Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 104

Warren J. Blumenfeld

Contents Introduction: Inequalities and Social Identity ...... 2388 Christian Privilege ...... 2391 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege: A Case Study ...... 2392 Background: Christian Chaplain for University’s Football Team ...... 2392 Religious Symbols in Student Union Chapel ...... 2393 Textual Analysis ...... 2394 A Brief History of the Student Union and Chapel ...... 2395 Common Element of Oppression: Defined Norm ...... 2395 Christian and Christianity as THE Defined Norm ...... 2395 Christianity as Defined Norm: Conflating Patriotism with Christianity ...... 2400 Christians as Victims ...... 2403 Solution: Privatize Education ...... 2405 Compromise: More Religious Symbols ...... 2405 Compromise: Other Rooms Available ...... 2407 Threat and Use of Violence ...... 2408 Lack of Prior Claim ...... 2409 Religious Symbols as “Artistic Expression” ...... 2411 Christian Hegemony as Business Model ...... 2411 Blaming the Victim ...... 2413 Conclusion ...... 2414 References ...... 2415

Abstract The chapter serves as a case study focusing on the impact of a pervasive Christian culture and climate at a large Midwestern state-supported land-grant university. The chapter is founded on the conceptual organizers of McIntosh’s concept of dominant group “privilege,” Gramsci’s notion of “hegemony,” Foucault’s

W. J. Blumenfeld (*) Social Justice Education Program, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected]

“regimes of truth,” de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority,” Pharr’s “elements of oppression,” and Watt’s “Privileged Identity Exploration” (PIE) model. Spe- ciﬁcally, in this context, the author deﬁnes Christian hegemony as “the overarching system of advantages bestowed on Christians. It is the institutionalization of a Christian norm or standard, which establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are or should be Christian thereby privileging Christians and Christianity, and excluding the needs, concerns, ethnic, and religious cultural practices and life experiences of people who are not Christian. Often overt, though at times subtle, Christian hegemony is oppression by intent and design, but also by neglect, omission, erasure, and distortion.”

Keywords Christian privilege · Hegemony · Pharr’s oppression · Patriotism · Violence · Watt’s PIE model

Introduction: Inequalities and Social Identity

Each semester, an associate professor at a large Midwestern tax-supported land-grant university taught a course in Multicultural Education in the Educational Studies department. (All names and other identifying characteristics have been deleted to ensure confidentiality.) That professor based the course on several key concepts and assumptions, including how issues of power, privilege, and domination within the United States center on inequitable social divisions regarding race, ethnicity, socio- economic class, sex assigned at birth, gender identity, sexual identity, religion, nationality, linguistic background, physical and mental ability/disability, and age. They addressed how social identity issues impact generally on life outcomes and specifically on educational outcomes. Virtually all students enrolled in this course, which is mandatory for students registered in the Teacher Education program, are pre-service teachers, future guidance counselors, and school administrators. Throughout the course, the professor discussed the concept of social identities and toward the beginning of the course asked students to turn the spotlight and mirror inward by developing an awareness of their various social identities and their social group memberships. The professor discussed the ways in which each person holds concurrent “social identities” (consciously or unconsciously) based on “socially constructed” categories and how these identities are ascribed to us by others, sometimes at our birth, how sometimes we self-identify, or how we achieve identities throughout our lives. Many students showed surprise by this assignment since most of them grew up in largely homogenous small rural communities where the clear majority descended from European-white and Christian (primarily Protestant) backgrounds and where most people look like themselves. Of interest were the writings of two female undergraduate students who, though they enrolled in different courses during different years, seemed to arrive at the same 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2389 conclusion. On a final course paper, one student wrote that, while she enjoyed the course, and she felt that both the professor and the graduate assistant – who had defined as “gay and Jewish” and “lesbian,” respectively – were very knowledgeable and good professors with great senses of humor, nonetheless, the student felt obliged to inform them both that they will be going to Hell for being so-called practicing homosexuals. Another student 2 years later wrote on his course paper that homo- sexuality and transgenderism are sins in the same category as stealing and murder. This student not only reiterated what the earlier student had asserted that the professor and graduate assistant will travel to Hell if they continued to act on their same-sex desires but went further in amplifying the first student’s proclamations by self-righteously insisting that they will not receive an invitation to enter Heaven, especially the professor who defined also as “Jewish,” if they do not accept Jesus as their personal savior, regardless of their sexual behavior. Anyone who doubts this, “Only death will tell!” Alexis de Tocqueville, French political scientist and diplomat, who traveled across the United States for 9 months between 1831 and 1832, conducted research for his epic work, Democracy in America (de Tocqueville, 1840/1956). He was astounded to find a certain paradox: on one hand, he observed that the United States promoted itself around the world as a country separating “church and state” (which itself is a Christian term since primarily Christians refer to their houses of worship as “churches”), where religious freedom and tolerance were among its defining tenets, but on the other hand, he witnessed that: “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.” He answered this apparent contradiction by proposing that in this country with no officially sanctioned governmental religion, denominations were compelled to com- pete with one another and promote themselves to attract and keep parishioners, thereby making religion even stronger. While the government was not supporting Christian denominations and churches, per se, religion to Tocqueville should be considered as the first of their political institutions since he observed the enormous influence Christian denominations had on the political process. Though he favored US style democracy, he found its major limitation to be in its stifling of independent thought and independent beliefs. In a country that promoted the notion that the majority rules, this effectively silenced minorities by what Tocqueville termed the “tyranny of the majority.” This is a crucial point because in a democracy, without specific safeguards of minority rights – in this case minority religious rights – there is a danger of religious domination or tyranny over religious minorities and non-believers. The majority, in religious matters, have historically been adherents to mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often imposed their values and standards upon those who believed otherwise. Social theorist, Gunnar Myrdal (1962) , traveled throughout the United States during the late 1940s examining US society following World War II, and he discovered a grave contradiction or inconsistency, which he termed “an American Dilemma.” He found a country, founded on an overriding commitment to democracy, liberty, freedom, human dignity, and egalitarian values, coexisting alongside 2390 W. J. Blumenfeld deep-seated patterns of racial discrimination, privileging white people, while subordinating peoples of color. While racism continues, this contradiction has been powerfully reframed for contemporary consideration by religious scholar, Diana Eck, (2001):

The new American dilemma is real religious pluralism, and it poses challenges to America’s Christian churches that are as difﬁcult and divisive as those of race. Today, the invocation of a Christian America takes on a new set of tensions as our population of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist neighbors grows. The ideal of a Christian America stands in contradiction to the spirit, if not the letter, of America’s foundational principle of religious freedom. (p. 46)

Dominant group power and control is maintained and strengthened by “hegemony” (Gramsci, 1971), which describes the ways in which the dominant group, in this case Christians in general and predominantly mainline Protestants, successfully dissem- inate its particular form of social reality and social vision in such a manner as to be accepted as common sense, as “normal,” as universal – even though only an estimated 30 percent of the world’s inhabitants are Christian (Smith and Harter, 2002) – and as representing part of the natural order, even at times by those who are marginalized, disempowered, or rendered invisible by it (Tong, 1989). According to Weinbaum (2009), “[H]egemony is a means for social control, not through overt force, but rather through covert tactics, dictating society’s norms” (p. 99). This religious hegemony maintains the marginality of already marginalized religions, faiths, and spiritual communities. Beaman (2003) wrote that “the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reﬂected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the ‘normal’” (p. 321). A form of hegemony is “Christian hegemony,” which can be deﬁne as “the overarching system of advantages bestowed on Christians. It is the institutionalization of a Christian norm or standard, which establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are or should be Christian thereby privileging Christians and Chris- tianity, and excluding the needs, concerns, ethnic, religious, cultural practices, and life experiences of people who are not Christian. Often overt, though at times subtle, Christian hegemony is oppression by intent and design, but also it comes in the form of neglect, omission, erasure, and distortion” (Blumenfeld, 2006, p, 196). In the service of hegemony is what is termed “discourse,” which includes the ideas, written expressions, theoretical foundations, and language of the dominant culture. These are implanted within networks of social and political control, described by Foucault (1980)as“regimes of truth,” which function to legitimize what can be said, who has the authority to speak and be heard, and what is authorized as true or as the truth. The concept of oppression, then, constitutes more than the cruel and repressive actions of individuals upon others. It often involves an overarching system of differ- entials of social power and privilege by dominant groups over subordinated groups based on ascribed social identities or social group status. And this is not merely the case in societies ruled by coercive or tyrannical leaders, but also occurs even within the day-to-day practices of contemporary democratic societies (Young, 1990). 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2391

