<p>Maybe we should all just read Charlotte Simmons so we can really worry about our daughters. From what I've heard, she was really at the wrong school.:)</p>
<p>No. No. No. Don't get the Dukies started! </p>
<p>My favorite "critique" of Charlotte Simmons was written by a Duke professor who maintained that the book was unfair to the school because "only about a third of our students are really like that!"</p>
<p>It's an entertaining read, but fails because the main character is a cardboard cutout who makes jarringly unbelievable personality transformations from on page to the next. It would have probably been a better book as one of Wolfe's non-fiction works.</p>
<p>I am an Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA and can tell you that Davidson's decision has caused quite a stir among the conservative wing nuts in the denomination. The Presbyterian Layman had a feature article on this and based on the article, you would think the world was coming to an end(er....perhaps a poor choice of figure of speech there).</p>
<p>For us moderates and liberals it is rather embarrasing, particularly since the college has been welcoming of a religiously diverse faculty and student body for many years. It aint Grove City College by a long stretch. There are many colleges under the auspices of the PCUSA but the denomination has essentially no influence over their governance. Certainly far less than those under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church where Pope John Paul II reigned in wayward theological teaching at these institutions.</p>
<p>The bottom line for Davidson is that the bylaw changes will have little if any impact on the institution.</p>
<p>I feel like I'm in a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde movie around here.</p>
<p>Governance matters, but administration matters too in my experience. I'm not privy to the history of other schools, but here at Michigan is seems that many initiatives come from the president, provost, faculty and so on. They have to get the regents "on board" to go forward with such things, but that relies as much on strong leadership from a forward-thinking, trusted, and charismatic president and provost as it does on an activist (or diverse) board.</p>
<p>What is a Christian. Okay I know what a Christian is, but how does Davidson judge who is one. </p>
<p>I know Christians who never go to church, but say they are Christian.
I know Christian who never go to church, but walk the walk.
I know people that go to church, but act in very "un-Christan" like ways
I know people who are very kind, generous, giving, and who Christain would say act religious, but who are atheist or Buddhist or Jewish, etc
I know people claiming to be Christians who say and do thinks that are "not what Jesus would do" if you get my drift</p>
<p>Do they give them a test? Interview them on their level of Christianity?
Since a certain group of Christians think Catholics aren't Christian, how would they judge me, a Catholic? </p>
<p>My point is that as a criteria for being a good person, a smart person, a caring person, giving one a label does not make them fit that label as perceived by the people looking for the label...convoluted, but I get it ;)</p>
<p>My point is that someone can say "I am a _______" but that does not make it so. Personally, I think your relationship with religion is personal and whatever level that takes is fine. </p>
<p>Its just interesting to me when a group says "We want Christians". What does that really mean?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay I know what a Christian is, but how does Davidson judge who is one
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think it ever really claimed to be able to. It was also never so vague as to say "we want Christians." It used active church membership as a proxy for Christian faith, and then asked board members to pledge to support Davidson's purpose and honor traditions where "faith and reasons work together in mutual respect for service to God and humanity." </p>
<p>As you've pointed out, church membership is no guarantee of "good" Christianity. I am sure Davidson is aware of that. Unless it wants to grill prospective board members on their adherence to Christian principles, it's got to go with something else (imperfect though it may be).</p>
<p>Actually, being active church members is not a good measure either. Yep, remember Tammy Faye and whats his face?</p>
<p>I LOVE Tammy Faye! ;) (But I don't think Darla and Rick are church-attached.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, being active church members is not a good measure either
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep, see above, post #126. I agree with you on this.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>I'm not a Presbyter, but I would think it is very easy to determine if someone is a Christian and then further if they are Presbyterian:
.you ask them.</p>
<p>I'm not aware of any religion claiming that their adherents are better people than any other people based upon their allegiance to the faith; although many would claim that a particular individual is better for having followed the tenants of the faith they have chosen and that there are certain immaterial rewards for adherence. </p>
