Patrick Henry College: what's the deal?

[silvia]

I read Hanna Rosin's God's Harvard (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Harvard-Chri ... 0151012628) several years ago and was fascinated -- the author basically embedded herself on campus for more than a year to learn as much as she could about the education of the right-wing homeschool elite.

In the book, PHC comes off as an overtly political training ground, a place with the unapologetic goal of producing foot soldiers for God. What most fascinated me about Rosin's description of the place, though, is that PHC teachers were trying to familiarize their students with the norms of the non-fundamentalist world--i.e., "God-fearing Christians believe in creationism, but here's how those dubious left-wing biologists say evolution works, step by step..." The school seemed to be aiming to produce graduates capable of showing one face within the fundamentalist community and quite another when convenient or efficacious in the wider world. Essentially, the kids were learning to don secular camouflage so they could someday ascend to positions of real power. Make no mistake, the leaders of this movement are extremely savvy.

Since Rosin's account is about all I've read on PHC, though, I'd be curious to hear from anyone else who has knowledge or opinions about what it's like there. Are there any significant differences between this place and schools like Bob Jones or Liberty? Is the place really as much of a pioneer in Dominionist higher education as it thinks it is? Will we ever see a Patrick Henry graduate in the White House (gulp)?

[debrand]

I read Hanna Rosin's God's Harvard (http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Harvard-Chri ... 0151012628) several years ago and was fascinated -- the author basically embedded herself on campus for more than a year to learn as much as she could about the education of the right-wing homeschool elite.

In the book, PHC comes off as an overtly political training ground, a place with the unapologetic goal of producing foot soldiers for God. What most fascinated me about Rosin's description of the place, though, is that PHC teachers were trying to familiarize their students with the norms of the non-fundamentalist world--i.e., "God-fearing Christians believe in creationism, but here's how those dubious left-wing biologists say evolution works, step by step..." The school seemed to be aiming to produce graduates capable of showing one face within the fundamentalist community and quite another when convenient or efficacious in the wider world. Essentially, the kids were learning to don secular camouflage so they could someday ascend to positions of real power. Make no mistake, the leaders of this movement are extremely savvy.

Since Rosin's account is about all I've read on PHC, though, I'd be curious to hear from anyone else who has knowledge or opinions about what it's like there. Are there any significant differences between this place and schools like Bob Jones or Liberty? Is the place really as much of a pioneer in Dominionist higher education as it thinks it is? Will we ever see a Patrick Henry graduate in the White House (gulp)?

I find certain types of evangelicals far more frightening than the fundies that we discuss here. Vision Forum probably isn't going to acquire political power in the near future. The Harris twins who wrote the Rebulotion Survey and are attending Patrick Henry College very well might.

The fact that that they are learning to be saavy and hide part of their true believes is frightening.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Don't forget that Howard Phillips, Doug's father served in the Nixon cabinet. Don't write his group off in terms of political power.

Indeed, we snark. But the truth is that these people do pose a real threat to the vision of the Founders. The ultimate goal is to put an end to the enlightenment. They use words like freedom and liberty. Their intention is to have us live under biblical law governing the state. Sort of like Sharaia law, only exactly the same.

[debrand]

Many evangelicals seem so caught up in non biblical issues like courtship, being persecuted for hearing the words," Happy Holidays", abortion, extreme patriotism and laissez-faire capitalism that they no longer seem to be teaching the same gospel as their founder

[Joykins]

My impression? PHC is for fundies who have high IQs, drive, and who want to live in and influence the real world, especially through politics. Of course they have to bring a certain amount of cognitive dissonance with them since their worldview is "biblical" rather than reality-based.

[LucySnowe]

I love reading the student handbooks of such educational institutions. Note to PHC: you might want to remove/edit the garbage that currently exists in lieu of a document header.

Quotations from the handbook:

'Virtue, rather than vice, is the goal of campus life.'

'PHC arose out of the Christian home schooling movement and will seek to continue to be the most home schooling-friendly college in the nation. However, PHC always welcomes students from other forms of high school education.'

'PHC is committed to a non-discriminatory policy in so far as it is consistent with our statement of faith. The practice of homosexual conduct or other extra-marital sexual relations is inconsistent with our faith position.'

