Riding Away
June 21, 2010
Joseph Bottum
She was wiry and whip-thin, like most of the kids who come off the ranches, and like nearly all of them, she sat a horse like a dream. I first met her when she was, I suppose, around thirteen or so—I can’t remember, exactly, but it was a few years ago, when she was helping with the horses of some friends of mine in Montana as a summer job: saddle-breaking, training the colts, currying, being the trailer on the gentle rides they’d get up for the tourists.
Each summer that I’d see her, she’d be a little more grown up—but only a little. All those kids are hard workers out west. They don’t really know how not to be. She beat her older sister in the barrel racing at the county fair one of those Augusts—which bothered her parents a little. They knew she was growing into the better rider, but they figured each of the girls ought to get a turn at the county blue ribbon and the little red and gold trophy, in plated plastic, with a cowgirl on top.
Around horses, she was calm and almost wise, an expert and a sophisticate. Around everything else, she was hopelessly naive—a country kid, wide-eyed and weak-willed. The daughter of my friends flew with her back east, last year, I think it was, to have her help drive their family car out from Long Island. And so she got to see New York City for an afternoon, a great excitement, and the ocean, too—and she told me all about it later that summer while we were riding up in the hills: her first trip away from the world she knew, the badlands and hilly prairies as they rise up from the great plains to meet the western mountains.
There are some real championship athletes on the rodeo circuit, and she wasn’t that. But she was good enough to get a minor riding scholarship to a school off on the other side of the state, joining the rodeo team of one of those big land-grant state universities that engulf midwestern and western towns. And she lasted less than a year. Three, four, maybe five months before she dropped out and turned up at home again, pregnant.
Not pretty enough to be a real target, her youth and her innocence were attractive enough to get her seduced and abandoned. She knew enough not to have an abortion—the pro-life creed is almost the only one that kids get, anymore, even out in the rural areas—but she didn’t have the sense or the character to keep it from happening in the first place, and nobody else was looking after her. She had a single talent: She sat a horse like a dream, and she thought that the school that had recruited her because of that talent would be her ticket to education and sophistication.
College let her down. I think it was David Brooks who once remarked that all college towns are the same place. He was thinking of the identical feeling that one gets in places from Berkeley, California, to Madison, Wisconsin—the similar coffee shops, the carbon-copy bookstores, the indistinguishable attitude of smug correctness. But it extends far beyond that. The identity of American universities reaches deep into their psyches—where all of them want to be Berkeley and Madison, and all of them are ashamed of being elsewhere.
Valparaiso University has a new diversity program, of which the school is proud—oh, so proud—for it makes the Lutheran Valparaiso just like every other school. A friend recently took her high-school-aged daughter to a college presentation in which the representative from Georgetown never mentioned that the school is Catholic. The University of North Dakota is ashamed of its gender-segregated dorms. Everybody at the University of Texas in Austin will tell you, shamefacedly, that even though Austin is in Texas, it’s different. And everybody at the University of Texas in El Paso will tell you that they’re really just like the folks in Austin—different from other Texans. Their school is really like the universities in California or New York, you know. No difference. No difference at all.
Even out at a minor western state university, there’s no supervision, no moral code, no help. Just the one-hour freshman orientation session that hands out condoms and vaginal dams, with a warning about AIDS. The cowgirl from the ranch—her parents wouldn’t have sent her to UC Berkeley or NYU, mostly because old reputations die hard. But they didn’t realize they were doing the rough equivalent.
The cost of a small state school’s embarrassment, of its hunger to be just like everywhere else, is paid by abortions and the knocked-up, messed-up young women who were thrown to the wolfish boys, unconstrained by either manners or morals.
The bacchanalia of the contemporary American college experience can be resisted, by young people who are strong enough and determined enough to oppose a personal code to the riot all around them. But lots of the young are not that tough. They’re weak and silly and susceptible—they’re young and uneducated, in other words—and they just want to do what everyone else is doing. In its way, that makes them just like the administrators of those colleges: weak and silly and susceptible.
And what about that girl who sat a horse like a dream and thought maybe that was enough to ride off to some bright future? She learned some lessons in college about life and its costs, and she’ll survive. All those ranch kids are survivors. They don’t really know how not to be.
But was this the only lesson our college system could give her—that people at college won’t look out for her like the people on the ranches? Is this all we have to teach?
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
6.21.2010 | 10:34am
Josh says:
Excellent Article!
6.21.2010 | 11:48am
michael Currie says:
From what I have read this now is the way of the real world and we better get used to it, they say. From "The Atlantic ", "Reason", "The Nation" to "The new Republic " and beyond the word is that there is no going back and who would want to. Oh sure they say there will always be those fighting a rear guard battle against the inexorable forces of the new world order but there's is a lost cause. My own experience would second that sentiment but I fight it never the less. For all of the talk of a resurgent conservatism I do not see much if any widespread resistance to, much less recognition of, the underlying forces that impel this degradation of culture. I once asked of twenty or thirty people, "why not murder" I qualified my question with one condition which was that " whatever answer you gave had to be the answer that convinced you". I did not want an answer I wanted their answer. While waiting I conjectured that if I had asked that question 100 years ago the answer would be quick and unequivical and in all likelyhood would have made reference to God, the Ten commandments or some religious principle. One person made a vague reference to Hobbes but that was about it. For sure most thought murder was wrong and that it was illegal but all weren't to sure why. To close, awhile back I read, in the paper version of "First Things", an article about Victor Hugo. In it was a quote from one of his contemporary critics that dovetails nicely with my above screed. In part it referenced "the anti social dream of the undefined ideal".
6.21.2010 | 11:50am
Denyse O'Leary says:
She had a kid? Not an abortion? Best decision she ever made.
Look, I share a house with my mom (85) and go out to visit my dad (91) every week.
Aborted kids can pray for you in heaven, but they can't open jars for you or follow you around in a walker or dial up your parents' sibs on the cell phone.
Please, people, don't listen to anyone who says, don't have kids for the sake of the environment.
WHOSE environment? Not yours.
I totally agree that that girl would have been better off with a decent guy, but that's not all there is to the story. She won't be the worse for having a kid who cares.
Look, I share a house with my mom (85) and go out to visit my dad (91) every week.
Aborted kids can pray for you in heaven, but they can't open jars for you or follow you around in a walker or dial up your parents' sibs on the cell phone.
Please, people, don't listen to anyone who says, don't have kids for the sake of the environment.
WHOSE environment? Not yours.
I totally agree that that girl would have been better off with a decent guy, but that's not all there is to the story. She won't be the worse for having a kid who cares.
6.21.2010 | 12:03pm
Marion (Mael Muire) says:
"The bacchanalia of the contemporary American college experience can be resisted, by young people who are strong enough and determined enough to oppose a personal code to the riot all around them."
It's asking an awful lot of certain young people 17, 18 years of age, who may indeed be up to the task three or four years from now, but just don't quite have it in them yet. Not mature enough. The old saying goes, "you can't put an old head on young shoulders."
I'm a huge believer in Catholic residential centers, especially for freshmen students. And if the school of their choice requires them to live on campus for their freshman year, then the family should consider having the student attend another school for freshman year - and upon completion, transfer to their school of choice as a sophomore (having completed the number of credits necessary to attain that status elsewhere.)
It's asking an awful lot of certain young people 17, 18 years of age, who may indeed be up to the task three or four years from now, but just don't quite have it in them yet. Not mature enough. The old saying goes, "you can't put an old head on young shoulders."
I'm a huge believer in Catholic residential centers, especially for freshmen students. And if the school of their choice requires them to live on campus for their freshman year, then the family should consider having the student attend another school for freshman year - and upon completion, transfer to their school of choice as a sophomore (having completed the number of credits necessary to attain that status elsewhere.)
6.21.2010 | 12:12pm
Charles H. Davis says:
I wrote a critical post related to Mr. Bottum's former article on capital punishment. In the present post he has redeemed himself. Thank you, sir.
6.21.2010 | 12:14pm
Ars Artium says:
Reading history brings astonishment at the ease with which people of good will are deprived of things they hold most deeply true. We once had a culture in the United States that was deeply flawed but allowed for correction and growth - allowed for those things, that is, as long as we preserved the firm, common ground on which we stood. Now, unthethered to anything at all, we have rights (as long as they are granted by government) but no culture, no common good, no common ground. Tiny narratives like this by Joseph Bottum may help in the effort to regain our common sense, but the chances for a retrieval seem very fragile - if they exist at all. If it is too late for us, this piece and others like it may serve as a record for future generations - just so they will know what was lost.
6.21.2010 | 12:35pm
Paul says:
There is a fairly impressive study that shows that kids that go to public universities are more likely to remain firm in their faith than kids who go to orthodox religious (namely, Evangelical and Catholic) schools. Conversely, kids who go to Evangelical and Catholic schools are more likely to lose or leave their faith (or to adopt a very watered down version of it) than kids who go to public schools. A review of the study in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggested that the rather counterintuitive implication of the study is that if you want your kids to remain in the faith, they're more likely to do so if you send them to a secular rather than to a religious college or university. And the evidence and the argument for the conclusion all seem rather sound. That leaves us with the why question. It also leaves us with the question of how and whether the retention of orthodox religious beliefs relates to sexual behavior--and thus the question of whether, from the standpoint of sexual behavior it's better if our young go to public or religious schools.
Having taught at both, if my students accounts are to be believed, I can tell you that there's an awful lot of losing virginity, young pregnancy, abortion, etc. at rather religiously conservative Catholic and Evangelical schools--a lot more than you might expect. That leads me to believe that the problem is less with public versus religious universities and more with the American Christian embrace of the subversive values of the larger culture. Ironically, Christian kids at public universities tend to feel their values under assault, tend to band together, and tend to, rather successfully resist the assault. Meanwhile, kids at Christian schools find contemporary American values smuggled in with the student culture and never realize they have anything to resist. So the best assessment of the evidence to date concludes. I think there's something to it.
Having taught at both, if my students accounts are to be believed, I can tell you that there's an awful lot of losing virginity, young pregnancy, abortion, etc. at rather religiously conservative Catholic and Evangelical schools--a lot more than you might expect. That leads me to believe that the problem is less with public versus religious universities and more with the American Christian embrace of the subversive values of the larger culture. Ironically, Christian kids at public universities tend to feel their values under assault, tend to band together, and tend to, rather successfully resist the assault. Meanwhile, kids at Christian schools find contemporary American values smuggled in with the student culture and never realize they have anything to resist. So the best assessment of the evidence to date concludes. I think there's something to it.
6.21.2010 | 1:25pm
Philip says:
My wife and I have 3 beautiful daughters and before sending the first 2 to University spent considerable time studying narratives such as the one provided in this post, and speaking directly to our girls about what they would face. More significantly we did all we could in our limited power to present to them the superior pleasure of seeking and knowing God. We believe the best defense against a pleasure-bearing enemy is a friend with a much greater pleasure (even if it must be patiently waited for). Something went right and my daughters have been able to resist the preasure to forgo the pleasure of the eternal city in exhange for the short term pleasures of this man-centred world. I am convinced that if our children are to resist the preasure to embrace this deeply selfish and ultimately empty and destructive age, they will have to be presented with the unsurpassed glory and pleasure of God. The sacrifice God calls them (and us) to is the giving up of something of lesser value in exchange for something of unsurpassed and infinite value.
6.21.2010 | 2:04pm
Spencer says:
After reading "I am Charlotte Simmons" by Tom Wolfe no self-respecting parent would send a daughter away to college. Unfortunately, as Mr. Bottum hints, they might send a son.
My son is going to public college this fall. He is eighteen and has Asperger's syndrome. We concentrated on smaller schools that weren't too far away (two-and-a-half hour drive). He will be registered with the school's Disability Resource Center which will keep somewhat of an eye on him and will notify each of his professors about his needed accommodations (nothing major) without stating his disability (privacy rules). Fortunately, he doesn't worry about being different doesn't care about peer pressure. This, of course, could change at any time. We've worked hard to get him ready for the "real world". Learning how to cook, clean, wash clothes, hygiene, finances, drive were special undertakings. He had thirteen years of Catholic school that taught him the basics of his faith as well as right from wrong. This has resulted in him freely criticizing my wife and me about our parenting technique relating to his younger sister calling us "soft" and "enablers" on several occasions.
He's politically and socially very conservative. He knows that his beliefs will be in the minority at college. The first thing I will be doing when we go to the two-day orientation is show him how to drive from his dormitory to the nearest Catholic Church. Keeping a child actively interested in his religious life is probably the hardest task for a parent. I think there is some truth in the earlier post that posits religious strength when feeling surrounded by corrupt culture. At least I hope it's true.
The three schools (two public, one private) we actively checked out and visited went out of their way to let us, the parents, know the schools were very interested in helping the students succeed. Maybe it's a southern thing, or we were just lucky, or we are naive.
I know from my reading that many of the colleges are a far cry from my family's side of the culture wars. My son will be majoring in mathematics and computer engineering which should limit his exposure to radical political and social teaching to the seven or so core courses all students must take. He plans to grit his teeth and plow through the inevitable propaganda.
Now my daughter, on the other hand.....
My son is going to public college this fall. He is eighteen and has Asperger's syndrome. We concentrated on smaller schools that weren't too far away (two-and-a-half hour drive). He will be registered with the school's Disability Resource Center which will keep somewhat of an eye on him and will notify each of his professors about his needed accommodations (nothing major) without stating his disability (privacy rules). Fortunately, he doesn't worry about being different doesn't care about peer pressure. This, of course, could change at any time. We've worked hard to get him ready for the "real world". Learning how to cook, clean, wash clothes, hygiene, finances, drive were special undertakings. He had thirteen years of Catholic school that taught him the basics of his faith as well as right from wrong. This has resulted in him freely criticizing my wife and me about our parenting technique relating to his younger sister calling us "soft" and "enablers" on several occasions.
He's politically and socially very conservative. He knows that his beliefs will be in the minority at college. The first thing I will be doing when we go to the two-day orientation is show him how to drive from his dormitory to the nearest Catholic Church. Keeping a child actively interested in his religious life is probably the hardest task for a parent. I think there is some truth in the earlier post that posits religious strength when feeling surrounded by corrupt culture. At least I hope it's true.
The three schools (two public, one private) we actively checked out and visited went out of their way to let us, the parents, know the schools were very interested in helping the students succeed. Maybe it's a southern thing, or we were just lucky, or we are naive.
I know from my reading that many of the colleges are a far cry from my family's side of the culture wars. My son will be majoring in mathematics and computer engineering which should limit his exposure to radical political and social teaching to the seven or so core courses all students must take. He plans to grit his teeth and plow through the inevitable propaganda.
Now my daughter, on the other hand.....
6.21.2010 | 2:22pm
thurgood says:
What a smug, conceited and supercilious tone the author adopts. I came to the US to study and went to a private university in the Midwest years ago. And in a few weeks I knew what makes this country great - its universities. This is where America renews itself, discovers new ideas, develops future leaders, and interacts with the rest of the world. Universities, beyond the liberal and progressive coasts are our oases of progress, free thinking, liberalism, and scholarship. The four most significant episodes in the history of our land are, the Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Movement. They define what we are as a people, and what we value and what we represent to the rest of the world. The latter two events both emerged from our universities. The New Deal as well as the struggle for Civil Rights emerged from work of scholarly men and women who questioned shop-worn assumptions and dared to bring about change. And there is no more diverse place in America than your local college. Where else can you find a dozen Christian themed student clubs, skeptics societies, all varieties of politically active groups, every manner of conservative from mercantilists to Burkeans, anarchists, liberals, populists, traditionalists and progressives. A 100 different subjects of study, the arts, the sciences and philosophy, everything finds a haven. A multitude of languages, cultures, peoples, and faiths, all in one place. This is where a homeschooled ignoramus, an ambitious inner city kid, or the trust fund kid all struggle together to master their studies and emerge as wise and cultured people after four years. I can see why that makes our author so uncomfortable. Nothing is as dangerous for antiquated institutions (rotting within) as young people who can think for themselves and don't need the dead hand of obscurantism to guide their lives. Unfortunately for universities, sometimes, there is only so much they can do. Our cowgirl having been brought up out in the coutryside shielded from progressive thinking probably never had any kind of health and sex education - which in progressive school districts begins in the fourth grade. And she was most likely taught that contraception is a sin. It's not her fault. As we have seen in the US, the redder a state, the higher the incidence of teen pregnancy, and sexual abuse. Sweden provides 13 months of maternity and paternity leave. While in the US we fire women who become pregnant.
In the meanwhile I would suggest that the author and readers not get too concerned over murder. Not when we execute more people than any other nation, save China, and have even executed the innocent in states like Texas.
In the meanwhile I would suggest that the author and readers not get too concerned over murder. Not when we execute more people than any other nation, save China, and have even executed the innocent in states like Texas.
6.21.2010 | 2:25pm
roger says:
There is another side to this. The "wolfish boys" would be a lot better behaved if they were forced to carry the responsibilities of their actions. This of course does not fit the agenda of these nihilistic institutions where family, individual responsibility, etc. are directly opposed to their marxist agenda.
I have two boys, now grown up and married with children of their own. A lesson I hammered home to them was that, if they "got a girl into trouble", there would be no abortion if I could possibly prevent it and they would spend the next twenty years paying support to the woman and the child, and if they didn't, I would, with the money they could otherwise expect to inherit. Not only that, they would be completely disowned.
