Christian colleges exist not to further but to stifle learning.

Have to agree with Mr. Fisher on this one. The reality is that academia, in spite of concerted attempts by the no-nothings who run Patrick Henry College (a name that now seems wildly ironic), is a mixed bag of fruits and nuts. The kind of intellectual uniformity of thought that PHC enforces is impossible in any large US institution. Academic departments are herds of cats; they don't even come close to pointing in the same direction.

I suggest that Patrick Henry College change its name (Karl Marx University? Rush Limbaugh Technical College?) to avoid further denigrating the name of a brave young man who we were all taught to admire.

Candide,

Neglecting the fact the you offer no proof for your assertion, keep in mind that many of today's "Ivy League" universities started out as Christian colleges. By the way, PHC is not typical of most Christian colleges.

Judge,

Admiring the irony in your (intentional?) misspelling of "know-nothing". Bravo.

PHC wasn't established with academics in mind, it was established with politics in mind. The sole aim of PHC is train a new generation of Christians to be politicians. And if that is their goal, it follows that the school can't sustain any real academic tradition.

"A society that chooses to place boundaries on inquiry is destined to decline and eventually collapse"

Is Intelligent Design restricted from being taught at public schools? If so, does that mean our society is "destined to decline and eventually collapse"?

Is Patrick Henry College accredited? Have any of its students been indicted for raping African-American strippers?

"Is Intelligent Design restricted from being taught at public schools?"

You can teach ID all you want in the philosophy class. But an unprovable hypothosis can't be science and can't be taught as science in science classes. In order to do teach ID as science, you would have to change the entire meaning of the word "science" and render it meaningless.

Lioness,

You've got that a little mixed up. Hypotheses, by their very nature cannot be "proved." They can only be falsified. If a hyopthesis cannot be falsified, then it cannot be taught as science.

As a deeply religious (though not Evangelical) Christian who has spent nearly half a century comfortably in and around academia, I agree with everything in this column.

This story is sad news for the kids at Patrick Henry, but it carries truly ominous implications for our nation. What does it say about our vaunted American freedoms and the future of our country that the majority wing of today's politically dominant Republican party, as crystallized in an institution existing explicitly to shape political and governmental leaders, not only feels no obligation or necessity to prepare its students to test, debate, and explore their beliefs in a context of pluralism--but deliberately and actively stifles such attempts?

I don't know about you, but the implications of that fact give me chills.

So certain faculty, science teachers, can't teach ID but others, philosophy, can't? Isn't that a restriction? I don't understand how you are not imposing restrictions on faculty.

In what class is it appropriate to teach that the holocaust didn't happen? http://www.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/Butz.asp

In order to most broaden perspectives shouldn't we make Jewish people study Arthur Butz's material?

I am guessing that the average Patrick Henry Student can pass a California High School exit exam, had SATs well over 1400, and can name all 9 Supreme Court justices, something the Taliban at Yale cannot do. But let us close them down for the diversit of opinion absent in the left-wing university attended by anti-American journalists. Ward Churchill is the loved professor of the MSM, and the media would love to decide who works in the government. Where is your outrage for the anti-semitics in academia?

JJH,

I've got to say that your leap from a small, irrelevant school in Purcellville, Va., to "the majority wing of the politically dominant Republican party" makes me wonder about where you studied. What kind of school would let you graduate without a basic understanding of logic?

I think PHC's official statement on academic freedom has a major flaw in it. In the statement is says:

"In other words, regardless of whether or not scholars sign statements of faith, they tend to form voluntary associations with like-minded colleagues. The obvious corollary to this reality is that some people are excluded from some groups. But, far from being onerous, this exclusion is usually mutually agreeable."

Mutually agreeable. I believe this is true though not absolute. And there are many with open minds who see some truth in those they choose to disagree with most of the time.

Debate, as we know so well here, leads to enlightment. If there is only one world view there is no debate and thus no possibility of enlightenment since it is the defense of an idea that makes it a strong idea, not limiting the expression of differing ideas. The real truth behind colleges and universities is that there is no absolute truth, just ideas we come to agree upon to varying degrees through debate and defense of the idea. PHC prevents that for the sake of a functional academic department. But a department with only one world view is by definition dysfunctional since there is no such thing as only one world viewpoint.

Just as some consider democracy dysfunctional and dictators functional since democracies disagree all the time within themselves while dictators get things done, PHC is choosing the dictatorial argument. That is not academic freedom or freedom of any sort, it is the exact opposite.

This story only confirms for me what I have already known on an instinctual level: That conservative Christians are among the most blatant hypocrites dwelling on this turbulent planet.

We have all seen, heard and read of the conservative distaste for Academia in general, insisting that it is little more than a nest of left wing subversives, anarchists and Godless socialists. What we have not seen, heard and read about is that the worst forms of repression area actually more prevalent in Christian academic societies as your article so graphically demonstrates here.

It is all so similar in the way the conservative right looks at the media. There has been a proliferation of conservative outlets of news and opinion in recent years in all media. And all one need do is frequent these media to ascertain that they are in every metric one can imagine, just as biased, just as partisan, and just as oppressive in their smackdown of any opposing viewpoints as they insist that the liberal media are.

There is an old shopworn, overused phrase from an old Jack Nicholson movie: "You don't want the truth! You can't handle the truth!" How very appropriate that old shopworn phrase is to the old shopworn charges from the right about bias in academi and in the media.

This is just the next step of culture wars. Basically as a Christian you have a certain set of beliefs. Depending on your interpertation of the bible it is natural to want to ensure that these beliefs are reflected in society.

The problem occurs when a group of people with power motivations purposefully manipulates individuals based on religion to fulfill their own thrist for power.

Finally, there is more to Christianity than gays and abortion. How about the enivronment social justice and equality. These themes are expressed by many "non-biblical" scholars and removing them from the educational program is a real disservice to the students.

"Christian colleges exist not to further but to stifle learning."

No, Christian colleges are neither intended to stifle learning, no is that what their faculties and administrations attempt to do. They are, however, institutions that are grounded on certain assumptions. They present themselves to students as providing an education based on those assumptions, and are very open about what those assumptions are. Far from misleading prospective students, they take pride in their approach and highlight it prominently.

It is entirely appropriate for an institution of learning to have a guiding principal: a christian worldview, an environmentalist ethos, a humanist worldview, or a materialist worldview. Students (and their parents) are much, much less likely to be misled about the kind of education they will recieve at one of these institutions than they are at many others, where there's no guiding philosophical approach or touchstone recognized by the faculty.

As several have noted, many institutions that are currently recognized as liberal and non-religious (if not effectively anti-religious) started out as Christian colleges. Academic organizations evolve and change over time - as do those of religious movements and groups. Christian colleges became more liberal and secular as mainline denominations became more liberal and secular. Similar changes in conservative denominations will have the same effect in the colleges and universities affiliated with them.

Having said that, I disagree with some of the decisions made by this particular college. I'm a graduate of a conservative Christian university, and believe that the statement of faith for faculty is a vital element of such a school. I wanted to be taught in a Christian environment (just as most Wiccans and Unitarian Universalists would want to choose an environment consistent with their world view). But it is vital to study history, philosophy, science and the humanities in a serious fashion (we did study Hobbes - and Darwin, Plato, Freud . . . )

Society must seriously and openly debate a wide variety of ideas (although I do believe that our society currently takes a sophomoric joy in toying with the most ludicrous and degraded ideas simply because we can). Undergraduate classrooms do not have to be the setting for that (take any cause that gives you personal hives - Nazism, for example). Should a professor be able to teach National Socialism in an undergraduate philosphy class? Some make take a purist view and say, heck, yeah - freedom of speach for tenured professors is the highest of all goods! I'm a dad who's sending a son off to a public college as a freshman this fall. Take it from me - if our universities go down that road, millions of Americans will no longer support those institutions politically, financially, or with our children.

This is just another story in a long line of stories that makes me sad.

I was educated at a Christian high school, and went on to a college that was founded as a Christian college but has since become one of those "horribly scary hotbeds of liberalism". Those eight years were some of the BEST of my life, as I was constantly exposed to different thinkers and different philosophers, challenged by things that questioned all of my beliefs, made me uncomfortable or just plain scared me.

