Alan Wolfe Suggests Christian Colleges Commit Suicide

In The Evangelical Mind Revisited, sociologist Alan Wolfe re-examines the Evangelical colleges he examined in his "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," published in The Atlantic in 2001.

He offers Boston College (his employer), a Jesuit school of somewhat diffuse Catholicism, as a model for Evangelical colleges, which suggests the problem with his analysis. He does not doctrinal clarity and rigor as the basis for a school's life, and declares near the end of the article that:

In today's world, religious diversity is a fact of life, and the only choice for a college or university grounded in one faith is to open its doors to others. No doubt it will, in the process, lose some of the communal understandings that once informed it.

But it will gain in return a religious identity made stronger by being exposed to, and having to defend itself against, other claims to truth, wisdom, justice, or the spirit. The community protected by faith statements at evangelical colleges can be a stifling one because it is so closed to challenge and disagreement.

Well, yes and no. Much could be said to dissect this dubious claim, but I want here only to note that every college and university has a statement of faith, though for the vast majority the statement remains completely unarticulated. (The propaganda colleges produce for the parents and the donors is both more abstract and more idealistic than the principles, the faith statement, by which they live their lives.)

And because they have not articulated their beliefs, their implicit statement of faith is almost certainly to some extent incoherent. In this the rigorously confessional Evangelical and Catholic colleges may claim superiority to their secular peers: they know what they believe, and have taken some trouble to work out what that means, and both their principles and their application can be criticized.

The secular college of the sort Dr. Wolfe praises has a conception of the purpose of its life and the sort of students it wants to form. It knows what it wants its faculty to hold as eternal truths and what it does not want them to believe in any form. It just doesn't say so. Its leaders may not realize, beyond the broad platitudinous vaperings beloved by educationists, that they do in fact run their schools according to a statement of faith.

To take an easy case, no college in America wants a conscious racist. But few, if any, will want anyone who agrees with Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's claims in The Bell Curve about racial differences in IQ scores, especially if he will be teaching politics, sociology, psychology, or economics. That there are no inherited differences between the races (besides the physical ones) is a doctrine these college's hold as firmly, perhaps even more firmly, as the Christian college holds its belief in the Trinity.

The Bell Curve was widely attacked when it appeared, and for all I know convincingly. (Note to commenters: please don't start a discussion of the book.) But, and I speak of people I know very well, the people who run and teach at these colleges didn't wait for a scholarly rebuttal before rejecting the thesis. They knew it was wrong because it just was. Because their assumed doctrine told them so.

This leads me to my argument that their (the secular colleges Wolfe admires) statements of faith are, because unarticulated, almost certainly incoherent. They believe themselves, quite sincerely, to be devoted to the free life of the mind, the bold pursuit of truth, the need to free scholarship from the shackles of dogma, the purity of the scientific method, the disinterestedness of the scholar, and so on.

They also believe that Charles Murray and Richard Hernnstein, whose book made a serious argument, are as wrong as they could be, and indeed that such arguments should not be made, especially by faculty at their school. (And they're jolly proud of themselves for taking both positions.)

This is not a consistent doctrine. It is one open to severe criticism, indeed radical criticism that will undermine their fundamental beliefs about the free life of the mind, etc. If they faced the inconsistency, they would have to reflect much more deeply on what they believe to be true, on how truth is found, on what they accept from authority and what those authorities are to be and why they should be trusted, on how far diversity should be carried, and indeed on what matters diversity is acceptable and on what unity is required.

In other words, the doctrinal commitments that Wolfe sees as formal problems I think are formal strengths — strengths in the schools' form, their structure. I don't think this because as a Christian I agree with their statements (I couldn't sign Wheaton's, for the same reason that Dr. Hochschild had to leave), but because they force the schools to think much harder about what they are doing and why. Harder, certainly, than the supposedly open institutions Wolfe praises.

Of course most of the statements are purely doctrinal, and leave open many fundamental questions. They wouldn't directly answer the question of whether to hire a political scientist who follows The Bell Curve. But even here, some extended reflection on the school's understanding of man, of human community, of the intellectual vocation, reflections derived from its statement of faith, would give them some principles by which to decide.