Our society is confusing freedom with licence. Until we get back to the understanding that there is no freedom without responsibility we will continue down this path of decadence and ruin.
I have two boys, now grown up and married with children of their own. A lesson I hammered home to them was that, if they "got a girl into trouble", there would be no abortion if I could possibly prevent it and they would spend the next twenty years paying support to the woman and the child, and if they didn't, I would, with the money they could otherwise expect to inherit. Not only that, they would be completely disowned.
Our society is confusing freedom with licence. Until we get back to the understanding that there is no freedom without responsibility we will continue down this path of decadence and ruin.
6.21.2010 | 2:48pm
Eric says:
"She knew enough not to have an abortion—the pro-life creed is almost the only one that kids get, anymore, even out in the rural areas—but she didn’t have the sense or the character to keep it from happening in the first place, and nobody else was looking after her. "
I have no interest in defending either the student culture in most universities, or the institutional gravitation towards Berkley and NYU. But I suggest that what you are seeing here is less a failure of the universities, and more a failure of parenting. Kudos to her parents on imparting a 'pro-life creed'. They might have added some more thorough spiritual and moral education as well. Blessed is the school that cultivates students with insufficient sense and character. But, really, isn't that a parent's job?
I have no interest in defending either the student culture in most universities, or the institutional gravitation towards Berkley and NYU. But I suggest that what you are seeing here is less a failure of the universities, and more a failure of parenting. Kudos to her parents on imparting a 'pro-life creed'. They might have added some more thorough spiritual and moral education as well. Blessed is the school that cultivates students with insufficient sense and character. But, really, isn't that a parent's job?
6.21.2010 | 3:29pm
Gil Costello says:
From today's scriptural readings: 2 Kings 17:17: "They caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire of sacrifice..."
6.21.2010 | 3:30pm
Donald M says:
This article hits the proverbial nail on the head. Its bad enough when kids coming from non-church or minimal church backgrounds are thrown into the milieu Bottoms so accurately describes, but it is even more disconcerting when the very same thing happens with young people from strong church backgrounds. As one who has spent a number years as an adult leader with my church's senior high ministry, I can tell you that I have great concern for how ill-equipped even the churched kids are to deal with all that is tossed at them in the world of secular or marginally "Christian" universities. Yet, year in and year out, church after church sends its young off to college virtually unarmed. Not only do these kids experience the culture/social shock Bottoms discusses here, but also they experience full frontal attack on the values and worldview they once just took for granted.
The good news, though, is that not every school fits this description. There are many great Christian schools out there that really do buck this trend in a big way. Parents, especially parents with strong church and faith affiliations, would be well advised to urge their kids to select from among these.
The good news, though, is that not every school fits this description. There are many great Christian schools out there that really do buck this trend in a big way. Parents, especially parents with strong church and faith affiliations, would be well advised to urge their kids to select from among these.
6.21.2010 | 4:06pm
Peter Leavitt says:
A remarkable exception to the sexual looseness on campuses is the Anscombe Society at Princeton and a few other schools including M.I.T. This society views the matter as follows:
The Anscombe Society believes that sex, when properly understood and experienced, is unifying, beautiful, and joyful, and that it serves several purposes, providing a couple intimacy, unity, pleasure, and the chance for procreation. All of these purposes, however, can be fully realized only within the context of marriage. If experienced outside of this proper setting, we believe that sex loses its value, proving harmful to both the parties involved and to their relationship.
How quaint and true.
The Anscombe Society believes that sex, when properly understood and experienced, is unifying, beautiful, and joyful, and that it serves several purposes, providing a couple intimacy, unity, pleasure, and the chance for procreation. All of these purposes, however, can be fully realized only within the context of marriage. If experienced outside of this proper setting, we believe that sex loses its value, proving harmful to both the parties involved and to their relationship.
How quaint and true.
6.21.2010 | 4:12pm
Gil Costello says:
thurgood – You write, "Our cowgirl having been brought up out in the coutryside shielded from progressive thinking probably never had any kind of health and sex education - which in progressive school districts begins in the fourth grade."
When a parent in Washington state (very progressive) began to fight the "progressive thinking" that formulated the content of sex education classes, specifically critical of teachers and administrators bringing in guest speakers from gay organizations who had no medical or other educational background related to sex education, and who were teaching the joys of anal sex and how to properly enjoy it, what was the state's response? Legislators rewrote the law governing sex education, stating specifically that teachers and administrators could bring in anyone to teach the classes, regardless what their educational background was, in medicine or anything else.
Your naiveté far exceeds that of the cowgirl’s caregivers you criticize for continuing to extol antiquated virtues like modesty and intimacy-and-commitment-before-sex. In fact, you are criticizing them for not having thrown in the towel.
Your naiveté leads you right down the path that has you write, "Nothing is as dangerous for antiquated institutions (rotting within) as young people who can think for themselves and don't need the dead hand of obscurantism to guide their lives."
Kids at universities today are told in a thousand ways just what "progressive" party-line they must lock-step to in their essays if they actually want good grades. And because that "progressive" party-line matches your own world view, you perceive it as free thinking. But listen to Pope Benedict XVI writing on sin (something not up for discussion at any university, including Catholic ones):
"[Simone Weil] said that 'we experience good only by doing it....When we do evil we do not know it, because evil flies from the light. People recognize good only when they themselves do it. They recognize the evil only when they do not do it."
The evil perpetrated on children in sex education classes cannot be seen by you and other “progressives” because the light that shines from antiquated institutions is not allowed into the modern university.
When a parent in Washington state (very progressive) began to fight the "progressive thinking" that formulated the content of sex education classes, specifically critical of teachers and administrators bringing in guest speakers from gay organizations who had no medical or other educational background related to sex education, and who were teaching the joys of anal sex and how to properly enjoy it, what was the state's response? Legislators rewrote the law governing sex education, stating specifically that teachers and administrators could bring in anyone to teach the classes, regardless what their educational background was, in medicine or anything else.
Your naiveté far exceeds that of the cowgirl’s caregivers you criticize for continuing to extol antiquated virtues like modesty and intimacy-and-commitment-before-sex. In fact, you are criticizing them for not having thrown in the towel.
Your naiveté leads you right down the path that has you write, "Nothing is as dangerous for antiquated institutions (rotting within) as young people who can think for themselves and don't need the dead hand of obscurantism to guide their lives."
Kids at universities today are told in a thousand ways just what "progressive" party-line they must lock-step to in their essays if they actually want good grades. And because that "progressive" party-line matches your own world view, you perceive it as free thinking. But listen to Pope Benedict XVI writing on sin (something not up for discussion at any university, including Catholic ones):
"[Simone Weil] said that 'we experience good only by doing it....When we do evil we do not know it, because evil flies from the light. People recognize good only when they themselves do it. They recognize the evil only when they do not do it."
The evil perpetrated on children in sex education classes cannot be seen by you and other “progressives” because the light that shines from antiquated institutions is not allowed into the modern university.
6.21.2010 | 4:17pm
jjv says:
How do the girls who don't get to college get knocked up? In fairness I don't know that you can blame the college without more. The end of parietal rules and the rest was a long time coming.
6.21.2010 | 4:47pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Paul, could you link to the study, please? I suspect this is all indeed more complicated than suggested here. If these same young people went to work, or into the military, or to different colleges, would the result be different? It may be an attribution error to lay this at the feet of the colleges when genetics, upbringing, and age may all be more powerful factors.
thurgood - you would be more interesting if you stayed on topic, dig? Reflexively dumping whatever semi-related political and social beliefs you might have isn't very persuasive.
I suspect this will gradually cease to be a problem or at least, not the same problem. Parents are going to be increasingly unwilling to spend a year's salary for a year of college for their children when the result is no better than what they could achieve at home with a mentor paid much less. That the parents also find the sexual, substance, and work cultures not to their liking will only increase this.
thurgood - you would be more interesting if you stayed on topic, dig? Reflexively dumping whatever semi-related political and social beliefs you might have isn't very persuasive.
I suspect this will gradually cease to be a problem or at least, not the same problem. Parents are going to be increasingly unwilling to spend a year's salary for a year of college for their children when the result is no better than what they could achieve at home with a mentor paid much less. That the parents also find the sexual, substance, and work cultures not to their liking will only increase this.
6.21.2010 | 4:49pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Georgetown University is a Jesuit, not a Catholic school. There is a difference, as I discovered in my four year there. Fortunately, I was not Catholic at the time, so was largely immune to their apostacizing influences (my inherent contrariness turned this then-Jewish kid into an unapologetic apologist for traditional Christianity), but I saw quite a few of my friends, fresh from the hothouses of Catholic prep schools, fall before it like Indians exposed to smallpox.
What's really interesting is how little the situation has changed over the decades. Back in the early sixties, Bishop Fulton Sheen was already warning parents that, if they wanted their children to lose their Catholic faith, by all means they should send them to a Catholic college or university.
What's really interesting is how little the situation has changed over the decades. Back in the early sixties, Bishop Fulton Sheen was already warning parents that, if they wanted their children to lose their Catholic faith, by all means they should send them to a Catholic college or university.
6.21.2010 | 4:59pm
Stuart Koehl says:
On the subject of moral laxity at college, the answer is quite simple: if parents have done their job during the eighteen years they have direct charge of their children, then their children will live the virtues with which they have been instilled. if, on the other hand, parents have sloughed off that responsibility on others--nannies, day care centers, schools, and (shudder!) peers, well then, you reap what you sow.
I should point out that, if medieval chronicles and writers such as Chaucer are to be believed, college students were the same sorts of hellions in the 13th-15th centuries that they are today, for all that they were being trained, ostensibly, for service in the Church.
The same goes for religious belief. I note that in the 4th century, conscientious Christian families competed to get their kids into the prestigious Athenian Academy, even though its curriculum, and most of its instructors, were unapologetically pagan. St. Gregory Nanzianzen and Basil the Great both passed through the Academy (where one of their classmates was a young sprig of the imperial house named Julian. They did not shun the Academy because it was pagan, nor did they turn their back on classical literature and philosophy for that reason, but, as Basil himself wrote to a young man, such learning is preparatio evangelicum, and a necessary foundation for any civilized young man.
It was assumed that those who were raised Christian would know how to deal with un-Christian concepts, teachers and writings. Our real problem today, I think, is Christian parents, rather than instilling the Christian faith in a profound manner, give it only a superficial gloss, and the resulting veneer is easily eroded in the secular world of the modern Academy. Alternatively, parents hide their kids away and insulate them from any un-Christian influences, which, as I wrote above, is like sending someone into a festering, disease-ridden swamp without any sort of vaccination.
The Old Order Amish preserve their faith by withdrawal from the world. Catholic and Orthodox Christians are called upon to do something much more difficult: maintaining their faith while working in the world to bear witness to the truth. If we're not up to the task, the blame is ours, not the university's.
I should point out that, if medieval chronicles and writers such as Chaucer are to be believed, college students were the same sorts of hellions in the 13th-15th centuries that they are today, for all that they were being trained, ostensibly, for service in the Church.
The same goes for religious belief. I note that in the 4th century, conscientious Christian families competed to get their kids into the prestigious Athenian Academy, even though its curriculum, and most of its instructors, were unapologetically pagan. St. Gregory Nanzianzen and Basil the Great both passed through the Academy (where one of their classmates was a young sprig of the imperial house named Julian. They did not shun the Academy because it was pagan, nor did they turn their back on classical literature and philosophy for that reason, but, as Basil himself wrote to a young man, such learning is preparatio evangelicum, and a necessary foundation for any civilized young man.
It was assumed that those who were raised Christian would know how to deal with un-Christian concepts, teachers and writings. Our real problem today, I think, is Christian parents, rather than instilling the Christian faith in a profound manner, give it only a superficial gloss, and the resulting veneer is easily eroded in the secular world of the modern Academy. Alternatively, parents hide their kids away and insulate them from any un-Christian influences, which, as I wrote above, is like sending someone into a festering, disease-ridden swamp without any sort of vaccination.
The Old Order Amish preserve their faith by withdrawal from the world. Catholic and Orthodox Christians are called upon to do something much more difficult: maintaining their faith while working in the world to bear witness to the truth. If we're not up to the task, the blame is ours, not the university's.
6.21.2010 | 5:47pm
James Conway says:
I wonder if the author did any research, visited any colleges, or God forbid talked to any of these 17-18 year olds he pigeonholes as too "undereducated and immature" to deal with the realities of college life. Did he ask any college staff members or bother to interview anyone to get a sense of his subject? Instead of relying on anecdotal evidence and a worldview that presumes colleges are just a cesspool of fornication and drug use with no enlightening elements to sustain or justify them he should have actually investigated what really goes on. At U Chicago, my fairly recent alma mater, he would find a University still dedicated to learning, still committed to the ideals of education. Students are too busy arguing and debating one another to fornicate with one another. The school was voted one of the least fun and lowest ranked party school in the country. That said we occasionally cut lose and have fun, and one can argue that is part of the learning experience as well. It seems hypocritical for Bottum to bemoan college students for acting like children and then proposing to treat them like it by creating sheltered campuses where students are isolated from these temptations. U Chicago seems to sit in the middle, a school that takes academics very seriously, but one that also molds character without stringent policies on alcohol and sexual interaction. It remains one of the few secular institutions committed to ethics and character building amongst its students. Unfortunately, some students do have the entitled belief that college is a time for free love and no consequences, but they are a brutish minority. U Chicago is also one of the few places where conservative and religious thought is given equal weight on campus. Bottum's solution, forcing religious students into cloistered lives like Ave Maria is one that prevents religious students from engaging in the wider public sphere. It seems antithetical to Fr. Neuhaus and the purpose of this publication to create cloistered lives for religious students to protect them from the temptations of secularism. If anything finding fellow religious students, including my wonderful girlfriend, has made me more faithful when confronting the secular character of the university, and has made me more devout. Much like the controversy of homeschooling, it seems that Bottum's solution is an attempt to shelter students from the evil of the world. Instead he should want religious students to join secular institutions that will allow them to take the values (or lack therof) of seclarism head on. I rediscovered my Catholic faith at this otherwise secular institution which required me to read Augustine and engage my Catholic peers in religious discussion. Some of my greatest insights into my own faith only came about through long arguments with my atheist peers. That opportunity would not have existed had I joined an institution where everyone thought like me. I could not have reached maturity if the institution of higher learning I joined acted even stricter than my parents sheltering me from the harsh realities of life. The wolves are out there in real life, better to expose them early than have them blindside you later on in life.
6.21.2010 | 6:56pm
Mark says:
Stuart Koehl tells us that "the answer is quite simple: if parents have done their job during the eighteen years they have direct charge of their children, then their children will live the virtues with which they have been instilled."
Why didn't I think of that? I was under the assumption that my kids would have trouble resisting temptation no matter how many times I warned them about the wages of sin. I was under the assumption that evil often appears attractive and enticing. I was under the assumption that it is difficult to resist. I was under the assumption that the world will test us at every turn. I was under the assumption that we sinners will fail again and again.
Stuart, how can I thank you for setting my mind at ease!
Why didn't I think of that? I was under the assumption that my kids would have trouble resisting temptation no matter how many times I warned them about the wages of sin. I was under the assumption that evil often appears attractive and enticing. I was under the assumption that it is difficult to resist. I was under the assumption that the world will test us at every turn. I was under the assumption that we sinners will fail again and again.
Stuart, how can I thank you for setting my mind at ease!
6.21.2010 | 7:27pm
MOGS says:
Nothing is mentioned in the article about how her family or her college might have given her a decent education in protecting herself with birth control. But surely that is the sort of education that might have allowed her to make it through the wolfish environment. If you can't change the culture, you can at least see to it that your kids don't have to make it through hormonal difficulties all on their own. Indeed, her parents should have had that conversation with her long before she went off to college.
6.21.2010 | 8:01pm
JLT says:
I wonder why women with a college education are less likely to become pregnant unintendedly if colleges are such evil places.
•Education. Among women aged 20 and older, those without
a high school diploma had an unintended pregnancy
rate about three times that of college graduates, and they
were less likely than women in other education subgroups
to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion. As a consequence,
their rate of unintended childbearing was four times
that of college graduates.
Source: Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy In the United States, 1994 and 2001
By Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96
Link to pdf: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3809006.pdf
•Education. Among women aged 20 and older, those without
a high school diploma had an unintended pregnancy
rate about three times that of college graduates, and they
were less likely than women in other education subgroups
to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion. As a consequence,
their rate of unintended childbearing was four times
that of college graduates.
Source: Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy In the United States, 1994 and 2001
By Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90–96
Link to pdf: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3809006.pdf
6.21.2010 | 8:01pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Evelyn Waugh (1938)
Once the prisons of the mind have been opened, the orgy is on. There is no more agreeable position than that of dissident from a stable society. Theirs are all the solid advantages of other people’s creation and preservation, and all the fun of detecting hypocrisies and inconsistencies. There are times when dissidents are not only enviable but valuable. The work of preserving society is sometimes onerous, sometimes almost effortless. The more elaborate the society, the more vulnerable it is to attack, and the more complete its collapse in case of defeat.
Once the prisons of the mind have been opened, the orgy is on. There is no more agreeable position than that of dissident from a stable society. Theirs are all the solid advantages of other people’s creation and preservation, and all the fun of detecting hypocrisies and inconsistencies. There are times when dissidents are not only enviable but valuable. The work of preserving society is sometimes onerous, sometimes almost effortless. The more elaborate the society, the more vulnerable it is to attack, and the more complete its collapse in case of defeat.
