Customer Reviews

God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation are Changing America

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Prior to starting this book I did not think that I would like it at all; however, I was mistaken. I highly recommend this book for members of the higher education community and those of particular faiths that may be attending college.

"God on the Quad" starts with a rather strange introduction which speaks of "red states" and "blue states" and makes a large number of generalizations about liberals and conservatives that may anger some people. After reading the entire book I could not really determine how the introduction frames (or even relates to) the rest of the book. If you, as a reader, feel that you get offended by political commentary then I recommend you skip the introduction. Starting at chapter 1 the book is worthwhile.

The book starts with a few case studies from various religious colleges: Brigham Young University, Bob Jones University, Notre Dame, St. Thomas Aquinas, Baylor, and a few others. Obviously the faiths of the schools and degree of fundamentalism range from each institution to the next. After the case studies, Riley follows a few themes such as "sex, drugs, and rock and roll," minorities and diversity, and political activism at religious institutions.

The problem I have is that Riley does not hide her biases towards various schools. For example, she writes with a negative voice when writing about Bob Jones University. I truly felt like there was nothing good about Bob Jones University, according to Riley. One reason for this may be because of the way she was treated on the different campuses. I do believe that her research would have been presented better if the biased voice had been removed and equal comparisons had been made.

Another big problem I had with the writing is that Riley makes the assumption that "secular" means "anti-religious" and makes it a strong reoccuring theme throughout the book that secular institutions foster hostile climates for students of faith. While I think she has some merit here, I would've liked to have seen more investigation into this percieved phenomenon. For example, do religious students feel uncomfortable at secular institutions because everyone in their dorm drinks? Or are they uncomfortable because everyone makes fun of them for not drinking? There is a huge difference that would be worth further exploration before actually accusing secular institutions of fostering hostile enviornments when, for the most part, they are trying their hardest to accomodate every single diverse individual.

Finally, this book does provide a lot of insight on why students choose to attend religious colleges and also how religious colleges are expanding and filling a niche in the overall spectrum of higher education.

A well-written, fair-minded survey of various religious colleges and universities (including my alma mater, "Old" Notre Dame) and how they are grappling with issues of race, gender, political correctness, and other battlefronts in the cultural wars raging in the country. The major focus is on half a dozen schools, including ND, Brigham Young, Thomas Aquinas College (an orthodox Catholic "Great Books" college), Yeshiva, and the "notorious" Bob Jones University, but other institutions are covered as well. Any simple-minded hypothesis you may have formed regarding the "inferior" quality of education at schools with an explicit religious emphasis is sure to be overturned here. (For example, did you know that the hyper-fundamentalist Bob Jones University has a well-regarded art collection? I certainly didn't.) Far from being backwaters laden with hicks and idol-worshippers, these colleges and universities provide some real intellectual "diversity" amidst a sea of sameness, have preserved an air of academic seriousness in an era of increasingly trivialized scholarship, and possess the inestimable advantage of a framework of "shared values" within which to examine the surrounding culture - and change it in meaningful ways.

This book contains essential information for parents and for students who are preparing for college and contemplating the scant options out there for a wholesome -- some might say a sane -- environment in which to live and study. I found myself wishing Mrs. Riley had covered several other colleges I've heard about; Grove City College in particular comes to mind. And I'd have appreciated an entire chapter on Wheaton. But with regard to the colleges and universities she does home in on, I learned much that I had wondered about. For example, Mrs. Riley examines the dating scene (or courtship scene, or hooking up scene, as the case may be) in detail and captures the ethos on each campus much more thoroughly than does that other indispensable guide for conservative students, ISI's Choosing the Right College. Although her writing is workmanlike, with occasional small lapses in grammar or diction, Mrs. Riley deserves high praise for the earnestness with which she pursues her subject, for her sense of the interesting questions, and -- with one possible exception, to which I'll return -- for the evenhandedness with which she treats schools of various faiths.

