Particularity and Pluralism
Thinking about Identity and Diversity
As often happens, this post originated as I was trying to reconcile ideas from a variety of news stories that all seemed to be approaching different aspects of the same general issue. Exploring their interplay alongside my own work in and about Christian Higher Education opened up some new thinking.
Story One: On Monday, Inside Higher Ed reported on a study dealing with how colleges and universities dealt with issues of religious accommodation. The doctoral student researcher had examined policies at 122 institutions to see how they accommodated those with unique (primarily non-Christian) religious needs. They kept track of variability of size and region and included both public and private institutions.
College students from religious backgrounds that require scheduled prayer time, dietary restrictions or specific holiday rituals often have to request accommodations to meet their religious obligations. But classes, exams and graduations often fall on holidays observed by these students. Kosher or halal food isn’t always easy to come by in dining halls, and finding both time and a physical space for daily prayer on campuses can be a challenge.
Only 55 of the institutions (45%) sampled had such policies. There was significant variability by institution type: 85% of public institutions, 58% of private, non-sectarian institutions, under 25% of Protestant or Catholic1 institutions, and 6.6% of evangelical institutions.
This doesn’t mean that religious institutions are closed to students of other religious persuasions. It does mean that they haven’t thought about their experience as minorities and developed strategies to make them feel comfortable within the context of institutional mission and ethos.
Story Two: Also on Monday, social media friend and Calvin University provost Noah Toly shared an essay that had appeared in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities’ Advance promotional organ. Written by interfaith scholar Eboo Patel, and reprinted from Deseret News, it celebrated the unique role played by religious institutions. Titled “The Fate of the Religious University”, it reports on a gathering in Washington D.C. that brought together leaders from a variety of religious institutions. Patel notes that the institutional representatives were committed to many of the same issues as their secular counterparts:
The message of these schools to their secular counterparts is clear: There are so many objectives that we share and matters on which we can work together. Let’s focus there. Let’s help poor students get an education and a better job. Let’s make sure that our faculty focus on research that lifts everyone up. That’s so much better than taking up opposing positions in the culture wars.
That last phrase caught my attention since I am currently working on a chapter in my book project titled “On Not Fighting Culture Wars”. Patel doesn’t want the religious institutions to shy away from those unique perspectives at the core of their identity. He asks the secular community (inside and outside higher education) to respect the values that drive those institutions as they seek outcomes shared with all universities.
In other words, respect our values. The secular world might not understand all of what we believe and every reason we do what we do, but can’t you see the results? The least you can do is affirm that our religious identity is an asset. It is what drives our commitment and results in our excellence.
I share Patel’s optimism on how Christian Universities might see secular institutions as fellow travelers in higher education instead of something to be opposed through hyperbole about indoctrination, parties, and free sex. I remember being at a reception when I was an administrator in Portland. One of the people I talked to was a senior administrator at Oregon State. I didn’t know what he thought of our small Christian university and so was surprised when he told me that he always thought it would be great to teach in a school like ours.2
But the caution against culture warring remains. When Christian universities lead with what they are opposed to rather than centering their particular ethos, they make it hard for other institutions to understand us. If all we can say is “we believe in traditional marriage” without an explanation of how that position flows from institution ethos, it’s hard to take us seriously. And if we can’t explain it in terms of mission or community or the experience of our students, it’s just a phrase meant to stop conversation. This was one of the really troubling aspects of the 303 Creative decision about the evangelical web-designer.
Story Three: Another story from Inside Higher Ed this morning reported that the Ohio legislature had passed a law creating “Intellectual Diversity Centers” at five public universities in the state. These centers would be independent units and “all centered on the U.S. Constitution, law and history.”
The title of these units is challenging in an Orwellian sense. They are actually designed to provide a diverse option to what the legislators believe is taught in the existing programs of political science, law, and history.
This is a failure of diversity. They engage in the othering of the college professors who teach in those areas, asserting that they are engaged in indoctrination3. Even if faculty members specialize in the more challenging parts of our law and history4, exploring things the legislators would rather stay hidden, faculty members care for their students’ experiences in class. They are not the opponent to be challenged.
If universities, Christian or Secular, are to be committed to their unique mission, then accepting diversity of scholarship and viewpoint is a prerequisite. The ability to hold the particularity is couched in the commitment to pluralism. It needs to be lived out externally and internally.
Story Four: This morning’s Religion News Service reported on a conflict in Fort Worth. A group called Metroplex Atheists wanted to hang street side banners that read “In No God We Trust”.
The group filed a complaint against the city. As the story reports:
In the complaint, the organization contends that the city’s decision to deny the banner request violates the First Amendment. The complaint alleges the city favors pro-religious speakers, noting it regularly allows banners for Texas Christian University and has authorized a campaign for Kenneth Copeland Ministries’ Southwest Believers Convention in the past.
In a statement sent to Religion News Service via email, the Fort Worth legal department said: “The City is aware of the lawsuit, believes that it acted appropriately and will defend its position in Court.”
I was reminded that last year the Supreme Court ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston that the city of Boston had erred in denying a Christian group’s request to fly a Christian flag in Boston when it had regularly allowed many other groups to fly flags. The court argued that this wasn’t religious establishment because it was simply an acknowledgement of the diversity of views in a pluralistic society.
I don’t know if the Metroplex Atheists case will work out the same way (especially with the current makeup of the courts). But it certainly underscores the challenges of living in a pluralistic society. If we are really committed to pluralism, it may be helpful to start with the groups farthest from our own and working our way back to our own groups.
Various groups, universities, and scholars should be free to pursue their particularity. They should celebrate pluralism at the same time, showing respect for those who differ without demonizing or denying rights. Such a central commitment can not only provide alternatives to things like Christian Nationalism but can go a long way toward resolving the negative polarization that plagues our contemporary social discourse.
I was on an accreditation visit to a Catholic institution and was pleased to see that the students had set up an interfaith prayer room and made some adjustments to their chapel to be more accommodating to Muslim students.
In other settings, I also met other public university administrators who very much looked down on institutions like ours.
I saw a great meme on Facebook with a professor asking how he could be indoctrinating students when he can’t even get them to read the syllabus!
Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction tried in vain to explain away the Tulsa Massacre as not being about race.