Philosophy Department Caves, Holds “Ethics Here and Now” Keynote Speech in DSB

By Nathan Schmidt

Last week, Fairfield University’s philosophy department handed its moment of glory over to its administrative arch-nemesis.

The moment took place on Friday, when the university hosted a massive, day-long ethics symposium entitled Ethics Here and Now: Racial Justice, Reproductive Justice, Climate Justice. This symposium, spearheaded by Fairfield’s philosophy department, showcased the relevance of arts and sciences to students, faculty and members of the Fairfield public. Unfortunately, the only space large and impressive enough for the keynote speech was not in the Barone Campus Center, but in the new Dolan School of Business.

“We were making such big progress that day,” lamented philosophy professor Ken Mendalione. “Every single panel hit the notes it needed to hit. We had fresh, delicious discourse from all the panelists. It was perfect. And then the keynote speech came, and we realized our effort was doomed from the start.”

The tug-of-war between the College of Arts and Sciences and the more trade-specialized schools on campus has stood in the backdrop of Fairfield’s academic life for all living memory. But Ethics Here and Now was roundly expected to be philosophy’s big break. Instead, all is lost, and the department’s efforts have been for naught.

Senior student and philosophy major Ted Borinth ‘20 expressed even more vocal dismay about the symposium’s outcome. “We don’t need the School of Business’ big fancy rooms! There’s nothing wrong with CAS, you get it? It’s simple. We have enough to get by already. We don’t need their extravagances!”

As our Stagnation reporter walked briskly away, the student shouted, “The School of Business has always won!”

Matters were only worsened for the philosophy department by the knowledge that the audience of students and interested locals found the symposium generally enlightening and thought-provoking. Stagnation reporters suggested counting the event as a win in another team’s court, but were unable to convince the interviewed parties that this was a true statement a priori.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s