And yet I feel that I am a stronger person for it. I am well-read, I understand WHY I believe what I believe and disagree with what I disagree with.

Studying the liberal arts does not mean that you just reread the Bible and a few Billy Graham books. It means you read anything and everything. No wonder we are a nation of people who make important political decisions based on slogans that fit on bumper stickers.

The substitution of a shared superstition for the research, debate, and discovery which make up human intellectual history only confirms me in my atheism. this is one (albeit not the only, but the one most germane to this conversation) direct result of the force-feeding of the conservative christian moral code to the population of a nation promised freedom from the divisive effects of enforced adherence to a social and political phiiosophy born thousands of years ago.

see y'all in hell!

It would be nice if open discourse was the norm for Patrick Henry College, and the current adminstration, but that only happens on TV shows. The current adminstration doesn't allow dissent, so why should their feeder school? I suppose PHC is where they learn how to leak CIA agents names if the CIA agents husband publishes a op ed that disagrees with the administration. It doesn't seem that the college or the administration is behaving in a Christian manner. Those radical Jesuits taught me that learning about dissenting ideas and other ways of thinking could only erode my faith if I didn't really believe. If I believed, other views would only strengthen my relationship with God. I also agree that the college should change its name, as should Liberty College. Intolerance College, Right Wing University, Using Religion to Our Own Ends College, are all names that should be considered.

Someone wrote:
"Far from misleading prospective students, they take pride in their approach and highlight it prominently."

But they use the excuse that academic departments of schools that allow professors of differing world views are dysfunctional. That is a statement they do not even try to support. It is an excuse for their imposition of a single world view. In other words, they lie to support their closed mindedness.

That same Someone continued:
"I'm a graduate of a conservative Christian university, and believe that the statement of faith for faculty is a vital element of such a school. I wanted to be taught in a Christian environment (just as most Wiccans and Unitarian Universalists would want to choose an environment consistent with their world view).

First you need to understand that not everyone considers themselves to be a part of a single world view. You should ask yourself why there are so many world views and determine the good and bad in each instead of insulating yourself within one, and the only one you have probably known. By insulating yourself in a Christian college you insulated yourself from a rich experience. If you do not trust yourself to maintain your christianity when experiencing other ideas, you need to question the basis of your faith. No one benefits when they isolate themselves from the rest of humanity.

If a professor believes that studying Hobbes will lead to a breakdown in morality, then he is not qualified to teach anything. Because he is an idiot and obviously doesn't understand the source material. The mentality this institution has decided to adopt, the responses that defend it, the people in this country who agree . . . it all just makes me want to cry. Why are people so scared of knowledge? What are they protecting? What are they trying to isolate themselves from? Are we entering the next Dark Ages for Western culture?

Responding to Karen,

I had to read this posting several times to make sense of it. Sadly, it seems to be an unsupported rant. However, even rants should be addressed logically, if it possible. So, let us start with the first assertion, that Yale is full of Taliban supporters. To the contrary. Prior to 9/11, many in academia were in the forefront in protesting the destruction of cultural artificats, the stifling of opinion, the sequestering of women, and the broad limitations that had been placed on education in Afghanistan. To call academia left wing and then to equate it with the Taliban is truly a contradition. The next two assertions claim that liberal academics and "anti" American journalists stifle opinions. Regarding the first, having been on both liberal and conservative college campuses for the most of the past ten years, I can truly say that on the "liberal" campuses I saw a greater variety of speakers, conservative and liberal, and a greater feeling of freedom to speak out. By feeling, I mean that liberals and conservatives felt safe in putting forth their own cases. More importantly, people on both sides expected these cases to be supported with some sort of facts. Concerning the second, anti-American journalists: Perhaps you might clarify how you define "American." If American means accepting government statements without investigating other sources, welcoming the single news source (FOX) administration we have, or guiding the evidence by your opinions (rather than the other way around, yes, liberal universities are full of Anti-Americans. But so is the nation. There is another article today dealing with trickle down economics and how economists on the right and the left have found that it does not work. Despite this, conservative policy makers continue to claim the opposite. Your claim for the lack of free inquiry in higher education in the United States is equally unfounded and unsupported.

Is it ironic or sad that our entire university system is based on one that was started by the Catholic Church, and ultimately led to Western civilization's development and growth, and these "christians" want to turn the system on its head? Everyone who defends this school's philosophy on education should read and reread above what the Jesuits taught Sue:

"Those radical Jesuits taught me that learning about dissenting ideas and other ways of thinking could only erode my faith if I didn't really believe. If I believed, other views would only strengthen my relationship with God."

I realize that Patrick Henry was a crazy Baptist at a time that the majority of Virginians still worshipped in the Church of England, but don't you think the guy who stood up and said, "Give me Liberty or give me Death?" is spinning in his grave right now? How embarrassing for him that his peers' namesake institutions -- George Mason, James Madison, Washington (& Lee), and two that were run/started by his peer Thomas Jefferson, William & Mary and UVa -- are all well-respected academic institutions truly interested in learning.

And poor Patrick gets stuck with the close-minded new school started by a political hack.

Patrick Henry is in the business of safely reinforcing previously held beliefs. Learning is the process of acquiring NEW and different knowledge, which can serve to reinforce one's beliefs, but not necessarily.

My teachers in elementary school taught me that 2+2=4, but I still counted it out on my fingers.

Despite being alleged hotbeds of liberalism, most non-religious universities do not seek to hire only like-minded persons, nor do we seek to indoctrinate our students (as if we have that kind of power over time and space... if we did, our students would study more and drink less).

It is illegal for us to ask people about their religion or their political views in the hiring process, and most people in my field (political science!) do not engage in research that would reveal their political orientation, even if they themselves choose not to disclose it (research is about questions of fact or policy, not opinion and personal belief). While we may be political in our personal lives, one should not confuse that with our work behavior.

Religious conservatives expect to get a fair shake at non-religious institutions, but they always seem to expect compliance with an ideological agenda when they are doing the hiring. Obviously, academic freedom is not a two-way street-- rather, it is a construction of "liberal academia."

If an institution does not respect the freedom of its faculty, it is unlikely to respect the intellectual freedom of its students, either. Ideological compliance for faculty is designed to promote indoctrination in students. This isn't education... it's brainwashing, or propogranda, or whatever other name you want to give it. And, it is disrespectful to students, who adults, and don't deserve to be censored.

Someone wrote:
"Should a professor be able to teach National Socialism in an undergraduate philosphy class?"

But I studied Nazism. We studied why it came about in Germany, why it thrived and became almost a religion, why its abuses were allowed by a knowing populace (even the catholic church) and why it died. We also studied how A Nazi party would do in American politics. How would Americans receive such a political party. We were unnerved to discover that a lot of what the Nazi's offered to Germans in the 1930s was something we would want today in America. We learned that Germans wanted better lives, wanted to feel better of themselves than the loosers of WW1. They wanted to prosper and the Nazis promised them what they wanted, and actually gave it to them. There were Americans watching the growth of Germany in the 30s and suggested America emulate the Nazi model. Only when the war started and the horrible abuses were later exposed to the world did people understand that making a better world is more complicated that the Germans in the 1930s thought.

Now, did you learn anything like that in your Christian college? I'd actually be more interested to know if you studied any abuses by religions, starting with the inquisition, the Inca blood rituals or the human sacrifices of the early Egyptians, and discussed how religious enforcement of belief lead to those abuses.

"But I studied Nazism. We studied why it came about in Germany, why it thrived and became almost a religion, why its abuses were allowed by a knowing populace (even the catholic church) and why it died."

That's not "teaching Nazism" that's teaching ABOUT Nazism. Big, big difference. I suspect that many of the people on this blog who're bashing Christian colleges would protest vehemently against a college that allowed an avowed neo-Nazi to teach his or her racial and political views in a university class.

Doesn't "academic freedom" include the freedom of Patrick Henry Colleged to teach what it wants to teach? Or can they only teach the same curriculum that it taught at Harvard and Yale?

