Sixty-five summers ago, in 1940, with nearly all of Europe under Hitler's control and the Soviet Union suffocated by Stalin's chokehold, the long-term prospects of democratic government appeared, at the very least, to be grim.

During the 1920s and '30s, fascism and communism had spread like wildfire throughout the globe, feeding off the widespread economic and political dissatisfaction that simmered following World War I and during the Great Depression. By 1940, the spread of totalitarianism had been augmented by the massive German war machine, which in a matter of months had placed the remaining bastions of democracy, the United States and Great Britain, in a precarious position.

Peering out from these ominous clouds that signaled the first chapter in a global catastrophe, intellectuals in the United States, in conjunction with intellectual exiles from Europe, sought to articulate an alternative vision for modern man.

Toward this end, a conference was organized in September of that year to discuss how best to integrate science, philosophy and religion into the democratic way of life in the hopes of staving off the spread of totalitarianism.

One of the presenters at that conference was the maverick Jewish philosopher Mortimer Adler. Adler believed that the only way to steer man clear of the errors of Nazism and communism was to articulate a clear vision of the ultimate truth about the worth and dignity of man.

According to Adler, this vision was rooted in traditional ethical values, without which there was no hope for the survival of Western democracy.

Unfortunately, when Adler presented his paper to the conference attendees, he did little more than alienate himself and his position.

With the buzz of Nazi war planes echoing across the ocean, Adler remarked, “The most serious threat to democracy is the positivism of professors, which dominates every aspect of modern education and is the central corruption of modern culture. Democracy has much more to fear from the mentality of its teachers than from the nihilism of Hitler.”

Not surprisingly, the remark drew horrified stares from those in the audience.

In the aftermath of his unfortunate remark, Adler received a cold shoulder from most of his colleagues and an outright rebuke from the press who were quick to dismiss Adler's position entirely.

While it is clear that the remark was ill-timed, given the context of world events, 65 years removed from the event one could argue that Adler wasn't too far off in his assessment. In retrospect, having seen the damage inflicted by an intellectual vision devoid of any semblance of a moral foundation, one can argue that it rivals the damage inflicted by the totalitarianism of Hitler.

First, let's explore what Adler meant by “the positivism of professors.” Positivism states that the only things that are true are those that we can observe in the physical world. For example, one can demonstrate scientifically through observation that sex can lead to pregnancy.

The vast majority of us are testimony to this principle. On the other hand, one cannot demonstrate via scientific reasoning that sexual relations are virtuous only within the confines of marriage. This would be going well beyond the limits of science and positivism. In fact, the very ideas of virtue or beauty or honor are outside the realm of the observable physical world and therefore have little to no meaning to the positivist.

For those who follow this line of reasoning, theology and philosophy have little to say about anything important. The guiding principles sought by these disciplines are outside the realm of the physical observable world. As a result, in the positivist world, theology is reduced to a sociological study of mankind's fascination with building gods and rituals to prop up arbitrary moral standards.

No longer does theology or philosophy deal with the search for universal moral truths and principles, because these no longer exist. In their absence though, disciplines such as politics, science and sociology are divorced from any clear ethical guidelines or standards. While it was hoped by positivists that this would enhance the ability of these disciplines to move forward unfettered by religious superstitions, the lack of moral certitude has left these disciplines with a hollow rotting core.

Regrettably, that is how these disciplines are taught to today's university students, radical theories are presented to students who have not been equipped with a framework by which to judge their merit. Not surprisingly, the students emerging from this educational experience find themselves adrift upon a sea of moral indifference.

The effect of this gradual decay in higher education is hard to estimate, but one could make some simple connections in an attempt to quantify the cost. One of the results of the positivism of the professoriate is that the fundamental norm that human life is sacred has been undermined.

If the spiritual aspect of man is hogwash, then the principle that human life is sacred because we are made in the image of God is no longer valid because it cannot be proven scientifically. As a result, human life can easily become a commodity, something to be had or not based on the utility or perceived utility of it.

Such an attitude has led directly to the nearly worldwide spread and acceptance of abortion. If one were to look solely at the millions killed by abortion in the United States — approximately 50 million — since the legalization of the practice, the number would dwarf the combined number of soldiers killed in World War II.

Even if you factor in civilian deaths, including the number of Jews, clergy and other “undesirables” executed during the Holocaust, you still do not approach the number of children worldwide killed by abortion.

Unfortunately, the debasement of life is now spreading beyond the womb, as the Terri Schiavo case demonstrated, and soon we as a society could be adding millions of euthanized elderly and handicapped to the list of the casualties.

Of course the numbers of the dead do not give a complete picture of the carnage this intellectual “vision” has caused. Just as millions were displaced, left without family, friends, jobs or opportunities as a result of the World War II, a similar situation has occurred as a result of the rejection of any transcendental values within the university.

For example, widespread no-fault divorce, a direct result of the rejection of traditional sexual mores championed by a radical academia, has left children without parents and women without the necessary income to support a family. This process feeds upon itself because, having marginalized the influence of the family, the powers that be are better able to influence the minds of the young.

That is what is happening at universities today. Students who have not been taught by their family, their church or their schools what is true, good and beautiful, are sent off to college to learn that there is no real truth, goodness or beauty in the world.

This is in direct opposition to the way in which Catholics should see the world, and it is why it is so imperative that Catholic colleges teach in accordance with the faith. We must articulate what is good, beautiful and true, and equip students with the tools to discern this in their own lives.

Certainly, this implies offering authentic Catholic theology classes at Catholic universities, but one cannot forget that it involves every other discipline as well.

It does little good for a psychology major to get a couple of orthodox theology classes when they take a dozen psychology classes that teach them to be value-neutral and not to judge such activities as homosexuality, drug use and marital infidelity.

Likewise for a biology major who might get a dozen classes that teach man is the blind random product of material processes and lacks free will. No, it is not just theology that must be reformed; all disciplines at a Catholic college must advocate reason informed by faith.

Unfortunately, this idea is usually met with resistance. Opponents argue that it would reduce academic freedom and, with all the non-Catholic students present at these universities, one would not want to impose one set of moral values. Regarding the first point, they are correct. It certainly reduces the freedom of academics to advocate irresponsible ideas.

However, that is an activity that could easily be delegated to non-Catholic universities. Academics at Catholic universities should not be free to say that sexual promiscuity is permissible, especially when they don't have the integrity to take the responsibility for the consequences of such an idea.

The second response is not much better. It focuses on the fact that we are a pluralistic society made up of people with many different value systems. While this is certainly true, we have a majority in our society that aspires to the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly at a Catholic institution.

This value system is not something that we should apologize for. Rather, it is something upon which Catholic universities should build.

We should use our universities to bring our values to the world. If we don't, the world will continue to bring its values to us, and the effects, as Adler predicted, will not be pretty.

Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.