Patrick Henry College is a small liberal arts college about an hour’s drive outside of Washington, D.C. in Purcellville, VA. It’s only six years old and has 300 students-it has been described in the media as “the Christian college with a right-wing political agenda.” The college’s vision is to be a faith-based institution on the same level as an Ivy and its mission is to “lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values.”
The campus is currently embroiled in an ideological conflict. Patrick Henry College’s vision of being a rigorous faith-based institution is at odds with its classical liberal arts curriculum. A conflict between professors at Patrick Henry College and its president has raised questions about faith-based higher education and if a commitment to liberal arts can co-exist with a biblical worldview.
The college currently has 16 full-time professors and five are leaving because of this controversy. Basically, what happened was… Michael P. Farris, the president of the college, reviewed a lecture that was to be given by M. Todd Bates, an assistant professor of rhetoric, on St. Augustine’s pursuit of truth, and became incensed because he felt there was not enough scripture in it. He called a meeting with Bates to discuss this and Mr. Bates revised his lecture.
Some faculty members felt that this was interference. If the President had concerns about a lecture on St. Augustine, then what would happen if material from Foucault (not that Foucault is likely to ever appear in a course at a Christian college) or Nietzsche was referenced?
Another issue came up during a course taught by Erik Root, a professor of government. During a discussion on the state of nature and moral quandaries, Root asked students to imagine they were adrift on the sea with another person on an inner tube that only could support one of them so someone has to let go. In short, the question was, “Do-do?” One student used a biblical quote that in essence was that a person should die for her friends, as God loves this kind of person the most. Root told the student that the answer was great but too simplistic. He wanted more and asked the class what Hobbes and Locke would say.
The father of the student that quoted the bible was in class that day and he wrote President Farris a letter telling him that he was irate about how the class discussion was moderated. President Farris said that Root shouldn’t be teaching again the next year if he actually did say this. He demanded an explanation from Root and told him he was withholding his contract for the next year until he got one.
Root says that he is a Christian and he believes that the Bible is infallible word of God. He said that in the context of the class, he was trying to convey that quoting the Biblical verse didn’t fully address the issue at hand; he wanted more critical thinking and to keep the discussion going.
Four professors joined Root and said they wouldn’t sign their contracts. They wrote an article for the student paper that said the Bible isn’t the sole source of truth. They said, “There is much wisdom to be gained from Parmenides and Plato, as well as Machiavelli and Marx.” (The Chronicle of Higher Education)
They were saying that there is value in knowledge that extends beyond the Bible and that Christians have a responsibility to seek out the truth. They believe that without knowledge, Christians won’t be able to appreciate God. Now, they’ve left the college. The voice of reason pulled an Elvis and left the building, to be replaced by the strident voice of this fundamentalist.
It seems to me that the greatest struggle in today’s society is who gets to control the discourse and decide for others what they should know. This conflict is common to ideological movements; however, what troubles me about this is that those movements are still gaining power. It’s almost as if one has to be an extremist these days. This is probably a reflection of our mass culture and its polarity, as everything has been reduced to this or that because it’s easier to sell only two choices. It’s either: Coke or Pepsi, the Sox or the Yankees, Microsoft or Apple.
Fundamentalists of any stripe (gay, Christian, Islamic, deaf) are not good. What worries me the most is that this college mushroomed in the wilds of Virginia (but of course) with the explicit purpose of installing fundies into the halls of Congress. This place is an Al Qaeda training center wearing a cross and a conservative hair-cut.
What gives?
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
44 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I do think that the fundamentalist worldview is at odds with democracy because in order to have a pluralistic society, you need to be inclusive of all religions, and not have any specific religion set above others. The fundamentalist view doesn’t allow for a pluralistic society, what with their constant refrain about this country being a Christian one (despite having been shown proof otherwise in the form of the Treaty of Tripoli), and ignores what our founding fathers said about the dangerous influence of religion in government.
Fundamentalism exists everywhere; it is simply a state of mind, and how people choose to live. Unfortunately, I see too many Christians being ridiculed for their sincere beliefs simply because they are likened to Fundamentalists.
Hmm, seems to me that stuff like this gives entirely new meaning to Higher education, altogether. Sigh. Government and religion should have no place in the bedroom or classroom too.
And Erin - “This place is an Al Qaeda training center wearing a cross and a conservative hair-cut.” had me ROTFL! Thank you for that laugh! :)
Yeah, I agree—that was the money quote! Quite scary to think that a few alums from PHC could be the future presidents of the USA. That’d be freaky. And don’t you think that a young college like this with enrollment that’s on the rise (from 92 students in 2000 to over 300 in 6 years)is making us wonder if this is a ploy by the Republicans? Get this, it’s also predominantly white. As if diversity is just not in style for them—just like conservative hair cuts. ;)
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_College for good background reading.
