posted
I'm curious if there have been any studies confirming or denying the idea that college campuses are hostile toward religious people, Christians in particular. I noticed that OSC made a comment to this effect at the end of his latest War Watch column. However, a quick search on google scholar turned up articles either suggesting ways of increasing/encouraging/respecting religion (and other forms of diversity) on campus, or assuming that discrimination is widespread and railing against it.
I've definitely seen some events in the news that qualify as religious discrimination. It happens, obviously. I'm wondering, though, if it is a common occurrence or a severe problem. For every extreme story reported, there might be several less-extreme events. I know a lot of campuses have speech codes, though I'm not sure that can be considered religious discrimination. However, is it possible that these are isolated cases?
I suspect that when campuses tolerate and even welcome religious expression, this rarely makes the news. "College campus welcomes religous student groups" is not going to sell newspapers. So let me tell you what I've seen on my college campus (Arizona State University, which is not UC Berkeley, I'll grant you--but then, I suspect ASU is more the norm than Berkeley).
-The leaders of various religious groups around campus meet with the president of the university on what I gather is a fairly regular basis.
-Religious groups, including InterVarsity, Campus Crusade, and Hillel (one of the Jewish organizations) run sessions during freshman orientation. This is in a rather official capacity--these sessions are listed in the program right next to the ASU police session on preventing campus crime, a session regarding academic policy (i.e. cheating), and others that are clearly run by the university itself.
-The university has both a United Methodist church and an LDS church that are largely surrounded by campus property. So much so that you would think they were actually part of the campus. I go to the Methodist church, so I know that relations with ASU are reasonably good, although apparently there was a snafu with some of the property. The LDS church also seems to get on well; ASU is apparently selling some of its property to the church to allow it to expand.
-ASU tolerates all manner of proselytizers on campus. We have gotten a few really wacky preachers, and I'm sure that if the university wanted to quash religious expression, they would find a pretext for kicking these guys off. They're disruptive, and one guy called college women whores and used other sexually explicit language. The scientologists have been allowed to set up large booths on the Student Services lawn offering "stress tests" and selling copies of Dianetics. I've also seen guys handing out Bibles, religious magazines, and flyers. Campus Crusade put a large board with the question "What do you think of Jesus?" and various answers written on it by students in a display case in the student union building.
-I don't hear a lot of anti-religious sentiment from professors. I can think of only one who really qualifies, and that was more of an expression of disagreement with religion rather than an attack. He was respectful of the religious students in the class and made no effort to convert them. Granted, I'm an engineering major, and these issues just don't come up in differential equations class, so maybe I'm not in a position to see discrimination.
-One place I do see some anti-religious sentiment is from other students. While the campus does try to promote diversity, I don't believe they have speech codes. I don't see much of this behavior in class (again, nobody discusses religion in thermodynamics). There's a lot of hostility toward the preachers, but heck, I feel pretty angry at them myself most of the time. It's also been my experience that the majority of people are tolerant but indifferent toward other religious groups. I've had some really civil conversations with people of different faiths, or no faith, that have been much like Hatrack discussions.
To sum up, as a Christian, I feel that the university I attend has welcomed those of my kind with open arms. I do not think my religious freedom has been in any way hampered.
So*, anyone seen any statistics? I'm also curious about your own experiences. I know Dagonee has experienced discrimination personally. For those who believe that religious discrimination on campus is a problem, why do you think this? Do you think that ASU is an outlier, and if so, what can we do to encourage other universities to be more open to religious groups?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the junior college I attend or the university I'm transferring to in the fall are hostile to religious people, I certainly haven't experienced anything like that. I do know that one particular instructor has been, he's a history instructor and most of his discussions have focused on topics that are about religion and as a Christian, I feel like they're phrased in a way to be derisive.
It's an individual thing, I believe - some instructors are hostile to Christianity and some aren't, just like the population. For myself, I keep my religion out of my discussion answers (this is an online class, and our discussions are in a forum format much like this one) It's a history class, not a religion class, so I answer with the best of my ability without going into my personal belief system.