Christian Privilege

As the old saying goes, the fish is the last to see or even feel the water because it is so pervasive, and therefore, the fish takes the water for granted. Often, those beings situated outside the confines of the water can, in effect, perceive the water’s existence with its edges, depths, surfaces, consistencies, and reflections. By analogy, what many (most likely the majority) within our schools and the larger society consider as “normal” and appropriate, upon critical reflection, are perceived by many as (re)enforcements of mainline Christian standards, and what is referred to as “Christian privilege,” though presented in presumably secularized forms, and as such, are reminders that the United States is, indeed, not the inclusive and welcom- ing land of freedom, justice, and equality that it often purports to be. And what can be the effects on students in our classrooms and in the larger society from ethnic and religious traditions other than mainline Christian? This can have profoundly serious implications on individuals’ sense of self and on their identity development, for they begin to view themselves through the lens of the dominant group. When this occurs, victims of marginalization and systematic oppression are susceptible to the effects of internalized oppression, whereby they internalize, consciously or unconsciously, attitudes of inferiority or “otherness.” This internal- ization, created by oppression from the outside, plays itself out where it has seemed “safe” to do so in two primary places: (1) on members of their own group and (2) upon themselves (Lipsky, 1977). In the case of religious minorities, this can result in low self-esteem, shame, depression, prejudiced attitudes toward members of their own religious community, and even conversion to the dominant religion. Based on Peggy McIntosh’s(1988) pioneering investigations of white and male privilege, we can, by analogy, understand Christian privilege as constituting a seemingly invisible, unearned, and largely unacknowledged array of benefits accorded to Christians, with which they often unconsciously walk through life as if effortlessly carrying a knapsack tossed over their shoulders. This system of benefits confers dominance on Christians while subordinating members of other faith communities as well as non-believers. These systemic inequities are pervasive throughout the society. They are encoded into the individual’s consciousness and woven into the very fabric of our social institutions, resulting in a stratified social order privileging dominant (“agent”) groups while restricting and disempowering subordinate (“target”) groups (Bell, 1997; Miller, 1976). In keeping with McIntosh’s (1988) inventory outlining the manifestations of white privilege, authors have developed parallel lists summarizing overarching examples of Christian privilege (see, e.g., Clark et al., 2002; Schlosser, 2003). As Clark et al. (2002) assert:

[T]he fact remains that all Christians beneﬁt from Christian privilege regardless of the way they express themselves as Christians in the same way that all White people beneﬁt from White privilege. (p. 12 of manuscript version)

As there is a spectrum of Christian denominations and traditions, so too is there a hierarchy or continuum of Christian privilege based on (1) historical factors, 2392 W. J. Blumenfeld

(2) numbers of practitioners, and (3) degrees of social power. In this regard, in a US context, though the gap in privilege between Christian denominations is apparently shrinking, white, mainline Protestant denominations may still have some greater degrees of Christian privilege, relative to some minority Christian denominations, for example, African American, Latinx, Asian-American churches, Amish, Menno- nites, Quakers, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Eastern and Greek Orthodox, adherents to Christian Science and to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints, and, still in some quarters, Catholics. By “unpacking” the knapsack of privilege (whether Christian, white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, owning class, temporarily able bodied, English as ﬁrst- language speakers, adult, and others) is to become aware and to develop critical consciousness of its existence and how it impacts the daily lives of both those with and those without this privilege.

Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege: A Case Study

President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the establishment of land-grant universities. A large Midwestern tax-supported land-grant university chosen for this study was established during the nineteenth century C.E. as a land-grant university founded on the mission of open higher education for all, the teaching of practical classes, and the sharing of knowledge beyond the borders of the campus. It is deﬁned as a research university with approximately 30,000 students.

Background: Christian Chaplain for University’s Football Team

During the early 2000s, the university hired a new head football coach, who had requested that he bring along his long-time friend and former colleague, a Baptist pastor from a small southern town, to serve as the official chaplain for the football team as a team counselor. Several professors, however, circulated a petition opposing the hiring of the pastor to serve in this official capacity. In the petition, asserted the professors, the university established the position and hired the pastor without undergoing an open search. Also, by hiring a Baptist pastor, the university gave preference to one religious faith over all others, which could have the result of alienating some team members. In addition, they argued that all students have ample opportunities to fulfill their spiritual needs in the numerous and diverse area houses of worship throughout their moderate sized city surrounding the university. If the sports teams require an accessible team counselor to serve the needs of student athletes both on our campus and when traveling with the teams off campus, the university, instead, must fund trained sports psychologists rather than ordained clergy. The newly hired coach, when originally lobbying for the position, described how his personal relationship with Jesus led him to the idea for a Christian team chaplain. 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2393

The challenging petition brought the issues to the attention of the larger campus community, and after the professors submitted the petition containing approximately 120 faculty signatures to the university president, the Athletics Council at the university voted by a majority of 7 to 1 for the creation of a position, changing the original title from “chaplain” to so-called volunteer Life Skills Assistant. To get around the charge of funding a potentially sectarian position at tax payers’ expense, the organization, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, covered the expenses. The stated mission of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is:

To present to athletes and coaches and all whom they inﬂuence the challenge and adventure of receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, serving Him in their relationships and in the fellowship of the church. (http://www.fca.org/AboutFCA/, retrieved 8/30/09)

Following two very unsuccessful seasons, though, the coach resigned as head coach of the team. The Baptist pastor, however, remained in his capacity as “volunteer Life Skills Assistant.”

Religious Symbols in Student Union Chapel

During the controversy surrounding the hiring of an evangelical Christian chaplain to serve the university’s football team, a graduate student who practices the Hindu faith approached the professors who organized the petition telling them of his gratitude for the actions they were taking. He stated that he was in full support, and he agreed that the campus climate is one saturated with Christianity, both overtly and covertly. On the overt side, he advised that the professors check into the campus chapel located in the lower level of the Student Union on the campus. They had already known there existed a large Christian cross extending virtually from floor to ceiling in front of the room and Christian crosses carved into both sides on each of the chapel pews. The graduate students as well as the professors had long opined that a large and overpowering Christian cross had no place in the Union on their publicly supported, land-grant university since the space was meant for students and staff to enter for reflection and respite. They felt that these religious symbols may even violate the separation of religion and government clause of the United States Constitution by promoting one religion over all others. They wondered about how many Christians who enter this space actually perceived this as unusual or inappropriate on a university campus that purports to welcome students from all walks of life. After a few days of reflection, one of the professors wrote a letter, which the editors of the campus newspaper as well as the local town’s newspaper published. Later, the state’s largest newspaper covered this issue of the crosses in the Union “chapel.” The professor, when writing the letter, did not see in the chapel a small Torah, menorah, and Star of David on the stained glass window on the side of the room, which the professor addressed following publication. Local and statewide media interviewed the professor about the intent for raising the issue. This professor stated concern that the university, by exhibiting the 2394 W. J. Blumenfeld exceptionally large and smaller Christian crosses, which are highly visible upon entry into the chapel, as well as smaller Jewish symbols on the window, overtly promotes some religions over others. “Are we in the business,” asked the professor, “of endorsing religion at a state tax supported land grant institution?” Moreover, by promoting religion, in very real ways, we are marginalizing members of the university community who do not adhere to these faith backgrounds. While these religious symbols may be comforting to some, for others they can trigger negative emotions and collective memory of the long history of religious conflict and persecution.

