research questions that I think will lead me to meaningful discoveries and arguments in my paper.
What was the role of Chicagoan college students in the rejection or acceptance of Humanae Vitae?
How did responses differ between various Chicago universities? For instance, did DePaul students hold different perspectives than Loyola students?
How did young minorities in Chicago (African American, Asian, Latinx) grapple with the terms of Humanae Vitae compared to Irish and white Catholics? Is there an intersectional or socioeconomic aspect to the topic of birth control that should be considered?
Why were young women and men supportive or not supportive of Humanae Vitae? What is the evidence given against and for birth control restrictions?
Finally, what is the significance of Humanae Vitae on the political dialogue in 1968 and today? Fifty years later, what are the legacies of Humanae Vitae on Chicago and United States politics?
As for sourcing my research, I intend to search through the Mundelein Women and Leadership Archives and the Loyola newspaper archives. Additionally, I would like to gain access to the newspaper archives from other Chicago universities, such as Benedictine University or Saint Xavier University to observe how students from other backgrounds may have reacted to Humanae Vitae. Analyzing the language used by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical itself may offer insights and inspiration for my project. I could also find an alumnus who lived through Chicago 1968 (perhaps a panel speaker from the Global ’68 Symposium) and interview him or her about the ramifications of Humanae Vitae on their life. I am aware that some of my questions, such as 2 and 5, might be better answered by secondary sources or other historians. Nevertheless, I look forward to determining how many conclusions I can make from primary documents and university newspapers.
The spring semester begins with my individual research paper, which will be submitted and presented at the 2019 Ramonat Seminar in April. Over winter break, I established several goals for myself and my project. I look forward to sharing my preliminary progress thus far regarding my project about the American response to the controversial 1968 document Humanae Vitae.
My idea began with an examination of my own Catholic family. My maternal grandparents are traditional Catholic Republicans, while my paternal grandmother identifies as a Democrat because of her Polish Catholic upbringing. This divided state of my family mirrors our findings from last semester; the Catholic vote no longer exists– because like the rest of the nation, Catholics are both Republican and Democratic. Based on class discussions from last semester, I intend to include both liberal and conservative political dialogues of Humanae Vitae in my paper.
Humanae Vitae, released by Pope Paul VI in 1968, was an encyclical most known for its renunciation of artificial birth control. Yet Vatican II (1959) encouraged social change through human dignity, at the same time as the Anti-War, Women’s Movement, and Civil Rights Movements. To begin, I plan to discuss the contradictions and oppositions between Humanae Vitae and Vatican II to set the scene for my main research.
Predominantly, I will use primary documents from the Loyola and Mundelein College newspapers to show the youth’s interactions and responses to Humanae Vitae and the Sexual Revolution. In addition, I hope to gain access to newspapers from surrounding Catholic universities in the Chicago area. I predict that students would have written articles opposing restrictions on birth control based on the political dialogue of 1968. At the same time, I expect to find articles from young traditionalists who support the Pope’s authority on the matter. I will also look into the impact of student organizations, such as Loyola’s Students for Reproductive Justice.
In conclusion, I am confident that I will find an array of useful sources and areas to research in the coming weeks as I begin to narrow down my topic. I am determined to include a multitude of perspectives in my paper because it has become apparent to me that Catholics in America hold pluralistic opinions on matters like birth control. I think that it would be important to focus on the perspectives of the students because of their influence on social justice in 1968. While I do not have a specific research question yet, my goal in weeks ahead is to illustrate the role of progressive and conservative students in the debate surrounding Humanae Vitae.
How would you react if a couple of friendly nuns approached you on the street and asked if you were happy? This week, class convened at the Gene Siskel theater downtown to view the 1968 film Inquiring Nuns. Directed by Gordon Quinn and Gerald Temaner, the documentary followed Sister Marie Arné and Sister Mary Campion around Chicago as they randomly approached strangers and asked if they were happy and why. The film sounds simple enough, yet the diverse responses and the overall setting made for a complex and thought-provoking artifact of the time. Inquiring Nuns demonstrated past class themes of Catholic Anti-War sentiments and Chicago in 1968.
The opening interview indicated the majority of the responses that the nuns heard throughout the city. The first young couple expressed that they were not happy with the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, and subsequent people responded similarly in the film. Quinn and Temaner truly captured Chicago at the perfect moment in the months following the Democratic National Convention. As discussed at the Global ’68 Symposium and seen in the film Medium Cool, Chicago of 1968 represented the chaotic and violent police action on Anti-War and Civil Rights protesters.
