THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF RELIGION IN FOUR STATE UNIVERSITIES
IN MICHIGAN: CULTURE, CURRICULUM AND COMPLEXITIES
By
Christine L. Drewel

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
American Studies
2012

ABSTRACT
THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF RELIGION IN FOUR STATE UNIVERSITIES
IN MICHIGAN: CULTURE, CURRICULUM AND COMPLEXITIES
By
Christine L. Drewel

This dissertation examines the development of religion curricula at four state
universities in Michigan: Grand Valley State University, Western Michigan University,
Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. It analyzes the historical
development of these curricula, illustrating that each institution has a unique religion
curriculum both influencing and influenced by the cultures of the institution. If a religion
curriculum is to remain stable and relevant, four main participants: faculty, students,
internal, and external communities need to intentionally consider and integrate
curriculum development as part of their dialogues about the academic study of religion in
higher education. In addition, the content of the curriculum needs to be in balance with
the method of delivery in order for these four participants to be able to achieve synthesis.

Copyright by
CHRISTINE L. DREWEL
2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many people who have helped me through this process; it is not
possible for me to list them all here. But I will try to mention some, and apologize in
advance to those I may miss. First, the chair of my guidance committee, Arthur Versluis,
has provided patient support and helpful suggestions throughout this process, both
regarding the writing and professional development. He trusted me to find my way, and
never doubted my abilities, though I admittedly did. The rest of my committee, Ann
Larabee, Jeff Charnley, Kristen Renn and Stephen Rowe also gave me fruitful comments
and feedback. Patience Adibe and Jackie Campbell in the American Studies program
provided administrative support on several occasions, and answered questions quickly
and with great courtesy.
My colleagues at Grand Valley have been encouraging and supportive from the
start. Rachel Peterson read chapters, asked clarifying questions and edited kindly. Stan
Krohmer, Maureen Wolverton, Diane Maodush-Pitzer, Milt Ford, Gilda Povolo, Azfar
Hussein, Melanie Shell-Weiss, Kirsten Bartels, Justin Pettibone, Danielle Lake, Shel
Kopperl, Gordy Alderink, Melissa Baker Boosamra, Danielle DeMuth, Julia Mason,
Kathleen Underwood, Maria Cimitile, Coeli Fitzpatrick, Susan Mendoza, Shelley
Sickrey, Jennifer Stewart, Lisa Hickman and Marlene Kowalski-Braun have all provided
encouragement, showed kindness or concern, and helped me realize I was not in the
process alone. Wendy Burns-Ardolino, Judy Whipps, Jonathan White, and Wendy
Wenner provided enough pressure to keep me moving, but not so much I felt
overwhelmed.
iv