I can’t believe that the comments her are just as bigoted/ and narrow minded as the President of the college. Christianity is not Republican or Democrats. There are possibly more Libertarian than Republican in thinking. You people need to do your homework….
Dang. Guess everybody else keyed in on the same quote I did. :-) Go, you.
I wonder if it would have been more effective for the professors to stay at the college and work to change the culture from within as opposed to just leaving the administration to its own devices. In any case, sounds like a real discussion and some introspection is needed.
Reminds me a bit of the debate found in the great movie, Inherit the Wind. While the lawyer defending the teacher who’s accused of the crime of teaching evolution in the classroom doesn’t exactly contest faith’s validity, he does defend “the right to think.” The scene where he tries the prosecutor (who is also an evangelist) is an absolute gem.
Okay, that was a bit of a tangent… anyhow, I also love how you noted the dichotomy’s power in polarizing our society (it’s this or that and nothing in between).
I am intrigued, however, by your position that “fundies” are not good. I’d love to hear you elaborate.
I don’t necessarily see dualism being a 21st century phenomenon. It has been around as long as the ‘chicken vs. egg’ question. Most Americans do share similiar views and values; it’s simply that they disagree on how the end results (or “common good”) should be achieved.
ugh. “hear” you elaborate?
Try “read” or “see,” whatever. Take your pick. *Taking my “Deaf card” and running.* That’ll teach me to read twice before I hit “submit.”
And Gallaudet radicals want to get rid of all hearing students, hearing staff members. I find it odd liberals said nothing about the religious schools in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan preaching anti-Jews and anti-semitic.
I’m a liberal and I don’t support Islamic fundamentalism preaching hatred or any sort of bigotry that the Christian fundamentalists do here.
Fundies are no good, indeed but they’re necessary to provide some kind of equilibrium in any political, cultural, racial, or religious spectrum.
Fundies are necessary? I beg to differ. We need reason, not zealotry.
True that, but at the risk of waxing philosophic: without zealots, would we recognize reason?
I think we would. There’s a lot of unreasonable things out there that doesn’t happen with zealotry. :)
Just realized how horrible English my previous comment had. :P
To clarify, I meant: I think we would recognize reason without zealotry present because a lot of irrational things happen without involving it.
The students see the error of the President and havea website to support the professors. A good liberal arts college of a classical nature seeks truth and critical thinking. You are supposedt to be trained to be see all perspectives and learn how to disagree to make your viewpoints clear.
This teaching method is actually the original teaching of our school systems before they went to ruin in the 60’s. Its a shame that the college is taking a legalistic path. This is not true Christianity. Seems like the college is becoming too dogmatic
Unreasonable things happened w/o zealotry? What’s the logic in that?
It’s a given that each group of any kind (may it be cultural, racial, or whatever else) has zealots. The fundamentals of humanity are defined differently for each group and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that all of them include some degree of absurdity, ridicule, or insanity. Just think: What are the fundamentals of deafhood? And who at one time or another, thought it was absolutely absurd? Just a thought…
Yes, every group has zealots of its own, obviously. But I don’t think we have to reach the degree of zealotry to recognize the difference between rationalism and irrationalism.
That’s like saying every religion is a cult. In the most strictest sense, every religion IS a cult, but I think most would beg to differ with that.
To me, I view things as a continuum. Zealotry’s at both ends of the continuum. And reason is in the middle. It’s hard for me to explain. Heh. :P
Your reference towards Religion as a cult is accurate. Most people don’t see it because they are too busy attacking other religions.
Religion and crack cocaine are the same in my opinion once you get hooked and you are hooked for good.
*grins at DeafLinux* Not going to touch that one!
I was thinking some more on this subject and I remembered something my Ethics professor said. He said you recognize reason because you intuitively understand it. It resonates with you. It *feels* right, and you can’t really argue against it. He used this one sentence from MLK Jr’s Letter from the Birmingham City Jail as an example. I’ll copy it here…
“But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an air-tight case of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see the depressing clouds of inferiority begin to form in her little mental sky, and see her to begin distort her little personality by unconsciously developing a bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an aswer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos: ‘Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?’; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading ‘white’ and ‘colored’; when your first name becomes ‘nigger’ and your middle name becomes ‘boy’ (however old you are) and your last name becomes ‘John,’ and when your wife and mother are never given the respected title ‘Mrs.’; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance never quite knowing what to expect next, and plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’; then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.”