Among the schools she analyzes, Baylor seems to come off best. Interestingly, Baylor is the only subject school in which the administration is attempting a return to religious values that were compromised during the sixties and ensuing decades. The other schools discussed in the book are either still loosening up or have stood firm. Perhaps as a consequence, there is more of a discernible struggle at Baylor to make a place for cultural renewal; yet the code of conduct there appears to be advisory rather than compulsory, and I gather that Mrs. Riley approves. She seems to think that the most successful religious schools need to accommodate the culture to about the extent that Baylor does in order to analyze it or challenge it fruitfully.

Not surprisingly, accommodations in the form of clubs or forums dealing with homosexuality are among the most controversial at religious schools, and Baylor`s position on homosexuality, as cited with approval by Mrs. Riley, is instructive. Although Baylor's president reacted forcefully when the student newspaper advocated same-sex marriage, others in the administration have pointed to a need for greater opportunities for students to examine and discuss homosexuality from various perspectives. I question that. Once "love the sinner, hate the sin" becomes merely one point of view among many, it is a short step to the current Harvard controversy, wherein actress Jada Pinkett Smith has been criticized by the the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance because her remarks -- describing her own experiences with marriage, children, and career -- were too "heteronormative." In the end, I prefer the honest response of Thomas Aquinas College to a hypothetical homosexual student: "Then, you have a cross to bear of a more than usually difficult life of chastity." But Mrs. Riley's predilections are subtle. For the most part, she reports -- and reports well -- and we are left to decide.

Mrs. Riley may have given one school short shrift, though. It seems that after she had written a somewhat critical newspaper article about Patrick Henry College, the administrators took offense, warned another college against her, and curtailed her visits. I of course don't know who is right about what -- in a letter to the WSJ, PHC says she visited only two classes and drew unwarranted conclusions; she gives a different account -- but what interests me is that Mrs. Riley concludes on the basis of little or no evidence that the school is anti-Catholic. What actually happened, according to the book, was that a PHC administrator mistakenly assumed on the basis of the biographical information she had provided that Mrs. Riley herself was Catholic, and then suggested that her religion may have led her to an overly critical view of the school. It seems to me that the worst the administrator can be accused of is a lack of tact, or perhaps naivete. I'm left wondering whether Mrs. Riley's pique may have interfered with her analysis in this one instance.

But it's a very good book. There isn't another out there quite like it, to my knowledge.

First, I must say that "God on the Quad" was interesting, but as I read through BYU, Notre Dame, Yeshiva, and others I began to wonder whether Riley was writing for parents looking to find out whether they should send their high school seniors to these schools or if she really was trying to answer "How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America". I feel she did have to enlighten others on campus environment, atmosphere, etc, but she did not go far enough into how this generation was going to change America. Like another commenter, I get the feeling she'll have to write another book to get to her original thesis.

I greatly liked that Ms. Riley went after some of the more salient questions for religious colleges today, such as attitudes towards feminism, acceptance of gay or lesbian students, sexual culture, etc. But this book is too much like Rosin's book, _God's Harvard_, in that it often passes itself off as research when it is truly just reporting.

For example, citing statistics on the relative number of women and men on campus has been discredited as an indicator of feminist views long ago - the views of females do not equal feminist views, as some women Riley quotes express. Neither does "The American Freshman" survey attempt to define what their survey questions mean, and I expect significant differences in understanding between secular and religious college students when it comes to key terms in that survey.

Basically, Ms. Riley makes a lot of broad assumptions which she never explores, which is fine if you are a merely reporting your surface impressions, but cannot provide helpful research. For example, she seems to say all evangelical Christians are Red-state, neoconservatives (I'm not). Or all secular Boomers are anti-religious (many of my atheist Boomer friends are very respectful of my beliefs - including most of my professors). Since she doesn't acknowledge her own general assumptions, it is not surprising that she makes similar sweeping assumptions when quoting one student, even when the interpretation of the quote itself is highly suspect. For example, her conclusions about feminism follow no logic - to say because there are more women on campus than men does not mean feminism is predominant on campuses. That is like saying the porn industry is clearly feminist because although the owners are men, there are a lot more women in the porn industry. Quoting one woman who says she doesn't feel discriminated against is not evidence of equitable treatment, and no true researcher would ever accept it as such.