Sherry Barricklow, Diane Six, Sally Vissers, Marion Davenport, Bob Schoofs,
Robert Beseaker, Nancy Richards, and Julie Stivers helped with many questions, library
resources, copying and formatting, and facilitating the many tasks in this process. And
friends Rachel Pokora, Paula Rossi, Becky Johnson, Keri Petroski, Wave Reaume and
Alicia McElheny, who have all known me well before this process began, helped me
remember to laugh, sleep, and keep in touch with what I needed most.
Though my students through the years are too numerous to thank, several stand
out: Teddie Buchner, for having the courage to write what needed to be written, thereby
pulling me out of a dangerous block of pessimism near the end. James Vlisides and
Whitney Belprez, for starting their paths in studying religion with honesty, sincerity and
enthusiasm… I recognized a lot of my own path through theirs. Theresa Carrico for
displaying heart and bravery in adversity, and sending me inspirational PowerPoints.
Jennifer Palm, for reminding me that creating, writing and learning must go on, no matter
what the class or classroom may be. Julie Pluger and Noreen Delgado reminded me to be
kind to myself and that learning knows no age limits.
Finally, and most sincerely and gratefully, I thank my husband and soul mate
David, and my stepson Talon. They have been my support system, sacrificed selflessly
on countless occasions, patiently waited, and waited, and waited, all while keeping me
grounded and appreciative of what truly matters in my life. They understood when I was
tired and grumpy, pitched in far more than what was fair, made me take breaks when they
knew I needed them, and believed in me when I did not believe in myself. There is no
possible way I could have started, continued, or finished without them. With all my love
and gratitude, I dedicate this work to them.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 – Introduction: Scope, Terminology, Rationale and Methodology ................... 1 
Scope ............................................................................................................................... 1 
Terminology .................................................................................................................... 6 
Rationale ....................................................................................................................... 10 
Academic Study of Religion – Disciplinary Perspectives ........................................ 10 
Curriculum Studies and Development in Higher Education..................................... 11 
The Idea of Culture: Organizational and American Studies Contexts ...................... 14 
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 20 
Chapter 2 – Religion Curriculum in Higher Education: National and Michigan Contexts
and Methodological Complexities in the Study of Religion ............................................. 23 
National Historical Overview ....................................................................................... 23 
Michigan Historical Overview...................................................................................... 34 
Hope College – Holland............................................................................................ 41 
Calvin College – Grand Rapids ................................................................................ 47 
Methodological Complexities in the Academic Study of Religion .............................. 52 
Chapter Three – Religion Curriculum at Grand Valley State University: An Emerging
Major and Minor? ............................................................................................................. 59 
Brief Institutional and Curricular History ..................................................................... 59 
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History ............................................................. 69 
College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) ......................................................................... 69 
Thomas Jefferson College (TJC) .............................................................................. 70 
William James College (WJC).................................................................................. 73 
College IV ................................................................................................................. 76 
Religion Curriculum History ........................................................................................ 79 
1960 – 1969: Humble Beginnings ............................................................................ 79 
1970 – 1979: The Golden Years ............................................................................... 80 
1980 – 1999: The Decline and Recovery .................................................................. 85 
2000 – Present: The Rebirth? .................................................................................... 86 
vi

Analysis and Conclusion............................................................................................... 87 
Chapter Four – Religion Curriculum at Western Michigan University: A Comparative
and Humanistic Approach................................................................................................. 93 
Brief Institutional and Curricular History ..................................................................... 94 
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History ........................................................... 104 
Religion Curriculum History ...................................................................................... 111 
Analysis and Conclusion............................................................................................. 120 
Chapter 5 – Religion Curriculum at Michigan State University: A Land Grant Approach
......................................................................................................................................... 125 
Brief Institutional and Curricular History ................................................................... 126 
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History ........................................................... 134 
Religion Curriculum History ...................................................................................... 139 
Analysis and Conclusion............................................................................................. 148 
Chapter Six – Religion Curriculum at The University of Michigan: Many Possibilities,
Few Paths ........................................................................................................................ 152 
Brief Institutional and Curricular History ................................................................... 153 
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History ........................................................... 164 
Religion Curriculum History ...................................................................................... 168 
Analysis and Conclusion – Flint and Dearborn Campuses ......................................... 178 
The University of Michigan – Flint ........................................................................ 179 
The University of Michigan – Dearborn ................................................................. 181 
Chapter Seven – Conclusions: Religion Curriculum Development as Synthesis and
Intercultural Dialogue ..................................................................................................... 186 
General Models of Curriculum ................................................................................... 188 
Specific Models of Religion Curriculum .................................................................... 191 
Four Main Participants in Curriculum Development.................................................. 195 
Values and Synthesis in the Curriculum ..................................................................... 198 
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – Student Perspectives
................................................................................................................................. 198 
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – Faculty Perspectives
................................................................................................................................. 202 
vii

Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – Internal/Institutional
Participants Perspectives......................................................................................... 206 
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – External Participants
Perspectives............................................................................................................. 207 
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 209 
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................213
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................234

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Curriculum Development as an Intersection of Cultures – The Four Primary
Participants………………………………………………………………………………4

ix

Chapter 1 – Introduction: Scope, Terminology, Rationale and Methodology
“College curricula do not exist apart from the culture in which they develop; they are
products of that culture and both reflect and influence it. Thus, significant curricular
changes are invariably and inextricably linked to significant changes
in the general society and culture.”
--Lawrence W. Levine from The Opening of the American Mind