It worked last semester, I got an A in his class. I have him again this semester, and so far so good.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well. Universities teach you to think, religion, at least the more fundie sort, tends to crumble under critical thought. Cause and effect. The statistics seem to support Card, in that educated people are less religious than the general population; I just don't think hostility on campus is the cause. If nothing else, hostility rarely works as a method of conversion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Preach it, KoM. Show us the light of "rational thought." I can feel the spirit of reason flowing through the tent, tonight!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, exactly, do you find offensive in the notion that universities may work against religion by teaching critical thinking?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The statistics seem to support Card, in that educated people are less religious than the general population
BTW -- Mormons are an exception to the studies. If anything, educated Mormons (at least in the sciences) tend to be MORE devout. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, well. Universities teach you to think, religion, at least the more fundie sort, tends to crumble under critical thought. Cause and effect. The statistics seem to support Card, in that educated people are less religious than the general population; I just don't think hostility on campus is the cause. If nothing else, hostility rarely works as a method of conversion.
Umm, KoM, would you mind linking to those statistics you speak of?
Or is it just rational to believe you are right? I mean, should we just take it on faith? I mean, being that you're like, smart and all, and rational and based purely on facts rather than faith.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because 'critical thought' does not necessary pulverize religion. Otherwise, you know, more famous philosophers and other thinkers would've been atheist throughout recorded history.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I tend to think that attributing greater education to a higher likelihood of atheism is...well, unresearched. The statistics are there, but there has not been a reason established by anyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because 'critical thought' does not necessary pulverize religion. Otherwise, you know, more famous philosophers and other thinkers would've been atheist throughout recorded history.
Ah, but a decisive minority have been orthodox fundamentalists. That's the thing. Critical thinking and religion aren't incompatible at all. It's fundamentalism that runs into trouble... and since the US has so many fundamentalists, it's easy to percieve a war between universities and religion.
Edit to clarify by adding "orthodox"
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes OSC writes his War Watch's with a flame thrower, and when he does, facts do not matter, only incindary statements to "back up" his feelings.
As a Christian, I think it's weird to have all of the American Christians claim some form of discrimination against us because, WE ARE 70% of this Nation.
Maybe OSC means "christians" that he deems real Christians or something to that effect.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't ASU tolerant of a lot of things? Back when I listened to Dr. Laura, she was upset about some kind of Sexual Arts festival being held in Arizona. Though to be honest, I don't remember which university it was being held at. I could see her point, that people thinking prostitution is liberating for women is not particularly rational.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ASU has tried to control the content of the student newspaper, deeming it too sexual. So I doubt the university sponsored a sexual arts festival, though it is possible that an independent group held one.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of the most famous of critical thinkers throughout history have thought themselves to believe in the most fundamental aspects of their religion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of such a nebulous group is a very nebulous term. Certainly many of the greatest (thinking greeks in particular, here, and perhaps a few germans), admitted to nothing more than a belief in a very abstract god.
edit: which could hardly be called a belief in the basics of any particular religion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe religion is under attack by curriculum or any specific practices at the university level, rather in my experience religious people are treated like the crazy uncle or aunt at the family barbecue. Fun to have a discussion with but no one takes them seriously. I don't think OSC was saying that he felt christians are blantantly discriminated against or that there is any kind of organized anti-christian sentiment, merely that you have to tread lightly or face a certain degree of both institutional and social ostricizement for your beliefs.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard there are two calls for concern from Religious groups.
A)Campuses are open to relgion, but are hostile towards MY Religion. This goes esepcially for the more evangelical religions that assume the right to evangelize 24/7, in and out of class, with no dissent or argument is neccesary to their religion and anything that doesn't have that is attacking their relgion.
B) Campuses are open to religion, but have policies that are hostile to living my religious life. Campuses are known for their sexual experimentation. Gay Rights clubs and rally's, the open availability of contraceptives, and even the Abortion Clinic information available or furnished by the school are considered attacks on the religion. How can you be both open to Gay Pride and Fundamental Christians? How can you let both exist on the same campus?
Add to that Geology, Astronomy, Archeology, Earth Science, Biology, and World History courses that all fly in the face of Biblical stories and you have people wondering what is going on.