"Now, did you learn anything like that in your Christian college? I'd actually be more interested to know if you studied any abuses by religions, starting with the inquisition, the Inca blood rituals or the human sacrifices of the early Egyptians, and discussed how religious enforcement of belief lead to those abuses."

Get off it - Christians are not, as a group, neanderthals (not even conservative Christians). I've read the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu, Confucious, the Book of Morman and the Upanishads. I've even read "Wicca and Witchcraft for Dummies" (which, by the way, is a real hoot). My philosophy professor, at a very conservative Christian university, always said that you had to read philosphy "sympathically" - to ask, as you read it, "why would he think that?"

We all have certain, perhaps provisional, assumptions about how the world works, the nature of reality,the nature of knowledge, and the nature of truth. We all - even if we're unaware of it - have a world view.

I firmly believe that we should each carefully decide what we believe, and choose our worldview in a very deliberate manner. But explicitly chosen or not, we all have one. We should think about what we believe, and carefully evaluate it - and be willing to re-evaluate it as appropriate. That doesn't prohibit us from having firmly held beliefs. We just need to know what we believe, and why we believe it.

It is not unreasonable for us to seek out teachers with whom we share core assumptions. In fact, I would argue that this is exactly what people do - even open minded secularists. That a Unitarian Universalist goes to a secular school does not prevent him or her from trying to learn about and understand conservative Christianity or Islam - but they would not typically do it by going to Bob Jones University or a madrassa. I would be willing to bet (does anyone have any data?) that far more conservative Christians attend secular schools than atheists, agnostics, or even liberal Christians attend overtly religious schools.

Actually, academic freedom does not really mean that. It means having an environment of free inquiry.

That being said, no one disputes that Patrick Henry can do what they want when it comes to teaching. However, what they do will reflect in the way that the degrees given are received AND the quality of instructors that PH will be able to hire. Most respected academics have more respect for their fields and themselves than to work in such an environment. It is certainly fair for those outside the college to judge, based on the closed environment of inquiry, that a degree from PH is worth very little.

The real issues here are that the highest placed conservative policymakers draw from such an ill-educated pool when hiring and that some people seem to make the mistake of thinking that PH is just a conservative equivilent to universities where free enquiry does play a large role.

Actually, Sully, those same radical Jesuits did teach me about previous abuses perpetrated by the Catholic Church, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the wealthy paying for dispensations, the sale of "relics" that msy or may not have been real, and that all these abuses led directly to Martin Luther nail his 95 thesis to the cathedral door. I learned in history and religion classes about the Eygptians, the Incas, the Mayans, the early Isrealites, and others. I learned that we needed to study history, and why things happened, or we would be doomed to repeat it. I also learned that history doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are always religious, economic and societial reasons for why people do the things they do. Of course, I do need to point out that my college(St. Peter's in Jersey City; go Peacocks) accepted students of all creeds, had professors of all viewpoints and religions, and didn't censor what was taught in classes.

Medieval universities were church founded and American colleges were as well. But in both cases these institutions became meaningful only then they stopped teaching theological nonsense (when Harvard, for example, became Unitarian) and began to look for the truth. Our current crop of Christian colleges are in a state of arrested development.

How shallow and weak PHC must think is the faith of their students if they cannot be exposed at all to contrasting points of view. That is the greatest lesson here -- the college does not trust its students (and the parents do not trust their children) to come to independent moral and religious positions.

Someone who decided not to even use a fake name wrote this at 12:02 --

"I would be willing to bet (does anyone have any data?) that far more conservative Christians attend secular schools than atheists, agnostics, or even liberal Christians attend overtly religious schools."

I would agree with you. But perhaps it's because conservative christians are allowed to practice and express their conservative christianity at "secular" schools and atheists, agnostics, and liberal christians would not be allowed to study anything and everything, nor express their views, at Patrick Henry.

And also, say, Georgetown actually has a much smaller percentage of Catholic students than you might expect. Perhaps because it's an actual university, not a propaganda mill.

Karen does a good job highlighting what's wrong with the radical wing of the conservative movement. She "guesses" a number of things that are totally, factually wrong. To add on to a previous poster's debunking of her post, the median SAT score for PHC students in 2005 was 1340 (which, maybe I just scored too low on the math section to truly understand this, but that seems a bit below 1400, not "well over," as Karen contends). As for naming all the Court justices, I can do that, and I went to a piddly little state college. Big whoop. That sort of thing has nothing to do with one's ability to think rationally and understand the arguments of those who oppose you.

our culture is turning into a pathetic shadow of what we were founded on. Fear, ignorance, and bigotry are not what the Republican party was founded on and co-opting the christian name but none of the true ideals is frightning. I wish we had the mid-terms in a few days before they can recover the ground the party rightfully lost. It'll only take a few months for Americans to forgot how many steps backwards we've taken and all of a sudden the looming threat of gay marriage will erase all the ills that we currently face.

This university is a looming example of all that is wrong with our nation at this point.

Someone wrote:
"I firmly believe that we should each carefully decide what we believe, and choose our worldview in a very deliberate manner. But explicitly chosen or not, we all have one.

PHC, according to its official statement on academic freedom, does not allow a "deliberate manner" when it comes to providing the education students require to make informed decisions about what they do or do not believe. Its simple really, truth cannot be determined where information is not allowed to flow freely.

One more disturbing element of PH, and those who choose to sequester themselves with those of like minds. As has been clear during the past six years, the nation has increasingly polarized. How can we ever expect to even remotely understand "the other side" if one group removes themselves from an open environment to one that insulates them from the way other people think or how other people view the world? It only sets the stage for further problems.

While non-Christians can try to go to Patrick Henry, they would not be accepted. PH applicants must sign a statement that says (abbrev.) "I certify that I fully and enthusiasticall subscribe to the above statement of faith, that I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior, for forgiveness of my sins." It is clearly not possible for a non-Christian to attend. Furthermore, the statement that they must sign includes a declaration of complete belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible and other such particulars - ensuring that only certain Christians could even apply. I have never seen an application for a college in the United States that requires an applicant denounce their faith, or to proclaim themselves athiest/agnostic/other as a requirement of admission.

If "choosing to sequester yourself with those of like minds" is a bad thing, then why don't all of the outraged and self-righteous posters to this blog stop reading the Washington Post and subscribe, instead, to the Wall Street Journal?

While I don't know if I personally would have attended a Christian college, there are plenty of great ones out there that provide a generally well balanced education. I wouldn't put Patrick Henry in that group. The more I read in the local Loudoun papers, the more it sounds like a cult. Here's an excerpt from the Leesburg Today (see the full article http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=5&newsid=12026 ):

Some students lament the banishment of "PDAs"--at Patrick Henry this is short for physical displays of affection. When inside, any touching, whether that is a consoling hug or something less appropriate, is forbidden. Once outdoors, that same hug would be permissible. Students have at times been required to report where they attend church on Sunday, to some a private matter, or else be subject to punishment. Last year, a student assistant librarian was forced to quit because he passed out fliers inviting students to attend a church that believes one reaches salvation through baptism; the college enforces a rule that one is saved through faith alone. Strict curfews are set. Alcohol is forbidden, no matter a student's age.

I'm waiting for them to start building the gard towers and the perimeter fence.

Who said that some of us do not read both?

Someone wrote:
"That's not "teaching Nazism" that's teaching ABOUT Nazism. Big, big difference. I suspect that many of the people on this blog who're bashing Christian colleges would protest vehemently against a college that allowed an avowed neo-Nazi to teach his or her racial and political views in a university class."

True, but that is not happening so why bring up this red herring? Are you saying regular colleges keep out Nazi professors so its ok for PHC to restrict professors to its own ideology? I think that's a stretch.

At my high school in 1971 we had an assembly for seniors to hear from the local Nazi Party. These idiot showed up in their Nazi uniforms and a few kept their hands in their coat breast pockets even though all had been searched before coming into the school. You could tell they enjoyed the power they projected and how it made them feel. They gave a half-hour speech and then we began asking questions. The result was total disagreement with their positions. Many parents were quite angry that the school did this but I think the result made those parents proud. They did raise their children correctly because they rejected the Nazi's arguments in a free open debate. Hopefully you raised your soon-to-be freshman correctly since though Nazi professors may not be at their school, they are out there, teaching and recruiting through friendships and other social contacts.