1968 was equally significant for Catholics because of the implications of Vatican II, which inspired the Catholic Left to join the Anti-War cause. In his article, scholar James McCartin confirmed that under Vatican II, the Church became a “vehicle through which they advanced some of the most defining elements of American culture, including the ubiquitous appeal for popular participation and democracy” (McCartin 10). This semester, I learned about Father Daniel Berrigan’s leadership in the Catholic Left with his involvement in the Catonsville Nine. Though his actions were very radical, Vatican II seemed to support the movement. The filmshowed how Catholics took on more political stances based on their religion as the nuns approached people leaving Church in the Loop. Vatican II and the general tensions of 1968 enabled Catholics to speak their minds about the war in Vietnam.
InquiringNuns showed an intersection of race and class when the nuns filmed outside of a predominantly African American parish after mass. Immediately, it was obvious that the parish was better-off than other segregated South Side parishes, like Saint Sabina. The majority of wealthy husbands and wives replied that they were happy because of their financial stability and healthy family. These families were unlike last week’s reading on the projects of Trumbull Park, where low-income black families were discriminated against by whites and treated as “intruders” (Hirsch 531). Rather than analyzing the inequalities in segregated Chicago, the film depicted upward mobility in Catholic African Americans.
Inquiring Nuns symbolized Chicago in 1968 with its forum of happiness in the age of the Vietnam War and Civil Rights movements. I do not think the film would have worked in any other city or any other year. The setting, the characters, and the film techniques all embodied the mindsets of Chicago in 1968. What would happen if we tried this 50 years later? Are you happy?
This week, in combination with our assigned readings, I searched through Mundelein College’s Women and Leadership Archives for a primary source regarding Catholics and the Welfare State. Historically, Catholics provided public services for those in need before FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society. For example, Catholic Charities (which I visited during Open House Chicago) was one of the few orphanages in the Loop, established in 1881. In the archives, I found an insightful speech from Sister Patricia Crowley about her charity, Deborah’s Place, that represented local problems in the welfare system.
Crowley was a fierce activist for the poor and disadvantaged throughout her years as a Benedictine nun in Chicago. Her speech, delivered to Elmhurst College in 1998, told a story about a women’s transitional housing facility in the process of relocating to the northern neighborhood of Lakeview, not far from Loyola’s campus. A local parish offered its empty convent to Crowley’s organization, but a powerful neighborhood association worked to overrule their efforts. Crowley described this group as exhibiting a xenophobic “Not in My Backyard Syndrome.” Regardless, the church was eventually able to open its doors to the charity because of its supporters, who received over 4,000 signatures on their grassroots petition. Crowley concluded her panel by emphasizing the need for community building in the face of the nation’s growing “affluenza.” The photo above shows her finale, wherein she encouraged the audience to seek immediate action when confronted with adversity.
I think that Crowley’s speech stressed pertinent topics from this semester; principally, local politics and gaps in the American welfare system. The relocation of Deborah’s Place was an extremely local issue that would have resulted in the homelessness of over twenty women if Catholic community members had not protested the neighborhood zoning board. Crowley advised that building community is not a linear task, rather it is “circular and cyclical. The process requires us to keep giving each other another chance and it challenges us to the art of reconciliation with each other.” Moreover, this situation exhibited the phrase ‘all politics is local’ because of how it reflected broader questions of welfare in the 1990s and in the past.
Though Crowley’s speech was only 20 years ago, it outlined recurring stigmas regarding welfare and charity in the United States. In his article, “Resistance in the Urban North: Trumbull Park, Chicago, 1953-1966,” Arnold Hirsch described how Chicago struggled to overcome segregation in government-funded housing projects, due to a racialized ‘Not in My Backyard’ way of thinking. Essentially, the Chicago Housing Authority failed to integrate fifteen black families into Trumbull Park, and consequently, African Americans were “harassed day and night” (Hirsch 527) while in their own homes. Similarly, Crowley had to overcome resistance from the Lakeview area in establishing a haven for troubled young women.
The ongoing need for and reliance on Catholic charities, like Deborah’s Place, suggests that federal and state welfare are insufficient in resolving poverty in America. Most urban areas are divided by income and race or ethnicity, seen in the North and South sides of Chicago. But Crowley’s speech exposed how Northern neighborhoods of Lakeview were unaccepting of outside groups with a goal to provide assistance to the poor. Finally, I think the speech related to our discussions of Catholics and their role in building political institutions.
Crowley, Patricia. “If Not Now, When? If Not You and I, Who?” Presentation for Elmhurst College.
Hirsch, Arnold R. “Massive Resistance in the Urban North: Trumbull Park, Chicago,
1953-1966.” The Journal of American History, vol. 82, no. 2, 1995, pp. 522–550.