Then there are feminist groups that don't want to have their husbands be thier lords, and Biblical Studies courses where strange, non-fundamentalist interpretations are taught. When the students who are by the book Biblical followers question their teachers, their teachers, and their aids, answer back, and some times one side or other does so flamingly instead of with respect and decorum.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add a third call for concern, Dan: Colleges enact policies specifically aimed at surpressing the religious voice on campus: Speech codes banning condemnation of particular sex acts or say, providing funding and facilities to magazines and papers that specifically attack religion while denying one religious publication access to such facilities.
Sure, the latter is unconstitutional now at public colleges. But several colleges which had previously given student activities fees to pro-abortion groups, gay rights groups, and magazines that attack religious beliefs frequently actively considered dropping their student activity fees because this decision would make people fund these against their conscience.
I've had college professors explain to me why "Piss Christ" must be funded but funding a Christian Perspective magazine was a travesty.
quote:Gay Rights clubs and rally's, the open availability of contraceptives, and even the Abortion Clinic information available or furnished by the school are considered attacks on the religion.
As someone with more than passing familiarity, the problem most of us have with this isn't that such information is available, but that certain viewpoints are disadvantaged in the public square while others are given primacy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My university is very religiously tolerant, as far as I know. Everyone that I've met in the last two years seems to have treated religious beliefs and believers with the respect they deserve.
Of course, my future housemate is a devout Christian and we call him 'Bible Boy', but it's all in fun and kind of cool. It sounds a bit like a superhero.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I recall from my college days that there were two basic criteria for funding (from activities fees) groups on campus:
1) The group had to be open to anyone who wanted to participate, and
2) religious organizations were not funded from the general pool.
The reason for the first was that we had too many groups vying for limited cash, so a group that only sought to attract specific categories of students, or one that required you to have a particular major, or be "in the sciences" for example, were just not considered to be valid uses of funds that EVERY student paid.
It didn't matter if the group's message itself had broad appeal, only that it was OPEN to anyone who wanted to join. So, we might fund the NRA and Gay Pride because they said they'd let any student join in. The group I was pimping for didn't get funds because we were focussed on students with on particular major.
Ultimately, I think this was an okay way of doing things.
And, there's at least the possibility that a religious group might disqualify itself from funding (at least under the rules then practiced by my college) simply because they might've stated that they would not accept SOME students into their group.
Honestly, I doubt they'd be that dumb, but if they said something like "we won't take any gays" my school would've denied them funding purely on the basis of having an exclusion in their membership.
Now, point #2 is probably more to the point. If a group was formed solely to promote a religious viewpoint (as opposed to, say, a conservative one), the school might have two complementary reasons for denying them funding:
1) There were plenty of sources for religious groups to get funding without it having to come out of the student activity fees.
2) The school was very careful not to endorse any particular religion.
In essence, we all know that religion...and separation of official policy (even at a private university -- as long as it is not a religious institution) from religious favoritism is a problem that can touch off some major problems. People in general don't like it if their non-voluntary contributions go to religious groups. For every person who says they don't have a problem with this, there are probably dozens (and no, I don't have the data) who would have an objection.
I think schools grasped that fundamental side of the issue.
What they probably have had a harder time grasping is that to a religious person, promotion of messages that are counter to that person's faith, even if approached from a non-religious viewpoint are still "religious" in nature. So, a group that supports abortion rights is ALSO sending a religious message. A group that promotes acceptance of homosexuality is ALSO sending a religious message.
I don't know if the level of discussion on college campuses has reached this level of understanding, or what the administrations are doing about it. But I suspect that they would not want to do this. In part, I think they'd be concerned that it opens the path to someone claiming that EVERYTHING is religious speech. So, you put a book in the library on evolution, do you have to go get one on Intelligent Design to balance it out (i.e., not because scholars at the university WANT that other book, but because if you don't buy it, someone will protest?)
It is a quandary, and it probably looks VERY different depending on which side of the debate one is sitting on.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What they probably have had a harder time grasping is that to a religious person, promotion of messages that are counter to that person's faith, even if approached from a non-religious viewpoint are still "religious" in nature. So, a group that supports abortion rights is ALSO sending a religious message. A group that promotes acceptance of homosexuality is ALSO sending a religious message.