The statements of faith Wolfe considers stifling are, or can be (accounting for the usual effects of the Fall on human institutions), enlivening. Working out the meaning and implications of dogmas is hard and exciting work, and the attempt to wisely and effectively incarnate them in the lived experience of the university equally so.

And on the other hand, the lack of such statements does not improve the intellectual life of a school, but leaves (accounting for the usual effects of the Fall on human institutions) its fundamental dogmas and therefore its life incoherent. Dogmatic incoherence always impedes the pursuit of truth, even for those who sincerely believe themselves truth's unbiased servants.

*    *    *
Joseph Knippenberg offers a short but effective rebuttal to Wolfe in his More evangelicalism and intellectual life from the No Left Turns weblog, which includes links to his previous postings on the subject.

Comments

[Joe Knippenberg]

In this context, MC readers might also be interested in Harvard's recent general education proposal, which refers rather confidently to "the resolutely secular world of the academy." Would Wolfe be troubled by this statement? Would the faculty at Harvard's Divinity School?

[Judy Warner]

A very long and thoughtful article appeared in the Fall issue of the Claremont Review of Books. It is by Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College, a secular institution whose mission is clearly stated and counter-cultural.

The point of the article is criticism of government education policy, but it covers much broader and more interesting ground, going into the transformation of higher education. Arnn contrasts the original mission statements of American colleges, containing such goals as to provide "such moral, social and artistic instruction and culture as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of the students," with the relativism and utilitarianism of the progressive doctrine that began to appear during the early 20th century and destroyed the older virtuous goals.

Under this newer regime, there cannot be standards or truth. He quotes the report of the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education:

perhaps most importantly ... "objectivity" and "factuality" have lost their preeminence. Instruction has become "less a matter of transmittal of an objective and culturally sanctioned body of knowledge," and more a matter of helping individuals learn to construct their own realities....

This is probably a good approximation of the "statement of faith" of many universities. He has some prescriptions for making things better, but I cannot imagine many colleges interested in taking up his ideas, though I am certain many parents would like them to.

[Ethan Cordray]

A much longer rebuttal may be found in the book Conceiving the Christian College by Duane Litfin, the president of Wheaton. It's pretty much a manifesto for the sort of articulated confessional community Mr. Mills is talking about.

While Dr. Hochschild's departure saddened me personally, I agree with the logic of Wheaton's position in such a matter. My only objection in that particular case is that, as I understand it, Dr. Hochschild felt that he could in fact sign on to to the Wheaton statement of faith in good conscience, but the administration decided that he could not.

Another indication of the benefit of such statements is the choice of Alan Jacobs to remain at Wheaton, despite the fact that his outstanding scholarly and writing abilities could easily land him a more prestigious, higher paying, and easier position elsewhere. But he says he finds the climate at Wheaton far more intellectually free than what one finds at a secular university, at least for a Christian.

[Ethan Cordray]

I can also state that Wolfe's claim that "the community protected by faith statements at evangelical colleges can be a stifling one because it is so closed to challenge and disagreement" is essentially not true, at least at a place like Wheaton. One could encounter as much challenge and disagreement as one wanted, especially from one's Catholic, Orthodox, or Reformed classmates. As for the faculty, they had exposure to a wide variety of challenging opinions through their scholarship, as well as from their years in (usually) secular doctoral programs.

The refusal of a college to grant its official imprimatur to a wide range of opinions does not mean that they are excluded from its intellectual life. I suspect Wolfe is merely using "challenge and disagreement" as a code for the alternative orthodoxy of secular pluralism, with its exaltation of dissent and protest into cultural values of intrinsic worth.

[L. Korossy]

I don't believe the article writer is referring to the college's statement of faith, but rather, the statementS of faith signed by students. He seems to have no problem with religious colleges (which by definition have such a statement), only those which stifle on-campus religious diversity through forcing students to sign onto its statement.
As a counter-example, I'd like to bring up the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. It is a relatively small (2800 undergrad) institution, which is resolutely Catholic in identity but secular in its admissions process. Campus life is nearly run by Campus Ministry, with Mass every day of the the week (thrice on Sundays) and Eucharistic Adoration once per week. In the center of the campus is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the eighth-largest church in the world. Surrounding the university is an area called "little Rome," as nearly everything is owned by or related to the Church. CUA's philosophy school is extraordinary, with a strong core curriculum in Aristotle and St. Thomas; the joke is "You don't have to be Catholic to come here, but you do have to be a Thomist."
Which, really, is the point: though CUA does not straitjacket its admissions process, it does maintain an incredibly strong Catholic identity. It is a mistake to think that in opening its doors to students of all faiths, the college has to open itself to those faiths, as well. CUA's courses approximate those that one would receive at a closed-community college, and the professors (with few exceptions) are devoted not only to their subjects but also to the Christian truth; one only has to observe the lengthy faculty processions (voluntary) for the bi-annual CUA Mass.
CUA opens its doors to all students, but not for a second does it compromise its principles to meet them halfway. If they don't like it, tough; there is a reason why 85-90% of the student body IS Catholic. That 10-15%, dedicated students who are friendly to the Catholic faith, is not a threat to the university's "communal understandings."