'Pornography, because it degrades God’s image-bearers and incites sinful lust, is always evil and merits no legal protection.' [i went to Berkeley. I think porn was mandatory.]

'Students will avoid all occult activities (e.g., Deut 18:10-11, Acts 19:18-19).' [Damn, no Call of Cthulhu then!]

'7. Students will also refrain from inappropriate sexual actions even if they fall short of sexual contact, including, for example, sexual harassment, voyeurism, sexual solicitation or sexually suggestive dancing (e.g., Mt 18:6-7, 2 Cor 7:1, 1 Thess 4:3-6).

8. Students will dress modestly out of consideration for one another. Also, students will not dress in a way that will cause others to mistake them for a member of the other sex (e.g., 1 Tim 2:9; Deut 22:5).

9. Students will not advocate non-Biblical sexual practices, such as extra-marital sex, homosexuality or homosexual “marriage†(e.g., Is 5:20, Romans 1:26-27). (Supporting a candidate for public office who advocates such practices does not in itself constitute the advocacy of such practices.)'

'Students will refrain from all social dancing on the campus out of consideration for those who are uncomfortable in the presence of dancing. Dramatic productions held on campus may include appropriate choreography.'

Well okay then!

[FlorenceHamilton]

The leadership encourages all the legalism and paranoia. (Like as if saying "Happy Holidays" is somehow a threat to Christian people.) This is a very well planned movement. The purpose of all of the legalistic destraction is to maintain the heirarchy. There needs to be lots of unthinking, obiedient soldiers willing to sacrifice for that Dominionist leadership. They will vote in a huge block, they will run local governments and control education and the freedoms of "non-Chistians" (AKA followers of satan) on the local level.

None of it is benign. Every part of the movement plays a part in the grand scheme.

I have never been a conspiricy theorist, but the evidence here is overwhelming. From the time of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy until now, this plan has been forming. Once they got a little bit of traction, there have been religious/politica leaders who have nurtured it and made it grow.

I imagine that the religious despots in the middle east used the very same tactics. They had the advantage of a generally uneducated populace. In the West, they have to actively UNEDUCATE the populace. And it is working.

[debrand]

I imagine that the religious despots in the middle east used the very same tactics. They had the advantage of a generally uneducated populace. In the West, they have to actively UNEDUCATE the populace. And it is working.

This is what worries me. I hesitate to say that these people are purposely trying to undermine American education so that they can have a poor populance who is too ignorant not to vote for them. But sometimes it seems that they are trying to create a mass of ignorant people.

[silvia]

8. Students will dress modestly out of consideration for one another. Also, students will not dress in a way that will cause others to mistake them for a member of the other sex (e.g., 1 Tim 2:9; Deut 22:5).

Hmm, by these standards, Christ Himself might receive a demerit. After all, from what I understand, he probably dressed in flowing robes. (On a related tangent, I find it hilarious how certain types of Christians are always insisting that Jesus wore pants: faithfulwordbaptist.org/pants.html. Another classic in this genre is "Jesus Had Short Hair!": baptist-city.com/Books1/Shorthair.html).

[SamuraiKatz]

In the book, PHC comes off as an overtly political training ground, a place with the unapologetic goal of producing foot soldiers for God. What most fascinated me about Rosin's description of the place, though, is that PHC teachers were trying to familiarize their students with the norms of the non-fundamentalist world--i.e., "God-fearing Christians believe in creationism, but here's how those dubious left-wing biologists say evolution works, step by step..." The school seemed to be aiming to produce graduates capable of showing one face within the fundamentalist community and quite another when convenient or efficacious in the wider world. Essentially, the kids were learning to don secular camouflage so they could someday ascend to positions of real power. Make no mistake, the leaders of this movement are extremely savvy.

Okay....let me see if I am understanding this. These home schoolers are going to a college that teaches them to lie in order to appear more mainstream than the really are? Isn't lying a sin?

I don't know about other books on PHC. However Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power Is a pretty disturbing read. Fundagelicals currently have more power in national government than the mainstream folks realize.

