DOES JESUS NEED ACCREDITATION?

Until recently, I served on the accreditation steering committee at the evangelical university where I teach. My responsibility was to help evaluate the organization’s mission and integrity. I resigned from the committee when it became apparent that some in the administration did not desire authentic self-evaluation, and were only interested in accreditation as a marketing device. When I raised questions about an exclusive board of trustees that was entirely appointed by a statewide religious organization, a religion professor who was denied a promotion because of his liberal theology, and our profound lack of racial and ethnic diversity on campus, I was treated like an agitator who was provoking insurrection. It seemed like I was being expected to toe the company line, so I quit.

So, imagine my interest in the recent New Yorker article,
by Hanna Rosin, in which she profiles Patrick Henry College, a fundamentalist Christian school just outside the beltway in Virginia. PHC’s declared mission includes the aim “to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding.” Not terribly far removed from the mission of numerous Christian colleges. The difference is that PHC is blatantly designed as an incubator for conservative politicos. While the faculty members are well-pedigreed and the students are very smart (many boasting a 1600 on the SAT), the school is heavily endowed by Republican leaders and conservative CEOs who have a vested interest in shaping the country’s ideology. There seems to be a greased conduit from PHC to Capitol Hill and the White House, with Patrick Henry scoring as many internships annually as Georgetown.

Nearly all the students were homeschooled, and come to the college with an evangelical zeal for spreading the fundamentalist gospel of/and conservative Republican ideology. They (or, at least their parents) are also drawn to the extremely rigid moral guidelines and the courtship environment, where romantic relationships are regulated under the watchful eyes of administrators and parents. Students even rebuke each other through campuswide emails for inappropriate displays of affection, or for women tempting their brothers with suggestive attire.

There are only five majors available: government, journalism, literature, history, and classical liberal arts education. The literature major draws mostly women students, who nearly all report that they will not pursue a career, so they can stay home and school their children.

While I would rather play a game of Naked Twister with Karl Rove than send my daughters to such a place, I have no problem with them doing what they do. They have the right to pursue their ideological agenda however they please. What interests me is the manner in which we certify such practices.

What Rosin does not discuss in the article is the problems PHC has had with accreditation. They were denied accreditation by the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE) based on a biology curriculum that highlights the teaching of six-day creationism (not accepted by the National Academy of Sciences). After breaking ties with the AALE, they finally received accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, that has certified only about 35 other ultra-conservative institutions. PHC is currently pursuing an application with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), a regional sister to the accrediting body for my university.

If SACS grants them accreditation, it will either mean that PHC has moved away from its militant commitment to a single-minded ideology, or SACS is not fulfilling its declared criteria. Either way, it raises this question: What is the value of accreditation?

If you possess “the truth,” and you are convinced that all your aims are righteous, why would you give a damn about accreditation? I recognize that there are state laws and federal guidelines requiring it, if you accept any kind of support from the government; but it seems like PHC would be quite opposed to any kind of governmental support.

I guess my question concerns the difference between accreditation as compliance/marketing device, and accreditation as communitarian accountability. Receiving accreditation means that your peers at similar universities deem you worthy of certification. If your worldview is so contrary and libertine that you resist any oversight or approval from others, why bother? I suspect that the "more Protestant" an institution, the more reticent it will be to peer-evaluation.

I mean, is it any wonder that those who struggle with accreditation are probably more likely to accuse Democrats of seeking global approval for military acts? By not easily submitting yourself to the review of your academic peers, aren’t you less likely to submit to the will of a body like the U.N.? I don’t think John Bolton is on PHC’s board, but he might be a nice fit.

I am not entirely naïve. I know there are liberal colleges out there doing much the same thing. There are left wing schools where a conservative idea is treated as de facto heresy, and I do not defend them. I find that a repugnant response to the Right. However, in most cases, left-leaning schools demonstrate a greater interest in dialogue and community, where the voice of the minority is structurally—if not always culturally—protected.

So, if Jesus had started a university (perhaps “Fishers of Men Tech”), would he have applied for accreditation. Probably not. And, I suppose, when a faculty and administration reach his level of infallibility they probably don’t need to worry about it either.