[Francesca]

I know you don't want to start a discussion of The Bell Curve, but I have to point out that the one chapter in the book that concerns racial differences in IQ presented nothing new. Most academics were probably aware of the quoted studies regarding racial differences in scores before the book came out. It is simply a fact that racial groups score differently. For example, on average Asians score about a standard deviation higher in IQ than Caucasians, particularly in tests measuring spatial skill. M&H also point out that "IQ matters" in terms of success in the world -- all types of success, from academic to professional to personal to social.

To suggest that most academics rejected the book is entirely misleading. Several top academics from all over the US, including some from traditionally very "liberal" institutions such as Stanford and Berkeley, signed a document agreeing that most of the information presented in The Bell Curve is technically accurate.

However, what IS cause for debate is WHY those differences exist and whether or not the gap can be closed. Murray and Herrnstein quote an array of fascinating statistics throughout the book that suggest IQ is determined by a combination of nature and nurture and declared themselves "resolutely agnostic" as to which of the two (or what combination of the two) determines these racial differences. There is a great deal of research that supports the assertion that, given an entirely level playing field, differences in scores would disappear. It is not so much Murray and Herrnstein's book that gave concern -- it was what the eugenicists, in contradiction of M&H's own conclusions (or, rather, non-conclusions,) did with it -- that was cause for concern.

The book itself has been a spring board for some very positive discussions and research about the use of social engineering to produce smarter people and to remove constraints that artificially reduce IQ.

The representation of the book as a document that supports *unchangeable* racially-based differences in intelligence is a misrepresentation of what M&H were actually saying.

[Douglas]

>>The community protected by faith statements at evangelical colleges can be a stifling one because it is so closed to challenge and disagreement.<<

Then let the market sort it out. And ask professors like Duesburg at Berkeley what happens when you challenge liberal orthodoxy at a secular university.

[Judy Warner]

The treatment of group differences in IQ as unmentionable is much older than the Bell Curve, of course. Arthur Jensen's article, "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?" came out in 1969 and caused a firestorm with its demonstration of a stable-over-time difference of about 15 IQ points on average between blacks and whites. I was in graduate school in the early 70s and came across the article while I was taking a seminar in testing. Naively, I suggested it would be relevant and interesting to discuss the article in class. The reaction of students and teacher was as if I had suggested that we eat a baby in class.

[Tony Esolen]

It's sad to see somebody of Mr. Wolfe's character fall prey to the illusion of "diversity" -- thirty shades of pink (or whatever color you like, it doesn't matter). Most of what is trumpeted as "diversity" on college campuses is

1. superficial differences -- the sort that make people think they're learning a whole lot about Japanese culture if they eat sushi

2. a deadening conformity on issues of some controversy

3. an even more deadening ennui, a refusal to engage questions of the greatest moment because, in fact, it is assumed that no answers exist

I say, more power to the peculiar institutions that have the strength and the will to be themselves. And if Mr. Wolfe does not think that a typical day reading a newspaper, overhearing the TV in a doctor's office, or just rubbing elbows with people in the subway, does not provide the evangelical student with plenty of "alternate" views, he isn't thinking.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>1. superficial differences -- the sort that make people think they're learning a whole lot about Japanese culture if they eat sushi<<<

You need to order fugu to learn anything about Japanese culture. Actually, eating fugu while watching bad anime with your robotic pet dog, for the complete Japanese experience.

[Gene Godbold]

So you can't empathize with the Japanese unless you risk death by tetrodotoxin? :-)

[James A. Altena]

"The reaction of students and teacher was as if I had suggested that we eat a baby in class."