Curious wrote:
"If "choosing to sequester yourself with those of like minds" is a bad thing, then why don't all of the outraged and self-righteous posters to this blog stop reading the Washington Post and subscribe, instead, to the Wall Street Journal?"

I know a lot of people who read both. I read many papers myself but the WSJ is too expensive :^) I do watch Fox News though, mainly for the comedy.

--
How shallow and weak PHC must think is the faith of their students if they cannot be exposed at all to contrasting points of view. That is the greatest lesson here -- the college does not trust its students (and the parents do not trust their children) to come to independent moral and religious positions.
--

Bravo to Stew for putting this so succinctly. In the age of parents who sue their schools over books in the libraries, for the fact that they play dodgeball, and live in sanitized versions of the world that they grew up in, PHC fits right in.
I prefer to think of PHC not as a college, university, or any other term implying an educational mission, but rather as a radical madrassa, such as the ones we read about in Pakistan. Their goals, and their methods, are eerily similar.

I find it odd that a "conservative" college -- and the posters who have supported PHC -- considers this a true academic model. I was always under the impression that the reason that conservatives criticized "liberal" colleges and universities is because liberal academics were stifling true debate between their own belief system and that of conservative students. I have always felt that, to the degree that happens, that is bad.

And here comes along a "conservative" college that wants to stifle true debate between its own belief system and that of liberals. Apparently, what was actually bothering conservatives in the 90s wasn't so much the stifled debate, but the fact that anything other than conservative beliefs were mentioned at all.

No wonder I find it harder and harder to go out in public and call myself a "conservative" and not be ashamed of those who have co-opted the label.

If teaching ABOUT Nazism is okay, why not teaching ABOUT Hobbes, Locke, and the other great philosophers, Christian or not? Are the professors asking to advocate those positions, or simply to talk about them?
I'm a Jewish student at the law school at a Jesuit university on the East Coast. We have boards all over campus that advertise the various services going on, Jesuit priests walking around, paintings of priests hanging in the hallways. But our law school faculty is all over the range, from liberal socialists to law and economics conservatives. And in my classes, we routinely discuss conservative viewpoints; both professors and students express varying degrees of skepticism or agreement, and we usually get a good idea of arguments for and against. Obviously the students at this college are less free to learn, and consequently can expect to be less learned, than students at other, more reputable institutions. They shouldn't be running the country.

Candide gives us a classic example of why many Christians characterize a certain thread among secular liberals as intolerant and anti-Christian: "Medieval universities were church founded and American colleges were as well. But in both cases these institutions became meaningful only then they stopped teaching theological nonsense (when Harvard, for example, became Unitarian) and began to look for the truth. Our current crop of Christian colleges are in a state of arrested development."

I don't know what was in Candide's mind as he wrote this, but the sentiments that he expresses are not all that uncommon. It's very difficult to characterize them as anything BUT intolerant.

So, Candide - what do you think? What does "tolerance" mean to you, when people who believe in divine revelation are involved. Are you willing to give professed Christians equal standing in academic discourse? Even conservative ones? If you've decided that their claims are simply incorrect - are you still willing for them to debate and defend them? Understand - they're most likely just as convinced that your philisophical world-view is incorrect.

Somebody asked if PHC is accredited. The college's website says that it receives accreditation from something called the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TACCS). I know absolutely nothing about them; if somebody reading does have information, please post.

http://www.phc.edu/admissions/AuthorizationAccreditation.asp

In addition, there is a link to a statement from the president of the institution saying that the school is NOT pursuing accreditation from the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE) because of a "difficult relationship", based in large part on the school's viewpoint on creationism. The statement also says that PHC is actively pursuing accreditation from the big kahuna, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

http://www.phc.edu/admissions/AALE.asp

How any of the above fits in with this decision is beyond me (although, just based on what little I know, I can't see how SACS would accredit this school pretty much ever).

"I would agree with you. But perhaps it's because conservative christians are allowed to practice and express their conservative christianity at "secular" schools and atheists, agnostics, and liberal christians would not be allowed to study anything and everything, nor express their views, at Patrick Henry."

Are you kidding me? Students can read anything they want at a Christian university, observe any religion they want (or none at all) at a Christian university, and there's no way that any university can force a young adult to believe anything in particular. But every school ultimately decides who is qualified to teach, and what should be part of the curriculum (business schools do NOT teach the culinary arts; state schools do NOT teach religion - and yes, "sociology of religion" is different from "religion").

"Are you kidding me? Students can read anything they want at a Christian university, observe any religion they want (or none at all) at a Christian university, and there's no way that any university can force a young adult to believe anything in particular."

The post you are disagreeing with specifically mentioned Patrick Henry; it did not make a blanket statement about all Christian universities. Your misdirection fails at the internet.

Responses to a couple of points:

(1) Intelligent Design (ID) is not science as it offers no disporavble hypothesis. As its proponents admit, the sole purpose of ID is to discredit a fundamental tenent of scince that offends certain pseudo-christians. ID belongs in a scince class as much as does astrology.

(2) As for holocaust-denial, why not teach it? Our own gov't denies the Armenian Holocaust, as does the Israeli gov't. We teach that there were few Palestinians in Palestine when the Zionists arrived, and those few who were there fled at the behest of the governments of the surrounding Arab states. David Irving should feel quite at ease with these positions. Israeli historians (such as Benny Morris) have debunked these myths, but here in the US we still preach them as gospel. The policies of PHC fit well within these practices.

(3) The point about supply-side economics is well taken. David Stockeman, Reagan's head of OMB, admitted it was nothing but an excuse to cut taxes for the wealthy. Reagan's tax hike in the 1983 and 1984 Tax Acts to counter the deficit creation of his 1981 tax cuts shows that even Reagan knew this.

(4) Ward Churchill may well be another Alan Dershowitz, but he's in good company with others in academia. Where's the right's complaints about Dershowitz? Why isn't he on Horowitz's list of academics to be persecuted?

(5) PHC is indeed representative of the core of the Republican Party. Why else do they place an inordinate number of students in White House and other governmental positions as interns and trainees? Those who hire them certainly view them as representative of the core of the GOP. If not, then why do they keep getting those plum positions?

I am not kidding you, 01:16 PM, I am completely serious. If this article, and the school's own website, is to be believed, teachers and students have to profess a certain belief system in order to apply, attend or teach there, and students are not taught specific texts simply because those texts do not agree with PHC's version of "christianity." Therefore, they are NOT allowed as much freedom as conservatives at "secular" colleges. Conservatives may face peers or professors hostile to their belief system, but they are not specifically prohibited from expressing themselves.

P.S. Obviously, I am not lumping all Christian colleges together here, only those, such as PHC, that exclude anything that could even possibly conflict with their limited interpretation of Christianity. I have great respect, in particular, for the intellectual curiosity of the Jesuits, who do a wonderful job of allowing their students to explore. I only wish I had such a rigorous college experience.

"PHC, according to its official statement on academic freedom, does not allow a "deliberate manner" when it comes to providing the education students require to make informed decisions about what they do or do not believe. Its simple really, truth cannot be determined where information is not allowed to flow freely."

You misunderstand my point. Christian universities make sense for students who have a) decided on a Christian worldview, and wish to continue their education in a Christian environment, or b) are seriously considering Christianity, and want to further explore that worldview. Generally, this will be practicing Christians or individuals from a Christian family background who have not yet decided what they believe.

A liberal arts education is incredibly valuable - but it would be pure academic arrogance to assume that it is the undergraduate curricula of today's universities that provide the basis on which young adults form their world views. If it were, it would be sadly narrow - the faiths and philosphies of 90% of the world's population may be discussed as curious objects of study, but are not taught as serious systems of thought that students might want to consider as ways of understanding the world. Bottom line, that's what Christian (and Islamic, and Jewish, etc.) institutions are for - places where a religious world view can be seriously studied as a system of thought that is useful and relevant for today's world.

I would like to respond, regarding the ideas addressed to Candide...

There are many (I daresay probably a majority) faculty in universities who are professed Christians. However, most do not bring their faith into the classroom when they are teaching. Why? Because that is not their job. At the same time, those of us of other persuasions also keep our faith out of the classroom.