<p>This would be impossible to dispute, unless you were prescient enough to know what they would have been like otherwise or have access to the unseen--certainly most would claim that their life would be materially and spiritually worse without it, for what its worth.</p>
<p>Faith is not necessarily like college admissions, there is not a means test for faith, if you want to participate in a certain belief and agree to the tenants of that faith you will normally be allowed in without a test of your intelligence, income, racial or family background (although the past has some poor examples to the contrary) and family connections; however, there most certainly is a means test for college admissions, wealth and privilege-- that is, with anything within the secular, non-religious sphere. As a rule we are comfortable with all means testing when it comes to peoples public lives and privilege (with the occasional and passing tinge of guilt).</p>
<p>There are plenty of wacko Democrats and Republicans (and Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Atheists, etc.). There are also wacko theists, its likely because all people have essentially the same capacity for irrational and uncivil behavior and no belief system-- political or religious --will change this.</p>
<p>A donkey, carrying a load of books, is still a donkey.</p>
<p>Its just interesting that if one says they are Christian, that somehow is interpretatd that person leads a good moral life. And it by implcation, implies that other religious people don't.</p>
<p>"I'm not aware of any religion claiming that their adherents are better people than any other people based upon their allegiance to the faith"- maybe not most religions, but some and the very vocal practioners of some:</p>
<p>Try the Born Agains- there is a huge group of people in this country who think that those of us not following their particular brand of Christianity and Religion are bad people, that we don't get it. and are sinners. There are people that think Catholics aren't Christians and will therefore go to &^%$ because we haven't found Jesus, again. Religious people judge other religions all the time. Wars are fought over relligion. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at the Middle East. </p>
<p>Sorry to get on my high horse, but to deny that religious people do not put down other religions is denying the realities of our world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Governance matters, but administration matters too in my experience. I'm not privy to the history of other schools, but here at Michigan is seems that many initiatives come from the president, provost, faculty and so on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Board and the Adminstration are inextricably linked. Yes, the initiatives (usually) come from the President, but the President is hired by the Board, and usually with specific objectives in mind. For example, when Swarthmore hired Frank Adyelotte back in 1922, they did so knowing that his major interest in the job was creating a unique type of honors program. He had been quite clear about that, including pre-hire demands on the amount of money the Board would have to raise.</p>
<p>I am confident that Vagt at Davidson was hired because the majority of the board had the expectation that he would continue Davidson further along the path of becoming more national, more secular, and more diverse -- although I doubt he was sold to old man Belk in that fashion.</p>
<p>Or sometimes, the Board just wants a caretaker to maintain the status quo for a while, often taking an institutional deep breath after a period of change or conflict. I imagine Harvard will be ready for an institutional deep breath after the Larry Summers era!</p>
<p>Interrestdad, your opinion about the "different intent" is wrong. As Interrestdad will remember, I now have a vested interest in mounting a defense here, but interest or not, a defense is warranted. As I understand it, the board used to be required to be all-Presbyterian (though it never excluded non-Presbyterian students). This means not only no Jews or Catholics, but no Baptists, Methodists or Unitarians, either. Nothing anti-semitic there. Then the pool was broadened to include all Christians, then, most recently, to include some non-Christians. As I understand it, the purpose of this was to cater to the politically correct folks that interpreted the former rule as anti-semitic or otherwise "hateful." The policy changes have been toward liberality, not away from it. If it cost them the Belk money, I'm sure they knew that at the time they made the decision. It wouldn't have been the decision I would've made, but if you think the prior policy was too restrictive, then you've got to praise their courage in giving up the money.</p>
<p>There is nothing anti-semitic about a school having a Christian heritage. Most of the private schools in the country do in one way or another. As another poster remarked, the Presbyterian Church authorities' little divestment scheme, on the other hand, strikes me as just that. A good time, then, for the College to move further away from the Presbyterians, in my opinion.</p>