Textual Analysis

What follows is a textual analysis of the responses to the professor’s letter and interviews as well as from personal correspondence sent to the professor over email. Throughout the investigation is a theoretical and conceptual framework employing two models. Suzanne Pharr (1988) examines the component parts (“common elements”)of social privilege, domination, and subordination. Pharr addresses these “common elements of oppression,” some of which include a “deﬁned norm,”“threat and use of violence,”“lack of prior claim,”“invisibility,”“stereotyping,” and “blaming the victim.” Upon this is superimposed Sherry Watt’s(2007, 2009) “Privilege Identity Exploration” (PIE) model addressing the forms of resistance around discussions that challenge dominant group privilege and social oppression. According to Watt, when raising and discussing issues of oppression and privilege, several forms of resistance may emerge: Denial – A rejection of the concept of dominant group privilege. Deﬂection – The notion that majority rules and that the minority cannot expect the majority to adhere to minority standards. Rationalization – The notion that the individual did not set the conditions for the inequities that may exist in the society currently or historically. Intellectualization – The assertion that the individual is not prejudiced and does not discriminate. The “my best friend is a ...” attitude. Principium – A defensive reaction arising from a personal or political belief. Though the person may feel badly that a certain social identity group may not have achieved full equality and equity within in society, this is the way it was meant to be. False Envy – Sometimes manifesting a certain affection for a minoritized person or a group of people, it is an effort to deny the complexity of the social and political context. At times, it manifests itself in dominant groups’ claiming victimhood at the hands of minoritized groups. Minimalization – Reducing the effect that social identity has upon one’s life chances and that issues of oppression based on social identity are no longer a problem. Benevolence – Projecting an excessively sensitive attitude toward a social and political issue or group based on a position of charity. 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2395

A Brief History of the Student Union and Chapel

The Student Union was constructed in the 1920s for the stated mission: (1) to nurture common ground, (2) to enrich and sustain human lives, and (3) to remember the architect who designed the entry hall of the Student Union as “a shrine in memory of those who paid the supreme sacrifice” in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, whose names are carved upon the stone walls. The architect also designed the library and chapel one flight directly below the entry hall. The location signified the architect’s conviction that “the foundations of patriotism were deep religious convictions, a culture and literature of concern for high ideals, and a recorded history of dedication to those principles.” Also inscribed on one of the walls in the hall:

FOR THEE THEY DIED MASTER AND MAKER, GOD OF RIGHT THE SOLDIERS DEAD ARE AT THY GATE, WHO KEPT THE SPEARS OF HONOR BRIGHT, AND FREEDOM’S HOUSE INVIOLATE -[JOHN] DRINKWATER

Ringing the wall, 12 stained glass windows were added to the hall at the height of WWII designed by an alum of the university. Each window represents individually the “‘homely virtues’– learning, virility, courage, patriotism, justice, faith, determi- nation, love, obedience, loyalty, integrity, and tolerance.” Originally privately owned and run, the university several decades ago took over ownership and maintenance of the Student Union.

Common Element of Oppression: Defined Norm

Suzanne Pharr (1988) describes a deﬁned norm as “...a standard of rightness and often righteousness wherein all others are judged in relations to it (p. 53). In a United States context, according to Pharr, “that norm is male, white, heterosexual, Christian, temporarily able-bodied, youthful, and has access to wealth and resources” (p. 53). To be effective, this norm must be enforced with institutional and economic power as well as institutional violence or the threat of violence.

Christian and Christianity as THE Defined Norm

Some see the deﬁned Christian norm as providing a stable foundation for our nation and the notion of a true separation of religion and government as cause for worry. Many of the responses the professor’s call for religious neutrality focused on this concept of Christianity as a deﬁned norm. 2396 W. J. Blumenfeld

Respondent 1 (R1) in the local city newspaper, for example, expressed his fear that: “We are weakened by big government, more regulations, more corruption, schools that teach less science, less engineering and no Christianity....” He likened the current conditions of contemporary United States to that instigating the fall of the Roman Empire, and he asked “Will we continue to get Christianity out of public life?” A university’s alum, R2, echoed R1’s sentiments when he asserted that “A chapel is a place of worship.” This sentiment of Christianity as a defined norm expresses itself as a form of Principium resistance in Watt’s(2007, 2009) terms in that this is the way it was and this is the way it must be for our nation to endure. Others see this defined norm as justification for Christian proselytizing by calling into question other faith traditions:

I have a question for all those who have rejected Jesus. What about your sin; if you say you have no sin, you are a liar....My sin was washed away by the blood of Christ on the cross at Calvary. What have you done with yours? (R3)

And the following respondent asked us to consider the author’s personal connection to Jesus to justify the perpetuation of a dominantly deﬁned norm:

I was saved in the Fall of 2000. It was such an overwhelming feeling to know that even though I am not worthy, Christ died for MY sins! So I guess you could say the message of that cross saved my life. That is why I feel so strongly about it. Young adults are especially bombarded with so many things in this world—I hope they can look at the cross—whether it be in the chapel or a church—and know that there is hope. (R4)

R4, by implication, considers only one option, the dominant norm, as acceptable. On the other hand, the Jewish immigrant and sociologist of Polish and Latvian heritage, Horace Kallen (1915), coined and proposed the concept of “cultural pluralism” to challenge the image of the so-called “melting pot,” which he considered to be inherently undemocratic. He imagined an inclusive model, one that ensures individuals’ and groups’ freedom of as well as freedom from religion as a national goal. Kallen envisioned a United States in the image of a great symphony orchestra, not sounding in unison (the “melting pot” enforced by dominant group hegemony), but rather one in which all the disparate cultures play in harmony and retain their unique and distinctive tones and timbres. And we can see, R5 disputes the very notion of “plurality” (a.k.a. pluralism) by invoking Christian scripture:

The only thing that IS acceptable nowadays in their [those wanting to tear down Christian symbols in public institutions] eyes is a schizophrenic plurality. (A house divided against itself...(sic). On the other hand, for anyone who understands their Bible, it’s really no surprise at all. Jesus, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 NIV

And here lies one of the major justifications for the establishment and enhancement of Christian hegemony and Christian proselytizing and a rationale to fight against the 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2397 concepts of pluralism and inclusion: Biblical citations that command those who desire everlasting life to accept Jesus and only Jesus as their personal savior, for all other are mere false profits and counterfeit deities. Christian privilege at the individual level occurs in proselytizing to convert non-Christians or “lapsed” Christians (back) to Christianity. While many Christians view proselytizing as offering the gift of Jesus to the “unbelievers,” many if not most individuals of other faiths and many non-believers consider this as an imposition, manipulation, and an act of repression. Christian proselytizing rests on a foundation of Christian privilege (Schlosser, 2003). This sets the stage for serious clashes of cultures. Students on this campus have articulated these clashes where the assumption of Christianity is pervasive. Students voice their frustration, as evidenced by the following respondent in the chapel debate:

As a non-Christian student I can tell you first hand that there is an overwhelming pressure on me and many other non-Christians on campus to change, hide, or even lie about our beliefs. I remember in my freshman year I was harassed by people trying to get me to “find Christ” and “be saved” and join Christian youth groups almost constantly. Many of these people showed up in my dorm, on campus, in the dining centers, pretty much everywhere. In fact, I nearly left [this university] in my first semester because all of the Christian rhetoric and symbolism made me so uncomfortable. (R6)

This student attempted to expose “the water” of privilege and dominance: “Christian students seem not to notice the vast number of Christian symbols and bias on campus but it stands out clearly to me.” He enumerated these symbols he and some others view as points of Christian hegemony: “At Christmas time the dinning centers are filled with paper cutouts of Santa, reindeer, and Christmas trees, there are all Christian rock concerts held on central campus.” Many people (most likely the majority) consider these symbols and events, expressed throughout the United States, as normal, appropriate, and joyous seasonal activities. Upon critical reflection, however, others experience them as examples of institutional (governmental, educational, and financial) (re)enforcements of dominant Christian standards though presented in presumably secularized forms. They represent some of the ways in which the dominant group (in this instance, Christians) reiterates its values and practices while marginalizing and subordinating those who do not adhere to Chris- tian faith traditions. In addition to the promotion of Christmas, this student expressed another form of Christian promotion on our campus as off-campus members of the Gideon Society distribute Christian testaments throughout the campus, and “stand near the library with megaphones and shout about how all who don’t love Jesus are doomed....” R6 posed a possible scenario:

If I were to stand in front of the library handing out copies of the Quran how long do you suppose it would take for campus security to ask me to leave? Probably not long. It isn’t that I am asking Christians not to practice their religion; it is simply that I am asking them not to force their religious beliefs upon those of us who are not Christians.... 2398 W. J. Blumenfeld

Furthermore, R7, a Muslim student on the campus, felt marginalized and silenced when he engaged in online campus discussions around issues of religion:

Our campus atmosphere often stiﬂes the discussion of such issues because of these personal attacks. Now that my time at [this university] is complete, I cannot help but sympathize with the students who feel isolated for their ideas because I, too, have felt this way.