Now, as far as discourse on a campus in general is concerned, I can certainly say that as one who is agnostic, I listen to those of faith with equal respect right up to the point that the faith is used to justify bigotry or discrimination. Similarly, in certain discussions, in fields such as science, I do not give credence to theories such as Intelligent Design. Is this for its religious origins? No. It is for its lack of proof and its failure to gain credence within the scientific community. Do these standards apply to those without faith? Yes. I have been known to defend the Mormon faith (LDS) to non-Mormons, Catholics to Protestants, and Christians to Athiests. Why? Because for individuals these beliefs are tooimportant to people and to treat them with blanket disrespect is to treat the individual with disrespect. Sadly though, the favor is not always returned.

The important point is that all people start out on the same playing field in academic discourse...regardless of their faith. It is provable, reliable support for their arguments that is important.

George,

You overlooked the obvious. The reason the PHC students get "the plum jobs" (interns?) is because they are so much better educated than all the cookie-cutter ivy leaguers. Have you ever even talked to a PHC-er?

"True, but that is not happening so why bring up this red herring? Are you saying regular colleges keep out Nazi professors so its ok for PHC to restrict professors to its own ideology? I think that's a stretch."

This is not a red herring. The point is that academic freedom - understood as the ability of any tenured professor to teach anything they want, no matter how obnoxious to the ideals of the institution, the students, the parents or the community - is not an absolute good. Nazism is a good example, because (presumably) everyone in this discussion would agree that there would be, at a minimum, a "downside" to allowing a professor to teach Nazism as a valid and relevant political philosophy.

To repeat myself, while our society must be willing to freely and openly discuss and debate a wide variety of views - many of which may in fact be profoundly obnoxious - because that's the only way we can be sure of correcting our unconcious errors, undergraduate classrooms do not have to be the setting for that.

It is legitimate for an institution to say that it teaches from a particular philosophical foundation. Remember, not all institutions will choose the same foundation. It's legitimate for a student to choose to study at an institution because of it's approach.

Or do you really want to live in a world that's so homogenized that there's no difference between a Jesuit school, a state research university, a yeshiva, an ivy league university, and a baptist college?

To 1:30 PM:

I think the direction this debate is taking is to show that "PHC-ers" cannot, by definition, be better educated than their peers at other, truly academic institutions, because PHC does not expose its students to anything other than what its founder and his conservative christian friends want. If you read only the Bible, but not Hobbes (I'm still struck by how a prof thinks teaching Hobbes will lead to a _breakdown_ of morality instead of instructing on its uses), you can't be better educated than someone who has read the Bible AND Hobbes. You CANNOT be better educated by learning less; that defies the definition of "better educated."

I will leave the obvious partisan jabs about why they do get hired to others.

"If teaching ABOUT Nazism is okay, why not teaching ABOUT Hobbes, Locke, and the other great philosophers, Christian or not? "

Of course it's o.k. - I would encourage it. I'm a bit dismayed that this particular school doesn't do this. I, too, went to a very conservative Christian university (protestant, rather than jesuit), and we studied about all of that. It has given me a better understanding of people and of the world. But despite the fact that this is, apparantly, an incredibly foolish example of the breed, I'm still convinced that there's a role for universities that are build on a Christian philosophy.

"Therefore, they are NOT allowed as much freedom as conservatives at "secular" colleges. Conservatives may face peers or professors hostile to their belief system, but they are not specifically prohibited from expressing themselves."

Let's make an important distinction here. An institution may - and should - deliberately choose who teaches. That's why many Christian schools have a profession of faith for instructors. Requiring students to accept a statement of faith is a different matter.

But, 1:35 PM, the reason there is a difference between a Jesuit school, a state research university, a yeshiva, an ivy league university, and a baptist college is because they all offer different strengths at different prices. But to the degree that they all offer an education, they all offer an open education. MIT is different from Berkeley, which is different from Texas, which is different from Davidson. But they all allow a student to explore, without restrictions. MIT obviously offers better engineering opportunities than, say, Oberlin, but it does not define itself by what it PROHIBITS its students to learn. PHC clearly does that -- it prohibits its students from learning and believing certain things that do not conform with what its founder believes.

Almost every legitimate university from the beginning of time has dedicated itself to acquiring knowledge. PHC has dedicated itself to reinforcing a strict subset of beliefs and prohibiting those that conflict with those beliefs.

"There are many (I daresay probably a majority) faculty in universities who are professed Christians. However, most do not bring their faith into the classroom when they are teaching. Why? Because that is not their job. At the same time, those of us of other persuasions also keep our faith out of the classroom. "

And that's why Christian universities exist - to provide a classroom into which faith can enter. This is important to many for whom Christianity provides a relevant and meaningful foundation for understanding the world.

James,
"price point" does not define the difference between a Jesuit education, a yeshiva education, and a secular education at a state school - nor should it. You should go to a Jesuit school if you think you can benefit from the understanding of the world that the Jesuit scholars can share with you. Similarly with a yeshiva, or a Baptist university. But you'll be badly disappointed if you expect Jesuit scholars, Jewish scholars, Baptist scholars and secular professors to all view the world the same way, or to teach the same things.

James,
I would also argue that while Jesuit scholars, Jewish scholars, Baptist scholars and secular professors view the world differently, it would be a bold and brave man indeed to say that one group is better "educated" than the others.

"And that's why Christian universities exist - to provide a classroom into which faith can enter. This is important to many for whom Christianity provides a relevant and meaningful foundation for understanding the world."

For a person of faith, that faith enters the classroom regardless of whether the instructor does or does not believe as they do. The vital difference between schools such as PHC and ones of open inquiry is that the classroom is not meant to reflect one's preconceived notions, but to expand, diversify, and even act as a sounding board for those beliefs.

The main question, it seems, is what is the purpose of college? Is it to educate you to analytically face the world? Is it to get you the connections you need for your career? Is it to teach you of and reinforce your faith? Sometimes you can find all three of these together, but with PHC's policies, the first will always be missing. You can't analyze if the answers is prescripted.

Actually, secret person who keeps posting (this, at 1:49 PM), price point is one of many differences between the type of education you get. VCU is cheaper than the University of Richmond. That is a difference. It is not the only difference, but it is one, and one that unfortunately dictates the college choice of too many Americans.

And I think you miss the larger point (which has been made repeatedly). I can go to Wheeling Jesuit, and get a Jesuit education, but no longer will I be taught exclusively by Jesuits. And while the school might have an overarching mission it attempts to impart to the students, it does not force them to believe any one thing or prohibit them from believing any one thing.

I am trying to distinguish for you PHC from other schools in this country. I can go to a Jesuit school and be taught by Jewish professors, Baptist professors or secular professors, as well as by Jesuits. I cannot go to PHC and be exposed to a Muslim or Hindu professor, because he or she would (obviously) not accept that Christ is his/her personal savior or that he or she is saved by grace alone. I will not be "disappointed" (as you say) because I have an advanced degree, and have gone to a private college and a public university, and (shockingly) associate exclusively with people who do not hold my exact set of beliefs, and so I know what I'm talking about. Education is important; what PHC is involved in is not education.

Do you not understand this disinction at all?

I never said one group was better educated. Obviously, you didn't learn to read very well in college, either.

I have distinguished what I think most would agree are very different schools -- MIT (heavily science oriented), Berkeley (an Ivy League caliber university in California, often derided as exceedingly liberal), Texas (large state university), Davidson (small, private liberal arts college in NC, known as somewhat conservative, at least moreso than Oberlin), Oberlin (small, private liberal arts college in OH, known to be very liberal), Wheeling Jesuit (Jesuit college in WV), VCU (public school in Richmond, Virginia), UofR (private college in Richmond, Virginia, started by Baptists).

Any graduate from any of those schools should hold their head up high having graduated from great schools and gotten a wonderful education. You probably could hvae taken classes from a Jewish professor or secular professor or Baptist professor or Muslim professor at most of these schools, and been better for it. But what joins all of those seemingly diverse schools is that they all devote themselves to acquiring and understanding knowledge.

