As Jean Chrétien was winding down his 10 years
as Canadian prime minister, his critics claimed he became preoccupied
with “legacy building” — he wanted to make sure
history would remember him well. But as the Gomery Commission lifts
the rock of the sponsorship program to reveal the slime beneath, the
image of Chrétien and his accomplishments may be forever sullied.
So much for legacy.
Two thousand years ago Cicero wrote, “History is the witness
that testifies to the passing of time”; he could also have written,
“The passing of time is required to testify to history.”
And yet, by nature, we want to know the future today; who
can wait for time’s verdict to arrive?
This attitude shows up in the way media covers sports nowadays. When
the New England Patriots won their third Super Bowl in four years
in February, reporters were immediately trying to assess how this
team ranks among the all-time greats. As well, it’s now the
norm for sportscasters to refer to veteran but not yet retired players
like Mark Messier or Roger Clemens as “future hall of famers.”
I can’t recall ever hearing even great stars of the past like
Jean Beliveau or Johnny Bench referred to that way in their playing
days.
Ironically, sports is also providing the evidence of the folly of
such impatience, as the ongoing steroid scandal irrevocably tars former
“future hall of famers” Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds.
I guess their future ain’t what it used to be.
So, as Concordia President Frederick Lowy steps down this summer after
his eventful 10-year term, will we learn from these lessons and refrain
from trying to judge his accomplishments prematurely? Not likely.
This issue of Concordia University Magazine takes a thorough
look at Dr. Lowy’s many noteworthy achievements since arriving
here in 1995 and the professional and personal mark he’s left
on the university (Read
the article). While it’s impossible to know what future
generations will think of the Lowy era, I believe, from the evidence,
that the passing of time will only elevate Frederick Lowy’s
standing.
Over the past few years, Concordia’s reputation — and
sometimes Dr. Lowy’s — took some hits due to a series
of controversies played out in the media. (Any internal political
issues at the university under Dr. Lowy — certainly no worse
and probably far better than at other large institutions — were
out of the public eye and will surely not affect his standing.) Most
of the unwanted notoriety was instigated by a loose coalition of politically
motivated students, enabled by the Concordia Student Union (CSU),
who sought only to advance their narrow agendas and had no interest
in conciliation or representing the student body. As a result, they
helped damage, in the short term, fellow students, alumni, faculty
and the administration.
And yet I’m certain that in 20 years or so trivialities which
seemed important at the time, like offensive student handbooks or
disrupted career fairs, will be long forgotten. More significant difficulties
like the cancelled Netanyahu speech will be viewed in much the same
way as we now remember the Sir George computer riots, as a symptom
of their times.
Instead, people will look back at Concordia at the turn of the millennium
and take note of the astonishing changes that happened on Dr. Lowy’s
watch: the sonic boom in building expansion, student enrolment, faculty
renewal and research, and alumni activity and fundraising; and long-range
academic planning, fiscal responsibility and the Loyola Campus regeneration.
These are the impressions that will remain as the Lowy legacy.
Notwithstanding my own warnings, Frederick Lowy is, I feel safe in
declaring, a future hall of famer.
