Spring Break
Christianity key to liberal arts
John Reist - Special to The Collegian
Issue date: 4/23/09 Section: Opinion
With all due respect, I disagree with Dr. Arnn, if he actually said that Hillsdale is "not a political school." And I also disagree with Mr. Stolyarov that to require a course in biblical studies or a theology course would be to "shove [theology] down" anyone's "throats if they do not wish it." I commend him for his career here, for he is always clear and forthright in debate; indeed, at Fairfield Society I have heard him several times debate important issues in a fair and intelligent and provocative manner. I welcome his questions and views on curricular requirements. I commend The Collegian for publishing them, and I do not find The Collegian "nasty," as certain of my esteemed colleagues do. Please - argument, not acrimony!
Yet, Mr. Stolyarov needs to find another potential tyrant on campus, for I am known to be someone with whom anyone can discuss anything in or out of class. In fact, I have been (mis)judged for doing so.
Given the purpose of the founders of the college, given the claims that the college now makes about our mission, we must ask, "What should we require?" We require a core curriculum - is that too much for Mr. Stolyarov? Is it not unfair to require a foreign language, or HST 104-05, or ENG 101-02 or two courses in physical education? We require a course in the U.S. Constitution, and I support that. However, suppose a Marxist or Tory or Whig or Socialist or Monarchist were required to take the course - would that be unfair? Mr. Stolyarov misunderstands me (probably because I said it shortly, as a sound byte) if he thinks I believe that the Constitution is a "Christian" document. However, many of those who produced it were Christians (we know that from examination of their letters, essays, orations, wills and diaries) and it was their Christian faith that motivated them to produce the Constitution. This, of course, challenges Mr. Stolyarov's argument (or at least, his principle without argument) that requiring a course in biblical studies or theology would impose it on students, for these Christian men produced a document that is about fundamental freedoms. Ergo, genuine Christianity engenders freedom for all.
Yet, Mr. Stolyarov needs to find another potential tyrant on campus, for I am known to be someone with whom anyone can discuss anything in or out of class. In fact, I have been (mis)judged for doing so.
Given the purpose of the founders of the college, given the claims that the college now makes about our mission, we must ask, "What should we require?" We require a core curriculum - is that too much for Mr. Stolyarov? Is it not unfair to require a foreign language, or HST 104-05, or ENG 101-02 or two courses in physical education? We require a course in the U.S. Constitution, and I support that. However, suppose a Marxist or Tory or Whig or Socialist or Monarchist were required to take the course - would that be unfair? Mr. Stolyarov misunderstands me (probably because I said it shortly, as a sound byte) if he thinks I believe that the Constitution is a "Christian" document. However, many of those who produced it were Christians (we know that from examination of their letters, essays, orations, wills and diaries) and it was their Christian faith that motivated them to produce the Constitution. This, of course, challenges Mr. Stolyarov's argument (or at least, his principle without argument) that requiring a course in biblical studies or theology would impose it on students, for these Christian men produced a document that is about fundamental freedoms. Ergo, genuine Christianity engenders freedom for all.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
David Stehlik
posted 4/27/09 @ 4:29 PM EST
I would like to supplement some of my own thoughts to Dr. Reist's article.
1. Hillsdale College exists because of its founding. The Articles of Association's preamble begins, "WHEREAS the denomination of Christians, Known as Free-Will-Baptists. (Continued…)
Post a Comment