6.21.2010 | 8:15pm
Andrew E. says:
Mr Koehl writes, "On the subject of moral laxity at college, the answer is quite simple: if parents have done their job during the eighteen years they have direct charge of their children, then their children will live the virtues with which they have been instilled." He is not the only one on this thread to blame the parents without any apparent qualification.
It's not that simple. Some parents are indeed to blame for raising sons and daughters who are alley cats long before they arrive on campus, but is it fair to fault good families who have done their jobs but are preyed upon by the tacit conspiracy between the tuition-hungry college administration and sexually omnivorous youth raised on pop music, "Gossip Girl", and internet porn?
The colleges fully embrace the Satyricon-culture on their campuses, for if they ever tried to pour cold water into those hissing cauldrons, they'd lose students in droves.
Good parents teach their children the right moral principles, maintain a loving and monogamous marriage, maintain strict curfew, eat dinner together, keep the filth out of their homes...and then send their kids off to live in places that are basically brothels but hardly advertise themselves as such. Who's really to blame--the duped parents or the pimps and madams who run the the bordello by night while conducting respectable-looking business by day?
Good parents pray "lead us not into temptation," for they know they must be wary of occasions of sin no matter how confident they are of their virtue, let alone their 18-year old's.
Youth is always youth, and sin is always sin. The only difference is between colleges that take this seriously (only a tiny handful) and those that pass out condoms in the co-ed dorms.
It's not that simple. Some parents are indeed to blame for raising sons and daughters who are alley cats long before they arrive on campus, but is it fair to fault good families who have done their jobs but are preyed upon by the tacit conspiracy between the tuition-hungry college administration and sexually omnivorous youth raised on pop music, "Gossip Girl", and internet porn?
The colleges fully embrace the Satyricon-culture on their campuses, for if they ever tried to pour cold water into those hissing cauldrons, they'd lose students in droves.
Good parents teach their children the right moral principles, maintain a loving and monogamous marriage, maintain strict curfew, eat dinner together, keep the filth out of their homes...and then send their kids off to live in places that are basically brothels but hardly advertise themselves as such. Who's really to blame--the duped parents or the pimps and madams who run the the bordello by night while conducting respectable-looking business by day?
Good parents pray "lead us not into temptation," for they know they must be wary of occasions of sin no matter how confident they are of their virtue, let alone their 18-year old's.
Youth is always youth, and sin is always sin. The only difference is between colleges that take this seriously (only a tiny handful) and those that pass out condoms in the co-ed dorms.
6.21.2010 | 9:32pm
Margaret says:
That's a sad story. Poor, little girl!
I grew up in a small, Western town where the kids getting pregnant and partying were usually the ones who didn't go on to college. For them, rodeo, football, cheerleading, and the high school prom were the highlights of their lives. Quite a few girls got pregnant in high school or shortly thereafter. Many kids married at 18, lived in a trailer home, had a couple of kids, and were divorced by 22. They went on to work in the local Walmart or equivalent. The handful of kids who went on to college, however, generally had more sense and some long-term vision. I think you probably see less reckless behavior among college students than you do around young people the same age who don't go on to college.
I grew up in a small, Western town where the kids getting pregnant and partying were usually the ones who didn't go on to college. For them, rodeo, football, cheerleading, and the high school prom were the highlights of their lives. Quite a few girls got pregnant in high school or shortly thereafter. Many kids married at 18, lived in a trailer home, had a couple of kids, and were divorced by 22. They went on to work in the local Walmart or equivalent. The handful of kids who went on to college, however, generally had more sense and some long-term vision. I think you probably see less reckless behavior among college students than you do around young people the same age who don't go on to college.
6.21.2010 | 10:40pm
Paul Shonk says:
James Conway: You seem to advocate a sort of spiritual darwinism; i.e., expose young people to all the wickedness of the world, and the fittest will survive with their faith intact. This works out fine for those who are sufficiently fortified or who have simply had the good fortune to find the right friends. The ugly side of it is, what becomes of the weak or the isolated?
I'm not suggesting, nor do I think Mr. Bottom is suggesting, that students be "cloistered." But perhaps they do need some support from a Christian community, which you are apparently fortunate enough to enjoy. Not everyone is so lucky.
I'm not suggesting, nor do I think Mr. Bottom is suggesting, that students be "cloistered." But perhaps they do need some support from a Christian community, which you are apparently fortunate enough to enjoy. Not everyone is so lucky.
6.22.2010 | 12:22am
JDC says:
It's interesting that Mr. Bottum portrays the young lady in the story as a tragic case because of her pregnancy. What is missing is an understanding that the new life didn't happen by accident, at least not from God's perspective. In fact, we know as believers that he was involved quite intimately in the child's conception. This wasn't just a case of some co-eds "hooking up" and making a baby themselves.
From this perspective, there exists a purpose behind the apparent tragedy of a teenager "saddled" (pun intended) with the responsibilities of a helpless baby. Indeed, what if God is giving the young woman an opportunity to work out her redemption. What is so tragic about that? Sure, she may not become the educated and productive citizen that many universities turn out but, one doesn't need a college education to inherit the Kingdom.
From this perspective, there exists a purpose behind the apparent tragedy of a teenager "saddled" (pun intended) with the responsibilities of a helpless baby. Indeed, what if God is giving the young woman an opportunity to work out her redemption. What is so tragic about that? Sure, she may not become the educated and productive citizen that many universities turn out but, one doesn't need a college education to inherit the Kingdom.
6.22.2010 | 12:36am
Trump says:
But was this the only lesson our college system could give her—that people at college won’t look out for her like the people on the ranches? Is this all we have to teach?
>>>> She's an adult, time for her to look out for herself. College is for learning, not for babysitting. And please don't talk about the college bacchanalia, girls get pregnant in small towns just as easily as they do in the dorms last time I checked.
>>>> She's an adult, time for her to look out for herself. College is for learning, not for babysitting. And please don't talk about the college bacchanalia, girls get pregnant in small towns just as easily as they do in the dorms last time I checked.
6.22.2010 | 1:20am
Francis Beckwith says:
"Where else can you find a dozen Christian themed student clubs, skeptics societies, all varieties of politically active groups, every manner of conservative from mercantilists to Burkeans, anarchists, liberals, populists, traditionalists and progressives."
Sadly, the faculty all thinks alike.
Sadly, the faculty all thinks alike.
6.22.2010 | 8:52am
Susan says:
"In the meanwhile I would suggest that the author and readers not get too concerned over murder. Not when we execute more people than any other nation, save China, and have even executed the innocent in states like Texas."
Europe has executed so many innocent lives it has reached the point of uncivilized return to barbarism and soon will be know as Eurasia.
China is grand champion of executions-mainly females- though America is right up there with the intellectual biggies ie since Roe v Wade about 47 million innocent executed. We have surpassed Nazi Germany in committing holocaust.
Here in NYC- the capital of mass executions- for every 1000 human beings conceived 506 are executed.
Lastly; in keeping with the nature of Life, Religion and whatnot I must honestly speak out the fact that it does not take a belief in God to fully understand that sticking a tube in the nape of a human being's neck so as to suck out the human being's brain to collapse its skull is outright evil.
Nor does one need to be a Brainy to understand that killing a human being because such human being fought to survive being aborted IN A HOSPITAL NAMED AFTER CHRIST (no less) is in all manner and form inhuman execution of innocent life.
Please forgive oh pious, I wish I could say this nicely and sweetly and in beautifully pious fashion but there simply is no other way to describe such hideous inhuman behavior.
Europe has executed so many innocent lives it has reached the point of uncivilized return to barbarism and soon will be know as Eurasia.
China is grand champion of executions-mainly females- though America is right up there with the intellectual biggies ie since Roe v Wade about 47 million innocent executed. We have surpassed Nazi Germany in committing holocaust.
Here in NYC- the capital of mass executions- for every 1000 human beings conceived 506 are executed.
Lastly; in keeping with the nature of Life, Religion and whatnot I must honestly speak out the fact that it does not take a belief in God to fully understand that sticking a tube in the nape of a human being's neck so as to suck out the human being's brain to collapse its skull is outright evil.
Nor does one need to be a Brainy to understand that killing a human being because such human being fought to survive being aborted IN A HOSPITAL NAMED AFTER CHRIST (no less) is in all manner and form inhuman execution of innocent life.
Please forgive oh pious, I wish I could say this nicely and sweetly and in beautifully pious fashion but there simply is no other way to describe such hideous inhuman behavior.
6.22.2010 | 9:06am
David vun Kannon says:
Was she impregnated by a bookstore? A coffeeshop? An atheist professor from back East, out searching for his horse sitting Lolita?
Even in his straining desire to put the fault in this story on the secular university, Mr. Bottum cannot evade the truth. His girl was empty headed, silly. She fell to the wolfish attentions of one of her peers, Western state, small town, ranch raised, etc., etc. etc.
Mr Bottum, are you really arguing that college administrations are in loco parentis? I see a problem with universities with 10,000+ students, but not being in the back of every pickup in Bozeman isn't it.
You've wrapped some nice prose around a sad story, but your semi-rhetorical concluding question is lame. You would be better off asking "Is this the best the ranch can do?"
How did you, Mr. Bottum, whose fine sensibilities could percieve her naivete, help her or her parents to prepare for the transition from ranch to university? What's that you say? It wasn't your place? You did less than a college administrator? Perhaps that explains some of the melancholy on display here.
Even in his straining desire to put the fault in this story on the secular university, Mr. Bottum cannot evade the truth. His girl was empty headed, silly. She fell to the wolfish attentions of one of her peers, Western state, small town, ranch raised, etc., etc. etc.
Mr Bottum, are you really arguing that college administrations are in loco parentis? I see a problem with universities with 10,000+ students, but not being in the back of every pickup in Bozeman isn't it.
You've wrapped some nice prose around a sad story, but your semi-rhetorical concluding question is lame. You would be better off asking "Is this the best the ranch can do?"
How did you, Mr. Bottum, whose fine sensibilities could percieve her naivete, help her or her parents to prepare for the transition from ranch to university? What's that you say? It wasn't your place? You did less than a college administrator? Perhaps that explains some of the melancholy on display here.
6.22.2010 | 9:08am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Stuart, how can I thank you for setting my mind at ease!"
You could pay the tuition for my daughter's next semester at U Penn.
You could pay the tuition for my daughter's next semester at U Penn.
6.22.2010 | 9:19am
Stuart Koehl says:
"It's not that simple. Some parents are indeed to blame for raising sons and daughters who are alley cats long before they arrive on campus, but is it fair to fault good families who have done their jobs but are preyed upon by the tacit conspiracy between the tuition-hungry college administration and sexually omnivorous youth raised on pop music, "Gossip Girl", and internet porn?"
Yes, it is. Consider the Christian parents of the fourth century, living in a culture still predominantly pagan, surrounded by pagan symbology, philosophy, cults and temples, and of course, a sexual morality radically at odds with that held by Christians. In short, Christians had a radically counter-cultural worldview, yet they felt confident enough to send their children off to be educated by pagan pedagogues and philosophers in pagan cities. You speak of a hypersexualized society, but what would you make of a culture in which one was constantly confronted by the herms, or temples dedicated to a variety of fertility gods and goddesses?
The fundamentals never really change, because human nature is unchanging. As I said, the university was a den of iniquity in the 12th century. It was a den of iniquity in the 1970s, when I attended--today's hook-up culture has nothing on what was the norm back in the era of free love, because, well, we didn't have AIDS, or herpes, or HPV or drug resistant syphilis, or any of that stuff. College kids also drank more and abused drugs more frequently and openly than they do now (so did the professors, including several Jesuits of my acquaintance).
So, yes, I place the first, foremost and principal responsibility for the moral formation of children directly on their parents--and so does the Church. The irresistible conspiracy you blame has no power over a child who has been raised recognize it for what it is.
Yes, it is. Consider the Christian parents of the fourth century, living in a culture still predominantly pagan, surrounded by pagan symbology, philosophy, cults and temples, and of course, a sexual morality radically at odds with that held by Christians. In short, Christians had a radically counter-cultural worldview, yet they felt confident enough to send their children off to be educated by pagan pedagogues and philosophers in pagan cities. You speak of a hypersexualized society, but what would you make of a culture in which one was constantly confronted by the herms, or temples dedicated to a variety of fertility gods and goddesses?
The fundamentals never really change, because human nature is unchanging. As I said, the university was a den of iniquity in the 12th century. It was a den of iniquity in the 1970s, when I attended--today's hook-up culture has nothing on what was the norm back in the era of free love, because, well, we didn't have AIDS, or herpes, or HPV or drug resistant syphilis, or any of that stuff. College kids also drank more and abused drugs more frequently and openly than they do now (so did the professors, including several Jesuits of my acquaintance).
So, yes, I place the first, foremost and principal responsibility for the moral formation of children directly on their parents--and so does the Church. The irresistible conspiracy you blame has no power over a child who has been raised recognize it for what it is.
6.22.2010 | 9:22am
paige says:
As someone pretty far out of college, but close enough not to be naive, I remember arguing at lunch (I was a teacher at a Catholic school) with a Sister whose order ran a nearby college. Why not allow boys into dorm rooms? I took the conservative angle because I knew what she didn't....
From the "minor" inconvenience of having a roommate engage in intercourse in the next bed while you're trying to sleep to something more major like having someone try to rape you after you've had a few drinks and gone to bed...I (or my roommates) saw it all. I will put my children in more sheltered environments because even if they can make good decisions, I don't want them to be constantly paddling upstream, and in this age of "Ruthies", even if I can trust them, I know I can't trust those around them.
I'm glad someone is making an issue of what college campus life is really about, although I think his example is pretty innocent.
From the "minor" inconvenience of having a roommate engage in intercourse in the next bed while you're trying to sleep to something more major like having someone try to rape you after you've had a few drinks and gone to bed...I (or my roommates) saw it all. I will put my children in more sheltered environments because even if they can make good decisions, I don't want them to be constantly paddling upstream, and in this age of "Ruthies", even if I can trust them, I know I can't trust those around them.
I'm glad someone is making an issue of what college campus life is really about, although I think his example is pretty innocent.
6.22.2010 | 9:27am
Stuart Koehl says:
There is also another factor to consider in the situation: far too many people going to college have no business being there at all. They have neither the intellect nor the disposition, nor the need for a higher education, but they are told they have to acquire one to "get a good job"--even though most of the "good jobs" they get do not require any of the knowledge or skills one receives with a BA. Businesses, recognizing that a high school diploma is a totally devalued commodity, now use a BA simply as a screening tool--the recipient has some capacity for training, and at least enough discipline to complete 120 credit hours of instruction. Most kids at 4-year colleges would be much better off in some sort of vocational certification process, which would give them bankable skills at a fraction of the cost of a BA.
And that would leave the colleges for the people who really are interested in knowledge, which would probably mean the death of pseudo-disciplines (anything that ends in the word "studies", for instance) and an overall increase in intellectual rigor.
Already, in most academically competitive colleges, you do not see the kind of carousing which was actually quite common in my day even among first tier schools. Today's serious college students are drudges, and their vices are as virtues when compared to those of their parents. On the other hand, in most large state university campuses, as well as at the more trendy liberal arts colleges, most of the students have signed up for a four year vacation between high school and their encounter with the real world.
And that would leave the colleges for the people who really are interested in knowledge, which would probably mean the death of pseudo-disciplines (anything that ends in the word "studies", for instance) and an overall increase in intellectual rigor.
Already, in most academically competitive colleges, you do not see the kind of carousing which was actually quite common in my day even among first tier schools. Today's serious college students are drudges, and their vices are as virtues when compared to those of their parents. On the other hand, in most large state university campuses, as well as at the more trendy liberal arts colleges, most of the students have signed up for a four year vacation between high school and their encounter with the real world.
6.22.2010 | 9:34am
thurgood says:
[Sadly, the faculty all thinks alike.]
Yes they do. Regardless of what they believe, accept or subscribe to, they encourage debate and learning. That's the difference between a conservative at the University of Mississippi and a conservative at Liberty "University".
Yes they do. Regardless of what they believe, accept or subscribe to, they encourage debate and learning. That's the difference between a conservative at the University of Mississippi and a conservative at Liberty "University".
6.22.2010 | 9:34am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Sadly, the faculty all thinks alike."
Is faculty single or plural? I suppose its an American vs. British thing. We say "General Motors is" and they say "General Motors are", but that's neither here nor there.
In fact, not all professors think alike, and if you look, you can find outstanding exceptions to the typical politically correct drone. True scholarship is there for those who want it--but most don't.
That aside, give students some credit: they grew up in a world saturated with marketing and cant, and they can recognize both when they see or hear it. Most seriously discount what their professors say, especially if it runs against the grain of their experience and common sense.
Now, today's college student (the ones who should be there, anyway), have a tremendous investment in their education, and do not intend to jeopardize it by picking needless fights with their professors. They know the old dude at the lectern is peddling BS, and he probably knows that they know, but the kids nod dutifully and tell the prof what he wants to hear, and then move on to something more meaningful. It may be corrosive to academic standards and discourse, but who can deny it's not good training for the world of business, where positions of authority are frequently filled by ignorant gits who game the system, and rise to power on the backs of the diligent and qualified?