<p>The place has always been a Presbyterian college. It graduated, and still graduates, a lot of kids that go into the ministry. In the dim and distant (and thankfully, growing dimmer and more distant every day) past, I am certain the college refused to accept, at various times, and like many Ivy league schools, Jews, blacks and women. My daughter tells me that aside from a few of the usual couple of knuckleheads that somehow sneak through the admissions vetting at every school, the students are as open-minded and frustratingly liberal as students anywhere. (That's an overstatement; Young Republicans and College Democrats run about even there, which is probably unusual). The chaplain goes out of his way, personally, to make sure that all of the kids who want to, have an opportunity to practice their faith. For the smaller populations of worshipers, they arrange for local families to help them get acquainted with their local religious community. I could go into a lot of specifics, but my daughter would view that as an invasion of her privacy. But let me just say that I feel pretty confident that if you went back down to visit now and spent a few hours there with the administration, faculty and students (and the board members), you would come away thinking them all to be pretty decent, moral and open people. One of my closests professional collegues sent his Jewish son there, and if there were any anti-semitism going on down there, I would have heard about it. </p>
<p>The reason for the relative lack of diversity, as you well know, Interrestedad, is self-selection among the regrettably small number of qualified minority applicants for such schools. If I were a bright minority kid from the South with an opportunity to go to the Ivy League or West Coast, staying in a rural NC town would be a hard sell, and not primarily for reasons involving race. A ton of Davidson's merit money goes to try to correct this imbalance; it sure did last year.</p>
<p>You are slamming a fine school and a great bunch of very nice people based on the decision of an old man who probably thinks he is doing the right thing based on his Christian heritage and the historic origins of the school. If you believe that is "code" for something more nefarious on his part, much less the College's, then you surprise me, Interrestdad. I've always found you to be one of the more insightful and well-reasoned contributors here.</p>
<p>I may be mistaken, but I think that Mary Washington may have gone coed under threat of suit a number of years ago.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>People at Harvard think people at Yale have inferior educations...I don't even dare to think about what they think of people at say, umm, Davidson or Clemson. </p>
<p>Whether a particular Harvardians claim is true or not--and I suspect it isn't--the people at Davidson (or Yale) will probably endure through a particular Harvardian's sneers and condescension. In the same way, we all believe that what we believe is superior to competing beliefs, or it is likely we wouldn't believe in them, wouldn't you say.</p>
<p>To the best of my knowledge, Tammy Faye Baker graduated from neither Davidson nor Harvard, in fact, a lot of the boisterousness of those that you demeaningly refer to as "born-againers" are also unlikely to have attended Harvard or Davidson--much like the riotous football fans in England, or the bowling crowd from Union Local 69 (I love bowling), it may be that some people from Elite, well-to-do, or highly educated backgrounds find such people garish, overly excitable and offensive-- maybe they are; It's only natural.
To be able to behave condescendingly towards them, it seems, is a rarifiedl and precious entitlement.</p>
<p>Well it's a little hijack, but to follow up...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I may be mistaken, but I think that Mary Washington may have gone coed under threat of suit a number of years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe Mary Washington went coed two years after UVa did. It had previously served as its "women's branch" so this make sense. The suit you're thinking of was probably the 1982 suit against Mississippi University for Women. The last three remaining public women's colleges are MUW, Douglass, and TWU. They admit men now but focus on women.</p>
<p>I brought up "born again" people because a poster said he never knew of any religion that thought they were better than others. I disagreed. I also brought up Tammy Faye (whom I do really like) because she was a good Christian woman as was her husband (who ripped off thousands of people), and if people want to have a board full of Christians because that is their hertitage, it does not mean that all those people will be good people because of their affliation with a certain relgious belief system. But saying you only want Christians infers you want people with similar values, which we all know is not true.</p>
<p>I used the example of people that are born again, because often they are the most vocal about their relgious practices being "better" because they will go to heaven and those less enlightened will not. </p>
<p>My point was that just because a group says their board was Christian did not mean all those people were good Christians, which is what that implies. </p>
<p>"Yep, my whole board at IBG company is all Harvard Yale Grads" That doesn;t mean they are all actually good business people. </p>
<p>When people use a religious afflilation for measuring and accepting people, that by implication means they are good moral people. Maybe. </p>
<p>I am glad, that in 2005, a school is seeing the light, that is really good. And sacrifising money as well. Good for them for stepping up and opening their administration doors.</p>
<p>This is incorrect:
Christian=Good</p>
<p>This is correct:
.Christian=Christian
.Jew=Jew
.Muslim=Muslim
and
.Democrat=Democrat
(even though they absolutely believe they are morally superior to Republicans and say so...loudly, repeatedly and with varying degrees of conviction and sincerity: see M. Moore, Air America etc.)</p>
<p>
.Republican=Republican
(same as Democrat: see Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc.)</p>
<p>Philosophical/Political/Religious/Cultural beliefs generally involve the conviction that said belief is the correct belief and by extension a better belief than other similar beliefs (see, Democrat and Republican).</p>
<p>I agree with what you have said. But when religion is brought into the picture, it is a whole new balllgame. Always will be. Throughout history more wars were fought over religion than anything else. And, religion was used as an excuse to gain power and control. It hasn't changed much.</p>
<p>Vadad:</p>
<p>Just to correct a few misperceptions. I think Davidson is an excellent school. I don't think the students, faculty, administration, or alumni are racist, bigoted, or anything else but quality folk. </p>
<p>I think the change in the by-law was a admirable decision, knowing that they would lose Belk. Frankly, I'm surprised they just didn't wait him out. But, perhaps they knew something about provisions in his will that forced their hand. Who knows?</p>
<p>I don't believe the intent of the by-law NOW is exclusionary. I do believe that the intent of the by-law when it was enacted in the mid 1960s was not only exclusionary, but specifically exclusionary. I don't hold that against the people who enacted it in the 1960s. It's just the way things were. My southern prep school had a few Jewish students in the mid-60s (doctor/lawyer kids, of course), but I am quite certain a board member would have been viewed as a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The old-line country club certainly had no Jewish members.</p>
<p>My only surprise in the whole matter is that I had no idea that Davidson was a parochial school. Makes sense. In retrospect, I probably should have known, but I didn't fully understand all the places to look (board composition, mission statements, etc.) for clues at that time. I'm not sure the school is as front and center about that as they could be in their marketing materials, but I understand why they would downplay it a bit.</p>
<p>I think when you and I talked, my only hesitation about Davidson was the lack of diversity in the student body. I mean the numbers are what they are. If I recall, I said that I felt the student body would be welcoming, and that diversity would only be an issue if the pure numbers were a problem for an individual student. I still believe that, so I'm not at all surprised by your postive reports. </p>
<p>If anything, it seems pretty clear that the students, faculty, administration, and most alumni are pushing the college to move forward at faster pace. Getting rid of this by-law is the kind of symbolic step that is required to attract a more diverse customer base. Vagt knows that. That's why he said that he viewed the decision as being as important as the decision to allow Jewish faculty members. I actually feel sorry for him having to deal with a couple of throwbacks like old man Belk.</p>
<p>I'd recommend Davidson as strongly today as I did to you a couple of years ago....I just would add the fact that it is strongly tied to the Presbyterian Church and strongly church-related in its governance, which could be a positive to some folk, not so much to others. In much the same way, I don't think it be proper to describe Notre Dame without pointing out its church affiliation. </p>
<p>Or, I don't think you can describe Swarthmore without acknowledging its religious roots. In fact, the second and third sentences of the "About Swarthmore" page state that very clearly: "Located 11 miles southwest of Philadelphia in the borough of Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, Swarthmore has been co-educational since its founding in 1864 by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Swarthmore is non-sectarian today but still reflects many Quaker traditions and values." </p>
<p>Interestingly, the first 50 years of Swarthmore's history was dominated by exactly the kind of tension on the Board of Managers that Davidson is encountering, with some Board members believing that school's education should have a strong religious doctrine component (known in Quaker circles as a "guarded education" and others believing that the focus should be on a more secular academic approach. It really wasn't until the acceptance of the very non-Quaker Honors Program in the 1920s that the issue was ultimately laid to rest.</p>
<p>BTW, Swarthmore had an all-Quaker Board of Managers for many decades after its founding.</p>
<p>Does anybody know the persentage of Presbyterians at Swarthmore? Harvard? Brown? I have a feeling that Christians in general and Presbyterians in particular may be under represented at these schools. And one eyed Gay Armenian first in there family to go to college Presbyterians are rumore to not be represented at all on the boards of any Ivy League College. Where is the shoch? The outrage? Come on people if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Man the ramparts and raise the cry as of yore, "The cops are chatgin' chicks up front!"</p>