PHC does not.

How do the PHCers get good jobs? Duh. This is an administration which hires interns competitively, based on merit. It was the previous administration which hired based on sex -- first, last, and always.

"I am trying to distinguish for you PHC from other schools in this country."

That's fair - PHC appears to be quite unusual.

"I can go to Wheeling Jesuit, and get a Jesuit education, but no longer will I be taught exclusively by Jesuits."

This is also true - many Catholic schools now have non-Catholic faculty. They still try to fulfill a unique Catholic mission.

More generally, not all church-affiliated universities have made that decision. Many still limit faculty to professing Christians. That is their right, and many people see great value in an education provided by professors who are Christians. This can be done in a way that does not include some of the narrow-minded decisions made by PHC. This is very different from prohibiting students from thinking or asking questions, and can provide an excellent education and foundation for life.

"I will not be "disappointed" (as you say) because I have an advanced degree, and have gone to a private college and a public university, and (shockingly) associate exclusively with people who do not hold my exact set of beliefs, and so I know what I'm talking about."

Good for you - it sounds as if you received a fine education. I chose to attend a conservative Christian university, and was very pleased with the education I recieved there. I suspect you would have been disappointed by it. That's irrelevant to the point I was making, though.

Had you wished to an education provided with a Christian perspective, and had attended a yeshiva, you'd have been disappointed. Conversely, had you wanted a distinctively Jewish environment and gone to a Jesuit university, you would have been disappointed. Both could have provided you with an excellent education, but they are in fact different. There is value in both, however.

"Do you not understand this disinction at all?"

Yes, of course. You do not believe that PHC provides an adequately broad understanding of the world and other people. I will happily stipulate that. I'm drawing another distinction. Leaving the quality and depth of PHC's academics aside, many students and parents see value in - and seek out - colleges and universities that provide an education from a uniquely Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim) perspective. This legitimate and valuable. The fact that an institution of learning has such a perspective (and is serious about bringing that perspective to the classroom) does not mean that it is not providing an education.

"Do you not understand this disinction at all?"

"I never said one group was better educated. Obviously, you didn't learn to read very well in college, either."

James, James, James . . . do we really have to go ad hominem?

There's a point here that I'm trying to make. These schools do not teach the same things in the same way - nor is it simply a matter of the old Sears "good, better, best" quality continuum. Religion and world view make a difference. A yeshiva will not, and cannot, have the same roster of professors as a Baptist university, or a Jesuit school, or a state school. Some people simply will not be allowed to teach at a yeshiva - what they would teach, and the way they would teach it, would be inconsistent with the yeshiva's mission. That degree of "discrimination" in hiring and promotion of faculty is not a failure of the institution - is is part of the institution's mission. Such a school may not provide the education you would want for yourself our your kids, but it does not as a result fail to be a real education.

It will be interesting to see whether PHC can sustain itself as an institution of higher learning, a term I use advisedly, in the long run or whether it will turn out to be more like the utopian communities of the 19th century that fell apart as the founders died because they could not attract new adherents.***

I'm betting on the latter. If PHC grows, it will be more difficulty to enforce orthodoxy. If the Republican party loses the White House, it will be more difficult to place students in internships and jobs that make the academic and socially stultifying atmosphere at the college tolerable to young people. So, there are at least two paths that predict its demise.

Another possibility is that the female students now being educated there will not be happy, in the long term, as housewives after experiencing the excitement of politics at a high level as students and young workers. And the school does, as I understand, teach that the role of married women is to be housewives and mothers.

The role is perfectly honorable--indeed, demanding--but its requirements and rewards differ from those in the public sphere, and many women are likely to find that it does not offer the combination of challenge and satisfaction available in paid jobs.

And that's just about how it feels; there's also the economic difficulty of being a one-income family (public service, does not, after all, pay as well as many alternatives) and the reality of divorce, even in conservative Christian families.

So I'm counting on the women to break down the orthodoxy that PHC is attempting to impose by controlling the actions of its teachers.

***I am not an expert on American utopian communities. If what I've said here is wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected.

Joe's description of PH as a "radical madrassa" fits well. The purpose of both is to engender religious furor and hatred -- or at least disrepect -- of the ideas of others.

This is where you and I agree:

"Many still limit faculty to professing Christians. That is their right, and many people see great value in an education provided by professors who are Christians. This can be done in a way that does not include some of the narrow-minded decisions made by PHC."

I think there is great value in being educated by Christian professors. I am worried that PHC is part of a larger trend in our society (and possibly world), however, of isolating yourself amongst your fellow believers so that you do not have to face the uncomfortable truth that not everybody agrees with you, or that there are legitimate shortcomings and valid criticisms of your belief system.

And actually, now that I say that, I'll bring up the "conservative" (I put it in quotes, bc I can no longer make a principled distinction, as you will see, between those who conservatives criticized 10 or 20 years ago, and those who label themselves as conservatives today) critique of liberal academia from 10 or so years ago. Conservatives used to decry (and mock, yes I'm talking to you Rush Limbaugh) the ascension of "identity politics." Liberal professors had run amok with labeling and dividing everyone into subgroups -- men/women, white/African-American/Asian-/Latino, etc., etc. And yet that is exactly what PHC (and modern conservative christians who isolate themselves from those who disagree with them, and conservatives who only watch foxnews and avoid any criticism of their policies, etc, etc) is now doing: providing an identity-politics college just for themselves.

Which is stupid and counter-educational.

I am an evangelical christian and would never want my children attending a college like PHC. I want them exposed to the world, to ideas and philosophies that may contradict what we believe because that is how faith is strengthened! That is the whole point of christian apologetics. It is my greatest desire that my children will also grow up to be copmmited christians but I know that ultimately, that decision is theirs to make, just as I made my decision based on researching the evidence, praying,studying other religions, etc. I will encourage my children to do the same. Faith is not something that we can will to our children or shove down their throat. I will encourage my children to read C.S. Lewis and J I Packer and other great christian thinkers but so will I encourage them to read the greek philosophers and Descartes, Nietszche, etc. Do we think that our religion and faith are so weak and indefensible that we think they will crumble when challenged?
For the record, I am completely opposed to the melding of religion and politics because as has been shown time and time again, nothing good can come out of it. It is amazing to me that peope who should know better keep forgetting Jesus'famous words:"my kingdom is not of this world".

James, I'd add that it's important for a Christian school to seek out excellent Christian scholars. That doesn't necessarily mean ones who are not conservative, but rather ones who are thoughful and serious. My favorite professor in school had a theology that was probably closer to Aquinas than anyone else, but he thought deeply about everything, and wanted his students to truly understand the philosophers we studied (even though he really didn't agree with any of them who were born after, oh, I don't know, perhaps 1600?).

"If "choosing to sequester yourself with those of like minds" is a bad thing, then why don't all of the outraged and self-righteous posters to this blog stop reading the Washington Post and subscribe, instead, to the Wall Street Journal?"

This is the Washington Post? *looks up at the address* Gosh, I didn't know that! Thanks for pointing it out!

Welcome to the Internet, where having good information is more important than who provides it.

What is curious to me is the amount of venom that is directed toward this college--it is a private school and certainly no-one is forced to attend there, or even apply there. If it is unable to turn out functioning professionals then people will stop hiring it's graduates. Any flaw in it's philosophy will be taken care of by the market, and the wailing and weeping that is going on is mere theatrics.

The venom that is evident in many of the posts is bigotry; dressed up in "eloquence" and "forward thinking" and "progress" but still bigotry. I would invite several posters to review their comments and substitute another group in whereever "christian" appears and evaluate the tone of this discussion.

Right, anonymous poster who refuses to type in a damn name to make responding to your points easier (2:32 PM), those schools do not teach the same things in the same way, nor are they on a strict quality continuum. I said neither of those things, so you're not so much offering a "counterpoint" as just adding on to my argument that there is a distinction to be made among colleges.