Is faculty single or plural? I suppose its an American vs. British thing. We say "General Motors is" and they say "General Motors are", but that's neither here nor there.
In fact, not all professors think alike, and if you look, you can find outstanding exceptions to the typical politically correct drone. True scholarship is there for those who want it--but most don't.
That aside, give students some credit: they grew up in a world saturated with marketing and cant, and they can recognize both when they see or hear it. Most seriously discount what their professors say, especially if it runs against the grain of their experience and common sense.
Now, today's college student (the ones who should be there, anyway), have a tremendous investment in their education, and do not intend to jeopardize it by picking needless fights with their professors. They know the old dude at the lectern is peddling BS, and he probably knows that they know, but the kids nod dutifully and tell the prof what he wants to hear, and then move on to something more meaningful. It may be corrosive to academic standards and discourse, but who can deny it's not good training for the world of business, where positions of authority are frequently filled by ignorant gits who game the system, and rise to power on the backs of the diligent and qualified?
6.22.2010 | 10:12am
Anna says:
My eldest son has just finished his first year at our state university. He is commuting his first two years for two reasons: first, we cannot afford the expense of room and board without taking out a loan, and we refuse to take out a loan or saddle him with a loan; second, he was/is not mature enough to handle all that goes on in the dorms. I have seen in my own college years, back in the 80's, what went on, and have heard more than enough horror stories from friends regarding what has happened with their own children when away at college. I do not blame the parents for being bad parents. We all have choices to make, and very often our college students make bad ones, disasterous ones. To a certain extent I do blame the colleges: if we can make a bartender responsible for cutting off a drunk, then why do colleges get a pass? The carelessness goes beyond not monitoring what is going on in the dorms. My son took a class this spring where he was one of 200 students taught by a grad assistant. Granted, this is a large university, but almost all of these institutions ultimately care only about making a profit, not about the education or welfare of their students.
6.22.2010 | 10:15am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Yes they do. Regardless of what they believe, accept or subscribe to, they encourage debate and learning."
Who's being naive now, Thurgood. I'm a quasi-academic (a research fellow at a university-associated think tank), and I deal with academics every day, as well as with undergrads and graduate students. I also have a daughter in college, and I listen to her and her friends discussing their experiences. A larger proportion of professors at colleges and universities are not really interested in debate and learning, particularly in the social sciences, liberal arts and pseudo-disciplines. Rather, they are interested in self-affirmation and indoctrination, and love nothing more than a lecture hall of compliant robots who will mouth back the platitudes they receive from the Oracle at the lectern. It's also undeniable that most of these PC pedagogues live on the left side of the political spectrum, some so far to the left that one can see them coming over the horizon on the other side. The phenomenon may exist with conservative professors, but on the whole most of these retain the older definition of open discourse and academic freedom.
Who's being naive now, Thurgood. I'm a quasi-academic (a research fellow at a university-associated think tank), and I deal with academics every day, as well as with undergrads and graduate students. I also have a daughter in college, and I listen to her and her friends discussing their experiences. A larger proportion of professors at colleges and universities are not really interested in debate and learning, particularly in the social sciences, liberal arts and pseudo-disciplines. Rather, they are interested in self-affirmation and indoctrination, and love nothing more than a lecture hall of compliant robots who will mouth back the platitudes they receive from the Oracle at the lectern. It's also undeniable that most of these PC pedagogues live on the left side of the political spectrum, some so far to the left that one can see them coming over the horizon on the other side. The phenomenon may exist with conservative professors, but on the whole most of these retain the older definition of open discourse and academic freedom.
6.22.2010 | 10:22am
Stuart Koehl says:
"I do not blame the parents for being bad parents."
Who is to blame, then?
"To a certain extent I do blame the colleges: if we can make a bartender responsible for cutting off a drunk, then why do colleges get a pass?"
I've always had problems with that notion. It transfers blame from the actor to a third party. If you are old enough to drink, presumably you are old enough to know when to stop. And if you are old enough to go to college, presumably you are old enough to know how to take responsibility for your behavior--else, why are you there at all. Which brings us back to parents, who, if they know their kids, ought to know whether they are ready to live on their own.
"My son took a class this spring where he was one of 200 students taught by a grad assistant. Granted, this is a large university, but almost all of these institutions ultimately care only about making a profit, not about the education or welfare of their students."
See my previous point about too many people going to college, period. When searching out a school, one of the key discriminators for us was class size, and whether courses were taught by faculty or TAs. But even most large state schools have an honors college for serious students (as opposed to jocks, party animals and slackers), and my own position is, if you can't qualify for the honors college, do yourself a favor and bypass the four year degree.
Who is to blame, then?
"To a certain extent I do blame the colleges: if we can make a bartender responsible for cutting off a drunk, then why do colleges get a pass?"
I've always had problems with that notion. It transfers blame from the actor to a third party. If you are old enough to drink, presumably you are old enough to know when to stop. And if you are old enough to go to college, presumably you are old enough to know how to take responsibility for your behavior--else, why are you there at all. Which brings us back to parents, who, if they know their kids, ought to know whether they are ready to live on their own.
"My son took a class this spring where he was one of 200 students taught by a grad assistant. Granted, this is a large university, but almost all of these institutions ultimately care only about making a profit, not about the education or welfare of their students."
See my previous point about too many people going to college, period. When searching out a school, one of the key discriminators for us was class size, and whether courses were taught by faculty or TAs. But even most large state schools have an honors college for serious students (as opposed to jocks, party animals and slackers), and my own position is, if you can't qualify for the honors college, do yourself a favor and bypass the four year degree.
6.22.2010 | 10:31am
Paul says:
I'm not sure if anyone is still reading. But some of the research that bears looking at on this question was published by Mark D. Regnerus around 2007. See the June 14, 2007 entry for Inside Higher Ed describing the research--which was also published in peer reviewed venues. "Finding Jesus at College" by Edward Dutton in the March 7, 2010 Chronicle of Higher Education also bears serious consideration. As a Christian, my world view is of course quite different from that subscribed to by Regnerus or Dutton. But the research in and underlying these articles really must be taken into account. At a minimum, it means the claim the secular universities encourage students to abandon their faith is unsubstantiated by any of the present evidence. Meanwhile, the evidence is pretty good that students that go to religious schools are more likely to lose faith than students who don't. Those who disagree with the conclusions of these studies will have to do more than submit anecdotal or intuitive evidence. In the social sciences we constantly tell our students that their experience with family and peers is just a sample of one and that generalizations cannot reliably be made from such a sample.
There are many claims on offer in conservative Evangelical and Catholic circles (I belong to the former and am friendly to the latter) that do not stand up to solid social science--like the claim that church attendance has been on decline and/or that America has become increasingly secular over the last 4 decades or so (one might try reading the Churching of America, which demonstrates that Church attendance has actually increased from 1776 through 2005 such that a substantially higher proportion of Americans go to church now than did then) OR the claim that serious Christians (especially Christian young people) behave just the same as unbelievers (when the evidence actually shows, controlling for church attendance, that they do not). One commonly hears the old saw repeated that divorce is as prevalent among Christians as among those who do not hold to the faith. This claim is cited along the claim that 50% of marriages end in divorce. This latter claim may be true. But it's not the whole story. 80% of first marriages stick--which is to say that even though 50% of marriages end up in divorce, 80% of married people NEVER divorce. And Christians who regularly attend church are significantly less likely to divorce or have an abortion than unbelievers or self-identified Christians who profess to believe but who also don't attend regularly. The fact is, we cannot treat depictions of the larger culture or even of how "the university" affects the soul of the child as dogmas on par with the tenets of the Nicene Creed.
There are many claims on offer in conservative Evangelical and Catholic circles (I belong to the former and am friendly to the latter) that do not stand up to solid social science--like the claim that church attendance has been on decline and/or that America has become increasingly secular over the last 4 decades or so (one might try reading the Churching of America, which demonstrates that Church attendance has actually increased from 1776 through 2005 such that a substantially higher proportion of Americans go to church now than did then) OR the claim that serious Christians (especially Christian young people) behave just the same as unbelievers (when the evidence actually shows, controlling for church attendance, that they do not). One commonly hears the old saw repeated that divorce is as prevalent among Christians as among those who do not hold to the faith. This claim is cited along the claim that 50% of marriages end in divorce. This latter claim may be true. But it's not the whole story. 80% of first marriages stick--which is to say that even though 50% of marriages end up in divorce, 80% of married people NEVER divorce. And Christians who regularly attend church are significantly less likely to divorce or have an abortion than unbelievers or self-identified Christians who profess to believe but who also don't attend regularly. The fact is, we cannot treat depictions of the larger culture or even of how "the university" affects the soul of the child as dogmas on par with the tenets of the Nicene Creed.
6.22.2010 | 10:43am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Meanwhile, the evidence is pretty good that students that go to religious schools are more likely to lose faith than students who don't."
As I noted, this was evident to Bishop Fulton Sheen half a century ago, and was certainly mirrored by my experience at Georgetown.
As I noted, this was evident to Bishop Fulton Sheen half a century ago, and was certainly mirrored by my experience at Georgetown.
6.22.2010 | 10:54am
Elizabeth Anne says:
1) I am amazed by a line of thinking that says when an 18 year old is a fully mature, free thinking adult when he joins the military and a fragile child who needs protection when he goes off to college. (To be fair, I find the inverse perspective, so often seen on the Left, to be even more insulting.)
2) I really hope the girl he writes of never recognizes herself in this post. What a sad, pathetic, tragic character he’s made her out to be. Her “one talent” was sitting a horse? She wasn’t “pretty enough to be a real target”?
This is one chapter in this girl’s life. *She* made a bad decision. Luckily, she did not compound it.
But he makes it sound as if her life was over, as if shortly after delivering the child she threw herself in front of a train a la Anna Karenina. Yes, her life will be more difficult now. But she still has most of the same options open to her. She can still go back to school, or learn a trade, become a vet tech and work with the horses she loves so much, discover a hidden talent and passion for photography, or simply find a really nice local rancher who wants to marry her and be a father to her beautiful child.
Sadly, the kind of thinking that says “She fell pregnant, game over” is precisely the thinking the pro-choice movement wants to encourage. It says that a pregnancy at 18 ends your life, that your future is now a pile of burning wreckage, and that only the lifeline of an abortion can save you.
She became pregnant. It could have been much worse. She could have conceived a desire for a PhD in Comp Lit,for example.
2) I really hope the girl he writes of never recognizes herself in this post. What a sad, pathetic, tragic character he’s made her out to be. Her “one talent” was sitting a horse? She wasn’t “pretty enough to be a real target”?
This is one chapter in this girl’s life. *She* made a bad decision. Luckily, she did not compound it.
But he makes it sound as if her life was over, as if shortly after delivering the child she threw herself in front of a train a la Anna Karenina. Yes, her life will be more difficult now. But she still has most of the same options open to her. She can still go back to school, or learn a trade, become a vet tech and work with the horses she loves so much, discover a hidden talent and passion for photography, or simply find a really nice local rancher who wants to marry her and be a father to her beautiful child.
Sadly, the kind of thinking that says “She fell pregnant, game over” is precisely the thinking the pro-choice movement wants to encourage. It says that a pregnancy at 18 ends your life, that your future is now a pile of burning wreckage, and that only the lifeline of an abortion can save you.
She became pregnant. It could have been much worse. She could have conceived a desire for a PhD in Comp Lit,for example.
6.22.2010 | 11:09am
Anna says:
"Who is to blame then?"
I would blame the students themselves and the adminstrators who know what is going on and do nothing productive to prevent the drinking, drug use and hooking up.
"If you are old enough to drink, presumably you are old enough to know when to stop."
In our state, the legal drinking age is 21. Are you saying that the University is not responsible for an illegal activity that takes place on their property?
I don't disagree that too many students go to college when they would be better off with a trade. If there were no grade inflation though, and no remedial courses offered to make up for what was not learned in high school, most of them would either never be accepted in the first place or flunk out in a semester or two.
I would blame the students themselves and the adminstrators who know what is going on and do nothing productive to prevent the drinking, drug use and hooking up.
"If you are old enough to drink, presumably you are old enough to know when to stop."
In our state, the legal drinking age is 21. Are you saying that the University is not responsible for an illegal activity that takes place on their property?
I don't disagree that too many students go to college when they would be better off with a trade. If there were no grade inflation though, and no remedial courses offered to make up for what was not learned in high school, most of them would either never be accepted in the first place or flunk out in a semester or two.
6.22.2010 | 12:42pm
shirley elizabeth says:
My two older sisters went away to college. They were good girls with a strong religious background, but my parents still did not like some of the choices and situations they got into. So when it came my turn and I was looking at the scholarships offered me around the country, and being a very young graduate, not to turn 18 till after school would start, my parents said no way, you're staying home.
Of course I was initially incensed. But now, after seeing my college career (I went to ASU, which was local and I had family support all around), I see that they really did know what was best for me. I remained 100% sober and chaste throughout my education, had my degree at 21, at 22 was made controller of a general contractor, and am married to an honorable and just as sober and chaste man. Your happiness is a direct result of your actions. Thank you to a mom and dad that taught me to learn from others mistakes instead of having to go through the pain of my own.
Of course I was initially incensed. But now, after seeing my college career (I went to ASU, which was local and I had family support all around), I see that they really did know what was best for me. I remained 100% sober and chaste throughout my education, had my degree at 21, at 22 was made controller of a general contractor, and am married to an honorable and just as sober and chaste man. Your happiness is a direct result of your actions. Thank you to a mom and dad that taught me to learn from others mistakes instead of having to go through the pain of my own.
6.22.2010 | 12:53pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"In our state, the legal drinking age is 21. Are you saying that the University is not responsible for an illegal activity that takes place on their property? "
I'm quite old enough to remember when the legal age was 18, and find it absurd that one can trust an eighteen year old with a $60 million airplane or the lives of hundreds of people (not to mention making babies), but can't be trusted to make wise decisions regarding, oh, alcohol and tobacco. Such laws tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies: if you tell people they are too immature and ignorant to make responsible choices, well, then, they will make foolish ones.
Your comeback also doesn't address the wider issue, because, last time I looked, and in light of the Supreme Court's remarkably feckless Lawrence v. Texas decision, it's not a crime for one consenting eighteen year old to jump the bones of another.
Ultimately, these people are responsible for their own lives, and the more we try to protect them from that reality, the longer they will continue to act like children. Let's remember that at the age of eighteen, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus was contending for control of the Roman Empire, that history is replete with eighteen year olds not only behaving like adults, but filling adult roles in an outstanding manner, and, in general, considering themselves full mature and capable human beings. Adolescence is a 20th century construct that would have struck anyone living before then as an absurdity. That we now want to push it back into the early 20s is even more absurd.
I'm quite old enough to remember when the legal age was 18, and find it absurd that one can trust an eighteen year old with a $60 million airplane or the lives of hundreds of people (not to mention making babies), but can't be trusted to make wise decisions regarding, oh, alcohol and tobacco. Such laws tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies: if you tell people they are too immature and ignorant to make responsible choices, well, then, they will make foolish ones.
Your comeback also doesn't address the wider issue, because, last time I looked, and in light of the Supreme Court's remarkably feckless Lawrence v. Texas decision, it's not a crime for one consenting eighteen year old to jump the bones of another.
Ultimately, these people are responsible for their own lives, and the more we try to protect them from that reality, the longer they will continue to act like children. Let's remember that at the age of eighteen, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus was contending for control of the Roman Empire, that history is replete with eighteen year olds not only behaving like adults, but filling adult roles in an outstanding manner, and, in general, considering themselves full mature and capable human beings. Adolescence is a 20th century construct that would have struck anyone living before then as an absurdity. That we now want to push it back into the early 20s is even more absurd.
6.22.2010 | 12:54pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"She became pregnant. It could have been much worse. She could have conceived a desire for a PhD in Comp Lit,for example."
I could forgive one of my daughters who bore a child out of wedlock, but I'm not sure whether I could allow a Doctor of Comparative Literature under my roof.
I could forgive one of my daughters who bore a child out of wedlock, but I'm not sure whether I could allow a Doctor of Comparative Literature under my roof.
6.22.2010 | 1:20pm
Edward Alleyn says:
The age of students is certainly a factor in their behavior, for which, of course, they are ultimately responsible.
The problem is the licentious atmosphere at many universities. The prisons of the mind have been opened at our "institutions of higher learning," and the orgy is on. God help us to get the demons back into the bottle.
The problem is the licentious atmosphere at many universities. The prisons of the mind have been opened at our "institutions of higher learning," and the orgy is on. God help us to get the demons back into the bottle.
6.22.2010 | 2:22pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The problem is the licentious atmosphere at many universities. "
And this differs from the past. . .how?
And this differs from the past. . .how?
6.22.2010 | 7:28pm
Andrew says:
"And this differs from the past. . .how?"
Grant that pagan Greco-Roman culture was hypersexualized, as is ours. Let us grant the universality of concupiscence. What is not in dispute is that university students of the past drank and whored.
What seems different about our age is that the policies/laws/customs of the avg. university actively encourage total sexual license. Coed dorms, free contraception: that's how we differ from the past.
Prove that the university authorities of the past consistently made institutional policy to furnish the prostitutes to students in their rooms, and you will have convinced at least me that there is nothing uniquely debauched about our age.
Grant that pagan Greco-Roman culture was hypersexualized, as is ours. Let us grant the universality of concupiscence. What is not in dispute is that university students of the past drank and whored.