For those who are not interested in Christian conversion, people often launch Watt’s resistance tactics of Deﬂection and Minimization to undermine challenges to dominant group privilege and norms, as argued by the following respondent:

come on.. there is a chapel, okay? anyone can go in it. so what if there is a cross in there? can't those who aren’t christians just pretend it’sa‘t’?? Seriously.. most people in the country are Christians.. why do we worry so much about offending the minorities. So, some students aren’t christian.. there are other “chapels” that they can go to. They can go pray in the chapel? HELLO??/just dont look at the cross. (R8)

This respondent and the one who follows, swimming within the water of Christian dominance, deny (Watt) the impact – the marginalization, imposed invisibility, and tyranny – imposed on those not holding dominant group norms:

The university is a place of universalism. In that sense, the cross should be of no offense at all and seeing one no way implies the coercion of its acceptance. If it is offensive, then maybe that is merely another sign of the false division of man.... (R9)

R9 concludes with a form of Principium, arguing that minoritized religious communities must accept dominant hegemonic paradigms:

Christians do a lot of good works in the world. Freedom of religion is not synomous (sic) with “freedom from religion.”

Often members of the dominant group fail to understand the ways dominant hegemony impacts the lives of minoritized groups. In the following instances, respondents exhibit Watt’s(2007, 2009) reactive resistance strategies of Denial and Minimalization regarding the impact of the cross on many who do not adhere to Christian faith traditions or beliefs, and thus, deny the very notion of Christian privilege: “No one is prohibited from using the chapel for prayer or reﬂective thought or study for that matter. No one is forced to use the chapel for any...reason...” (R10) And R11 reiterated: “No one is being harmed. No one’s beliefs are being trampled upon and you [R13] are looking like a right wanker.” R12 argues that the erection of the Christian cross is a mere exercise of “free speech”:

The chapel in MU is an example of free exercise, and free exercise includes prayer in public, worship in public, and signs and other symbols in public....You have the right to keep walking. You do NOT have the right not to be offended. 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2399

The two above comments are based on the assumption of “equality” (everyone can and no one must use the chapel) rather than on the concept of “equity” (serving the needs of all members of the campus community). R13, on the other hand, evokes the concept of “equity” in his call for a nondenominational chapel:

Putting an icon on a headstone is a personal expression. Putting up a large room sized or mountain top cruciﬁx is hardly personal. It is purely theocratic.

He comprehends the historical legacy of religious persecution while appreciating the negative triggering impact of symbols:

The cruciﬁx is a symbol of torture and death....It is time the history of crusades & pogroms & mega death in wars come to an end, whether under a cruciﬁx or a hammer & sickle or any other conforming icon.

R13 asks for a change to the status quo as a curative to this legacy:

[L]et the room be a quiet place of reﬂection rather than a reminder of wars our nation was founded to avoid forever again....Let the healing being for all, not just some.

R14, a frequent discussant on the University newspaper’s chatroom, consistently challenges dominant deﬁned norming. He proposes change under the banner of pluralism and asks:

How can a non-denominational chapel with a huge cross possibly serve Jews, Muslims, or any other non-Christian seeking spiritual solitude? It is wrong to force a religion on everyone else and to attack people who champion freedom OF religion over freedom of only one religion.

R14 clearly understands the implications imposed on non-dominant communities by the burden of dominance. The following respondent also expressed serious concerns:

If Christians didn’t seem so bent on taking over this country, I wouldn’t care about having a cross in the chapel or a chaplin (sic) on the football team. But events of the past few years lead me to believe that we do need to establish some boundaries and set some limits. It’s not healthy for any society to be dominated by one religion, especially when the more extreme elements of that religion seem to be in control.

And adding his voice to the calls for a nondenominational space in the chapel is R13, an individual whom the chapel and the memorial hall are meant to represent:

The...Union honors vets. I’m a vet. I condemn the notion that religious iconography honors us all. It is up to the vet & their surviors (sic) to choose the icon for a headstone.

In addition, some of those memorialized in the hall are not from the Christian or the Jewish faiths. R15 proposes a possible compromise: 2400 W. J. Blumenfeld

[C]ouldn’t Christians bring there (sic) own cross to focus on, instead of the university supplying one? I see a lot of people wearing crosses around their necks, can they focus on those instead of having a giant one dominating a room where everyone else prays?

R15’s idea appears as a reasonable and appropriate option, which, if accepted, could continue to provide a space for individuals who wish to behold their religious symbol(s) of choice while providing a place of respite for those who prefer the freedom to enter the room without the imposition of university endorsed religious icons. R15’s idea is based on the presumption that religion and a connection to the Divine, as well as the choice not to believe, involves a personal relationship and belief system and a choice that should be left to the individual. This endorsement of religious freedom and pluralism, however, has and often continues to run counter to historical institutional policy grounded in overriding dominant social norms.

Christianity as Defined Norm: Conflating Patriotism with Christianity

The idea for the hall and chapel, from the very beginning, was to honor the supposed deep connections between strong religious principles with love and honor of country with “[The architect’s] belief that the underpinnings of patriotism were deep religious convictions” as expressed in the ofﬁcial university Student Union web page. As stated previously, 12 stained glass windows ﬂank the high walls of the Hall, each representing a discrete though interconnected theme. Each of the 12 windows contains symbolic Biblical representations. The fourth window, titled “Patriotism,” according to the website:

[S]tems from love of the ﬂag, support of the government, and emulation of the great men of our history, always remembering that all virtues rest on reverence and appreciation of the holy men of the churches.

This conﬂation of religion and patriotism includes a seven-branched menorah of the Jewish Bible appearing in the lower left corner of the window, while in the lower right corner appears the Greek letters, Alpha and Omega with a crown above, from the Christian Bible “symbolizing Christ as the beginning and the end.” R16 attempted to remind readers of the history of the Student Union:

[T]he Chapel and the Reading Library are directly underneath [the] Hall, where those [from our university] who have died in service to their country are memorialized. The reason that the chapel and the reading room are directly underneath, according to the architect who designed the building, is that faith and knowledge underscore a person’s sense of patriotism as well as the foundation for democracy.

While some of the Hall’s windows portray Jewish religious symbols, and virtually all the windows portray Christian images, throughout the discussions over religious 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2401 symbolism generally within the Student Union, and specifically in the chapel, every justification for maintaining religious symbols centered solely on safeguarding the Christian icons. On the other hand, no individual presented any justification or argument for preserving the Jewish religious representations. As clearly stated by R17, “The cross is like the American Flag,” R17, a columnist for the university’s student newspaper, filters her historical references through a defensive lens of Principium (Watt) to justify maintenance of Christian religious symbols:

When the cross was installed in the 1950s, the “tyrannical” majority [a sarcastic reference to my evocation of Tocqueville] of Americans were living in fear because of the Cold War. This period of time also presented us with a new phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance, “under God,” just as “In God We Trust” began its life on currency during the Civil War. The use of religion by the government to strengthen nationalism and morale was considerably effective and an important part of our social and national history. (R17, emphasis added)

She then employs Denial of Christian privilege and Principium (Watt) to justify her argument:

So, when considering whether the intent of the cross in the chapel was to give privilege to Christians, it’s a no-brainer. It wasn’t because our Founding Fathers were Christians, or because as many like to spout, our country was “founded on Christian principles,” but rather because of a historical context of a faith effort to revive the American spirit.

Since she asserts that her position is “a no-brainer,” then by implication, those who disagree must not be thinking clearly: if one does not accept dominant paradigms and constructions of knowledge as “truth,” one’s intelligence should be questioned and scrutinized. Some respondents, in developing their Principium (Watt) arguments, intertwined loyalty to country with love for Jesus:

[The professor who initially wrote a Letter to the Editor raising the issue of Christian hegemony at the university], who lives in the most wonderful and freest nation on the face of this Earth, wants the cross removed from the chapel at the [Student] Union.... The cross is a symbol of Christianity that made America the greatest nation in the world. I would remind [professor’s ﬁrst name] that it was not Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, etc., that made America great, it was Bible-believing Christians. (R18)

The above quote is revealing, for it erases all faith communities and non-believers from the contributions to the U.S.-American identity, character, and success while simultaneously marginalizing these communities. The underlying implication is a Denial (Watt) of Christian privilege, and a turning of the tables of sorts, whereby Christian are granting non-Christians the benefits to reside and function in a country not of their making (an example of Watt’s reactive defense of Benevolence). By granting these benefits, though, at any point if non-Christians were to challenge the Christian majority and its benevolent actions, that majority might consider seizing back those benefits it has granted. 2402 W. J. Blumenfeld

Some respondents, however, attempted to expose the apparent contraction between, on one hand, the asserted interconnection between Christianity with loyalty to country and, on the other hand, the stated national goal of separating religion from government. R14 shared his ruminations and critical questions:

[W]hat I find more interesting is the notion that patriotism is rooted in religion. More specifically, I am fascinated by the conflating of religion and patriotism, similar to the exploitations of the reactions to 9/11 by the religious right (and those who used the religious right for their political purposes). How did patriotism become so tied to religion, and vise [sic] versa? Does the church co-opt patriotism or do hyper-patriots (i.e., nationalists) co-opt religion? Or a whole lot of both.