Scope
My dissertation examines the development of religion curricula at four state
universities in Michigan: Grand Valley State University, Western Michigan University,
Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. I analyze the historical
development of these curricula, illustrating that each institution has a unique religion
curriculum both influencing and influenced by the cultures of the institution. Since
curriculum is both a product and producer of university culture, a careful examination of
religion courses alongside the mission, vision and values of the institutions provides an
important context for understanding how and why particular institutions developed
differing religion curricula, and the administrative structures to support them, as they did.
I propose that if a religion curriculum is to remain stable and relevant, four main
participants— faculty, students, internal, and external communities— need to
intentionally consider and integrate curriculum development as part of their dialogues
about the academic study of religion in higher education. In addition, the content of the
curriculum (the courses) needs to be in balance with the method of delivery (the
curriculum model) in order for these four participants to be able to achieve synthesis.
The nature and characteristics of the culture of any university will change over
time, and the curriculum typically changes with them. When institutions go through
1

administrative reorganizations, or examine campus-wide programming, such as general
education or graduation requirements, or undertake assessment tasks for accreditation,
faculty members often engage in dialogue about and revise the curriculum accordingly.
There are also patterns in curricular development among different institutions that occur
in response to major historical events or movements, such as 9/11 or the civil rights
movement. Curriculum, in its development, content, function, and rationale, is not static
or fixed; it adapts to the changing demographics of students and faculty members, to
disciplinary developments and administrative influences, and to the needs of the
communities surrounding the university.
It follows, then, that scholars who study religion could benefit by examining
curricular changes and patterns because they are relevant to the development and
understanding of their discipline. Curriculum, like the development of a discipline, is
continually changing within particular historical and cultural contexts. Faculty members,
who usually have teaching responsibilities coupled with their scholarship expectations,
not only develop and adapt courses to their own research interest areas, but also respond
to the needs and demands of their institution’s students, administration, and culture.
Focusing primarily on specialized topics, or on arguments, theories, or methodologies in
the advancement of their disciplinary dialogues, often cause scholars to overlook basic
questions about curriculum, models, demographics, and the historical developments of
the institutions out of which their disciplinary knowledge develops. Curriculum
development then, is a link between the culture of disciplinary knowledge and
development, and the cultures of the institution and knowledge communities in which
that discipline exists.
2

The cultures of an institution are also affected by internal and external factors, and
these factors change for many and complex reasons. As the socio-economic conditions in
Michigan continue to change, and as the function and purpose of state universities
responds to the changing needs of society, the complexities of university cultures adapt as
well. Likewise, commitments to diversity and multiculturalism have broadened the scope
of scholarship in the disciplines and often influenced the nature and directions of
curricula. Increasingly, globalization, consumerism, commoditization and corporatization
of higher education influence campus climates, scholarship, and curricula. Internal and
external forces shape universities and their cultures, disciplinary developments and
dialogues, and curriculum.
Curriculum development is connected to and influenced by the surrounding
communities of the university, the internal and administrative culture of the university,
the faculty, and the students, though the influence of each varies. Scholars do not exist
and create scholarship in a vacuum; they are part of a larger cultural system, which
includes students, administration and external communities. Curriculum development
reflects, illustrates, informs, and describes the culture of the institution and its values, so
the examination of the curriculum can and should occur alongside the mission, vision and
values of the particular university to provide context. Although each curriculum has its
own history that weaves into the story of the culture of an institution, religion curriculum
provides a distinctive and recognizable area to explore. The diagram on the following
page may be useful:

3

Int
ternal Cultural 
Inf
fluence
es

Faculty
y  
Culture
C
es

St
tudent
t 
Cu
ultures
s

Ex
xternal Cultural 
Influe
ences

Figure 1 :
Curriculum Developmen as an Inter
C
D
nt
rsection of C
Cultures – Th Four Prim
he
mary Particip
pants
For in
nterpretation of the refer
n
rences to colo in this and all other fi
or
igures, the re
eader
is referr to the ele
red
ectronic vers
sion of this d
dissertation.

