Why we need to show Christianity more respect in the classroom

Secular, prestigious academic institutions like Dartmouth pride themselves on their diversity, even using it as a selling point to prospective students. This valuable trait, diversity, means that the colleges are attended by students of different backgrounds, as well as students with different belief systems. This diversity, we're often told, is valuable because it gives students broad perspectives, enables us to engage in debate with people who disagree with us, and opens our eyes to new ideas.
But are our eyes open to old ideas?

According to a study published in 2001 by The Graduate Center at the City University of New York, Christianity is practiced by 76.5 percent of Americans. However, Christianity seems to have lost much of its credit in academia: Catholic sexual practices are punch lines, students are told that the bible is a series of myths that shouldn't be taken literally, and worse, those with strong beliefs are not viewed as intelligent. In fact, in an Earth Science discussion section last year, the subject of evolution came up, and one student tried to suggest the mere possibility that a creation story might hold some merit. This student was shot down aggressively and repeatedly as students denied him the chance to defend himself.
"In my experience, professors and fellow students tend to look down on me as less than intellectual if my faith comes up in class," says Caitlin Angelette '09. "It rarely does, but certain discussions about morality and the like seem to require me to speak. And when I do, people are either dismissive or awed because they thought I was such a 'smart' person."

"It's the difference between disagreement and ridicule," says Charlie Dunn '10, who is affiliated with the Christian publication The Apologia. "Disagreement is a valuable tool in academia, ridicule isn't. Everyone is afraid to be made to look silly, especially at a school like Dartmouth where we all pride ourselves on being smart. Ridicule is one of the most effective ways to silence people." In this way, those with strong religious beliefs are silenced, their arguments not given legitimacy.

In an article published in The Dartmouth Review on January 25, Nicholas Desai says

"... anyone who has interacted with this form of religion in societies, often non-Western, in which religion boils down to a means of social control, will be sympathetic to their efforts to promote, if not a secular utopia, at least the exercise of reason against religious practices that amount to child abuse, incitement to murder, or hatred."

Mr. Desai is reviewing a book that addresses the absence of religion, and exemplifies the discourse that has become mainstream across college campuses. Not only is the necessity or purpose of religion debated, but its practices are also represented as barbaric. Are some religious practices barbaric? Yes. But absent from these debates are discussions of religious practices. Religion is simply discarded completely, rather than picked apart--for example, it is easier to assume that Muslims are misogynistic and deny women basic rights, rather than examine the beliefs and texts of Islam to truly evaluate behavior as sanctioned by religion, or as interpreting religion in a way that excuses behavior.

Now, when considering the debate of faith vs. science on campus, it should be known that, in general, professors are so much less religious than the general population. According to a 2007 study on college professors' religious beliefs by Harvard Professor Neil Gross and George Mason Professor Solon Simmons, 23.4% of professors are atheist or agnostic--not a majority, certainly, but quite a bit higher than the average population, where only 7% of respondents to the 2000 Census professed to be atheist or agnostic. In fact, in "elite, doctoral granting" institutions, the percentage of professors who are atheist or agnostic is even higher, at 36.6%. Additionally, the Graduate Center study mentioned earlier also reported that the age group of 18-34 year olds had the highest proportion of respondents reporting themselves as "secular" or "somewhat secular." . The result of putting these two less-religious groups, Professors and students, together in the same setting obviously leads to fewer Christians in academia than in the general population. Now theoretically, it should not matter that Christians are less well-represented in elite academia than in the general population. Dartmouth and its peer institutions are supposed to be open-minded, tolerant places where the exchange of different ideas is welcome. Unfortunately, Christianity has gained a bad rep.

This might be because religion is an easy target for abuse in an academic setting. Given the rigidity of science and research, religion or faith is hard to quantify. Does God exist? Does heaven exist? Will people really go to hell for having premarital sex? By the standards of academia, there is no way to prove any answers to these questions. As Dunn explains, many of the academic disagreements regarding Christianity deal with the natural vs. the supernatural. "In science," he points out, "we usually only discuss what's measurable and observable." Despite recent attempts to merge faith and science, such as the Dalai Lama's The Universe in a Single Atom, academics and faith remain discordant.

On top of this, many people feel as if they simply do not fit in with religion. In our modern college culture, where hooking up, drinking, and cursing are commonplace, a lot of our behavior is deemed sinful by Christian churches. Moreover, Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee cites his strong Christian faith throughout his website as he condemns gay marriage and abortion. In fact, in 1998, Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad by the Southern Baptist Convention in USA Today that said very plainly, "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Given that Huckabee is currently a prominent political figure, his actions gain a lot of press and are assumed to be representative of Christianity as a whole. In this sense, Christianity is seen as anti-progressive, ancient and unaware of the differences between the time when the bible was written and today. Because of this view of Christianity as outdated, it is easy to see why it may be disregarded by academics today.

However, students make a mistake in identifying political extremists like Mike "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" Huckabee with their fellow peers. Christian students on this campus never seem to offend people with intolerant statements; the Christian organizations on this campus, from The Apologia to X.ado, the Christian a cappella group, tend to be open-minded and accepting. It's ironic, then, that they're not treated that way in return. For instance, in the D of February 5, Lucy Stonehill '10 argues that "the undue 'tolerance' we have for the imposition of religion upon any secular educational institutions -- let alone those with Dartmouth's outstanding academic reputation -- is a troubling phenomenon that can only inhibit learning."

Since when does tolerance inhibit learning? She discusses an English class in which a student, during a study of the text of Genesis, citing biblical text to back him up, repudiated comments made by other classmates. Why should this be unwelcome? If this institution is all about diversity, as it often claims, shouldn't it also promote a diversity of opinions? Wouldn't having another perspective on the text be helpful to the academic thought process, allowing students to think more critically about the text in the face of opposing ideas?

As non-Christians or non-believers scorn religion for its "antiquated beliefs" and "narrow-mindedness", these critics might well take the time to examine their own beliefs. In scorning Christianity for its narrow-mindedness, perhaps they are being narrow-minded as well. Simply put, just because you do not agree with it does not mean that it's wrong. Furthermore, jokes about Jews and Catholics and Christians may be laughed at, but also speak to ignorance and inconsiderateness. Christianity is another perspective to debate; it's a philosophy that can be used to provoke thought and bring about new ideas. And isn't that what elite academia is all about?