I’d be very interested to know...

...whether those who oppose these spiritually-themed dorms also oppose race- and ethnicity-based dorms as divisive.

Publius, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 23, 2006

Necessary

It is sad that it is necessary to build a seperate building in order to have tolerance for the mainstream religion in America from the academy’s attacks.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 12:25 pm EDT on June 23, 2006

If fraternities are okay, why in’t this? The dorm appears to be off-campus housing that was built with private money. Unlike a fraternity it will welcome anyone who applies first, and there won’t be any hazing or required events.

Marge, at 2:35 pm EDT on June 23, 2006

faith dorms

In response to Publius — sure, many dorms are “interfaith", (although in my experience ethnic groups, including international students, have a tendency to form their own enclaves), but they are not in dorms that students choose in order to discuss issues of faith and that are staffed by people trained to help students deal with such issues and the conflicts that sometimes arise.

barbara, at 3:55 pm EDT on June 23, 2006

Hmmm

I’m glad to see that religion is making a comeback, but I’m with Larry here: I think that religious students (and black students, etc.) should live with students of other outlooks (complexions and so on). This may be beneficial to the non-religious, by the way.

That being said, I should point out that I am in sympathy with religious students who feel offended by the kinds of behavior that goes on in dorms and to which the authorities turn a blind eye. I went to college back in the mid 1960s, when dorms were segregated by sex. I feel sorry for girls having to live on the same floor with guys (sharing a bathroom with them: ugh!). It was a pleasant environment, and we even got some studying done.

goethe girl, at 6:25 pm EDT on June 24, 2006

Completely Out Of It!

The more I read the comments to essays in InsideHigherEd, the more I realize I am simply “out of it.“

Kevin writes, “It is sad that it is necessary to build a seperate building in order to have tolerance for the mainstream religion in America from the academy’s attacks.“

I have been teaching for forty-five years — and was even a pre-ministerial student as an undergraduate — and I have yet to see academy’s attacks on mainstream religion. Indeed, for every statement I’ve heard by an academic “attacking” mainstream religion, I’m quite certain I’ve heard dozens by those who consider themselves religious attacking the academy.

I am hopeful that goethe girl was just a bit careless when she wrote, “I’m glad to see that religion is making a comeback …”

For fairly strong evidence that it’s never been away, read Kevin Phillips’ “American Theocracy.” Religion is not only in the American here and now, it has been dominating just about everything important to us for quite some time.

And about being sympathetic toward religious students who are “offended by the kinds of behavior that goes on in dorms” and the fact that “authorities turn a blind eye [to it],” I’m sympathetic toward anyone, religious, agnostic, atheist, and even the ubiquitous spiritual but not religious who have to put up with that outrageous behavior.

RWH, at 6:35 am EDT on June 25, 2006

response to Mick

Mick, Just because a private entity pays for a dorm does not mean that there are no First amendment concerns. I did not say that there were necessarily establishment clause concerns, but depending on the relationship between the dorm and the school, they might run into trouble. While the dorm has been very careful, it seems to not discriminate against specific religions, they seem to be doing their best to avoid running afoul of the state’s public accommodation law.

Indeed, I think if you reread my above post, you will see that I do not generally disapprove of this project. (I do quibble with the assertion that girls and religious folks are more studious. From personal experience, I think that atheists and boys are better students.)

The “play in the joints” between the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause is probably not at issue here. (I think this is what you are referring to.) It is true that people are generally free to worship as they please, but when they start writing checks and asking for the cooperation of the state, their free exercise is eclipsed by the state’s ability to avoid first amendment disputes. (As described in Locke v. Davey.)

Larry, at 3:35 pm EDT on June 26, 2006

Re: Goethe Girl’s post

I am also really sorry for girls in today’s co-ed dorms. I’ve seen innumerable situations where girls “dumb-down” when boys are around, and now they have to share dorm space as well as classroom space!!! My daughter refuses to stay in a dorm. I don’t blame her.In an all-womens dorm (better an all-women’s college) there is a sense of peace and relaxation in the absence of feeling constantly “in relation to” men. James Brown was right: it’s STILL a man’s world, and a respite from it is an essential if a young woman is to figure out what and who she is.

miracatta, at 4:20 pm EDT on August 9, 2006