What seems different about our age is that the policies/laws/customs of the avg. university actively encourage total sexual license. Coed dorms, free contraception: that's how we differ from the past.
Prove that the university authorities of the past consistently made institutional policy to furnish the prostitutes to students in their rooms, and you will have convinced at least me that there is nothing uniquely debauched about our age.
6.22.2010 | 8:35pm
sandy says:
what happens to the ones that dont get to go back home? oh thats right they are as tuff as the land they grew up on!!!
6.22.2010 | 9:25pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"What seems different about our age is that the policies/laws/customs of the avg. university actively encourage total sexual license. Coed dorms, free contraception: that's how we differ from the past. "
My dorm at Georgetown was not co-ed. That did not prevent my roommate squeaking the bedsprings with his girlfriend of the week on his side of the room, while I pulled a pillow over my head and tried to sleep. This was not uncommon behavior--nor were one-night stands, long-term shack-ups, drunken parties and use of other mind-altering substances (the smell of weed wafting across the baseball field below McDonough Gym on a warm spring night was part of the Hoya experience). There were lots of rules on the books, but apparently the Jebbies had decided not to enforce them.
As for today, the situations you describe may pertain at some schools, but not most. Mr. Bottums and many of the posters here are guilty of elevating outliers to the norm. Just as, in 1975, most students were not hopping from bed to bed in a drunken stupor, so today most students are not hooking up, most are not abusing drugs or alcohol, and most are just trying to get by (difficult, since most of them shouldn't be there at all). I didn't find Cicero's "O tempora, O mores" shtick very convincing in his own day, and I don't find similar sentiments to be very convincing today. Every generation is depraved in its own way, and the previous generation always has a way of forgetting just how depraved it was at similar points in its life.
"Prove that the university authorities of the past consistently made institutional policy to furnish the prostitutes to students in their rooms, and you will have convinced at least me that there is nothing uniquely debauched about our age."
So, you're saying that all coeds are equivalent to prostitutes? Your proof of this is. . . ? In any case, the ancient and medieval universities had no need to provide its students with prostitutes. Prostitution was endemic in both the ancient and medieval worlds. It was not illegal, and was a generally accepted outlet for male sexual energies (and if a student could not afford the going price, there were always many talented amateurs among the local girls). The students might object to having to compete with their teachers, though.
Really, everybody tends to think the world was just like the 1950s as depicted on television. But even the 1950s were not like the 1950s. Blaming the culture, or the Zeitgeist, or social forces, or institutions is just another way of deflecting personal responsibility--the responsibility of parents to raise morally serious children, and the responsibility of those children to behave with moral seriousness when let out into the world. But I do understand how much easier it is to blame invisible and irresistible forces, rather than ourselves.
My dorm at Georgetown was not co-ed. That did not prevent my roommate squeaking the bedsprings with his girlfriend of the week on his side of the room, while I pulled a pillow over my head and tried to sleep. This was not uncommon behavior--nor were one-night stands, long-term shack-ups, drunken parties and use of other mind-altering substances (the smell of weed wafting across the baseball field below McDonough Gym on a warm spring night was part of the Hoya experience). There were lots of rules on the books, but apparently the Jebbies had decided not to enforce them.
As for today, the situations you describe may pertain at some schools, but not most. Mr. Bottums and many of the posters here are guilty of elevating outliers to the norm. Just as, in 1975, most students were not hopping from bed to bed in a drunken stupor, so today most students are not hooking up, most are not abusing drugs or alcohol, and most are just trying to get by (difficult, since most of them shouldn't be there at all). I didn't find Cicero's "O tempora, O mores" shtick very convincing in his own day, and I don't find similar sentiments to be very convincing today. Every generation is depraved in its own way, and the previous generation always has a way of forgetting just how depraved it was at similar points in its life.
"Prove that the university authorities of the past consistently made institutional policy to furnish the prostitutes to students in their rooms, and you will have convinced at least me that there is nothing uniquely debauched about our age."
So, you're saying that all coeds are equivalent to prostitutes? Your proof of this is. . . ? In any case, the ancient and medieval universities had no need to provide its students with prostitutes. Prostitution was endemic in both the ancient and medieval worlds. It was not illegal, and was a generally accepted outlet for male sexual energies (and if a student could not afford the going price, there were always many talented amateurs among the local girls). The students might object to having to compete with their teachers, though.
Really, everybody tends to think the world was just like the 1950s as depicted on television. But even the 1950s were not like the 1950s. Blaming the culture, or the Zeitgeist, or social forces, or institutions is just another way of deflecting personal responsibility--the responsibility of parents to raise morally serious children, and the responsibility of those children to behave with moral seriousness when let out into the world. But I do understand how much easier it is to blame invisible and irresistible forces, rather than ourselves.
6.23.2010 | 6:46am
Max says:
This is one of the more poignant articles I have read in awhile. My own daugher will soon be 4 and I am already worrying about what the teen years and colllege will bring. I only hope her mother and I will have raised her well enough to know what to expect and be on guard for. I agree with some of the commentators that Mr. Bottoms may have cast this young woman in a bit too tragic of a mold. She will survive and I predict thrive. Where there is life, there is hope Thank the Lord she chose life, a commendable act in such circumstances, and to be celebrated against the stream of the culture of death in which we are all swimming.
6.23.2010 | 8:50am
Jeff says:
It never ceases to amaze me how every time an "unwanted" pregnancy is an issue there are cries of "she should have used birth control". The proponents faith in it is unshakable. Did you see any mention of her not using birth control? Didn't you read the part of the article which states that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge?
Time to face facts: birth control fails.
Time to face facts: birth control fails.
6.23.2010 | 2:09pm
southside says:
Stuart,
I was also at Georgetown and graduated in 83. I will say on my dorm floor at St Mary's at least half of the girls arrived with certain amount of sexual experience. The numbers were no greater or less than at my coed Catholic High School in Florida. To be perfectly frank, unless a girl got pregnant or became flagrantly promiscuous, the prevailing attitude seemed to be much the same as today as long as you don't get caught out. The one difference I would say is that it was expected that this would take place in the context of some sort of relationship, whatever that meant, at seventeen. Drunken one night stands were certainly not absent, but were a more serious embarrassment then they seem to be now. To be perfectly frank, I can't think of a single girl on my dorm floor that didn't expect to have sex before she graduated.
There were no pregnancies or abortions, however, that I was aware of through my years at Georgetown. Not that this didn't happen, but it was rare. This was much more common among the kids at home that didn't go on to college. I want to live in the community that Mr. Bottum speaks about where they look out for each other. I have found little of that anywhere regarding the sexual exploits of teenagers as I have straddled the world of the working class and the professional class.
I will say that I was fooled into believing the new freedom. The pain and humiliation from an ill-fated match was never explained in any context that made sense by any of my catechism teachers and assuredly not my mother who memorized the Baltimore catechism but did not have the vaguest idea of
what the sanctity of marriage meant. My own daughters are 19 and 15 now, their outlook is completely different because we have confronted the popular culture at every turn. We have not removed ourselves because I believe that is untenable. Instead we have taught a respect for life, marriage and the holiness of their own body. They can recognize things in popular culture and life that are manipulative and wrong. Those movies, music and expected behavior that debase their womanhood and challenge their virtue can be seen for what they are and the right choice is made. Will they remain chaste? I pray so and know that at the very least they will understand what they have lost.
I was also at Georgetown and graduated in 83. I will say on my dorm floor at St Mary's at least half of the girls arrived with certain amount of sexual experience. The numbers were no greater or less than at my coed Catholic High School in Florida. To be perfectly frank, unless a girl got pregnant or became flagrantly promiscuous, the prevailing attitude seemed to be much the same as today as long as you don't get caught out. The one difference I would say is that it was expected that this would take place in the context of some sort of relationship, whatever that meant, at seventeen. Drunken one night stands were certainly not absent, but were a more serious embarrassment then they seem to be now. To be perfectly frank, I can't think of a single girl on my dorm floor that didn't expect to have sex before she graduated.
There were no pregnancies or abortions, however, that I was aware of through my years at Georgetown. Not that this didn't happen, but it was rare. This was much more common among the kids at home that didn't go on to college. I want to live in the community that Mr. Bottum speaks about where they look out for each other. I have found little of that anywhere regarding the sexual exploits of teenagers as I have straddled the world of the working class and the professional class.
I will say that I was fooled into believing the new freedom. The pain and humiliation from an ill-fated match was never explained in any context that made sense by any of my catechism teachers and assuredly not my mother who memorized the Baltimore catechism but did not have the vaguest idea of
what the sanctity of marriage meant. My own daughters are 19 and 15 now, their outlook is completely different because we have confronted the popular culture at every turn. We have not removed ourselves because I believe that is untenable. Instead we have taught a respect for life, marriage and the holiness of their own body. They can recognize things in popular culture and life that are manipulative and wrong. Those movies, music and expected behavior that debase their womanhood and challenge their virtue can be seen for what they are and the right choice is made. Will they remain chaste? I pray so and know that at the very least they will understand what they have lost.
6.23.2010 | 6:30pm
Charlie says:
Thank you for this. It reminds me of the Tom Wolfe book, "I am Charlotte Simmons".
Having grown up in the 50s, I remember the hushed tones in which pregnant high school girls were spoken of, the shame of it. Largely because of this shame, such pregnancies were rare. I do not know if we want to, or could, bring this shame back, but it had its utility. (By the way, the shame also attached to the boy.)
If every high school student, his or her parents, pastor, counsellor would read this, it would do good.
Thank you.
Having grown up in the 50s, I remember the hushed tones in which pregnant high school girls were spoken of, the shame of it. Largely because of this shame, such pregnancies were rare. I do not know if we want to, or could, bring this shame back, but it had its utility. (By the way, the shame also attached to the boy.)
If every high school student, his or her parents, pastor, counsellor would read this, it would do good.
Thank you.
6.23.2010 | 7:19pm
David vun Kannon says:
Jeff says:
Did you see any mention of her not using birth control? Didn't you read the part of the article which states that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge?
No, Jeff, I didn't. Mr. Bottum is silent on whether she used birth control and it failed. Mr. Bottum also does not make an exaggerated claim that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge. Mr. Bottum does claim that at at least one college, perhaps even the minor western state university his tragic heroine attended, birth control was given out at freshman orientation.
Personally, I think Mr. Bottum is MSU. To pick one example, contraception isn't free at Montana State University (though it is available for sale on campus), and I didn't see a mention of student health issues in their freshman orientation.
Jeff again:
Time to face facts: birth control fails.
Certainly, magical thinking about birth control fails. It doesn't work 100% of the time you don't use it. It also doesn't work 2% of the time you do use it. What are you trying to say, Jeff? That our tragic heroine had sex 50 times during her fertile days in those few months she was at school?
But Mr. Bottum doesn't think birth control let her down. He thinks college let her down. That somehow, a state funded, secular institution had a duty of care which extended to keeping her chaste. Exactly how this is supposed to jibe Western values of self responsibility, Mr. Bottum leaves unclear. He seems to think that college administrators should lobby for zoning restrictions on bookstores and coffeeshops as an effective deterrant to student moral collapse. And there is no need for a diversity program east of the Rockies and west of the Mississippi. Or perhaps the Appalachians.
Did you see any mention of her not using birth control? Didn't you read the part of the article which states that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge?
No, Jeff, I didn't. Mr. Bottum is silent on whether she used birth control and it failed. Mr. Bottum also does not make an exaggerated claim that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge. Mr. Bottum does claim that at at least one college, perhaps even the minor western state university his tragic heroine attended, birth control was given out at freshman orientation.
Personally, I think Mr. Bottum is MSU. To pick one example, contraception isn't free at Montana State University (though it is available for sale on campus), and I didn't see a mention of student health issues in their freshman orientation.
Jeff again:
Time to face facts: birth control fails.
Certainly, magical thinking about birth control fails. It doesn't work 100% of the time you don't use it. It also doesn't work 2% of the time you do use it. What are you trying to say, Jeff? That our tragic heroine had sex 50 times during her fertile days in those few months she was at school?
But Mr. Bottum doesn't think birth control let her down. He thinks college let her down. That somehow, a state funded, secular institution had a duty of care which extended to keeping her chaste. Exactly how this is supposed to jibe Western values of self responsibility, Mr. Bottum leaves unclear. He seems to think that college administrators should lobby for zoning restrictions on bookstores and coffeeshops as an effective deterrant to student moral collapse. And there is no need for a diversity program east of the Rockies and west of the Mississippi. Or perhaps the Appalachians.
6.23.2010 | 7:48pm
Polycarp says:
I was intrigued by Paul's reference to studies suggesting that young people who attended religious universities are more likely to lose their faith than those attending secular ones. I was intrigued because I have taught at both types now for over twenty years, and have not -- even remotely -- found that to be true. Frankly, I would like it to be true. I would love to think that my children would have all the career advantages of the Ivy League educations that their parents had.
But alas. I would also like to think that those same Ivies and other top-tier schools offered educations worthy of the salivation rate they trigger in their applicants. But they don't, not in any cohesive way. I am grateful to Paul for including his references in his second post, but find myself after checking into them, ever-hopeful, once again with the losing lottery ticket. I am familiar with Mark Regnerus's work, and think his research on marriage at young age interesting, if a bit obvious. The work on colleges and students' faith is far less convincing.
Perhaps Stuart Koehl-- indirectly -- best states my point in his quote:
"Meanwhile, the evidence is pretty good that students that go to religious schools are more likely to lose faith than students who don't."
As I noted, this was evident to Bishop Fulton Sheen half a century ago, and was certainly mirrored by my experience at Georgetown. "
Georgetown is not a Catholic school. It just isn't. Bishop Sheen was certainly not talking about TAC or Christendom.
I would be first to agree -- because I have seen it so very often -- that it is often a better choice to attend a secular school than a pseudo-Catholic school. These schools breed confusion because they are so confused. I would certainly not compare those to the schools that make a point of their faithfulness to the Magisterium, and where one's religion is just another lifestyle choice, like vegetarianism or deciding to be a rabid Packers fan.
These are, of course, the schools to which James Conway refers with rather acidic disdain as cloisters and shelters. First, Mr. Conway, let me congratulate on your recent graduation, and second, let me say that I truly delighted for you that you had such a positive and faith-filled experience at U. Chicago. That's terrific.
You wondered whether Mr. Bottom had talked to many college-aged students. I have -- in the hundreds. I give them a lot of credit for perceptiveness, and I grill them on their experiences, and, again, find myself wishing for more happy-ending stories like yours. I really don't tend to find them. So many of the students who graduated from secular schools without losing their faith talk about how alone they felt, even as they succeeded in their academics, on sports and in any number of extracurriculars. I have to wonder , in turn, if you have really spent much time or gotten to know students from those colleges you dismiss so quickly. No, the campus, history, and facilities are a far cry from U.Chicago, or U. Illinois- Urbana, for that matter, but these schools require more than a cursory look to be appreciated.
I would suggest that both you and Paul, if you really want to know more about this, seek out graduates of these Catholic schools. I can certainly say that, in my case, once I got past my own prejudices and condescension, it made me wish I could received the education they did.
(As to Mr. Koehl's post about morals being as lax now as ever. Um -- no, not when it comes to college campuses. If I understand his references to current students being more drudges than partiers, I get his point. There is a preprofessionalism that is frightening because it is so utilitarian and utterly unconcerned with the pursuit of wisdom, but that is hardly all over the place. On the social level, do read I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS if you can get through it. It may not shock you, and, sure, CALIGULA is even more graphic, but this is a picture of a pervasive college culture that debases young men and women, but especially women, to a degree that makes your roommates squeaking mattress springs rather quaint.)
But alas. I would also like to think that those same Ivies and other top-tier schools offered educations worthy of the salivation rate they trigger in their applicants. But they don't, not in any cohesive way. I am grateful to Paul for including his references in his second post, but find myself after checking into them, ever-hopeful, once again with the losing lottery ticket. I am familiar with Mark Regnerus's work, and think his research on marriage at young age interesting, if a bit obvious. The work on colleges and students' faith is far less convincing.
Perhaps Stuart Koehl-- indirectly -- best states my point in his quote:
"Meanwhile, the evidence is pretty good that students that go to religious schools are more likely to lose faith than students who don't."
As I noted, this was evident to Bishop Fulton Sheen half a century ago, and was certainly mirrored by my experience at Georgetown. "
Georgetown is not a Catholic school. It just isn't. Bishop Sheen was certainly not talking about TAC or Christendom.
I would be first to agree -- because I have seen it so very often -- that it is often a better choice to attend a secular school than a pseudo-Catholic school. These schools breed confusion because they are so confused. I would certainly not compare those to the schools that make a point of their faithfulness to the Magisterium, and where one's religion is just another lifestyle choice, like vegetarianism or deciding to be a rabid Packers fan.
These are, of course, the schools to which James Conway refers with rather acidic disdain as cloisters and shelters. First, Mr. Conway, let me congratulate on your recent graduation, and second, let me say that I truly delighted for you that you had such a positive and faith-filled experience at U. Chicago. That's terrific.