No, Judy, it's different -- the pro-abortion/cloning crowd in academia would applaud this suggestion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So you can't empathize with the Japanese unless you risk death by tetrodotoxin? :-)<<<

"What is life but an escape from death?"

>>>The reaction of students and teacher was as if I had suggested that we eat a baby in class."<<<

Did someone see the South Park episode about Christopher Reeve?

[Judy Warner]

James, I was going to say "dismember a baby" at first, but then I thought, no, that's quite acceptable now.

Stuart, I didn't see the South Park episode; do tell, please.

[GL]

James, I was going to say "dismember a baby" at first, but then I thought, no, that's quite acceptable now.

Indeed. And with the notion that we can use ESCs for medical treatment, it could even be said that it is becoming increasingly acceptable in the minds of some to "eat babies," though they would not think of it in those terms, since the introduction of those cells into their bodies would not be through the mouth, but through a surgeon's incision, and would not pass through the digestive system before beginning their work at "nourishing" the part(s) of the body for which they are intended. Of course, they would deny that it was babies being used, but that is no different from their views of the babies being dismembered in Judy's example.

[David Mills]

Francesca,

You write: "To suggest that most academics rejected the book is entirely misleading." Actually, I think it's entirely true.

Some people, to appearances a minority, in the book's field supported some of its arguments, though often with many qualifications and caveats, but you would not find more than a handful of academics in the humanities who accepted it, especially in the major universities and colleges whose unarticulated dogma I was describing. Your own "technically accurate" suggests this.

Remember that my point was simply that these schools hold with certainty some doctrines that conflict with other doctrines that they hold. Just imagine how far a young scholar will get in the interview process at Swarthmore or Yale or Amherst if he admits agreeing with The Bell Curve.

[Judy Warner]

Charles Murray told me that he met Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali/Dutch woman who created a stir in the Netherlands and is now at the American Enterprise Institute (as is he). She said to him, "So you're the author of The Bell Curve. I read it in graduate school. It explains everything."

Well, I guess a woman who has had the strength to reject Islam vocally and stand up for human rights, and annoy her adopted country would have the strength to stand up for Charles Murray. Too bad she's an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" who sees only bad in religion.

[Francesca]

<>

The following website -- http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html -- contains a list of academicians from intelligence and related fields who signed an article in the Wall Street Journal basically agreeing with the information presented in "The Bell Curve."

What most academics -- *including Murray and Herrnstein themselves* -- DO reject, and rightly so, is the assumption that racially-based differences in IQ are entirely innate and genetically determined from the moment of conception with no consideration for environmental factors. The book itself presents research indicating that a very substantial portion of intellectual development is attributable to nurture, not nature. The factors involved in the development of IQ (the Pygmalion effect, linguistic deprivation in the early years, etc.) are very complex and much more research needs to be done (as M&H themselves said) before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

The facts presented in "The Bell Curve" should rightly be critically interpreted (not the same as rejecting them) by academics because the development of human potential is not completely understood. Understanding of nuance and keeping an open mind regarding the unknown are key to success in research, which I think is what Wolfe is saying in the religious context when he states "but it will gain in return a religious identity made stronger by being exposed to, and having to defend itself against, other claims to truth, wisdom, justice, or the spirit."

The BC has had the same effect. People who philosophically reject racism have had to defend their beliefs against "other claims to truth," and a wealth of very valuable thought and research has been spawned as a result. For example, M&H cite research showing that the gains in IQ provided by Head Start and the Perry Preschool Program diminish over time. This is simply unprocessed, factual information. It is entirely valid to point out such concerns and equally valid to explore such claims in greater depth. More recent research suggests that these preschool programs offer too little, too late for disadvantaged children, and that more intensive programs that start with younger children do in fact lead to lasting IQ gains. New research also suggests that existing programs lead to higher achievement in positive areas (e.g., percentage that graduate from high school, likelihood of ending up on welfare or of being arrested for a serious crime) that fall outside the area of IQ gain.