That sounds like America. *grins*
Today we are labeled as “Where is that Deaf guy that talks with his hands?” we have a name and we are called something else.
Those are the people who would back this constitutional amendment seeking to interfere in lives that are not their own (gay people).
Here is a Patrick Henry quote.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
I believe those people are an affront and insult to Patrick Henry. Even if Patrick Henry was strongly for his Christian faith, I am confident he would find it repugnant to impose his faith upon others who may not agree.
Beautiful quote! Thank you for sharing!
The school lost its accrediation, I’m not sure if it’s going to continue to survive for another decade. We need to be focusing more about making sure we have more deaf interns working at the White House. We have zero deaf in the Senate and in the House, Marlee Matlin as pollster director doesn’t count (wink). Without political clout, we continue to leave ourselves vulnerable for politicial fundmentalists.
Who says there’s zero deaf in the House?
Do we have a Deaf Representative or Senator??
Oh, you mean in the White House? Do we have one?
Erin Casler, Miss Deaf America! You need to stop being naive. The U.S. Constitution allows for fundamentalism and other thorny entities let alone rhetorics to exist. Get on with it. You reek of double standards because I know some of your friends who are lame deaf militants. You’re one reason why the likes of Smith College needs to drop the practice of admitting a trace few applicants on basis of tokenism. Cut it with your flowery language. We want to see genuine words coming from bottom of your heart. Not the shallow cookie cutter empty words.
My, someone certainly woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, LOL!
Yes, the Constitution does allow for all religions to exist, but the explicit goal of fundamentalism is to impose a theocratic form of government on everyone, which does go against the First Amendment in the Constitution which states:
And you’re just jealous because you weren’t accepted into Smith College ;-)
Who peed in your Cheerios this morning, son?
Umm… Does anyone else find the google ads connected to this blog funny? Or is that just me?
“Fundamentalists love to hate, and hate to love.”
I think that sums it up. But I do agree that fundamentals/zealots/radicals do have a place in our world. We may find their thinking repungant, but it also forces us to self-introspect our position, to argue, and defend our positions and see where we stand relative to others. And with that, we gain better understanding of ourselves and others.
Another sappy quote.. “radicals exist for the sole reason to make the rest of us look normal”… (or something like that)…
Many readers and certain bloggers here alerted me to this! Gawd! >> Astounding this is! Noelle! You did it again! You made a big mistake assuming that I’m a female! Perhaps you need to brush up on the fact that Smith College as fundamentally all women! Why don’t you even ask if I’m a male let alone whether I applied (if I’m a female). What an irony! At least you didn’t assume I’m some male jerk!
You also seem to have made a mistake in forgetting that Smith do allow men into the graduate programs. And men do take 5-college classes at Smith–they just can’t be full-time students of the college or earn an undergraduate degree from there.
Alright. Point taken. But why is that information not well advertised? This is a very gross misrepresentation of Smith College. Oh Gawd! Absolutely no degree awarded to male undergraduates (what about Graduate and others?) at Smith College. That’s the most lamest thing I’ve been told since getting word that JKF was selected as Gallaudet’s newest President! Why use males in the classroom and in the same vein denying them such opportunities to earn a degree? What a slap! Maximum of five classes per semester? Or five classes throughout the usual four-year collegiatea cycles? It better be the latter but one way or other this is really lame! It’ll be interesting to know how many graduates of Smith College are actually “Fundie” feminists! Check this out: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....p?ID=13065
I am at loss of why we’re discussing Smith College- I don’t even know anything about Smith College and can’t see the connection with the topic at hand.
Oh, and you have no idea what feminism is about. Why are you even bringing it into this discussion?
Patrick Henry College, Smith College and Gallaudet University has certain similar characteristics =) You never know that Erin’s ramblings might or not have turned off a potential heavyweight NAD donor who happens to be an alumni of Patrick Henry College. The NAD is pitiful poor and lacks prestige! Erin, be seeing you very soon!
Can’t believe you’re making idle threats like that–how typical of a conservative.
ROFL! NOELLE! YOU DID IT AGAIN! You implied I’m a conservative bigot or whatever! I’m a freaking LEFT-WING LIBERAL PLAYING DEVIL’S ADVOCATE just for the fun of it!
There’s a fine line between being a devil’s advocate and being a total *******.
piss off, deafspook. even if you were funning about erin’s tokenism with smith college, it’s callous. your posts overall weren’t even consistient.