At the same time, there is not the distinction that you want to make. There are certain qualifications that one must meet to teach at a university, which is generally an advanced degree in the subject one is hired to teach. Beyond that, most colleges will hire the most qualified applicant, not the one who matches up with the identity of the school. For instance, every state university does not hire only atheists, every Baptist college does not hire only Baptists, and every Episcopalian college does not bring over British professors. But you seem to want to pretend they do. You want a Baptist school to have Baptist professors, Jesuits to have Jesuits, etc. But all of the colleges I used as examples do not restrict their hiring in that way. So that I can go to any one of those schools, and be taught by a Baptist, Jesuit and atheist all in the same day. But that cannot happen at PHC, because I will only be taught by an evangelical Christian for every single course for every single day I am there. That is what distinguishes a normal college (even one with an overarching mission, like a Jesuit school) from PHC: open educational institutions not taught from a single, predetermined point of view.

And I take issue with your surreptitiously sneaking yeshivas into the list, since that's essentially like comparing a Catholic seminary to Arizona State and then arguing that they each provide a different experience. We are talking about PHC as an alternative to Arizona State, or whatever undergraduate institution you want to throw in there. Yeshivas are more like seminaries. If you want to argue about how a Jewish seminary compares to a Christian seminary, I guess we can do that, but it's not this debate.

So many experts on Patrick Henry College! Perhaps what some of you are describing is what this college will become, but it is not what this college has been. The students have been receiving a top-notch education. They have been exposed to all the well-known thinkers of the past. They have been challenged to find "truth" wherever it may be. They have experienced academic rigor as undergraduates that is often not experienced even by graduate students.

Please do not lump all evangelical Christians into one big heap of dummies. Keep in mind, it is *because* of the faculty's commitment to inquiry and truth that this debate has arisen. There are many students as well as faculty that are leaving because of this. Give them some credit. As for those that are staying, hopefully, they will learn from mistakes made, and the college will be stronger for it in the future. The college is in flux right now, and Dr. Farris has surely seen the serious implications of his heavy-handedness. I'm sure all young colleges go through growing pains. It remains to be seen where Patrick Henry College will be established on America's academic landscape.

Chris,

I feel completely comfortable with the tone of every single one of my posts. In light of the fact that I am not attacking the school for being "christian" but for being close-minded, I would feel comfortable attacking a similar school that was racially segregated (I assume that is where you wanted us to go with your cutesy "zinger").

I also cannot argue with you that this is a private college where no one is forced to attend, but that does not keep me from lamenting the increased celebration of close-mindedness that our society has embraced over the last several years, and the general direction of our country's education system. What does it say about our youth that they want to avoid reading things that make them "uncomfortable" or force them to defend why they believe what they believe? Or that there are adults willing to provide that experience to the next generation?

Chris wrote:
"The venom that is evident in many of the posts is bigotry; dressed up in "eloquence" and "forward thinking" and "progress" but still bigotry. I would invite several posters to review their comments and substitute another group in whereever "christian" appears and evaluate the tone of this discussion."

Bigotry against what ... christians? Many on this blog identified themselves as christians. If anything this blog's venom is aimed at "christian conservatives", those who feel they are under attack by "liberals" and must defend themselves by circling the wagons, which is the analogy I would use for PHC. But bigotry, I don't really see it here. If anything it looks like bigotry is what PHC is practicing, if discriminating based on religious principles for teaching positions where christian religious principles is not a requirement. Why would a muslim, athiest or jewish professor be a better or worse teacher of American literature than a christian professor? And no one is saying the place should stop teaching or somehow close down. I think all bloggers here understand it is a private school that can do pretty much what it wants. So where is the bigotry in this blog? The debate seems to be right where it should be: when a school discriminates in its choice of professors based on religion does that affect the quality of the education?

"Perhaps what some of you are describing is what this college will become, but it is not what this college has been. The students have been receiving a top-notch education. They have been exposed to all the well-known thinkers of the past. They have been challenged to find "truth" wherever it may be. They have experienced academic rigor as undergraduates that is often not experienced even by graduate students."

What I am concerned about is not only what it has been, but what its mission and methods are. These show its ideals. I would point anyone who has been reading to the mission statement (very long) of PHC: http://www.phc.edu/about/default.asp#MissionVisionDistinctives.

This mission makes it very clear that students are not challenged to find "truth" wherever it may be. Nor are they receiving a top notched education, as it denies the prevailing research into certain fields (biology). Perhaps most important, the idea that this education is "graduate level" is preposterous. Even more than at the undergraduate level, graduate work requires the strenuous examination of basic assumptions, a familiarity and understanding of current research, and the ability to expand on that research. The first two are not possible within PHC's own mission statement and methods.

To give a specific example: The mission statement of the college is to "promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American republic." The idea of "original intent" is highly contested both legally and within the field of history. Yet, the mission itself denies that controversy -- limiting and misrepresenting history.

This is only one of the many ways that the mission statement - i.e. the reason to be - of the college gets in the way of a "top notch" education full of academic rigor.

"At the same time, there is not the distinction that you want to make."

What? Are you seriously suggesting that a Catholic university that truly sees itself as having a Catholic mission won't have a different faculty mix than a Baptist university that has a Baptist mission? Sure, large state universities are not staffed by only atheists - but you will get a different faculty mix than you would at a school that has an avowedly Christian mission.

I am not trying to misrepresent you - please don't misrepresent me. I'm defending the idea that a church affiliated school can have a distinctly Christian mission, and to further that mission may hire faculty who are professing Christians. Doing this will affect what is said in the class rooms, and will result in a distinctive educational experience that many find valuable. It is not the experience of being "taught by a Baptist, Jesuit and atheist all in the same day," but does not as a result fail to be a legitimate "education."

It's time to level - I understand you to be implicitly saying that if you don't have the "Baptist, Jesuit and atheist" all teaching in the same day, you don't have a "real" university education. I also understand you to be implying that the intellectual climate at all of the example institutions you mention is essentially the same.

My examples, in turn, may be a bit extreme (yes, the yeshiva is in there to make a heavy handed point) - but I do not believe that the intellectual climate is, or should be, the same in all institutions of higher learning. Religion matters. Philosophy matters. If you take either one seriously, it will affect how you think and live. Taking them seriously does not make a university a seminary.

Note regarding Catholic universities and their faculties:

The Catholic University of America, in the School of Arts and Sciences, at least, hires regardless of religion. In fact, they do not inquire about a religion. As a result, the faculty is often as diverse as you would see elsewhere - and as competitive. Furthermore, professors are not told what they can and cannot teach and research within their fields of study. When comparing faculty with a secular institution, Catholic University's CAS is not all that different. Sadly, due to the policies/mission statement of PHC, you could not make the same claim.

03:29 PM, I'm going to continue referring to you by the times of your posts.

"I'm defending the idea that a church affiliated school can have a distinctly Christian mission, and to further that mission may hire faculty who are professing Christians. Doing this will affect what is said in the class rooms, and will result in a distinctive educational experience that many find valuable."

Thank you for finally admitting it. I, as you may have noticed, am attacking that idea. Many may find it valuable to have their personal Christian beliefs constantly reinforced by their English Lit professor, and be comforted when they can just skip huge chunks of science class because their Biology professor wants to ignore the scientific process. That may be distinctive, but that's not a real education.

Because if you want to learn biology (as we understand it through hypothesizing and trial-and-error experiments), you learn it from a biologist. If you want to learn history, you learn it from a historian. Hell, if you want to learn about Christianity, you learn it from a historian, you don't even have to go to a Christian. To get back to my list of real colleges versus PHC -- it does not matter what type of religion professors at any of those were; I do not care what religion a professor is, I just want them to be qualified in their respective fields.

I am not saying that if one is religious, one must teach only in a seminary. But I am saying that one's religious beliefs should not be a prequalification for teaching me the distinction between Chaucer and Faulkner. One's religious beliefs should not be a prequalification for teaching me post-colonial African history. One's religious beliefs should not be a prequalification for teaching me precalculus.

I think it's as simple as that. Some want to be coddled in college by people they feel comfortable with because they all believe exactly the same thing, and I want to be challenged by those who are qualified to teach that specific class.

As a current student and one who has been involved in "the real world" by running for public office, as well as working and volunteering with many people I disagree with, I think I might be more highly qualified than most here to discuss the particulars of this situation. I do not yet possess a degree, but I have learned a thing or two about thinking while here at Patrick Henry.