R13 went even farther than R14 in removing religious iconography and writings from all things governmental:

The crucifix in the Union is contemporary with McCarthyism & the illegal motto on our paper money: “In god We Trust.” Since the mid 50s, all religions save for Christian religions are marginalized and Atheists are excluded thereby. In this era of escalating religious violence & theopolitical extremism, it is most fitting & proper to move the crucifixtoa church, sell it to the highest bidder so that costs can be recovered.

While some respondents argued for the erection of a partition constructed between the concepts of patriotism and religion, most discussants addressing this theme saw strong, sound, and appropriate linkages. R19 used the strategies of Deﬂection and False Envy (Watt) as a battle cry to preserve dominant hegemony and, hence, the United States itself:

Like it or not, our country was based on Christianity. Fight it all you want, but that’s the way it is. It is as much a part of our heritage as the English language and the American ﬂag. We have got to start standing up to this small minority of whiners or they will take everything away from us.

The “everything” to which R19 fears will be taken away by “this small minority” includes both God and country. On the microlevel of the university, a respondent reiterates a Deﬂection (Watt) position to maintain his position that adherence to the deﬁned norm of Christianity is responsible for the success of this University:

Whether or not you like to admit this fact, the many denominations of Christianity were and are the primary religion of the builders of [our] University and its students. To tell them simply to forget about that part of their lives is not possible. Imagine if you were to tell a Muslim or Jewish person that he ignore the religious aspects of his life outside his private home. Imagine telling that person “while here you are no longer allowed to admit or practice your beliefs.” (R20)

The above two arguments, R19 and R20, are ploys to Deﬂect (Watt) the issue from creating nondenominational and religiously neutral spaces in our country and on our public campuses, to one of forcing residents of the country and students in our 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2403 schools to abandon their religious backgrounds while attending public institutions. These respondents, therefore, turn the focus away from Christian hegemony and privilege to positioning Christians as potential victims (False Envy, Watt, 2007, 2009).

Christians as Victims

The technique of attempting to turn the tables by situating dominant group members, in this instance Christians, as victims both Denies and Deﬂects (Watt) the reality of dominant group hegemony while, in fact, fortifying and strengthening Christian privilege in such a way as to avoid detection. Blaming the victim (False Envy, Watt) perpetuates Christian dominance by its relative invisibility, and with this invisibility, privilege is neither analyzed nor scrutinized, neither interrogated nor confronted. R21 provides a prime example of this False Envy technique in his attempt to situate Christians as the victims of terrorist attacks: The insurgents struck again, but this time I’m not talking about Iraq, I’m referring to the hand grenade dropped in the Tribune editorial page Aug. 1 by [the professor]. This writer’s anti-academia biases soon became clear:

A quick look in the phone book conﬁrmed my suspicions. [The author] is listed among the faculty section at [the university]. [The university] and its faculty are earning a reputation of intolerance and, dare I say, persecution when it comes to Christians.

The writer equates the professor’s actions with the actions of the Nazis in Germany:

Ironic that in Saturday’s Tribune editorial page under “Today in History,” it marked the anniversary of Nazi police capturing Anne Frank and her family. I believe it was Edmund burke who is credited as saying, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

To associate the professor’s actions to achieve a religiously neutral campus on which people of all faiths and non-believers can function freely unencumbered by a dominant norm of religiosity, with the horrific actions of a maniacal sect of terrorists on the hearts, minds, and bodies of people all over the world, becomes an extreme attempt to symbolically “kill the messenger” so one does not have to hear the message. Thus, the writer attempts to morph the messenger into the incarnate of evil itself, in this sense, the personification of the anti-Christ, and the strategies of Denial, Deflection, and False Envy (Watt) continue. Another respondent (R22), turning around the fish in the fishbowl analogy, directed a sense of outrage and contempt for the author through a personal email correspondence:

[The professor]: [The university] should not promote religion, but neither should you discour- age it. Considering your position, your intolerance towards Christians is both hypocritical and 2404 W. J. Blumenfeld

inexcusable. I’m glad you don’t consider yourself to be in the same “ﬁshbowl” as I. If you were, I expect the water would need changed (sic) much more frequently.

And turning the concept of “tyranny” around from Tocqueville’s intent, the following respondent (R23) claimed the mantle of “victim” (False Envy) by embracing the strategy of Deﬂection (Watt) in multiple forms of dominant social privilege:

[F]or far too long we, the majority, have been the victims of “tyranny of the minority” and it’s been spearheaded by the ACLU. I’m tired of people either getting or wanting special rights based on their sex, race, color, creed, or sexuality. [T]hose days are gone...no more rolling over...this is a Christian nation, it was founded by Christians on Christian principles.

This accusation that minoritized groups are pressing for “special rights,” when, in fact, they are working for equality of access and equity of treatment, is a common strategy used by dominant groups to deﬂect (Watt) the real issues of dominant privilege and oppression. Responding to the charge of “tyranny of the minority,” R14 once again steps to the professor’s defense:

He [the professor] clearly does not support the tyranny of either. He wrote [in his Letter to the Editor]: “to erect a sign expressing the nondenominational purpose of this space.” How can the space be non-denominational with a huge cross?

When responding to controversial issues, at times, respondents revert to name calling and character assassination in their attempts to paint themselves as the real victims (false envy) in this drama. Here R24 responds to R14:

I don’t know, maybe you are evil, bad, or just easily offended. Guess what, your intollerance (sic) and Anti-Christian bigotry offends me so now, in the interest of tollerance (sic), please shut the hell up!

Clearly, R24’s defensive outburst exposes his inability to engage in rational and reasoned argumentation. The same can be said for the following respondent (R25), whose reply I include in its entirety:

Be a good little consumer and consume whatever tripe and drivel these so-called atheists dish out to you, from their rancid brains, for you to digest....Conform to the maniacal desires of these so-called atheists and so-called homosexuals [a reference to an atheist professor, and the professor who wrote the initial letter, an out gay Jewish professor]! Do your job—which to them is to follow their orders and take any sign of spirituality out of your lives!...Be proper and obedient servants to these hideous hacks—and put only their APPROVED symbols up on the walls—any walls. And as sure as you were born Human AND THEN remolded into obedient little slaves—those so-called atheists and so-called homosexuals want control of your walls too! The walls in your houses, the walls in your garages, the walls where you work, the walls on every billboard—and especially the walls in your minds that you use to block out such vermin as these so-called atheists and socalled [sic] homosexuals—not-to-mention the torrent of lies that always spew forth from their grotesque faces. As I have warned before—any step in any direction that those swine want from you—is a step in the direction of your own permanent slavery and subjugation to their fetid and squirming WILLS TO RULE YOU 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2405

ALL!! Fact. Period/Beyond disputes. Done....Demand to see what these scum really are, behind the phony faces and putrid lies that they present to you, EACH TIME THEY LIE TO YOU!! Find out what kind of twisted and perverted trash they really are! And then realize that they demand that you be obedient and subservient to that ﬁlth! As I have said before, such terrible creatures can only exist inside a bubble of their own lies! Anything that threatens those bubbles must be enslaved and dominated! I-Know-it – I Knew-It A REAL [state] FOR REAL [residents of the state]. NOT AN INVADER. ONE OF THE FEW [resident of the state] IN THIS FORUM.