[Francesca]

Sorry -- my quote for the post above got deleted. I meant to quote as follows from David Mills' post:

"You write: 'To suggest that most academics rejected the book is entirely misleading.' Actually, I think it's entirely true."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, I guess a woman who has had the strength to reject Islam vocally and stand up for human rights, and annoy her adopted country would have the strength to stand up for Charles Murray. Too bad she's an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" who sees only bad in religion.<<<

if your religion caused someone to hold you down on the floor and give you a clitorectomy without anasthesia, you might have some bad feelings about religion, too.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I didn't see the South Park episode; do tell, please.<<<

So outrageous, even the producer wouldn't let them air it--until Christopher Reeve appeared on television advcating the cloning of humans for harvesting of stem cells.

Basically, the episode involves a visit by Christopher Reeve to town that upstages the standup comedy act of one of the show's two handicapped kids. He feels put out because he's been crippled since birth, while Reeve is a nouveau cripple.

Reeve is pushing his new stem cell therapy, which is, apparently, curing him. But the secret then comes out--the cure consists of eating the brains of aborted fetuses, which he cracks open and downs like raw eggs (ewww!).

[GL]

I have never watched South Park (we don't get it as we have only the very basic of cable), but I would live to see that episode. Thanks for sharing it. It appears that the South Park folks at least understand the position of those of us who oppose ESC research and treatment, even if they don't agree with it.

[Judy Warner]

you might have some bad feelings about religion, too.

Understood. But her experiences in Holland would have done nothing to keep her from generalizing her feelings about Islam to religion in general. I watched her on C-SPAN last night and she is brilliant (though she seems to take Voltaire as her hero). I hope her experiences in America will give her cause for second thoughts. Michael Novak is her colleague at AEI and I'm sure he is interested in talking to her

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It appears that the South Park folks at least understand the position of those of us who oppose ESC research and treatment, even if they don't agree with it.<<<

In a second episode dealing with ESC, Eric Cartman, the fat, greedy, bigotrd kid, finds an overtruned truck full of frozen fetuses, which he then tries to sell on the internet to various ESC research labs--only to find his moneymakng scheme go up in smoke when the government bans stem cell research. Meanwhile, Kenny, the kid who dies every episode, has an incurable lung disease, which only an experimental stem cell treatment can cure. Kyle, Kenny's friend, goes before Congress to please for stem cell research, which they eventually allow because of the sob sister routine. But it's too late--Kenny has already died. In the middle of his funeral, Cartman bursts into the church (as in the wedding scene of The Graduate) and tells everyone a miracle has occured. Having heard that stem cells turn into whatever they're put next to, Cartman has piled all of his frozen fetuses around his favorite fast food restaurant--and sure enough, the stem cells have transmuted themselves into a replica of the restaurant. In the last scene, Cartman is outside of an abortion clinic, trying to buy fetuses from the women going into the cline. A couple including a very pregnant woman walk by, and Cartman assumes she's going to have an abortion, too. When she tells him how she and her husband are very happy she's pregnant and that they are going to be parents, he offers her $100 for her fetus. She thinks for a moment, then says, "Well, we can always make another baby. Why not?"

Which shows precisely how the ESC business commodifies human beings.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It appears that the South Park folks at least understand the position of those of us who oppose ESC research and treatment, even if they don't agree with it.<<<

Actually, they're very much on our side on this one.

[GL]

Stuart,

Nice to hear that. Too bad we don't get South Park on our cable plan. I'll have to download some illegal copies -- don't tell my students. ;-)

[Ethan Cordray]

GL, I recommend the genetic engineering episode as well.

>>Creepy Genetic Engineer Guy: It's thanks to the wonders of genetic engineering that soon there will be an end to hunger, disease, pollution, even war. I have created things that will change the world for the better. For instance, here is a monkey with four a--es.

Kyle: ...How does that make the world better?

Creepy Guy: And here, of course, is my four a--ed ostrich. And my four a--ed mongoose.

Stan: Do you have anything besides just animals with four a--es?<<

And speaking of putatively stifling Christian academic environments, we watched that episode in my English senior seminar class at Wheaton.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Anonymous sources, a hasty generalization, a false dichotomy and a non sequitur. Four fallacies for the price of one!

More at Bad philosophy.

[James A. Altena]

No, just an example of how a typically arrogant atheist assumes that all theists are stupid and tendentiously misreads and misrepresents what one of the latter writes.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Would you care to comment substantively on the substantive criticism I offer on my post?

[buy viagra generic]

cheap@viagra.com