One way to help focus the sco of my in
w
f
ope
nterests in rel
ligion curric
culum is thro
ough
a comparative analysis of thoughtfull selected in
e
f
ly
nstitutions. T
There are a w variety of
wide
in
nstitutions in higher educ
n
cation, but I focus on sta universiti Keeping in mind tha
ate
ies.
g
at
un
niversities in
nfluence and are influenced by their surrounding communiti I decided to
d
g
ies,
d
4

concentrate my approach geographically as well: universities in Michigan. State
universities in Michigan are also distinctive because they have constitutional autonomy
and no higher governing board, which has certainly affected their administrative and
curricular development. It is important to note that this focus and exploration has its
limitations as well, and is by no means intended to be a comprehensive statement for all
state institutions or religion curricula. The four institutions I have selected each have very
different and distinctive approaches to the academic study of religion, were founded at
different times, maintained with a variety of missions and goals, and have typically
served different populations of students. I have intentionally excluded denominational
colleges because of the variety and complexities of their religious histories and
influences. However, as I mention briefly in chapter two, denominational colleges are
indeed a key component to this topic, particularly in West Michigan, and I hope to
explore and integrate these into my future research. I have also chosen to focus on
undergraduate curricula, as this provides an additional commonality necessary for the
analysis.
In this dissertation I provide an abbreviated history of general curriculum
development alongside the mission, vision and values statements of these four state
universities. I then examine the religion curriculum more specifically and the structures
in place that developed to support it (or not). Finally, I suggest that a balance between the
content and method of delivery of the religion curricula, and the intentional inclusion of
the four primary participants, offers an opportunity for synthesis through the process of
curriculum development. Curriculum naturally and understandably develops differently
at different universities based on the parameters and interplay of faculty members,
5

students and internal and external influences. My exploration involves three intertwining
questions:
1. How have the general curricula and mission statements historically developed
at Grand Valley State University, Western Michigan University, Michigan
State University and the University of Michigan?
2. How have the religion curricula historically developed and what structures
and models have been in place to support them at these institutions?
3. How does curricular development provide a greater opportunity for synthesis
for these four participants?
After this introductory chapter, I provide a brief historical overview of religion
curriculum in both national and Michigan contexts in chapter two. I then address the first
two questions for each of the four institutions, respectively, in chapters three through six.
I address the third question in the concluding chapter.
Terminology
It is important for me to be clear in my terminology, particularly in defining the
term “culture,” which has a well-established and complex history throughout many
disciplines. I view curriculum as part of a larger cultural system, as indicated by Diagram
1 above. To describe this larger system, I have found intercultural communication
theories and definitions of culture to be most useful in articulating my understanding and
perspective of how curriculum functions. In his article “Culture, Communication and
Development,” F.L. Casmir explains that “culture” refers to
common, value-based interpretations, artifacts, organizational forms, and
practices of a group of humans related to a specific environment. These tend to
be seen as “the best” or even “only” ways of dealing with challenges faced. They
are more than individual experiences and interpretations. In effect, they depend
6

on sharing transmissions and maintenance for the purpose of bringing a group of
human beings together in specific efforts or enterprises which are judged
significant to the survival, maintenance, continuity of a social system.1
The specific environment and social system is academe itself, which is made up of many
and complex sub-cultures including, for the scope of this dissertation, the cultures of the
four participants. A closer examination of the development of religion curriculum as part
of this larger cultural system will help to negotiate and create dialogue between these
cultures and provide an alternative perspective on the role of curriculum development in
higher education.
By “religion curriculum” I mean specific courses that deal with topics connected
to the study of religion. The word “religion” (or an obvious connection or reference to it,
such as the History of Islamic People) needed to appear in either the course title or
catalog description in order to be included. Curriculum is, however, a somewhat elusive
construct; it is often difficult to separate a particular course from the program,
department, center, institute, college or school, major or concentration, general education
program, or thematic structure in which it might exist. For this reason, I also examine the
structure or model, which usually takes the form of a major or minor, through which the
faculty and institutions deliver the religion curriculum to the students.
From an anthropological perspective, religion curriculum functions as an
observable pattern of behavior and an historical artifact; it is both a product of action (a
religion course at a particular point in time) and a conditioning element of further action
(development of religion curriculum over time). But viewing religion curriculum as a
product and producer of a university’s culture oversimplifies its significance and role in a
larger and more complex culture system. Religion curriculum links institutional culture
7