R25 represents these two professors as subversive and dangerous brainwashers of youth, as carpetbagger (“invaders”) whose ultimate goal is to manipulate and enslave in order to control hearts and minds. As R24 before him, this respondent considers no other positions (“Fact. Period/Beyond disputes. Done). R25 highlights close-minded and defensive Denial, Deﬂection, and False Envy (Watt) positions. Not all respondents (R26), however, were willing to allow R25 to represent their views:

Hey there, [R25]: I don’t know where it was, for sure, that you turned me against your ideas and caused me to think of you in very small terms. It might have been your adolescent name- calling: swine, homosexuals, hacks, scum. Maybe, however, it came when you so self- righteously made a comment, followed by you oh-so-humble “Fact, period, beyond dispute, done” comment. I though this format was to allow for some reasonable back-and-fort among individuals who read and think. Where did you miss out on that idea? I very well may agree with some of your thinking, but your name-calling, self-serving rant makes it hard for me to be sure.

Solution: Privatize Education

Some respondents suggested alternatives to the professor’s plan for a religiously neutral nondenominational campus and speciﬁcally for the room in the memorial known as the “chapel.” One respondent proposed privatizing education and to “shut down the last great monopoly’s(sic): State Universities!! (R27) This respondent’s “suggestion,” if enacted, would result in the furthering of Christian hegemony and the marginalization of non-Christian faith communities. Christians can commonly ﬁnd private Christian parochial schools that cater to their chosen denomination of Christianity, (Schlosser, 2003), while this is often not the case for other religious groups and for non-believers, thereby limiting their educational options.

Compromise: More Religious Symbols

To hold onto its privilege, at times the dominant group will “compromise” by advocating for some tokenized additions to minoritized groups, though the true purpose is often ultimately to maintain its power and privilege. In like fashion, 2406 W. J. Blumenfeld some on campus who were opposed to the deletion of religious symbols festooned in the chapel brought up the notion of adding additional religious symbols as a form of appeasement while not understanding how some of these symbols – many of which carry with them a history of oppression and conﬂict – would in fact make the space uncomfortable and emotionally unsafe for many people. The university’s president, interviewed by local media, announced he would not remove the Christian cross from the MU chapel but, rather, would evaluate whether to recommend raising the number of other religious symbols and faiths in the chapel and also provide alternative spaces for those of other faiths. A university student newspaper’s staff columnist, R17, endorsed the university president’s proposals:

[T]his is a chapel, for whatever religious beliefs you happen to practice. Despite the ongoing debates over Christianity intruding upon our educational system, a chapel on campus is one place it should actually be present—along with other religions as well....It may seem like promoting religion over atheism, but there are many groups and places on campus you can go to experience a lack of faith....However, neither one, nor two, religions in the chapel is enough. I would propose that the space be utilized as a place of full religious and spiritual enlightenment....The chapel can be made into a universal religious space that pays homage to the concept of the freedom to unite and worship whomever or whatever you choose.

Neither this columnist nor the university president provided details for their plan. Since virtually thousands of religious and spiritual beliefs ﬂourish throughout the world, which religious symbols (all, a select few) would be chosen? Who would make the decision? When chosen, which symbols would be most prominent in the space, and which would be relegated to the sidelines? Would any ﬂoor space remain for people to enter the space? How are visitors going to react if and when they observe a religious symbol that triggers profound hurtful feelings within them stemming from the long history of religious competition and oppression? Several respondents voiced their opposition to this option. R13 asked his own set of critical questions:

If the “chapel” in [our city] is to be the site of dueling religious icons, will the Humanist “h” in the shape of a man be permitted? Will the American Atheist

“Orbit” be permitted? Will Wiccan symbols of pentagrams & such be permitted?

Though very likely R13 was certain of the answer, he asked whether heretofore marginalized and subjugated beliefs and philosophical outlooks would ﬁnd welcome and support under the proposed “compromise.” The following respondent made forceful and direct statements opposing the inclusion of additional icons in the chapel:

It would be ridiculous to try to install all religious symbols in the Union as well as many symbols which represent Atheism, Secularism & Humanism. The room is a quiet place of study, not a publicly funded place of worship. The [state’s] constitution prohibits expressly any “tax for the maintenance of any church or ministry”....It is time for the presumption of 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2407

Christian primacy to end & a neutral policy towards all private philosophies & faiths be restored. (R13)

Throughout the professor’s tenure at the university over the following 6 years, no additional religious symbols were given permanent residence in the Student Union Chapel.

Compromise: Other Rooms Available

Others suggested granting another space on campus for those who wished a place for quiet respite free from religious symbols;

The chapel may be used by all and I don’t think anyone would forbid him [the professor] from making use of the Chapel. However, because of its nature it may not appeal to him in a spiritual way as it does to others. For that reason, the most constructive way to approach this is to work to have a similar area on campus established for whatever religious beliefs he may have rather than destroying a place that many consider sacred. (R28)

Here, in the writer’sdeﬂective (Watt) strategy, he forgoes all claims to tradition and history while arguing for a “sacred” space on a tax-supported public land-grant institution. This option, however, begs the question of whether the continuation of the initial religious symbols within the chapel gives ofﬁcial university sanction of certain religions over all others. Also weighing in on the option of a separate room was a columnist for the state’s largest newspaper. Each week, the paper bestows its “Roses and Thistle” awards to a person or group they most admire (Roses Award) and those they least respect (Thistle Award). In an edition at the height of the cross in chapel controversy, the newspaper gave “A thistle to [the university’s professor by name] for calling for the removal of a Christian cross from a chapel in the [university’s Student] Union,” and they reverted to name calling:

The [Student] Union recently made another room, unadorned by any religious symbols, available to students for quiet reﬂection, or prayer. Which illustrates the difference between working constructively to resolve religious conﬂicts and risking coming off as a tiresome nag.

In the face of this editorial, the professor reiterated his position with a letter to the editor of the state’s newspaper:

In response to [date and title] Roses & Thistles, directed at me: I still truly believe that religious symbols do not have a place at a state-supported, land-grant institution....My basic questions still remain: Why is a publicly supported state institution promoting one or two religions over all others? How does the promotion of these faiths impact students of other faiths or nonbelievers? If students want spiritual support, why can’t they attend off-campus houses of worship of their choosing? If we are to create a truly pluralistic society, we must look at the ways in which we are privileging some religious groups while we are marginalizing others.... 2408 W. J. Blumenfeld

As the professor implied, his purpose was always to challenge the dominantly deﬁned norms, to expose the water of privilege, to promote multiple ways of knowing and being, and to work toward a real elimination of institutional supported and promoted religion. Evidently, an editorial writer for this state newspaper agreed:

An assistant professor in the department of [department]...also protested the hiring of a chaplain for the [university’s] football team. Apparently, [this professor] likes to challenge the conventional thinking. “Does this cross,” he wrote, “not violate the separation of religion and government clause of the United States Constitution by promoting one form of religion over all others?” Later, he said the Star of David needed to go, too.... But here’s where the professor really gets a bum rap. In ﬁring up the discussion, he’s doing his job—one of them, at least—as a college professor. He’s getting young people to think. He’s challenging them, forcing them to examine and articulate their beliefs. I’ll say it again: College isn’ta mainstream kind of place. Most kids in [this state] grow up paddling blissfully down the mainstream. They don’t need more mainstream....

The columnist concluded by responding to those who called for this professor’s dismissal:

Not all of the responses were nasty, and only some of the nastiness was student generated. But instead of dissecting [the professor’s] argument, too many people wanted him ﬁred, deported, sent to Saudi Arabia or worse. Personally, I believe he should stay. Do not board the next ship out of the Port of [the university’s city], Professor [name]. Stick around. Continue to tell young people, and the rest of us, what we don’t always want to hear. They need prodding and stretching. They need to be exposed to different philosophies and new ideas. College is more than picking up job qualiﬁcations.

Threat and Use of Violence

Another of Suzanne Pharr’s(1988) common elements of oppression centers on the threat and use of violence by dominant groups who have deﬁned and imposed the social norms upon those who do not or will not conform to these norms. In addition, Iris Marion Young (1990) lists “violence” as one of her ﬁve “faces” in her taxonomy looking at the common factors involved in privilege and oppression. Several groups live with the constant fear of random and unprovoked systematic violence directed against them related to their social identities. The intent of this xenophobic (fear and hatred of anyone of anything seeming “foreign”) violence is to harm, humiliate, and destroy the “other.” The following respondent in the religious symbols debate proposes a violent means of eliminating the professor from raising issues of Christian hegemony and privilege:

People like you who are representing special interests should all be put on a boat with a loaf of bread and set aﬂoat. I’m sick of people like you trying to tear down the majority for the opinions of a select few. If it makes you that uncomfortable, leave [the university]. I think you and a lot of other people would be much happier. (R29 in an email to the professor) 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2409

The columnist from the state newspaper responded in his editorial to R29’s threat:

A loaf of bread? Set aﬂoat? That’s almost biblical....After signing off, the boat-and-bread e- mailer included a Bible verse, Philippians 4:13. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Wait. Isn’t that verse supposed to be soothing? As opposed to scary? I realize this is just one person, but my understanding from Sunday school and beyond is that Christians are supposed to persuade people to join the club. Don’t you stand a better chance on the recruiting trail by letting people see your kindness and compassion? Instead of handing someone a loaf of bread and a seat in steerage, maybe you advance the cause by taking the opposite approach. You say something like, “I think we can work this out.”

