UD's possible pharmacy school

By: Christopher Malloy

Posted: 11/11/08

The administration of the University of Dallas (UD) has been planning towards the creation of a school of pharmacy. There are numerous arguments in favor of the move. Among these are the following. First, it could be highly profitable. Second, UD could serve the wider community professionally. Third, UD could foster a vision of life consonant with the Catholic Church's teaching on human dignity. Among the elements of such a vision of life are gratitude and esteem for every human life and for the procreative character of sexual love. New or helpless "mouths" to feed are not just "mouths"; they are persons, mysteries to be embraced. Consequent upon these elements is the condemnation of directly intended abortion, of contraceptive intercourse, of euthanasia, etc. Not a few medications are instrumental specifically to these ends. The Catholic vision therefore rejects these medications insofar as they are instrumental, whether intentionally or only in fact, to the aforesaid ends.

There is no doubt, a school of pharmacy imbued with such a vision, and bedewed by grace, represents a grand vision. Our Catholic shepherds cannot but support such a vision. Still, prudence must always guide concrete action. Prudence must determine various proper goals to be sought in light of higher ends and in view of particular circumstances. Prudence must then determine the licit and helpful means to these goals. The principle of subsidiarity mandates that the judgments of prudence that correspond to the ends of such-and-such persons (be these individual persons or "social persons") be left in the hands of these persons, who would be wise to accept counsel. Now, at university, the ends are determined by the faculty, which is proximately instrumental to the final cause of the university, formation of students secundum veritatem in caritate. As the faculty serves the students in view of this end, so the administration serves the faculty for this end, taking cognizance of the factors affecting sustenance of the enterprise. Consequently, it is those charged with direct oversight of the university's daily operations that must, taking the rules governing prudential judgments from the faculty's collaborative counsel insofar as these rules protect the end that faculty serve, evaluate this vision's viability.

Now, due to the heroic efforts of the present administration, UD is presently balancing its budget and drawing large numbers of talented and enthusiastic students. Nevertheless, UD is a poor university, in no position to afford a big blunder. Any misstep on a large scale would crush UD. Therefore, uncertain moves on a grand scale are highly imprudent, even reckless.

What are the requisites for success in a school of pharmacy espousing the aforesaid vision? Two things: (a) firm commitment to the full scope of the Catholic vision concerning human life and (b) healthy enrollment for two decades or more. Success requires an ongoing, happy marriage of these two requirements. To leave such a marriage to the whims of fortune - e.g., not to concern oneself with the fruits of this vision, to be content that the vision be but offered, simply to plant one's eyes firmly on the potential income to be generated from students, whether these may carry out the vision or not, is to make a lie of the vision itself. It is to pay lip service to the vision's role and effectiveness while preparing to batten on spoil.

Now, a happy marriage of these requirements depends upon the prospects, not only imminent but also longer term, of professional viability for practitioners who entirely endorse the vision. That such prospects are quite uncertain can be indicated with eight convergent reasons.

First, legal pressures are increasingly against pharmacists who appeal to principles consonant with the Catholic vision or to "conscience clauses" (where these clauses exist; they do not yet exist in Texas although one is under consideration). Some pharmacists in some places are already required to dispense contraceptives and abortifacients. State laws in Washington and Illinois are cases in point. (That Illinois is a singularly bad state for Catholic pharmacists is all the more worthy of attention, given the looming change in national leadership.) Further, from the Catholic moral perspective, it would be unacceptable cooperation for a "conscience clause" pharmacist to refer a patient to a willing pharmacist. Yet, to make such a referral is often part and parcel of what "conscience clauses" demand. Laws concerning health insurance parallel this pressure. Various organs and instruments of the Catholic Church have already been facing great pressure in several places, such as the states of New York and Massachusetts and the city of San Francisco.

Second, market pressures are decidedly against "conscience clause" pharmacists. Most chains of pharmacies put considerable hiring obstacles in the way. Some chains simply refuse to recognize the conscience clause. No chain or store has any incentive to hire such persons because the chain may well have to hire double in order to meet legal requirements. (This may prove true even in Ave Maria, FL.)

Third, boards of pharmacists are not uniformly supportive of a pro-life vision. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacists considered a resolution to mandate that any pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for emergency contraception (an abortifacient) must direct his client to a willing pharmacist (Resolution # 100.12.04). Although this motion was defeated, will similar ones fair similarly?

Fourth, any competition from state schools would adversely affect UD's profitability. That such competition will not arise is by no means a surety. What if well-endowed private universities in the region were to start a school? Is there no incentive for locally accredited universities to lobby the Texas state legislature to revoke existing legislation inhibiting the establishment of state schools of pharmacy? Moreover, is there no pressure a wealthy school could exact in order to drive UD out of the business by temporary reductions in tuition?

Fifth, UD has not proven that it can raise the startup costs, let alone the funds for a fully functioning school. One administrator told me last year, "We have identified a potential donor." I asked, "Has he any affiliation with UD?" The response, "No." Then, "But he once owned a chain of pharmacies." I was dumbstruck but kept listening. "The problem is, he just donated to [a local university]." And finally, "But we figure, 'Why shouldn't he donate to us?'" This was rather disheartening encouragement. Back then, the administration promised to leave the endowment alone. More recently (August 08), they have said they "hope" they don't need to dip into the endowment. I should have asked in December, "You won't take, at the expense of underpaid faculty and staff, any money from surplus enrollment? And not any windfall due to possible natural gas reserves?" (Alas!) Then, when hope in a "capital campaign" arose, many thought, "Finally!" But alas, this campaign was to be dedicated to the school of pharmacy. (Recent faculty pressure may have changed this plan slightly. However, proof of priorities is in the pudding.)

Sixth, accreditation hurdles figure into uncertainty. Legal pressures would affect UD's vision indirectly, but accrediting pressures would do so directly. Might we even be forced to forego the vision, even to support what opposes it? If we remained faithful in such straits, we would be broken.

Seventh, it is uncertain whether there is a "market" precisely for applicants to a school that endorses a vision consonant with Catholic teaching. Curricular anomalies might put some students off. Although UD's undergraduate programs are successful because of UD's Catholic character and unparalleled curricular excellence, a school of pharmacy is a different beast. (Indeed, to add such a school would be like stitching an elephant leg to a gazelle.)

Eighth, if UD as a whole or any of its constituent parts depends upon federal funding (e.g., student loans), legal pressures concerning the pharmacy school could be felt more firmly by threat of loss of such aid.

In short, UD can balance its budget for operational expenses; it is recruiting numerous talented and enthused students on the basis of its existing vision of Catholic liberal arts (to some extent in spite of administrative efforts to truncate and neglect that vision). UD's future success requires but one more ingredient: a healthy endowment. Exactly this is not what the administration is either capable of doing or willing to do. The murmuring of underpaid faculty and staff aside (a murmuring quite just, if annoying), UD can perhaps sustain itself by limping along at its present pace. But UD cannot afford to risk facing the dilemma of choosing between financial failure and loss of vision.

Christopher Malloy
Associate Professor of Theology,
The University of Dallas