It's not that I think they're "relgious" in nature. It's that I think it's ridiculous and highly discriminatory to even attempt to categorize expression that way, or to say determine that if something is religious, it deserves to have a lesser voice at the school than other types of expression which are essentially founded on belief.
Of course, there's ample documentation that different sides of different issues are treated very differently by the school. A magazine that spent most of its space discussing the activities of funded school organizations was defunded my first year at school - and they specifically cited articles attacking NOW or BGLAD as reasons for the defunding. Apparantly, promoting policy A was acceptable, but opposing policy A was not. This one never went to court, because the Wall Street Journal and the National Review got involved quickly. And this was at UVA, which is almost conservative compared to many other public schools.
This isn't even to mention elected student officials regularly using language that even KoM doesn't use here to attack religion - in official proceedings, no less.
I don't think Christianity in particular or religion in general are being stamped out. But anyone who tries to dismiss all this as people who want to evangelize but never hear dissent or people who don't want to live near immoral behavior is simply kidding themselves or ignoring the evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, that's a good point, Rivka. When a person is in a religious minority, institutions can trample on their beliefs without even realizing it. Still, I'm not sure that really singles out religious people; there are plenty whose lifestyles don't work well in a dormitory setting. But I suppose they're usually able to be a little more flexible than those who are having their beliefs violated.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because 'critical thought' does not necessary pulverize religion. Otherwise, you know, more famous philosophers and other thinkers would've been atheist throughout recorded history.
There is a difference between rational thought, and critical thought. Augustine, to take just one example, reasoned quite well from the axiom of the Christian god's existence; but it wouldn't have occurred to him to question that foundation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Hmm, that's a good point, Rivka. When a person is in a religious minority, institutions can trample on their beliefs without even realizing it. Still, I'm not sure that really singles out religious people; there are plenty whose lifestyles don't work well in a dormitory setting. But I suppose they're usually able to be a little more flexible than those who are having their beliefs violated.
In my (admittedly limited and biased) experience, colleges are also more likely to resist being flexible about religion-related issues. Take the Yale case, for example -- they were more than willing to make exceptions for students who were married. But had to be forced to make exceptions for those who had religious objections to being in the dorms.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Augustine had thought about the basis of his faith, he would have realised he was taking the word of illiterate peasants for events of a highly unusual nature. At that point, I believe he would indeed have rejected it. But thinking about your sources just wasn't very common in those days.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which illiterate peasants, exactly? The ones who wrote 2 of the four gospels? Paul? Luke (whose gospel is second hand, but most of Acts isn't)? Mark is secondhand, but he wasn't illiterate.
Do you know what illiterate means, KoM?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Unable to read", and by extension write. The authors of the Gospels were not illiterate; the actual disciples were illiterate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There is a difference between rational thought, and critical thought. Augustine, to take just one example, reasoned quite well from the axiom of the Christian god's existence; but it wouldn't have occurred to him to question that foundation.
All non-trivial systems of thought have axioms aka assumptions as foundations. Many atheists, for example, assume without argument that asserting the nonexistance of God should be a default or axiomatic position.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since when were fishermen of the first century educated?
There's actually quite a bit of evidence that literacy was, if not common, then not rare.
Beyond that, you're assuming they didn't bother to learn to read and write in the 37 or so years after the resurrection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to find the link about education v. religious belief. I swear I read the same study, or a similar one.
In my barest recollection, the study was conducted as a survey of people around the US. It asked two questions. The first determined what level of education the person had received, giving several benchmark choices (such as some high school, high school grad, some college, etc). The second determined the person's level of faith in some form of God (again, no belief, skeptical belief, all the way up to devout).
The study, don't remember where I read it, and Google's proving very uncooperative with its search results, showed that people who received the highest levels of education had the lowest percent reporting devout and the highest percent reporting no belief or atheism. Those with the least formal education reported the highest levels of faith and lowest incidence of atheism.