The following week after publication of this editorial, a reader (R30) notiﬁed the columnist that he should be set out to sea in a boat without a loaf of bread. In a letter to the university president, the professor asked whether he had been following the developments within the press and on campus following the professor’s request to make the chapel a nondenominational space. The professor informed the president that:

Most of the comments have, unfortunately, centered around character assassination, name calling, and threats. These have been also sent to me directly on email and to my home over the phone. Quite ironically, this has only strengthened the points I am making regarding the reactions expressed toward anyone who challenges dominant group privilege, and anyone who provides a critical analysis of the promotion of dominant group beliefs and symbols. Though the responses have been rather predictable and fairly emotionally draining for me, consider why it has been particularly difﬁcult for students to voice their critique of dominant discourses?

The professor informed the president that several students have contacted him supporting his efforts and his courage for speaking out while expressing hesitation to do so themselves over fear of backlash, ostracism, or worse. One of those who took the time to thank the professor personally for his efforts was R31:

I’ve been reading about your effort on the...campus. I just wanted you to know that there are many of us who support and applaud you for this. Without people like you being vocal we could eventually become a Christian state much like the Islamic states. I ﬁnd it very telling that you are being threatened by people who supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus. Stand strong and know many stand behind you. Thank you. (R31 personal correspondence)

Lack of Prior Claim

Suzanne Pharr (1988) addresses the ways in which the dominant group’sdefined norm is protected, maintained, and enhanced by means of what she terms “lack of prior claim,” (another of her “common elements of oppression”) by invoking “history” and “tradition” as justification for inclusion of those who adhere to the defined norm and exclusion and marginalization of those who step outside this norm: 2410 W. J. Blumenfeld

At its simplest, this means that if you weren’t there when the original document (the Constitution, for instance) was written or when the organization was ﬁrst created, then you have no right to inclusion. Since those who wrote the Constitution were white male property owners who did not believe in the complete humanity of either women or blacks, then these two groups have had to battle for inclusion. (Pharr, 1988, p. 57)

Calls for “Lack of Prior Claim” are often framed in terms of “preserving our history” or “following tradition.” This was certainly a major justiﬁcation several individuals used to maintain the Christian cross in our university chapel:

If [the professor] had been familiar with the early day history of our nation, he would have known why the cross is displayed in the chapel of the Memorial

Union at [the university]...The large majority of immigrants came to this country for religious freedom....They wanted the freedom to worship God as a Christian nation and to be free of being persecuted for their beliefs by the government. The men who wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence had strong Christian beliefs....The United States was and is a Christian nation. Our laws and interpretation of the laws uphold that belief....The cross is the greatest symbol of the Christian heritage and as a Christian nation promoting Christian beliefs, that cross has a right to be displayed in public chapels where Christian students assemble for worship....(R32)

R32 not only conﬂates Christianity with patriotism but also interprets history and current realities in a way to justify this Denial, Deﬂection, and Principium (Watt) stances to maintain Christian hegemony because, to R32, that is the way it was and the way it meant be. R33, below, echoes R32’s sentiments:

The cross is part of the design of the room that...in showing that part of the room’s purpose is religious...and the religious room, under the memorial itself, serves as historical reminder that bravery and service to our country was, at the time, deeply rooted in religious belief....would you have us re-write history or change historical artifacts to properly sanitize our present day environment for popular (or unpopular it would seem in this instance) consumption?

R33 pointed out that the memorials in the hall and in the chapel were designed “at a time, deeply rooted in religious belief.” What R33 fails to acknowledge, however, is that throughout our history, Christian hegemony has functioned to isolate and silence several other faith communities. During the era when the designers fashioned the Student Union, issues of inclusion and diversity of beliefs were not taken into consideration, thus conﬁrming Pharr’s (1988) notion of “lack of prior claim.”

In addition, the chapel suites this respondent’s needs:

I think it’s ﬁne the way it is. I don’t understand why they would want to take it down. For one, it’s always been there. It’s a point of reference for people. If I need to go somewhere to pray, it’s an aid for my ability to pray. (R34)

R34 no doubt is truthful when he writes that “I don’t understand why they would want to take it down.” This is a perfect example of Christian privilege. Since 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2411

Christians in this case comprise the numerical majority in this country, and they have defined the norm, they do not have to consider other ways of knowing and visioning the world. “Tradition” has long been used, however, as justification for maintaining the status quo, even when it is used to maintain privilege for the dominant group. Looking back to our not-so-distant past, “tradition” mandated that only men should have the vote. This became the rationale for keeping women disenfranchised. Historically the “races” have not been permitted to attend the same schools, and this was used to perpetuate segregated schools. It has “always” been a man and a woman who have married. It was used as a rationale for preventing same-sex couples from marrying and receiving the privileges and benefits that marriage confers. In these cases, traditions have changed or are in the process of changing. Women now have the vote, the courts have acknowledged that “separate but equal” is anything but that, and same-sex couples can now marry throughout the United States and an ever- increasing number of nations around the world.

The following respondent tapped into these same arguments:

You say that the cross is “traditional” and therefore shouldn’t be removed, by the same logic why abolish slavery? Wasn’t that a long standing tradition in the south? Traditional doesn’t always mean it’s right. (R35)

Religious Symbols as “Artistic Expression”

Using a variation on the theme of “tradition” in terms of “lack of prior claim” (Pharr), Brad justiﬁes his “First Amendment” argument on the grounds of “artistic expression”:

The room is a form of artistic expression, not only speciﬁcally protected by the First Ammendment (sic) rights of the architect who designed it, but also protected by the First Ammendment [sic] in terms of changing it ([the university] would actually be at fault if they changed the artwork’s meaning by removing the icons). (R36)

This defensive strategy of “Rationalization” (Watt) provides R36 the cover of appearing to protect individual freedoms while shielding him from the charge of guarding majoritarian norms.

Christian Hegemony as Business Model

Another variation on the theme of “lack of prior claim” is the catering to the majority because it makes the most business sense:

If one were to look at the demographics, he or she would ﬁnd that Christianity is accepted and practiced by the vast majority of attending students. [The university] is a business, and, 2412 W. J. Blumenfeld

like any other business, the general idea is to provide a great product while appeasing those who create your revenue—and in this case, [the professor], your salary. (R37)

This “majority rules” Deﬂection (Watt) argument exposes Tocqueville’s warning of “tyranny of the majority.” Some respondents employed this business model to maintain dominant privilege to justify their personal attacks on the professor:

Here is his [year] salary. [Name of professor and university]

UNIVERSITY STORYASST PROF. [amount]. Travel expenses $1300. Don’tforgettoaddan additional 10% for TIAA-CREF retirement benefits. So, his real yearly salary for...fiscal year was more like around [amount]. [The university] is a crappy university with low rate, overpaid professors. Perhaps [the university] should be praying the legislature never finds out. (R38)

This respondent’s attempts to turn attention away from the issue at hand while appearing to focus on protecting tax payers from supposed waste in government were echoed by another respondent:

Can they take their energy and turn it back to their programs...shouldn’t they be writing papers, looking for research money, etc. Since when did professors become the campus crusaders. (R39)

Similar to the charge labeled against members of the judiciary of being “activist judges” by those who may disagree with their decisions, educators are often branded with the mark of “activist” as a means of isolating, silencing, and, therefore, rending their views and actions suspect and invisible. Pharr (1988) notes that the silencing and invisibility of the “other” (those outside the dominant norm) is ampliﬁed by the use of stereotypes, where “people are denied their individual characteristics and behavior and are dehumanized” (p. 59). R40 attacked the professor with the stereotype of the “uppity Jew”:

[Misspelling of professor’s last name] should go back to New York or wherever else he came from and quit making trouble for the natives who pay him to teach. I’ll bet he doesn’tprotestall the money [residents of the state] are taxed which is then sent to the theocracy of Israel every year.