You wondered whether Mr. Bottom had talked to many college-aged students. I have -- in the hundreds. I give them a lot of credit for perceptiveness, and I grill them on their experiences, and, again, find myself wishing for more happy-ending stories like yours. I really don't tend to find them. So many of the students who graduated from secular schools without losing their faith talk about how alone they felt, even as they succeeded in their academics, on sports and in any number of extracurriculars. I have to wonder , in turn, if you have really spent much time or gotten to know students from those colleges you dismiss so quickly. No, the campus, history, and facilities are a far cry from U.Chicago, or U. Illinois- Urbana, for that matter, but these schools require more than a cursory look to be appreciated.
I would suggest that both you and Paul, if you really want to know more about this, seek out graduates of these Catholic schools. I can certainly say that, in my case, once I got past my own prejudices and condescension, it made me wish I could received the education they did.
(As to Mr. Koehl's post about morals being as lax now as ever. Um -- no, not when it comes to college campuses. If I understand his references to current students being more drudges than partiers, I get his point. There is a preprofessionalism that is frightening because it is so utilitarian and utterly unconcerned with the pursuit of wisdom, but that is hardly all over the place. On the social level, do read I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS if you can get through it. It may not shock you, and, sure, CALIGULA is even more graphic, but this is a picture of a pervasive college culture that debases young men and women, but especially women, to a degree that makes your roommates squeaking mattress springs rather quaint.)
6.24.2010 | 4:42am
Stan says:
"Meanwhile, the evidence is pretty good that students that go to religious schools are more likely to lose faith than students who don't."
I think this is sometimes true. I knew a pastor that went to a college of a very conservative evangelical denomination. He said all the drunkenness and sex going on almost made him walk away from the faith. As for me, I've never gone to a religious school. However, I knew someone who taught at an evangelical Christian college, who was living with their significant other. Ii left me disillusioned for awhile. I've read that this it's common at some Christian colleges for professors to live with someone outside of a marriage commitment, so I can only imagine what the students go through when the people the look up to live like this. I'm glad I went to a public college, because the atheist and agnostic professors could not disillusion me.
It probably helped that I went to community college for a few years and transferred to a 4-year school when I was more mature. I can't imagine being 18 and experiencing the culture shock of college life.
However, the public school I went to started offering magazines like Playboy in the market on campus around 2004. I was shocked; just when I though the college environment was somewhat licentious, the powers that be decide to sell pornography, and make the situation even worse. It was disturbing to know that so many people were probably struggling with temptation, and adults that were supposed to "protect" us in whatever feeble manner want to make money off our weaknesses instead. At least Christian colleges probably don't have pornography.
I think this is sometimes true. I knew a pastor that went to a college of a very conservative evangelical denomination. He said all the drunkenness and sex going on almost made him walk away from the faith. As for me, I've never gone to a religious school. However, I knew someone who taught at an evangelical Christian college, who was living with their significant other. Ii left me disillusioned for awhile. I've read that this it's common at some Christian colleges for professors to live with someone outside of a marriage commitment, so I can only imagine what the students go through when the people the look up to live like this. I'm glad I went to a public college, because the atheist and agnostic professors could not disillusion me.
It probably helped that I went to community college for a few years and transferred to a 4-year school when I was more mature. I can't imagine being 18 and experiencing the culture shock of college life.
However, the public school I went to started offering magazines like Playboy in the market on campus around 2004. I was shocked; just when I though the college environment was somewhat licentious, the powers that be decide to sell pornography, and make the situation even worse. It was disturbing to know that so many people were probably struggling with temptation, and adults that were supposed to "protect" us in whatever feeble manner want to make money off our weaknesses instead. At least Christian colleges probably don't have pornography.
6.24.2010 | 5:42am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Georgetown is not a Catholic school."
I believe I mentioned, right off the bat, that Georgetown is a "Jesuit school"--there is a difference.
"Bishop Sheen was certainly not talking about TAC or Christendom."
When Sheen made his statement, there were myriad Catholic liberal arts colleges, and even schools like Notre Dame and Marquette were relative paragons of orthodoxy, so that argument won't wash.
My problem with school like TAC, Christendom or Steubenville is they are nice little liberal arts colleges, but none offers what I would consider a serious degree in the sciences or even in specialized humanities (e.g., linguistics). For those, a student still must go to one of the larger (nominally) Catholic or secular schools. That aside, I'm not even that impressed with the kinds of liberal arts grads I am seeing from the smaller, explicitly Catholic schools.
"As to Mr. Koehl's post about morals being as lax now as ever. Um -- no, not when it comes to college campuses. "
Everybody thinks their own time is either the best or the worst, ever. History began on the day they were born. Historians have (or should have) a longer perspective. The world has seen all this before, it will see it again. One need simply read what was being said about the universities in the past.
"On the social level, do read I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS if you can get through it. It may not shock you, and, sure, CALIGULA is even more graphic, but this is a picture of a pervasive college culture that debases young men and women, but especially women, to a degree that makes your roommates squeaking mattress springs rather quaint."
Do understand that Tom Wolfe's style is based on hyperbole--of taking reality and raising it by an order of magnitude. That's why "I am Charlotte Simmons" is called a novel, and not an anthropological treatise. Wolfe combines the most extreme examples of undergrad behavior into a handful of characters who serve as archetypes, which makes them and their vices larger than life. Charlotte Simmons no more represents the typical undergraduate experience than Bonfire of the Vanities represented the typical Wall Street experience of the 1980s.
Like Polycarp, I have the opportunity to see many college students up close and personal, and what I see are a broad spectrum of people who embody all the virtues and vices of the broader culture. The vast majority of college students don't belong there, and since they aren't really interested in higher education for the sake of knowledge, they divert their energies into other areas, one of which is partying. But I don't see any who party quite as hard as we did back in the 1970s--the decade without quality control. In the serious students of today, I see some very serious human beings who are, if anything, more socially conservative than most of my peers were at their age (and probably even today).
Polycarp decries the utilitarian attitude of these students, but that's the outcome you get when everyone says a college degree is the ticket to a good job: college becomes the new high school, and the "pursuit of wisdom" becomes a secondary or tertiary concern. Even the wise have to eat.
More deeply, what Polycarp really regrets is the move from classical education on the English model, to polytechnical education on the German model, which happened in the latter half of the 19th century. Much as I would like to see a return to the trivium and quadrivium, that isn't going to happen. Even if it did, I doubt it would contribute significantly to the pursuit of wisdom--at least not if the behavior of university graduates of the past is any indication. Wisdom comes with age, and cramming a student's head full of philosophy and theology will not make him wise. At Georgetown, we had to take six credit hours of philosophy and six of theology in our Freshman year. A greater waste of time I never saw, for the simple reason that callow eighteen year olds just aren't able to absorb it (that may be why one of the Fathers--I forget who--said no one should study theology before the age of thirty). I realized this when I took my last two pre-req philosophy and theology courses in the last semester of my senior year (having transferred in as a sophomore, I had to fit them in when others were doing electives). As a senior, I already had a very different perspective from the freshmen who were my classmates. Today, I marvel at how naive even I was.
The truth is wisdom comes from experience, and experience is gained by making mistakes, which hopefully keeps us from making the same mistakes again. Putting your kids in a bubble, and hoping this will keep them from making mistakes is a fool's errand.
I believe I mentioned, right off the bat, that Georgetown is a "Jesuit school"--there is a difference.
"Bishop Sheen was certainly not talking about TAC or Christendom."
When Sheen made his statement, there were myriad Catholic liberal arts colleges, and even schools like Notre Dame and Marquette were relative paragons of orthodoxy, so that argument won't wash.
My problem with school like TAC, Christendom or Steubenville is they are nice little liberal arts colleges, but none offers what I would consider a serious degree in the sciences or even in specialized humanities (e.g., linguistics). For those, a student still must go to one of the larger (nominally) Catholic or secular schools. That aside, I'm not even that impressed with the kinds of liberal arts grads I am seeing from the smaller, explicitly Catholic schools.
"As to Mr. Koehl's post about morals being as lax now as ever. Um -- no, not when it comes to college campuses. "
Everybody thinks their own time is either the best or the worst, ever. History began on the day they were born. Historians have (or should have) a longer perspective. The world has seen all this before, it will see it again. One need simply read what was being said about the universities in the past.
"On the social level, do read I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS if you can get through it. It may not shock you, and, sure, CALIGULA is even more graphic, but this is a picture of a pervasive college culture that debases young men and women, but especially women, to a degree that makes your roommates squeaking mattress springs rather quaint."
Do understand that Tom Wolfe's style is based on hyperbole--of taking reality and raising it by an order of magnitude. That's why "I am Charlotte Simmons" is called a novel, and not an anthropological treatise. Wolfe combines the most extreme examples of undergrad behavior into a handful of characters who serve as archetypes, which makes them and their vices larger than life. Charlotte Simmons no more represents the typical undergraduate experience than Bonfire of the Vanities represented the typical Wall Street experience of the 1980s.
Like Polycarp, I have the opportunity to see many college students up close and personal, and what I see are a broad spectrum of people who embody all the virtues and vices of the broader culture. The vast majority of college students don't belong there, and since they aren't really interested in higher education for the sake of knowledge, they divert their energies into other areas, one of which is partying. But I don't see any who party quite as hard as we did back in the 1970s--the decade without quality control. In the serious students of today, I see some very serious human beings who are, if anything, more socially conservative than most of my peers were at their age (and probably even today).
Polycarp decries the utilitarian attitude of these students, but that's the outcome you get when everyone says a college degree is the ticket to a good job: college becomes the new high school, and the "pursuit of wisdom" becomes a secondary or tertiary concern. Even the wise have to eat.
More deeply, what Polycarp really regrets is the move from classical education on the English model, to polytechnical education on the German model, which happened in the latter half of the 19th century. Much as I would like to see a return to the trivium and quadrivium, that isn't going to happen. Even if it did, I doubt it would contribute significantly to the pursuit of wisdom--at least not if the behavior of university graduates of the past is any indication. Wisdom comes with age, and cramming a student's head full of philosophy and theology will not make him wise. At Georgetown, we had to take six credit hours of philosophy and six of theology in our Freshman year. A greater waste of time I never saw, for the simple reason that callow eighteen year olds just aren't able to absorb it (that may be why one of the Fathers--I forget who--said no one should study theology before the age of thirty). I realized this when I took my last two pre-req philosophy and theology courses in the last semester of my senior year (having transferred in as a sophomore, I had to fit them in when others were doing electives). As a senior, I already had a very different perspective from the freshmen who were my classmates. Today, I marvel at how naive even I was.
The truth is wisdom comes from experience, and experience is gained by making mistakes, which hopefully keeps us from making the same mistakes again. Putting your kids in a bubble, and hoping this will keep them from making mistakes is a fool's errand.
6.24.2010 | 12:24pm
Stuart Koehl says:
As to why students at secular colleges seem to hold onto their faith more than those attending religious schools, I would submit it has to do with the matter of authority: those teaching in secular schools may have dismissive opinions about traditional religion, but in the minds of the students, they are merely opinions and do not represent any particularly authoritative voice.
On the other hands, students tend to view teachers at religious schools as at least tacitly reflecting the official voice of the sponsoring confession. I know at Georgetown, kids from Catholic high schools tended to view the Jesuit teachers with a degree of awe, so if a Jesuit spoke openly against the teachings of the Church, or even expressed some reservations or caveats regarding them, this had a real impact on the students: if Jebbies didn't believe it, why should they?
I think students are also influenced by the matter of example. The behavior of teachers in secular schools reflects only on the teachers as individuals. But at religious schools, the teachers are supposed to be exemplars of all for which the sponsoring confession stands. So when teachers at religious schools behave badly, it undermines the authority of the confession as a whole.
On the other hands, students tend to view teachers at religious schools as at least tacitly reflecting the official voice of the sponsoring confession. I know at Georgetown, kids from Catholic high schools tended to view the Jesuit teachers with a degree of awe, so if a Jesuit spoke openly against the teachings of the Church, or even expressed some reservations or caveats regarding them, this had a real impact on the students: if Jebbies didn't believe it, why should they?
I think students are also influenced by the matter of example. The behavior of teachers in secular schools reflects only on the teachers as individuals. But at religious schools, the teachers are supposed to be exemplars of all for which the sponsoring confession stands. So when teachers at religious schools behave badly, it undermines the authority of the confession as a whole.
6.24.2010 | 12:43pm
Paul says:
Polycarp,
You seem to have neglected the evidence reviewed in the Chronicle piece by Dutton. What the Regnerus research shows is that students who don't attend college (secular included) are less likely to be religiously observant than those who do (conversely, those who attend college are more likely to be religiously observant than those who do not). The research by Dutton is the research that shows that kids who attend secular schools are more likely to remain in the faith than those who attend religious schools. So that you're being underwhelmed by Regnerus doesn’t speak to the point but, rather, neglects the relevant research (though you don’t point to any flay in Regnerus’s data or his handling of it).
As well, I have attended and taught at both kinds of universities. And in my personal experience--though personal experience is worthless when it comes to making generalizations (it's the old sample of 1 problem)--the Dutton research holds up. Let's set personal experience aside, since such experience is by definition idiosyncratic rather than indicative. If you think the conclusion wrong, you need to refute the research reviewed by Dutton.
Meanwhile, there is no statistical or qualitative evidence supporting the claim religious schools (even theologically conservative Catholic and Evangelical schools) or that not attending college at all are more likely to safeguard the faith or Christian observance. Dated and refuted claims are repeated again and again in the Evangelical and in the Catholic world. As are claims for which no evidence other than the anecdotal testimony of a person here or there. Even if the intellectual biases of secular culture are indefensible, doesn't the fact that we are Christians demand something better of us. Empirical claims require empirical evidence--not anecdotal evidence or an accounting of one's personal experience. The problem is that lots of Christians pontificate without a clue as to the appropriate way to investigate the social world. Certain "Christian" polling groups don't even seem to have a clue as to what a statistical control of the most basic sort is. I find this state of affairs to be, quite frankly, embarrassing.
You seem to have neglected the evidence reviewed in the Chronicle piece by Dutton. What the Regnerus research shows is that students who don't attend college (secular included) are less likely to be religiously observant than those who do (conversely, those who attend college are more likely to be religiously observant than those who do not). The research by Dutton is the research that shows that kids who attend secular schools are more likely to remain in the faith than those who attend religious schools. So that you're being underwhelmed by Regnerus doesn’t speak to the point but, rather, neglects the relevant research (though you don’t point to any flay in Regnerus’s data or his handling of it).
As well, I have attended and taught at both kinds of universities. And in my personal experience--though personal experience is worthless when it comes to making generalizations (it's the old sample of 1 problem)--the Dutton research holds up. Let's set personal experience aside, since such experience is by definition idiosyncratic rather than indicative. If you think the conclusion wrong, you need to refute the research reviewed by Dutton.
Meanwhile, there is no statistical or qualitative evidence supporting the claim religious schools (even theologically conservative Catholic and Evangelical schools) or that not attending college at all are more likely to safeguard the faith or Christian observance. Dated and refuted claims are repeated again and again in the Evangelical and in the Catholic world. As are claims for which no evidence other than the anecdotal testimony of a person here or there. Even if the intellectual biases of secular culture are indefensible, doesn't the fact that we are Christians demand something better of us. Empirical claims require empirical evidence--not anecdotal evidence or an accounting of one's personal experience. The problem is that lots of Christians pontificate without a clue as to the appropriate way to investigate the social world. Certain "Christian" polling groups don't even seem to have a clue as to what a statistical control of the most basic sort is. I find this state of affairs to be, quite frankly, embarrassing.
6.24.2010 | 3:55pm
Paul Shonk says:
Lost in these commenters' statistical analyses is what I took to be Mr. Bottum's moral purpose: to call attention to the death of chivalry. There is (or used to be) an idea that women deserve the protection of society, particularly from those under whose guardianship they are placed.
Incidentally, "guardianship" is the right word or very close to it. The notion that college undergrads are simply "on their own" is not very credible. Most undergrads have no income and are living on college property. Their safety is most definitely the university's responsibility, as any lawyer for an injured student would tell you.
Getting back to chivalry, it is an ideal anathema to the individualistic and egalitarian thrust of contemporary discourse, as is the kindred ideal that we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers. But it is still a defensible ideal with deep roots in western civilization.
I know that Stuart Koehl will chide me for suggesting that anything ever changes in the course of history, and I'm sure he is right that certain things do not change. But the influence and ascendency of various ideas obviously does ebb and flow from age to age. Chivalry is a conspicuous example, as anyone can see from the most cursory comparison of medieval and modern literature. Chivalry may be dead, in which case our response to a damsel in distress will be the same as our response to anyone else: you're a legal adult; you're personally responsible; don't give me any sob stories. But there are some hold-outs (and I think Mr. Bottum may be one of them) who remain stubbornly chivalrous and persist in trying to instill chivalry in others. If it is any comfort to the foes of chivarly, I think he has failed in the latter endeavor.
Incidentally, "guardianship" is the right word or very close to it. The notion that college undergrads are simply "on their own" is not very credible. Most undergrads have no income and are living on college property. Their safety is most definitely the university's responsibility, as any lawyer for an injured student would tell you.
Getting back to chivalry, it is an ideal anathema to the individualistic and egalitarian thrust of contemporary discourse, as is the kindred ideal that we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers. But it is still a defensible ideal with deep roots in western civilization.
