I have remained pretty silent on the following topic, but now I want to make a plea to my academic colleagues—not at my university only but those in all colleges and universities, and especially those at Christian institutions.  First, though, the problem, followed by the solution, or at least my solution, plus responses to anticipated objections.

Here is the current problem.  Colleges and universities have lost sight of the crucial importance of what is often called a “liberal education.”  The term is embodied or expressed concretely in a core curriculum (sometimes called a general education curriculum).  The reasons are varied.  One is that our society has told us that the most important thing is a degree and a job, and a well-remunerated one at that.  In one sense that has merit.  One ought to expect to obtain gainful or fulfilling employment after four or five years in college (or two to ten years in graduate school).  But what kind of job and what kind of person will emerge?  Another reason is that many colleges see no value in liberal arts courses because they see them as essentially “politically correct,” that is, not sufficiently in tune with new ideas about race, gender, sexuality, unless they are capable of making such courses over in the image of correctness.  Still another reason is that administrators and many in professional programs see liberal arts as impractical.  They don’t fit well with the kind of technical education in those programs (see my first reason above), nor do they fit well in terms of quantity of hours that “crowd out” the professional student’s curriculum.  I suppose some also believe liberal arts is just passé, old-fashioned, out of date in a new age that craves technology.  Perhaps all of those reasons are valid, and perhaps others I did not mention.  But regardless, the result has been a decrease in core curriculum that is identifiable as liberal arts and/or a mixing of non-liberal arts courses with liberal arts courses.  Sometimes the latter outcome has resulted more from “turf wars” than any conscious vision.

Why do I believe an identifiable liberal arts core curriculum is not just desirable but necessary?  The answer has to do with what it is the liberal arts is about, and what we want to see in our college graduates beyond mere technical proficiency.  First liberal arts courses introduce students to and immerse them in discussions and reflection on the most important questions of life.  Who am I?  How can I know?  What is real?  What is right and wrong?  What produces human flourishing?  What is God like?  Why does it matter?  What does it mean to be virtuous and why is that so important?

But liberal arts courses also, in the process of the immersion in the content, teach students very important skills that make them not only employable (they will do that) but also better citizens, parents, and community members.  The skills include the ability to think logically.  I do not mean “think critically,” a term that has been co-opted by educational bureaucrats and used in vastly different ways.  I mean the ability to know and apply principles of classical logic in order both to assess the arguments of others and apply logic to their own thought processes and writing (and speaking).  Liberal arts, especially courses such as logic, philosophy, math, and economics, not to mention law and history, can provide these skills.  Another skill is the ability to write well (to express oneself in written form), a skill in high demand by employers but in short supply.  Liberal arts courses, if designed properly, require a great deal of writing—it is worth the effort for all students.  A third skill is speaking well, learning to avoid vagueness, unclear jargon or colloquialisms (especially “like…”).  Now a fourth is not so much a skill as it is a habit.  It is the ability to innovate, or think and act creatively, within the bounds of reason.  How we need people like that, people who can adapt quickly to changing situations in ways that increase the value of the outcome in terms of goodness, justice, efficiency, responsiveness, etc.  Isn’t it great to imagine an engineer who not only can design a bridge, but is able to respond to any kind of obstacle that gets in the way—as they frequently do in an instance—in his narrow area or even in his company as a whole.  He has a broad view of the world.  Don’t you wish we had politicians and judges and bureaucrats like that (and of course ethical ones)?  This last characteristic combines the rest with it to produce a well-grounded person.  He or she is valuable to his firm and to any other endeavor he engages in.  He has learned from the past, from the present, from those who have thought before him, and who have contributed to human flourishing themselves.  Finally liberal arts (including here a solid grounding in the Scriptures) will prepare the person to withstand the world’s “surprises” in the knowledge both that there is “nothing new under the sun” and that God is sovereign.  He will be less prone to wilt, and less prone to be offended by any small slight.

Let me say that companies want people like that.  But the world needs people like that.  Shallow and narrow thinking, thinking that really isn’t thinking but imitation, are not what we need today.  We need people of genuine vision who can also function in the world at the technical level.  My argument is that liberal arts prepares best for both at the level of the “big picture.”  No, of course liberal arts does not teach one how to do the technical work of, say, programming a computer or repairing one, or deciding what should be done as a nurse or dispensed as a pharmacist.  But they do prepare the graduate for a whole life under God.

Now how can this be done?  It is really quite simple—and radical.  One simply identifies the types of courses that accomplish the goals of a liberal arts program.  This is a curriculum that connects the past with the present through examination of great thought, gleans from the past, inculcates logical thinking and careful reflection on crucial and perennial issues, and then engages the student in much work in learning to apply what is learned.  Courses would include logic, philosophy, history (Western Civilization and American especially), politics/political thought, economics, literature, art, music, composition, rhetoric (not merely speech) and some type of mathematics and science that are more philosophical in orientation.  This core would be more or less fixed and contain relatively few courses with little choice for the student.

Objections

How does one overcome the opposition from those departments whose courses are threatened?  This takes courage from a firm leader who has a broad vision to provide a true education to all students.  This leadership must be able to show how the vision of liberal arts is one that benefits students and is for the common good of the university as a genuine university.  I suggest energetic but patient articulation of this vision, in many venues with ample opportunity for questions and disagreement.  But he cannot waiver on the vision.  What has to happen is the erosion of a turf mentality, in which each area is merely trying to protect its own courses for fear of having its programs, majors, minors, etc. discontinued.  One way to overcome this is simply not to eliminate majors, etc. that are essentially costless to maintain.  This way, existing faculty are not threatened, even though they may teach fewer courses.  As they retire, then is the time to reduce in those areas.

Would this incur additional and even substantial costs?  The answer depends.  Probably more faculty would be needed to teach more sections of courses in, say, logic.  If the commitment exists for a core curriculum, then these added costs must be faced head-on.  If it does not then the proposal will die at that point.  But if it is worth the cost, then it can be addressed creatively and effectively.

These are what I perceive as the two biggest obstacles.  But they can both be overcome with perseverance and firm leadership.  But most of all, the success of such an endeavor depends on vision, not technical expertise per se.  One cannot begin to think seriously of the logistics until faculty and administrators have “caught” that vision.

Christian Worldview in the Curriculum

To complete the picture however, we need to consider the place of Christian education that is distinctive.  It is my contention that an education is not compete—and especially not complete at a Christian university—without a solid core within the core curriculum of uniquely Christian coursework in theology, biblical study and related work.  At the same time, no other course in the core curriculum is itself complete without a distinctively Christian worldview as an integral part of the instruction.  It makes no sense to call oneself a Christian university unless its total education is permeated by a Christian worldview that is rooted in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, properly interpreted.  We must have a high view and use of Scripture or the liberal arts are just man’s wisdom.  That wisdom can of course be consistent with God’s Word, but only Scripture can finally distinguish between truth and error or wisdom versus folly, or right versus wrong.

One more helpful point I think is that there exist some good examples of what this looks like and how it can be successful.  Hillsdale College, Grove City College, and Kings College come to mind right away.  Hillsdale is not so distinctively Christian but its model for a core curriculum is worthy of emulation.  Grove City is known for its intellectual prowess , but also for its fine core curriculum.  King’s College is relatively new, but its new president, Gregory Thornbury, gets it regarding a solid and focused core curriculum.  So does the college.  There are others, but these are good starting points.  I am not a fan of the current use of the term “best practices” unless those practices are deemed best by an objective standard of excellence, not merely what a university’s peers do.  I believe these are excellent examples.

In conclusion, I ask, who will lead in articulating such a noble vision?