Here, R40 employs the stereotypical trope of Jews as perpetual outsiders (read “foreigners”) who reside in that distant and decadent land (“go back to New York”) and himself as the “native” defending the rights of the good people of the state. And the following respondent points to the professor’s Judaism while engag- ing in gay stereotypes:

This just in...strangely, [the professor] is ok with the images of gay Jewish men in short shorts dancing to “YMCA” in the corner and the Melissa Ethridge shrine in the back left of the room. (R41)

This stereotyping has the intent of tapping into fears of the over-sexualized self- absorbed gay (and Jewish) “other.” Stereotyping, according to Pharr, adds to another of her common elements of oppression known as “blaming the victim.” 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2413

Blaming the Victim

This strategy (False Envy, Watt, 2007, 2009) is used to reverse the argument by skewing the actual power dynamics, thereby attempting to misappropriate respon- sibility for the oppression from the dominant group and to those who are, in fact, most negatively impacted by the oppression. In terms of Christian hegemony and privilege, by blaming the victim, dominance becomes perceived as unremarkable or “normal,” and when anyone poses a challenge or attempts to reveal its religious signiﬁcance, those in the dominant group brand them as “subversive” or as “sacrilegious.” Schlosser (2003) contends that the exposure of Christian privilege breaks a “sacred taboo” and that “both subtle and obvious pressures exist to ensure that these privileges continue to be in the sole domain of Christians” (p. 47). According to Schlosser, this is not unlike how white people and males perpetuate their racial and male privilege. R42 embraces this blame the victim and attack the messenger (False Envy) ploy:

[T]o me, the most offensive thing I see on this campus right now is [the professor] himself. I and several of my constituents...would like to see [the professor] removed from campus because he is very offensive and unpleasant to us.

R42 terms the professor’s actions “offensive” and “unpleasant,” and R43 adds: “[The professor] is an old crank who isn’t happy unless everyone else is miserable.” Moreover, for R44, the professor is a “kooky far-far-far-off the charts leftwinger....” Respondents also charged the professor with merely seeking publicity: “[The professor] is just charging at windmills in order to get some attention.” (R45) The following respondent introduces the professor’s social identities into the mix while calling his emotional health into question:

[The professor’s ﬁrst name] is an angry gay Jewish man that wants to make everybody as miserable as himself by trying to remove anything he can from society. (R46)

By invoking the professor’s religious background and sexual identity, R46 tapes into majoritarian stereotypes toward Jews and gay men to deﬂect (Watt) and silence his argument. While R46 questioned the professor’s emotional health, R47 questioned the professor’s faith while implying that the professor is the real oppressor (False Envy):

[T]his topic, in my opinion, is just another way for [the professor] to pad his resume...a resume that is ﬁlled with intolerance towards Christian and their belief system. If your faith is so weak that an image of an alternative faith sends you into a tizzy ﬁt, then you need a new faith.

And turning the notion of “the ﬁsh in the water” around, R48 invokes anti-Jewish stereotypes and furthers Christian proselytizing:

[The professor’s] analogy [of the fish not seeing the water] is good and could be used to reflect on Jewish blindness about who Jesus Christ crucified was and is and will be as 2414 W. J. Blumenfeld

Jewish Messiah. This blindness or hardening is similar to what happened to Pharaoh before he allowed Hebrew people to leave Egypt. The Jew Paul addresses this in his letter to Romans. Romans 11.7[:] What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.”

These sorts of anti-Semitic attacks used to silence Jews are not merely isolated incidents, as emphasized by the following case in a personal correspondence to the professor:

Thank You, It’s not easy being a non-Christian on this campus and every time I have tried to speak out about anti-Semitism that happens on this campus and personally directed at myself, people who are supposed to be helpful administrators turn it around on me like it’s my problem that I am offended. Thank you again, [Female student], Senior. (R49)

Conclusion

Gene R. Nichol, president of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, announced his resignation in 2008 after the college’s Board of Visitors failed to renew his contract. The Board took this action, Nichol claimed, primarily because of his decision to remove a bronze cross displayed at the Wren Chapel since 1940 and because he permitted an art show profiling sex workers. The reasons the president gave for his actions were to defend diversity as well as academic freedom. The College of William and Mary is one of the oldest public institutions of higher education in the United States. Paul and Lisa Weinbaum (2009) filed a pair of lawsuits in Las Cruces, New Mexico, over the long-standing use of three Latin crosses as the city and school district’sofficial logos. Though the Weinbaums did not contest the name of the town “Las Cruces,” which in Spanish means “The Crosses,” they contended that displaying the three crosses by the city was tantamount to the promotion of one religious norm or standard while marginalizing and removing the city’s welcome mat from those not adhering to that norm. In raising the issue, the Weinbaums were met with public ridicule, harassment, and death threats, and in the end, the courts dismissed their cases. Those who challenge dominant norms and dominant privilege often encounter enormous resistance. Critical multiculturalism/social justice education is far more than an academic interest and focus. On several occasions, the professor has been asked the following question: “Are you a professor/educator, or are you a community organizer/activist, a writer, a theorist, or a researcher?” They always answers “Yes, all of the above,” for their views critical multiculturalism as providing a seamless connection to all these elements in life. And she/he And they practices what they teaches. 104 Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia 2415

“Education,” as emphasized by Brazilian philosopher and educator Paulo Reglus Neves Freire (1970), is a path toward permanent liberation in which people became aware (conscientized) of their position and, through praxis (reflection and action), transform the world. Educators, to be truly effective, must spend many years in self- reflection and must have a clear understanding of their motivations, strengths, limitations, “triggers,” and fears. They must thoroughly come to terms with their positions in the world in terms of their social identities: both the ways in which they are privileged as well as how they have been the targets of systemic inequities. Today, the United States stands as the most religiously diverse country in the world. This diversity poses great challenges as well as opportunities. To quote Eck (2001): “[T]he presumption that America is foundationally Christian is being chal- lenged, really for the first time. There is no going back. As we say in Montana, the horses are already out of the barn” (p. 46).

References

Beaman, L. G. (2003). The myth of pluralism, diversity, and vigor: The constitutional privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada. Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion, 42(3), 311–325. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Grifﬁn (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of “secular” and not-so “secular” mainline Christianity in public schooling and the larger society. Equity and Excellence in Education., 39(3), 195–210. Clark, C., Vargas, M. B., Schlosser, L. Z., & Alimo, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher Education: It’s not just “Secret Santa” in December: Addressing educational and workplace climate issues linked to Christian Privilege. [Electronic version]. Multicultural Education, 10(2), 52–57. de Tocqueville, A. (1840/1956). Democracy in America. New York: The New American Library. Eck, D. L. (2001). A new religious America: How a “Christian country” has now become the world’s most religiously diverse nation. New York: HarperCollins. Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality, Part 1 (trans: Hurley, R.). New York: Vintage Books. Freire, P. R. N. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harrisburg: Continuum Publishing. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (trans: Hoare, Q. & Smith, G. N.). New York: International. Kallen, H. (1915). Democracy versus the melting pot. The Nation, 100(2590), 190–194. 217–30. Lipsky, S. (1977). Internalized racism. Black Re-Emergence, 2,5–10. McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. Wellesley: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Myrdal, G. (1962). An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Inverness: Chardon Press. Schlosser, L. Z. (2003). Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(1), 44–51. Smith, D. J., & Harter, P. M. (2002). If the world were a village: A book about the world’s people. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tong, R. (1989). Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. Boulder: Westview Press. 2416 W. J. Blumenfeld

Watt, S. K. (2007). Difﬁcult dialogues, privilege, and social justice: Uses of the Privileged Identity Exploration (PIE) Model in student affairs practice. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 114–126. Watt, S. K. (2009). Facilitating difﬁcult dialogues at the intersections of religious privilege. New Directions for Student Services,(125), 65–73. Weinbaum, L. M. (2009). Clash over the crosses: Las Cruces New Mexico – Preserving “Our cultural heritage” or maintaining Christian hegemony. In W. J. Blumenfeld, K. Y. Joshi, & E. E. Fairchild (Eds.), Investigating Christian privilege and religious oppression in the United States. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.