I know that Stuart Koehl will chide me for suggesting that anything ever changes in the course of history, and I'm sure he is right that certain things do not change. But the influence and ascendency of various ideas obviously does ebb and flow from age to age. Chivalry is a conspicuous example, as anyone can see from the most cursory comparison of medieval and modern literature. Chivalry may be dead, in which case our response to a damsel in distress will be the same as our response to anyone else: you're a legal adult; you're personally responsible; don't give me any sob stories. But there are some hold-outs (and I think Mr. Bottum may be one of them) who remain stubbornly chivalrous and persist in trying to instill chivalry in others. If it is any comfort to the foes of chivarly, I think he has failed in the latter endeavor.
6.24.2010 | 5:02pm
UncommonSense says:
Girls who don't go to college get pregnant too, don't they? I certainly seem to recall such things happening from time to time.
And has it occurred to anyone that if "the girl" had used one of those condoms that "they" supposedly hand out at freshman orientation, she would have been much less likely to get pregnant?
And has it occurred to anyone that if "the girl" had used one of those condoms that "they" supposedly hand out at freshman orientation, she would have been much less likely to get pregnant?
6.24.2010 | 5:27pm
Bordo says:
The vast majority of young women who attend college do not get pregnant. It's a calumny to suggest that mere attendance at an institution of higher learning somehow led to this woman getting pregnant.
I thought the creed of the conservative was to take personal responsibility for our actions. Unless this young lady was raped or someone slipped her a mickey --in which case she was the victim of a crime and should be prosecuting her attacker-- she was an active participant in a pleasurable act.
Young people are loaded with powerful hormones, folks. They've been hooking up since Adam and Eve exited the garden. And, yes, they were doing it when Sir Walter Raleigh was laying his cloak over a mud puddle lest m'lady get her dress dirty, so the chivalry argument is patently false.
I thought the creed of the conservative was to take personal responsibility for our actions. Unless this young lady was raped or someone slipped her a mickey --in which case she was the victim of a crime and should be prosecuting her attacker-- she was an active participant in a pleasurable act.
Young people are loaded with powerful hormones, folks. They've been hooking up since Adam and Eve exited the garden. And, yes, they were doing it when Sir Walter Raleigh was laying his cloak over a mud puddle lest m'lady get her dress dirty, so the chivalry argument is patently false.
6.24.2010 | 6:05pm
Mark says:
Her parents could have had "the talk" with her before she left home for school. Maybe she could've asked mom "Why are they giving out condoms?"
6.24.2010 | 6:08pm
g says:
So small Lutheran colleges in conservative western states are filled with naive young girls from ranches and wolfish boys?
Where do the wolfish boys come from? from the same ranches that the girls come from?
Sounds like the conservative principles so embraced in those small ranch towns have drastically failed these young people. Maybe they should teach their kids more about contraception and personal responsiblity.
Where do the wolfish boys come from? from the same ranches that the girls come from?
Sounds like the conservative principles so embraced in those small ranch towns have drastically failed these young people. Maybe they should teach their kids more about contraception and personal responsiblity.
6.24.2010 | 6:48pm
Stuart Koehl says:
I would like to ask Paul Shonk precisely when he thinks this wonderful age of chivalry took place. I've looked all over for it, since the dawn of time, and in every time and place, men have always taken advantage of women if given the opportunity.
6.24.2010 | 7:36pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Paradoxically enough, while the upper classes are more secular and liberal, and the lower classes more religious and conservative, the upper classes are more likely to avoid teenage pregnancy and to live more normal, well-ordered family lives. To provide a personal example, my wife grew up in a small Texas town, and was one of the few girls in her high school class who were not grandmothers by their early forties. Conversely, my daughters went to school with predominantly liberal, secular kids from upper-middle class and upper class families, none of whom became pregnant in their teens, most of whom went on to college, most of whom will graduate with a degree.
This probably has something do with the stakes of the game and the consequences of failure. A lower class girl looking forward to taking a blue collar job loses little if anything if she gets pregnant as a teenager; at best, she marries the boy and they settle down together. At worst, her mother helps her raise the baby, and she either finds someone else to marry or maybe just drifts from one man to another.
The upper class girl has a lot to lose--admission to a prestigious school, loss of a high paying career, lost of status. Her parents know this, and impress this upon her. Her parents also stay married, because they view their marriage as a joint financial endeavor, and both have a lot to lose if it fails. Lower class couples have a lot less at stake, hence, despite their religious convictions, tend to divorce more readily.
Overall, then, the behavior of the two groups is at odds with their professed morality. The secular wealthy may denigrate religion, consider conventional morality old fashioned, and speak the language of "alternative relationships", but they don't practice what they preach because, at heart, they are pragmatists (the super wealthy are another matter, but they tend to be utterly immune to the effects of sociopathological behavior). By the same token, the poor speak of faith, and the necessity of marriage, but their behavior is at odds with their beliefs. For them, the investment in marriage is more than the benefits are worth, and so, when the going gets tough, they get going. This should not be surprising: the inability to think in the long term, to defer gratification, or to deal with temporary setbacks, is probably the main reason why they are poor. A few manage to escape the trap, but they then move up the socioeconomic ladder, and cease to be the poor.
As a practical matter, then, religious faith has less effect on personal behavior than the socioeconomic of deviant behavior. It's probably always been so--and religious teaching that is not backed by serious social sanctions for transgressions becomes nothing more than a set of private beliefs binding only upon those who choose to be bound by them.
This probably has something do with the stakes of the game and the consequences of failure. A lower class girl looking forward to taking a blue collar job loses little if anything if she gets pregnant as a teenager; at best, she marries the boy and they settle down together. At worst, her mother helps her raise the baby, and she either finds someone else to marry or maybe just drifts from one man to another.
The upper class girl has a lot to lose--admission to a prestigious school, loss of a high paying career, lost of status. Her parents know this, and impress this upon her. Her parents also stay married, because they view their marriage as a joint financial endeavor, and both have a lot to lose if it fails. Lower class couples have a lot less at stake, hence, despite their religious convictions, tend to divorce more readily.
Overall, then, the behavior of the two groups is at odds with their professed morality. The secular wealthy may denigrate religion, consider conventional morality old fashioned, and speak the language of "alternative relationships", but they don't practice what they preach because, at heart, they are pragmatists (the super wealthy are another matter, but they tend to be utterly immune to the effects of sociopathological behavior). By the same token, the poor speak of faith, and the necessity of marriage, but their behavior is at odds with their beliefs. For them, the investment in marriage is more than the benefits are worth, and so, when the going gets tough, they get going. This should not be surprising: the inability to think in the long term, to defer gratification, or to deal with temporary setbacks, is probably the main reason why they are poor. A few manage to escape the trap, but they then move up the socioeconomic ladder, and cease to be the poor.
As a practical matter, then, religious faith has less effect on personal behavior than the socioeconomic of deviant behavior. It's probably always been so--and religious teaching that is not backed by serious social sanctions for transgressions becomes nothing more than a set of private beliefs binding only upon those who choose to be bound by them.
6.25.2010 | 10:46am
beejeez says:
Things I learned in college:
-- An anecdote is no substitute for a careful examination of all sides of a moral issue.
-- Colleges do not make anybody liberal. Most of them expose students to liberal ideas, sure. Then the students make informed choices about whether to adopt them.
-- Colleges do not reward students and professors for being liberals. But liberal ideas often coincide with educational achievement; therefore professors tend to be more liberal than the average American.
-- There are hardly any liberal professors who hold a conservative student's ideology against him when grading. A professor found to do this not only dishonors his profession, he can find himself in career and legal jeopardy.
-- A professor's liberalism makes a convenient excuse for a conservative student who doesn't get a good grade.
-- Some freshmen aren't mature enough for college. That's not the fault of the colleges.
-- Ideology has little relationship to sexual libertinism. (All right, this is an anecdotal observation.)
-- An anecdote is no substitute for a careful examination of all sides of a moral issue.
-- Colleges do not make anybody liberal. Most of them expose students to liberal ideas, sure. Then the students make informed choices about whether to adopt them.
-- Colleges do not reward students and professors for being liberals. But liberal ideas often coincide with educational achievement; therefore professors tend to be more liberal than the average American.
-- There are hardly any liberal professors who hold a conservative student's ideology against him when grading. A professor found to do this not only dishonors his profession, he can find himself in career and legal jeopardy.
-- A professor's liberalism makes a convenient excuse for a conservative student who doesn't get a good grade.
-- Some freshmen aren't mature enough for college. That's not the fault of the colleges.
-- Ideology has little relationship to sexual libertinism. (All right, this is an anecdotal observation.)
6.25.2010 | 11:27am
Paul says:
Mr. Shonk,
Nobody is debunking the idea that the larger culture or that our schools should be careful with the souls the handle and impress. But Mr. Bottum advanced a very specific thesis--that all is rather well and good until one goes away to university--at which point all that is well and good is undermined. Now I am well aware that there are many problems both with public universities and with Christian schools as well. I am well acquainted with the animus towards traditional religious belief and morals that one can find (though that one does not always find) in the secular setting. Even so, as a Christian scholar I am concerned with the arguments advanced within Christian circles. For if the arguments we advance are wrong, in the long run (we so often forget about the long run) we will do more harm than good for the Kingdom of God. And Mr. Bottum's argument had some whole in it. No doubt many of our public and private, secular schools are sexually libertine. As well, though he didn't mention it, there's quite a lot of sexual activity (though not overtly endorsed) at our Christian schools. And, though he failed to mention it, there's considerable evidence of rampant sexual activity in our junior highs and high schools (especially public), beginning at about age 13 (though maybe as early as 12).
The fact of the matter is that traditional sexual standards are undermined long before the young person arrives at college. I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually active in college were sexually active long before they got there. And let us own some of the blame as Christians. We expect kids not to get married until they have gotten their degree or until they have finished graduate work or until they have gotten settled in their careers. And, of course, frequently such advice makes the most economic sense. But God has constructed our biological nature such that the sexual and reproductive drive is strongly pushing us to be fruitful and multiply long before that point. The apostle Paul urges singles and widows who have strong sexual desire to marry. That's the chaste solution. We overlook the biblically recommended discipline and urge them instead to simply exercise self-control. And then we worry that someone will teach them a philosophy that knocks that support down. I'm reminded of a phrase employed by C. S. Lewis to a different effect--we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. Instead here, we tell them to ignore the biological ticking and are surprised when they don't. Perhaps we've structured our culture, our expectations, and even in our economy in the face of Providence's biological design . . .
Nobody is debunking the idea that the larger culture or that our schools should be careful with the souls the handle and impress. But Mr. Bottum advanced a very specific thesis--that all is rather well and good until one goes away to university--at which point all that is well and good is undermined. Now I am well aware that there are many problems both with public universities and with Christian schools as well. I am well acquainted with the animus towards traditional religious belief and morals that one can find (though that one does not always find) in the secular setting. Even so, as a Christian scholar I am concerned with the arguments advanced within Christian circles. For if the arguments we advance are wrong, in the long run (we so often forget about the long run) we will do more harm than good for the Kingdom of God. And Mr. Bottum's argument had some whole in it. No doubt many of our public and private, secular schools are sexually libertine. As well, though he didn't mention it, there's quite a lot of sexual activity (though not overtly endorsed) at our Christian schools. And, though he failed to mention it, there's considerable evidence of rampant sexual activity in our junior highs and high schools (especially public), beginning at about age 13 (though maybe as early as 12).
The fact of the matter is that traditional sexual standards are undermined long before the young person arrives at college. I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually active in college were sexually active long before they got there. And let us own some of the blame as Christians. We expect kids not to get married until they have gotten their degree or until they have finished graduate work or until they have gotten settled in their careers. And, of course, frequently such advice makes the most economic sense. But God has constructed our biological nature such that the sexual and reproductive drive is strongly pushing us to be fruitful and multiply long before that point. The apostle Paul urges singles and widows who have strong sexual desire to marry. That's the chaste solution. We overlook the biblically recommended discipline and urge them instead to simply exercise self-control. And then we worry that someone will teach them a philosophy that knocks that support down. I'm reminded of a phrase employed by C. S. Lewis to a different effect--we castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. Instead here, we tell them to ignore the biological ticking and are surprised when they don't. Perhaps we've structured our culture, our expectations, and even in our economy in the face of Providence's biological design . . .
6.25.2010 | 11:55am
P. Richards says:
Mr. Bottum,
You're no Jim Hoft. I expect better content from First Draft.
You're no Jim Hoft. I expect better content from First Draft.
6.25.2010 | 12:16pm
Stan says:
"Colleges do not make anybody liberal. Most of them expose students to liberal ideas, sure. Then the students make informed choices about whether to adopt them."
Haha, this is funny, the part about making "informed choices". Colleges do expose students to liberal ideas, but rarely conservative ones. When they do mention conservative ideas, it is usually with mockery and derision. The words "ignorant", "stupid", "medieval", "backwords", "theocracy", etc. are almost always associated with conservative ideas. It's all about insidious negative associations without name-calling directly. How can they have an "informed choce" in such an environment?
Haha, this is funny, the part about making "informed choices". Colleges do expose students to liberal ideas, but rarely conservative ones. When they do mention conservative ideas, it is usually with mockery and derision. The words "ignorant", "stupid", "medieval", "backwords", "theocracy", etc. are almost always associated with conservative ideas. It's all about insidious negative associations without name-calling directly. How can they have an "informed choce" in such an environment?
6.25.2010 | 12:17pm
Tyro says:
First, I've always regarded "On The Square" to refer to the origin of the phrase "kidding on the square": yes, the posts reflect the beliefs of the author, but it's all presented with a veneer of humor/satire/exageration.
You describe someone who did not get out very much, who was weak-willed, kept close to home by her parents, and was untalented (were you calling her not very bright?), and then wonder why she didn't succeed at college. The problem was two things: quite clealy her parents did not want her to go. Quite clearly she did not want to go. So she sabotaged herself. This isn't unknown, particular in less prosperous rural areas were young pregnancy is common: it was easier for her to stick with what she knew than to risk moving (what was for her) far away for college.
People do not want to be free and will place themselves in a position where they don't have to be. Would her parents have been happier if she left for college, tranferred to NYU, and decided she liked it out there better? Of course not, and neither did she. In fact, she may well now feel, "why did my parents make me go to college where this happened to me? I'm happier at home!" And her parents probably feel the same way, always afraid that college would take their daughter away from them.
This points more to a dysfunction of ranching families and the local culture rather than a dysfunction in Berkeley, CA or NYC. People, of course, come to NYC to get away from the possibility of getting pregnant at 18 and then being stuck in their hometown for the rest of their lives.
You describe someone who did not get out very much, who was weak-willed, kept close to home by her parents, and was untalented (were you calling her not very bright?), and then wonder why she didn't succeed at college. The problem was two things: quite clealy her parents did not want her to go. Quite clearly she did not want to go. So she sabotaged herself. This isn't unknown, particular in less prosperous rural areas were young pregnancy is common: it was easier for her to stick with what she knew than to risk moving (what was for her) far away for college.
People do not want to be free and will place themselves in a position where they don't have to be. Would her parents have been happier if she left for college, tranferred to NYU, and decided she liked it out there better? Of course not, and neither did she. In fact, she may well now feel, "why did my parents make me go to college where this happened to me? I'm happier at home!" And her parents probably feel the same way, always afraid that college would take their daughter away from them.
This points more to a dysfunction of ranching families and the local culture rather than a dysfunction in Berkeley, CA or NYC. People, of course, come to NYC to get away from the possibility of getting pregnant at 18 and then being stuck in their hometown for the rest of their lives.
6.25.2010 | 10:24pm
Paul Shonk says:
"I would like to ask Paul Shonk precisely when he thinks this wonderful age of chivalry took place. I've looked all over for it, since the dawn of time, and in every time and place, men have always taken advantage of women if given the opportunity."
Actually, I referred only to the ideal of chivalry. I'm agnostic about whether there was ever a society in which that ideal was enacted on any large scale. No one here (and probably no one living) has the exhaustive historical knowledge that would be required to rule out the possibility entirely. My more modest point, that chivalry has been held up as a virtue, is a simple fact that can be gleaned from reading Castiglione or Edmund Spenser. If you want to press the cynical claim that writers on chivalry have never practiced what they preached, that "men have always taken advantage of women given the opportunity," I can't prove you wrong, but, even if you are right, the point remains that the ideal has been held up to a greater or lesser extent in different times and places.
"I thought the creed of the conservative was to take personal responsibility for our actions. Unless this young lady was raped or someone slipped her a mickey --in which case she was the victim of a crime and should be prosecuting her attacker-- she was an active participant in a pleasurable act."
One can be a conservative and still decry the excessive individualism in certain circles of conservatism. Anyway, If you mean to characterize every sexual act, short of rape, as a coming together of equals with perfect mutuality of consent, I think you are guilty of oversimplification. I'm sure there are lots of cases in which both parties know exactly what they are doing. But I'm equally sure there are cases in which the inexperience or weak-mindedness of one party is taken advantage of for the pleasure of the other. That is called (or used to be called) seduction, and, when the seduced person is female, some men respond with indignation and protectiveness. An old word for this response is chivalry. Personally I think it is something very elemental and not as quaint as all that. You might still witness it from time to time at drinking parties, when a rake with the gift of blarney is trying to take a tipsy girl home. In this case, perhaps, the tipsy girl had the temerity to get pregnant, and in the culture of contraception that is the real scandal.