First off, I find it delightfully funny to see all the "intelligent" arguments stating how we engender hatred and we don't expose ourselves to anything but the Bible (KJV, thank you very much). We invited the Roe of Roe V. Wade to come speak to us during chapel, and she was planning on coming until a last minute problem interrupted that chance. By the way, she's a Christian now. Yeah, Catholic, but still Christian.

Someone said something about how it was a red herring to say that teaching *about* and actually teaching and endorsing were two different things. I'll be sure to remember that they're the same when one person is describing the technique to kill, and the other is actually slitting my throat in a classroom project.

We're exposed to many viewpoints here, Christian and non-Christian, orthodox and heretical. We do have restrictions on what can be endorsed, but not what can be taught. We endorse creationism, but still teach evolution. We endorse the Trinity, but still teach about various heresies that deny it. We endorse the existence of an absolute truth, but teach the various theories that deny it. All these can be taught, but we're not about to compromise fidelity to what we all, including the professors who are leaving, believe is the ultimate source of truth, the Bible.

We aren't exactly sheltered homeschoolers here either. I've got all four Harry Potter movies above me and to my right, right next to The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, The Interpreter, Flight Plan, and Hostage. About 10% of my 100+ books in here are religious in nature, and not all of them fully orthodox or even Christian. I play various video games that my mother has wished I wouldn't play (Spider Solitaire and Hearts are two of them... ;-) along with other heathen games, such as Age of Empires, Starcraft, and more). Whereas I don't play Grand Theft Auto or P.I.M.P, this is because I have this thing that the video game industry doesn't usually take into account, called taste.

For my History of the Western World II final on Wednesday, I'm reading "Communism" by Richard Pipes, as well as "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace" by Richard Kagan. I have More's "Utopia" Machiavelli, Tolstoy, Augustine, Mill, Pirandello (one of my favorites), along with Cicero, Aristotle, Plato, and more. I've been taught that there is truth in all of these (except for Pirandello perhaps, but I still enjoy the story). This truth is indeed worth searching out. And this is all endorsed by the school (except for liking Pirandello again...)Our library has Mein Kampf, Lolita, and other works of literature that, while not endorsed, are provided to challenge what we may believe.

Now that we have some facts here from someone who would know instead of baseless conjecturing from those who think the Post and Nancy Pelosi is the arbiter of all that is true and beautiful, I think it's quite obvious that we're not sheltered. We're taught a wide variety of subject, but the truth is endorsed. And what is actually endorsed in class is left to the discretion of the professors except for certain "big things." Our two theology professors, (one of them soon to leave) disagreed on many issues. I took classes from both of them, and besides the fact that I was utterly confused, I realized that they both espoused different versions of what they said was truth, but since it was within a Biblical basis, neither was fired.

We are not sheltered from any viewpoints because of the danger they may cause to our poor little homeschool minds. Far from sheltered, we're purposefully targeted. We're hit with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche (or however his name is spelled) Mill, Plato, Machiavelli, Stalin, etc. all in the first year. And the vast majority of those who come in truthfully believing in the statement of faith, leave believing the same, and being able to expound on it better.
Further evidence of our not being sheltered is our involvement in the community. Myself and about 5 other students are involved in local volunteer efforts for about 12 hours a week. We work alongside neighbors from the town and the surrounding areas, providing emergency support to people at their health's end. The vast majority of those we work with are not Christians (I think 4-6 of the 30 we work with are) but it doesn't matter. We discuss with them, argue with them, eat with them, work with them, live with them, and then go home, and come back again at the same time next week for some more. We're not the most intelligent students at the school, but we've gained respect for our opinions, and for our tolerance. Yes. Tolerance.

We're not a madrassa. We weren't going to burn Roe when she visited. I can guarantee that she would have instead received a hug or two from some students. Yes, even though she's Catholic. ;-)

I recently ran for Town Council in Purcellville and had a wonderful time. The people I ran with weren't just like me, but I went out there acting like myself anyway. I didn't put on a face or anything. I participated in multiple interviews with many papers, including the Post (although they spelled my name wrong 7 times...) and participated in a candidate forum, as well as going about and talking to citizens asking for their votes, and getting signatures on petitions. Throughout the entire process I was told how pleased people were to see that I knew what I was talking about, and I was willing to listen. I spoke to atheists, Christians, citizens supporting Catoctin County, multiple people on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Republicans, and *gasp, I hope I don't get kicked out of PHC for this...* Democrats.

I had a wonderful time with everyone, and I hope and believe that the vast majority of the people I talked to (minus those I accidentally interrupted during an early dinner or phone calls) enjoyed talking with me. On election day I spoke with one wonderful lady who has been heavily involved with the election, and I had seen at multiple events, and we had a very good discussion on a big topic in Purcellville. I still disagree with her for now, but she had many good points that I still listened to. I was told by many people that they were glad I would listen to them when other candidates wouldn't. I didn't win the election, but I beat most people's expectations, including my own.

If you think PHC students are irreconcilably sheltered, why don't you try talking to us? Email me at sirtsiversen@hotmail.com. I'll give you my AIM name, and after finals are over, I'd be more than happy to discuss things with you. Even Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Come find us out here in Purcellville. We're the ones lurking around with our pants at our waists instead of our knees, our shirts buttoned to the second or third to last from the top (or ties, *good heavens!*) and holding honestly intellectual discussions with people who are most definitely not like us. We'll probably be sober, not stoned, and not worrying about wardrobe malfunctions. And we don't go about making out in public too often. And we survive. And I dare say that the results show that we thrive.

Just as an interesting point. The word "taliban" is derived from the Arabic word meaning student/to study. I really don't think Karen, who made a silly remark about the Taliban at Yale knew this. But I thought I would point this out.

All education needs to teach people to think beyond a certain set of subjectively contrived norms.

"We invited the Roe of Roe V. Wade to come speak to us during chapel"

It's more than slightly disingenous to cite this as evidence of your open-mindedness without noting that "Roe" (aka Norma McCorvey) has been firmly on the anti-abortion side of the argument for some time.

James,

Re: "Thank you for finally admitting it"

??? I've been trying to make it as clear as possible!

"I, as you may have noticed, am attacking that idea."

Yes, and I've tried my best to engage you directly on that point (and have wondered why you have seemed to dodge the issue).

You say that you don't care what a professor's religion is, but only that he or she is qualified. That's fair. To be taken seriously, the faculty at any college or university must be qualified. Whether or not you understand it, many do care about the personal beliefs and moral code of the faculty. You clearly oppose the idea that a university could select faculty who are all professing Christians (or, I presume, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.).

Are you arguing merely that doing so is unwise, or may not result in the strongest faculty, or are you - as it seems to me - arguing that it must, of necessity, result in something other than "a real education." That seems to imply that - by the very fact that they are professing Christians - they cannot, at least in some fields, truly be qualified. If so, please defend that assertion.

Also, what were you trying to convey when you said "[h]ell, if you want to learn about Christianity, you learn it from a historian, you don't even have to go to a Christian"? It seems to suggest that Christianity (whether you buy into it or not) cannot be taken seriously as a guiding philosophy or way of understanding the world. Would you be equally comfortable saying "if you want to learn about feminism, you don't even have to go to a feminist, you can go to a historian" or "if you want to learn about the Democratic party, you don't even have to go to a Democrat, you can go to a historian?"

Many people want to be coddled (not just Christians). On the other hand, many want to study from people who view things from a particular context (say, for example, a feminist perspective).

No one has challenged the choices you made about your education, its quality or its validity. Many people do find value in learning in a Christian environment. That does not mean that the instructors are of necessity unqualified, that they can't teach a wide variety of topics, or that it isn't a "real" education. It does not include exposure to the same variety of views - or the same type of views. I believe you will find, though, that many deeply civilized and educated individuals have come out of these institutions. (As well, of course, as some complete and utter jerks - which is just about par for any college or university).

Timothy S. Iverson's last paragraph reminded of what Kris Kristofferson called the only bad song Merle Haggard ever wrote (during a 1972 concert at the NY Philharmonic, right after he parodied, and improved, the song):

We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We like livin' right, and bein' free.

I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squar