[SamuraiKatz]

In the book, PHC comes off as an overtly political training ground, a place with the unapologetic goal of producing foot soldiers for God. What most fascinated me about Rosin's description of the place, though, is that PHC teachers were trying to familiarize their students with the norms of the non-fundamentalist world--i.e., "God-fearing Christians believe in creationism, but here's how those dubious left-wing biologists say evolution works, step by step..." The school seemed to be aiming to produce graduates capable of showing one face within the fundamentalist community and quite another when convenient or efficacious in the wider world. Essentially, the kids were learning to don secular camouflage so they could someday ascend to positions of real power. Make no mistake, the leaders of this movement are extremely savvy.

Okay....let me see if I am understanding this. These home schoolers are going to a college that teaches them to lie in order to appear more mainstream than the really are? Isn't lying a sin?

I don't know about other books on PHC. However Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power Is a pretty disturbing read. Fundagelicals currently have more power in national government than the mainstream folks realize.

[silvia]

Okay....let me see if I am understanding this. These home schoolers are going to a college that teaches them to lie in order to appear more mainstream than the really are? Isn't lying a sin?

I don't know about other books on PHC. However Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power Is a pretty disturbing read. Fundagelicals currently have more power in national government than the mainstream folks realize.

I don't think the college is teaching the kids to lie, per se. What it is doing is teaching them to function effectively in the world outside the insulated homeschool circles where they grew up. If the kids want to attain real influence, this is exactly what they need to be able to do.

[camdendayton]

Are there any significant differences between this place and schools like Bob Jones or Liberty?

Liberty seems to be more rigorous to me, at least in some areas. I don't know a ton about the school, but I debated in college and debated Liberty students once or twice, and their team has fascinated me ever since (there's clearly a Christian-war aspect.) This is an interesting article on the team: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/magaz ... wanted=all

Being a Christian is a necessary but insufficient requirement for making the Liberty squad. A lot of students are home-schooled; some have even taken part in special home-school debate leagues. But according to O'Donnell [Liberty's debate coach], they lack the starch for serious debate. "These kids pray with each other before the matches," he says. "They put a big emphasis on good manners. I've got nothing against manners or praying, but we want to win. I've never met a home-schooled debater who was aggressive enough for college competition."

[Austin]

This is a few years old, but I found this interesting article by Tim Mitchell, Jilting Justice for Jesus, on Talk2Action where he discusses how the Bush administration, as well as conservative lawmakers, made/make a special point to offer positions to PHC students/graduates:

A particularly notable example of fundamentalist higher education is Patrick Henry College (PHC). Like Regent, the Bush administration has used PHC as a source of employees to fill positions all over the government. For example, Bush appointed Paul Bonicelli, the dean of academic affairs at PHC, to be the deputy director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2005--even though Bonicelli had no experience in promoting democracy and good governance overseas. Prior to that in 2002, Bush appointed Bonicelli to an American delegation (a delegation that included former Vatican adviser John Klink and Janice Crouse of the conservative Concerned Women for America) that sought to promote Christian values in U.S. foreign policy at a United Nations children's conference. (PHC's Board of Trustees includes Janet Ashcroft, wife of former Attorney General/current Regent University professor John Ashcroft.) PHC students also have disproportionately high levels of placement within the government during the Bush administration. According to at 2004 Common Dreams article by Andrew Buncombe, "The Bible College That Leads to the White House", the 240 enrolled PHC students (all white) had some pretty impressive internships in our nation's capital:

This spring, of the almost 100 interns working in the White House, seven are from Patrick Henry. Another intern works for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, while another works for President George Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove. Yet another works for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. Over the past four years, 22 conservative members of Congress have employed one or more Patrick Henry interns.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/5/21/8329/01731 - for the whole article.

[kaetrin]

I don't think it's fair to say that PHC students are systematically being taught to lie and dissemble in order to be electable. For a large number of students (and faculty), there is a genuine if idealistic conviction that Truth (i.e. their beliefs) can stand up to all challenges in the marketplace of ideas, and that there is benefit in understanding alternative points of view as honestly and charitably as possible. They believe in absolute truth, but they also believe (for the most part) that that truth can be found in many places, not just in the ideas of like-minded Christians. When you start with this attitude, even a 6-day-creationist's presentation of evolution, for instance, can start the wheels turning in ways that were never intended by the leadership.