As long as readers understand this is one person's take on her experiences at certain religious colleges, with a particular slant that is never admitted or explored, it is possible to glean information from the book . Once people begin viewing it as research, it becomes problematic. I'm concerned too many readers will consider it research because of the way Riley describes her actions, uses quotations from personal interviews, and her assertions that this will increase our understanding of conservative religious institutions of higher education. As one who studies, researches, and teaches at Christian colleges, I find this book does almost as much to confuse our understanding as to increase it.

Naomi Schaefer Riley provides a fascinating account of education, student life, and the intersection of tradition and modernity at religious colleges in America. She is a fantastic writer, insightful, and entertaining. I cannot recommend this book enough!

There are more and more conservative students on college campuses today. On secular college campuses and even more so on religious college campuses there is a trend that the students are becoming more conservative. The intellectual grounding at Christian colleges and other religious schools is preaching not just the religious-based life but also the conservative-based political orientation.

The author has written a very interesting and eye-opening book about the influence of religious colleges on the college students of today. There is an author event available on C-Span2 Book TV - very informative.

Looking forward to a sequel,focusing on how the graduates
of these colleges fared in the "real world" after leaving the
Quad. Otherwise, very interesting and insightful.
MGB

You will understand what Riley means by her subtitle. The schools the author reviews run the gamut from ultra-crazy (Bob Jones University), to institutions that aren't much different from secular universities (Baylor and Notre Dame). The common theme is that the crazy schools are cheap to attend, are utterly intolerant, and are beholden to the worst of the millennialist philosophies. Hence the gory interest in WWIII starting in the Middle East.

Riley's thesis is that religious schools, most of the world calls them madrasas, are pumping out good little believers with outstanding morals and ethics. Never mind the Catholic church sex scandals, since the students are so isolated they have virtually no knowledge or understanding of the issue. Never mind that Bob Jones university only recently allowed interracial dating. Never mind that "pro-life" high powered rifle toting adherents commit murder in the name of God. But I digress. Riley paints secular schools as dens of drug abuse, sex abuse, moral and ethical vacuums, and philosophical deserts. She seems to be saying that Christian madrasas are the only way America can right itself, since the rest of society is unguided by higher principles. Riley also seems to suffer from the same sort of delusion that most of her subjects do; something is terribly wrong with America and religion is the answer. Whoa! Here comes the part about burning at the stake. If religion is the only answer, it follows that only one religion is the answer, if the evangelicals are to be believed. The race is on to become the dominant religion and to form the new theocracy. Unfortunately for the fractured protestants, the Mormons seem to be in a much better position to become that dominant religion.


The book itself is an interesting read, but the screaming omission is that there is no discussion regarding the reason why Religion is the answer. I realize it's a very narrowly focused book, but to paraphrase Sam Harris, just replace the word God with "The Tooth Fairy" every time it shows up in print and you understand the absurdity of churning out graduates from a strict creationist school like Patrick Henry College. PHC specializes in home-schooled children who have been brain washed from an early age. The Earth is only six thousand years old and dinosaurs walked with our recent ancestors! Woo hoo! Riley should have explained why having a theocracy of idiots would make America a better place. Is it because those who survived the new inquisition would all think alike? Is it because we'd have more Christian soldiers to do the bidding of the supreme leader? What about the lawyers from Ave Maria law school who use the Bible as the basis for understanding law? Will they argue that it's okay to stone to death unruly children?

As a cautionary tome, God on the Quad is scary. Millions of minions out to save your soul or burn you to carbon should you disagree with their bizarre interpretation of reality is our future if Riley is correct.

And just to refresh our collective memory, 600 years ago, everyone thought the world was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that drowning someone was the best way to tell if she was a witch or not.

I can hardly wait until the New United States of Creationist America is formed. I'll make millions selling kindling.