Paul, thanks for your insightful comments, with which for the most part I wholeheartedly agree. As you say, universities do not of themselves produce sexual license. Also, as you say, the delay of marriage in a technologically sophisticated and affluent society does wreck havoc with young people, whose bodies stay on mother nature's time.
Actually, I referred only to the ideal of chivalry. I'm agnostic about whether there was ever a society in which that ideal was enacted on any large scale. No one here (and probably no one living) has the exhaustive historical knowledge that would be required to rule out the possibility entirely. My more modest point, that chivalry has been held up as a virtue, is a simple fact that can be gleaned from reading Castiglione or Edmund Spenser. If you want to press the cynical claim that writers on chivalry have never practiced what they preached, that "men have always taken advantage of women given the opportunity," I can't prove you wrong, but, even if you are right, the point remains that the ideal has been held up to a greater or lesser extent in different times and places.
"I thought the creed of the conservative was to take personal responsibility for our actions. Unless this young lady was raped or someone slipped her a mickey --in which case she was the victim of a crime and should be prosecuting her attacker-- she was an active participant in a pleasurable act."
One can be a conservative and still decry the excessive individualism in certain circles of conservatism. Anyway, If you mean to characterize every sexual act, short of rape, as a coming together of equals with perfect mutuality of consent, I think you are guilty of oversimplification. I'm sure there are lots of cases in which both parties know exactly what they are doing. But I'm equally sure there are cases in which the inexperience or weak-mindedness of one party is taken advantage of for the pleasure of the other. That is called (or used to be called) seduction, and, when the seduced person is female, some men respond with indignation and protectiveness. An old word for this response is chivalry. Personally I think it is something very elemental and not as quaint as all that. You might still witness it from time to time at drinking parties, when a rake with the gift of blarney is trying to take a tipsy girl home. In this case, perhaps, the tipsy girl had the temerity to get pregnant, and in the culture of contraception that is the real scandal.
Paul, thanks for your insightful comments, with which for the most part I wholeheartedly agree. As you say, universities do not of themselves produce sexual license. Also, as you say, the delay of marriage in a technologically sophisticated and affluent society does wreck havoc with young people, whose bodies stay on mother nature's time.
6.26.2010 | 9:41am
Stuart Koehl says:
"My more modest point, that chivalry has been held up as a virtue, is a simple fact that can be gleaned from reading Castiglione or Edmund Spenser. If you want to press the cynical claim that writers on chivalry have never practiced what they preached, that "men have always taken advantage of women given the opportunity," I can't prove you wrong, but, even if you are right, the point remains that the ideal has been held up to a greater or lesser extent in different times and places."
It's still pretty much an ideal today--but only in Western culture. As a reality, mostly honored in the breech, for even in the every so genteel Victorian era, women were treated as commodities, and there were more brothels than churches within the precincts of Greater London. The upper classes, which married mainly for dynastic reasons, were quite open about extra-marital affairs, if conducted with discretion, within one's social class, and after the wife had presented her husband with "an heir and a spare". The lower classes, for the most part, rutted like stoats wherever and whenever they could. The congenitally insecure middle classes, on the whole, lived lives of chastity and sobriety mainly because they had the most to lose from impropriety. Social stigma, not some indwelling high regard for women, held men to the straight and narrow--just as stigma and fear of consequences keeps the upper middle class in line today. At the same time, the Victorians held an overt double standard, in which things which could ruin a woman were seen as mild peccadillos--not a particularly chivalrous attitude.
So I don't see the death of chivalry as being at the heart of the problem, because chivalry never really existed except as fodder for troubadours.
The real difference between the situation today, and similar periods of sexual license in the past is the attitude of the elites. In the past, (e.g., the Restoration, the Regency, the Edwardian era), the elites might have been promiscuous, but they understood that their promiscuity could not be held out as an ideal for the common people--hence the importance of discretion. In the past, elites were never so stupid as to advocate behavior which, if adopted by the common people, would undermine the social order over which they ruled. The rise of industrial economy and of the middle class tended to reinforce the need for regularity in the lives of the commonality, so the level of hypocrisy among the elite increased exponentially. Effectively, they lived by the principle of "Do as I say, not as I do").
Today, the elites uniquely advocate the demolition of social norms regarding marriage, the family, children, work and so forth; indeed, they push such antinomian concepts as gay marriage, polyamory, single parenthood, etc. on the lower classes who instinctively resist them. Yet at the same time, because these traditional virtues remain the key to social and economic success, the upper classes and large continue to observe them even while denouncing them as antiquated, judgmental and bourgeois.
This is what Christopher Lasch described as the "Revolt of the Elites", which in earlier times might have been called "la trahison des clercs"--and example of those most invested in the system working hardest at its downfall.
It's still pretty much an ideal today--but only in Western culture. As a reality, mostly honored in the breech, for even in the every so genteel Victorian era, women were treated as commodities, and there were more brothels than churches within the precincts of Greater London. The upper classes, which married mainly for dynastic reasons, were quite open about extra-marital affairs, if conducted with discretion, within one's social class, and after the wife had presented her husband with "an heir and a spare". The lower classes, for the most part, rutted like stoats wherever and whenever they could. The congenitally insecure middle classes, on the whole, lived lives of chastity and sobriety mainly because they had the most to lose from impropriety. Social stigma, not some indwelling high regard for women, held men to the straight and narrow--just as stigma and fear of consequences keeps the upper middle class in line today. At the same time, the Victorians held an overt double standard, in which things which could ruin a woman were seen as mild peccadillos--not a particularly chivalrous attitude.
So I don't see the death of chivalry as being at the heart of the problem, because chivalry never really existed except as fodder for troubadours.
The real difference between the situation today, and similar periods of sexual license in the past is the attitude of the elites. In the past, (e.g., the Restoration, the Regency, the Edwardian era), the elites might have been promiscuous, but they understood that their promiscuity could not be held out as an ideal for the common people--hence the importance of discretion. In the past, elites were never so stupid as to advocate behavior which, if adopted by the common people, would undermine the social order over which they ruled. The rise of industrial economy and of the middle class tended to reinforce the need for regularity in the lives of the commonality, so the level of hypocrisy among the elite increased exponentially. Effectively, they lived by the principle of "Do as I say, not as I do").
Today, the elites uniquely advocate the demolition of social norms regarding marriage, the family, children, work and so forth; indeed, they push such antinomian concepts as gay marriage, polyamory, single parenthood, etc. on the lower classes who instinctively resist them. Yet at the same time, because these traditional virtues remain the key to social and economic success, the upper classes and large continue to observe them even while denouncing them as antiquated, judgmental and bourgeois.
This is what Christopher Lasch described as the "Revolt of the Elites", which in earlier times might have been called "la trahison des clercs"--and example of those most invested in the system working hardest at its downfall.
6.26.2010 | 12:31pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Magatha has to consider that one is stuck with a roommate for two whole semesters, and that outright war between you and your roommate can result in a very unpleasant--even unendurable--year at school (I speak from experience). So you choose your fights carefully, and ensure a lot in the knowledge that things could be a lot worse.
The real problem is not girls going to college, but simply too many people going to college, most of whom don't belong there at all. If the student body were restricted solely to those who had the intellectual ability and personal desire to attain real academic success, then there would be far fewer students, more rigorous classes, and a lot less free time with which to sow wild oats. To that end, I would stop telling kids they have to get a college education, and fully support Charles Murray's suggestion that most professions be covered by apprenticeships and certification programs in lieu of undergraduate degrees. I would also drop athletic scholarships, legacy admissions and all forms of affirmative action.
The real problem is not girls going to college, but simply too many people going to college, most of whom don't belong there at all. If the student body were restricted solely to those who had the intellectual ability and personal desire to attain real academic success, then there would be far fewer students, more rigorous classes, and a lot less free time with which to sow wild oats. To that end, I would stop telling kids they have to get a college education, and fully support Charles Murray's suggestion that most professions be covered by apprenticeships and certification programs in lieu of undergraduate degrees. I would also drop athletic scholarships, legacy admissions and all forms of affirmative action.
6.26.2010 | 7:05pm
Magatha says:
Stuart, I agree that all-out roommate war is awful and undesirable. We three put up with a lot from each other, personal habits, tidiness versus messiness, or somebody (not me) playing "Bridge Over Troubled Water" on repeat for hours. But one of us having sex with her boyfriend while the others are locked out of the room - or worse, roommates who have sex with their boy or girlfriends while their roommates are IN THE ROOM - that's a line worth drawing. One of the things that is supposed to happen in your late teens and 20s is that you learn how to navigate in the world using the values you were taught (if you were lucky), or learning how to discern the important values, like the basic one: that which is hateful unto thee, do not unto others. It's messy. If you don't make lots of mistakes, you're not pushing yourself hard enough.
Another thing: for all the rude, reckless things I and a lot of other people I know did, all the stupid, dangerous, hurtful things - we grew up anyway, and we learned, and we graduated into an adult life that was typically way healthier and more compassionate than anyone might have predicted, watching us when we were big jerks.
Young people's brains don't finish growing till they're in their 20s. Whether it's college, the service, trade school, or straight to work, it's going to be a chaotic and sometimes even shocking ride. There's no solution, there are only mitigating tactics, one of which is for kids to learn that when they leave home, they have to set the limits for themselves. It doesn't help to protect the child from the chaotic environment by keeping her (or him) from it, but I think we could be a lot more diligent about teaching them values and how to trust their instincts, and how every single thing they do has a consequence.
Also, I'm not completely sold on the concept of restricting who goes to college, Stuart, although I acknowledge your points. The reason I'm not sold is that huge numbers of men went to college on the GI Bill, after WWII, and surely many of them really had no business being there (like my father), but they went anyway. The GI Bill functioned a little bit like an affirmative action program in that it tended to even the playing field, and I think the country was better for it. So that's my bias.
Another thing: for all the rude, reckless things I and a lot of other people I know did, all the stupid, dangerous, hurtful things - we grew up anyway, and we learned, and we graduated into an adult life that was typically way healthier and more compassionate than anyone might have predicted, watching us when we were big jerks.
Young people's brains don't finish growing till they're in their 20s. Whether it's college, the service, trade school, or straight to work, it's going to be a chaotic and sometimes even shocking ride. There's no solution, there are only mitigating tactics, one of which is for kids to learn that when they leave home, they have to set the limits for themselves. It doesn't help to protect the child from the chaotic environment by keeping her (or him) from it, but I think we could be a lot more diligent about teaching them values and how to trust their instincts, and how every single thing they do has a consequence.
Also, I'm not completely sold on the concept of restricting who goes to college, Stuart, although I acknowledge your points. The reason I'm not sold is that huge numbers of men went to college on the GI Bill, after WWII, and surely many of them really had no business being there (like my father), but they went anyway. The GI Bill functioned a little bit like an affirmative action program in that it tended to even the playing field, and I think the country was better for it. So that's my bias.
6.27.2010 | 8:53am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Another thing: for all the rude, reckless things I and a lot of other people I know did, all the stupid, dangerous, hurtful things - we grew up anyway, and we learned, and we graduated into an adult life that was typically way healthier and more compassionate than anyone might have predicted, watching us when we were big jerks."
The same can be said of any generation. It will be said of the generation now going through college.
"Young people's brains don't finish growing till they're in their 20s. Whether it's college, the service, trade school, or straight to work, it's going to be a chaotic and sometimes even shocking ride. There's no solution, there are only mitigating tactics, one of which is for kids to learn that when they leave home, they have to set the limits for themselves."
That there is a period in life called adolescence is a product of the 20th century therapeutic society. Up until then, there was childhood (a very brief period in most places and times, which ended sometime around the age of 12-13), followed by adulthood, in which these young people were expected to pull their weight. Girls were prepped up for marriage and household management, boys to agriculture, a craft, warfare or the Church. It may astound us today, but mere boys of 18 were acting as rulers of major countries, leading armies in battle, making decisions of life and death. Women of the same age were wives managing businesses, farms and estates. People grew up fast because people died fast. Now we have the luxury of time, and we squander it. I'm not at all sure whether delayed brain development is a cause of adolescent behavior, or if adolescent behavior delays brain development. Either way, if we insist that this phase of life continues into the early 20s, we merely continue to infantilize our children.
"It doesn't help to protect the child from the chaotic environment by keeping her (or him) from it, but I think we could be a lot more diligent about teaching them values and how to trust their instincts, and how every single thing they do has a consequence."
This was the point of my first post, waaaay back at the top: parents have the principal responsibility for raising their children, and blaming universities for what happens to them there (short of gross negligence on the part of the university) is merely an attempt to deflect blame onto someone else.
"The reason I'm not sold is that huge numbers of men went to college on the GI Bill, after WWII, and surely many of them really had no business being there (like my father), but they went anyway. "
It wasn't that huge a number. Something like six million served in World War II, and of them less than half a million used the GI Bill to go to college. Many more used it for vocational training, or to get a start-up loan for their own business. It wasn't affirmative action so much as it was compensation for opportunity time lost; i.e., if these young men had not been fighting the war, they would have been building their lives. About a sixth of them probably would have gone to college in any case.
The same can be said of any generation. It will be said of the generation now going through college.
"Young people's brains don't finish growing till they're in their 20s. Whether it's college, the service, trade school, or straight to work, it's going to be a chaotic and sometimes even shocking ride. There's no solution, there are only mitigating tactics, one of which is for kids to learn that when they leave home, they have to set the limits for themselves."
That there is a period in life called adolescence is a product of the 20th century therapeutic society. Up until then, there was childhood (a very brief period in most places and times, which ended sometime around the age of 12-13), followed by adulthood, in which these young people were expected to pull their weight. Girls were prepped up for marriage and household management, boys to agriculture, a craft, warfare or the Church. It may astound us today, but mere boys of 18 were acting as rulers of major countries, leading armies in battle, making decisions of life and death. Women of the same age were wives managing businesses, farms and estates. People grew up fast because people died fast. Now we have the luxury of time, and we squander it. I'm not at all sure whether delayed brain development is a cause of adolescent behavior, or if adolescent behavior delays brain development. Either way, if we insist that this phase of life continues into the early 20s, we merely continue to infantilize our children.
"It doesn't help to protect the child from the chaotic environment by keeping her (or him) from it, but I think we could be a lot more diligent about teaching them values and how to trust their instincts, and how every single thing they do has a consequence."
This was the point of my first post, waaaay back at the top: parents have the principal responsibility for raising their children, and blaming universities for what happens to them there (short of gross negligence on the part of the university) is merely an attempt to deflect blame onto someone else.
"The reason I'm not sold is that huge numbers of men went to college on the GI Bill, after WWII, and surely many of them really had no business being there (like my father), but they went anyway. "
It wasn't that huge a number. Something like six million served in World War II, and of them less than half a million used the GI Bill to go to college. Many more used it for vocational training, or to get a start-up loan for their own business. It wasn't affirmative action so much as it was compensation for opportunity time lost; i.e., if these young men had not been fighting the war, they would have been building their lives. About a sixth of them probably would have gone to college in any case.
6.29.2010 | 1:19am
reader says:
Oh, for ---- sake!
The girl in question is an adult, did an adult thing, and is dealing with the adult consequences.
That has nothing to do with college. She could just as easily have had sex while visiting a ranch for advanced riding instruction.
Parents simply can't hold on to the apron strings once their children turn 18. If they aren't ready for the big bad world by then, they're going to get some rather fast and rude lessons.
The girl in question is an adult, did an adult thing, and is dealing with the adult consequences.
That has nothing to do with college. She could just as easily have had sex while visiting a ranch for advanced riding instruction.
Parents simply can't hold on to the apron strings once their children turn 18. If they aren't ready for the big bad world by then, they're going to get some rather fast and rude lessons.
10.17.2010 | 4:19am
Keleher Ashly says:
Paradoxically enough, while the upper classes are more secular and liberal, and the lower classes more religious and conservative, the upper classes are more likely to avoid teenage pregnancy and to live more normal, well-ordered family lives. To provide a personal example, my wife grew up in a small Texas town, and was one of the few girls in her high school class who were not grandmothers by their early forties. Conversely, my daughters went to school with predominantly liberal, secular kids from upper-middle class and upper class families, none of whom became pregnant in their teens, most of whom went on to college, most of whom will graduate with a degree. No, Jeff, I didn't. Mr. Bottum is silent on whether she used birth control and it failed. Mr. Bottum also does not make an exaggerated claim that all colleges give lessons in birth control and hand it out free of charge. Mr. Bottum does claim that at at least one college, perhaps even the minor western state university his tragic heroine attended, birth control was given out at freshman orientation.
10.20.2010 | 3:07pm
Pink Rose says:
The same goes for religious belief. I note that in the 4th century, conscientious Christian families competed to get their kids into the prestigious Athenian Academy, even though its curriculum, and most of its instructors, were unapologetically pagan. St. Gregory Nanzianzen and Basil the Great both passed through the Academy (where one of their classmates was a young sprig of the imperial house named Julian. They did not shun the Academy because it was pagan, nor did they turn their back on classical literature and philosophy for that reason, but, as Basil himself wrote to a young man, such learning is preparatio evangelicum, and a necessary foundation for any civilized young man. He's politically and socially very conservative. He knows that his beliefs will be in the minority at college. The first thing I will be doing when we go to the two-day orientation is show him how to drive from his dormitory to the nearest Catholic Church. Keeping a child actively interested in his religious life is probably the hardest task for a parent. I think there is some truth in the earlier post that posits religious strength when feeling surrounded by corrupt culture. At least I hope it's true.