I was part of a substantial minority of PHC students that was never interested in politics and went there for the purported rigorous classical liberal arts education (which I would argue that the early years at least definitely had). We joked that we were the fringe group on campus automatically because we didn't think that Republican politics would save the world. For me and many of my friends, the PHC education was the catalyst to our movement away from fundamentalism in various ways and degrees, politically, religiously, and socially.

Of course some of the founders, donors, faculty, and students have an eye out for political expediency. And there's no escaping the fact that the primary focus of the college is on its political programme. I always kept a distance from this and it is the main reason I don't like to associate myself with the college now. I would argue, however, that the great meltdown of 2006 (when half the full-time faculty quit at once and all but 2 or 3 followed within the year) was partly caused by fundamental disagreement about the nature of a Christian liberal arts education, which provoked the more politically-minded leadership to react against academic freedom in the classroom because that we weren't all turning out to be cookie-cutter conservative Republicans. I think that Mike Farris at least has a tendency to pay lip service to the value of a classical education and academic freedom (because that's what the sainted Founding Fathers had, yo!) but is perfectly willing to dispense with it when the product isn't turning out the way he expected. This was enormously disappointing and disillusioning to many many students and faculty members.

I don't want to defend PHC too vigorously, but I wanted to give a bit of the perspective of the non-political academic side that never really makes it into the media reports.

[silvia]

I was part of a substantial minority of PHC students that was never interested in politics and went there for the purported rigorous classical liberal arts education (which I would argue that the early years at least definitely had). We joked that we were the fringe group on campus automatically because we didn't think that Republican politics would save the world.

Thanks for your perspective, kaetrin--it's great to hear that not all PHC students are interested in becoming right-wing political zealots, which is definitely the aspect that gets played up in media reports. Given that students and teachers must subscribe to a statement of faith that includes the wording "The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the inspired Word of God, inerrant in its original autographs, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living," though, I have a hard time believing that PHC's biology teachers are presenting evolutionary theory because they think it might contain a grain of truth, or even out of a general conviction that "truth can be found in many places." After all, the Bible says God created the world in six days, so according to the literalist mindset that the statement of faith requires, evolutionary theory must necessarily be false. That's what leads me to suspect that it's being taught in order to make PHC students more conversant in a worldview commonly held in the larger political landscape many of them are trying to conquer, even though they might privately reject that worldview outright.

For me and many of my friends, the PHC education was the catalyst to our movement away from fundamentalism in various ways and degrees, politically, religiously, and socially.

I'm really glad to hear this, and did think it was interesting how Farris flipped out when his conservative liberal-arts experiment wasn't producing the results he expected. I just don't understand how anyone can genuinely champion academic freedom and expect to turn out a reliable crop of youthful right-wing ideologues at the same time. Does not compute. If your goal is to produce like-minded "foot soldiers for God," let's be honest--you need to indoctrinate your plebes, not encourage the kind of serious study and questioning the Founding Fathers undertook.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I just don't understand how anyone can genuinely champion academic freedom and expect to turn out a reliable crop of youthful right-wing ideologues at the same time. Does not compute. If your goal is to produce like-minded "foot soldiers for God," let's be honest--you need to indoctrinate your plebes, not encourage the kind of serious study and questioning the Founding Fathers undertook.

It happens, even among non-religious types.

Locally to me we have a group of well-funded powerful people who just can't seem to get it into their heads why they would be permitted to endow an academic position to "study laissez-faire capitalism" but NOT permitted to endow an academic position to "study laissez-faire capitalism and show students why that is the one true way, to counteract all the Marxists pervading this campus" which is sadly what they want to do. They want to fund a position, use their investment to hire a professor or two, but they want to be able to specify what the outcome of those professors' research must conclude. Sorry, but no.

The fact that they have crazy amounts of money raised for their cause but it gets them nowhere with the academic senate just pisses them off, it's amusing to see quite frankly.

[ems]

conservative liberal-arts education

Yeah, kind of an oxymoron there. Using "liberal" in its most basic sense of "broad-mindedness," I don't see how a liberal arts education could ever produce the sort of cookie-cutter, closed-minded conservatives Farris seems to have wanted.