Is there a causal relationship? That wasn't part of the article, if I remember. It was simply observational to the best of my knowledge.
So, KoM is interpreting that education destroys religious belief. However, it could be just as true that people who already question their faith may be more prone to pursue higher education.
....
Totally aside from that, while I do feel that rational, educated, intelligent people can be highly devout, it seems to me that religion is often accepted most quickly and readily by those with less education and less willingness to think critically.
Hence Marx's "religion is the opiate of the masses" sentiment.
posted
OK, let's just say that you're right, the authors were illiterate (you're not, you're dead wrong, but let's just say): illiterate peasants are more likely to be liars?
And maybe, just maybe, the 'basis of his faith wasn't just the words he read. Words written by those 'illiterate peasants'. I realize that to you people of faith are brainwashed idiots, but do at least try and apply honest reasoning to that conclusion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that anyone is going to deny that there have been and likely will continue to be cases where college administrations and cultures have been insensitive and sometimes outright hostile to religion and religious people (we could say the same for pretty much any group, although the relative amount is obviously going to differ on a case by case basis).
However, I don't think that the idea that religious people are under constant oppression, afraid and often prevented from practicing or talking about their faith is anywhere near close to accurately portraying the situation. Does anyone else?
It wasn't at my college. I have plenty of religious friends who went to various colleges who also didn't report any such thing to me. (Of course, more than a few of them went to religiously affiliated colleges).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Within certain circles in Utah, the University of Utah has a reputation as being hostile to the LDS Church and antagonistic to LDS students. I don't know how many second- or third-hand stories I have heard (mostly from BYU backers) about some LDS student who was ridiculed for his/her beliefs in class, or about some professor who was supposedly infamous for making LDS-bashing the focus of his course. There really are large numbers of Utahns who would rather send their children almost anywhere other that the U of U, because they are convinced that the students will be assailed on every side until they completely lose their faith and become druggies or atheists or Democrats. I remember a few years ago the state legislature held a big inquiry into the U. to investigate claims of anti-LDS bias. As far as I remember, they found nothing.
I spent seven years at the University of Utah. Most of that time was spent in the Humanities/English departments, which are supposed to be among the worst offenders. I never, not once, felt criticized for my religious beliefs. They hardly ever came up. Not one of my professors ever expressed any sentiment critical of the Church, that I can recall. I remember a single time, just one time, when I felt compelled to correct a small bit of misinformation about the LDS Church, which was given innocently and was promptly withdrawn after I spoke up.
As a result of my experience, and that of my younger brother, my entire extended family now speaks up vociferously in defense of the U of U if anyone ever complains about its "bias" in their hearing. My mom's favorite retort is, "Well, how many Utah professors have been excommunicated by the Church lately?" (Referring to the fact that several BYU professors' excommunications were widely publicized a few years ago.)
After seeing how wrong people were about the U., I have a hard time taking general complaints about the U.S. higher education system seriously.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be at all suprised if the people who are spreading around the "colleges are anti-religious" view are the same people who spent so much moeny and effort spreading the "colleges are bastions of this wacky behavior we're going to call Political Correctness" view during the 90s. If so, like before, it's likely that maybe - maybe - 1 story in 20 has any merit whatsoever.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only hostility to religion - by any stretch - at my school was the closing lecture of one my literature classes. In the course of the semester, five of the 12 students got engaged. My professor ended the class with a "Why??? I have failed you!" cry of anguish. It was hilarious. However, I got an A in the class so his opinion of my action didn't affect my grade. I just thought it was funny, and it's nice to have a different viewpoint around.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that doesn't change the fact that in the late 80s and 90s, there was a movement that could be loosely grouped under the term "political correctness" that had serious negative effects on personal liberty at many universities. Any more than the many misuses of race as an issue in employment disputes demonstrates that there is no racial discrimination in employment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor does it change the fact that people largely became aware of something going on (which bears little relationship to the common understanding of Political Correctness) through the agency of a true movement of people who were putting a huge amount of money into pushing this idea on the public and that their reports were, by a huge majority, astoundingly innaccurate when not outright lies.
I imagine that the same proportion and tactics are at work here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