and the disciplinary culture of the academic study of religion for faculty members and
provides an avenue for students to learn a body of knowledge and apply that knowledge
to their communities.
Social anthropologist Clifford Geertz argued that “culture consists of systems of
symbolic meaning that serve an essential functional or heuristic purpose. Designed as
they are instrumentally, these systems help us survive our contacts with the environment
by interpreting them, that is, by translating them into signs so that we can not only better
negotiate these relationships but also add the experience of other people to our own.”2 As
such, religion curriculum becomes an observable sign through which scholars and
institutions create meaning and communicate values to the students and surrounding
communities. Geertz also explains that an effective treatment of culture as a symbolic
system should occur “by isolating its elements, specifying the internal relationships
among those elements, and then characterizing the whole system in some general way—
according to the core symbols around which it is organized, the underlying structures of
which it is a surface expression, or the ideological principles upon which it is based.”3 In
the scope of this dissertation, the courses (core symbols), are internally related to the
mission, vision and values (ideological principles).
The curriculum connects to disciplinary knowledge because faculty members
create the courses, teach them within the institution’s culture, and integrate the content
and experiences of teaching into their scholarship and contributions to the discipline
while passing such content on to students. 4 While the existence of a particular course
can indicate what the faculty and administration value in and of itself, I also consider the
mission, vision and values and examine the structures and methods that support the
8

curriculum (these usually take the form of a major or minor). The balance between the
content of the curriculum and the method in which it is offered to the students varies at
these institutions, but the potential for synthesis is possible for each of the four main
participants.
The terms “mission, vision and values” of each institution are not necessarily or
obviously stated directly as such. Any statement in an official capacity (for example,
from a university publication, formal minutes, self-study, strategic plan, etc.), that
indicates the purpose, direction, goals or objectives of the institution, program,
department, or administrative structure to which the religion curriculum is attached, I
treat as indicative of the mission, vision or values of the institution. In addition, it is
necessary to occasionally examine significant events or controversies that are directly
connected to curricular development or institutional history. While such occurrences do
not necessarily speak directly to the wording of the mission, vision or values statements,
they do often indicate relevant characteristics of the institutional culture and the fluidity
of the culture system.
Finally, the idea of “synthesis” is also crucial to this exploration. In his essay,
“Access to a Vision: The Paradox of a Liberal Education” Stephen Rowe explains how,
in the pursuit of a liberal education, there are three main levels of understanding: content,
method, and synthesis. In order to realize the transformative nature of a liberal
education, “The key to the third level of synthesis is that content method can each be
effective only in the presence of the other, and that their synthesis occurs when they are
related to the development of the mature human being.”5 Though it is not necessarily or
completely interchangeable with Rowe’s idea of the paradoxical nature of a liberal
9

education, effective curriculum development also requires the balance of content and
method in order to provide the opportunity for synthesis. When the content of a
particular course or a curriculum are in balance with the method of delivery and structure
in which they exist, that is, the major or minor itself, then the process of development has
the potential to create synthesis for the four main participants involved with or connected
to it.6 It is my hope that this dissertation will provide the beginning threads of a
conversation about how curriculum development can be a mechanism for synthesis and
offer ways to more fully engage a discussion about the integration of the values of each
of the four participants in higher education.
Rationale
Three main areas of scholarship are relevant to, and provide a context and
rationale for my dissertation topic: 1. disciplinary perspectives within the academic study
of religion, 2. curriculum studies and development in higher education, and 3. the idea of
culture, both in an organizational context and as an organizing concept in American
Studies. After briefly highlighting some of the work and research areas relevant to my
topic, I will explain how and why my dissertation differs from and develops these areas.

Academic Study of Religion – Disciplinary Perspectives
Although arguments about theory and method within the academic study of
religion often dominate the disciplinary discourse, scholars often oversimplify (or ignore
completely) the development of curriculum and the cultural context of the universities in
which their disciplinary study occurs. Scholars giving greater attention to curricular
development and to institutional contexts could gain perspective to their arguments as
well as a broader understanding of their discipline’s development. In The University Gets
10

Religion, D.G. Hart historically traces the development of religious studies, but only
gives an occasional nod to curriculum and its changes, particularly in conjunction with
theology or divinity schools. My dissertation historically traces the development of
religion curricula within a cultural system, in order to illustrate the complexity of that
system and to provide a new perspective on the academic study of religion. Rarely has
anyone considered the discipline by examining the curriculum faculty members teach,
how students study it, or the culture of the institution in which the teaching and study
occurs. My dissertation examines all three.
Some scholars have examined the academic study of religion in a national
context, or have attempted to summarize large trends in and characteristics of the
discipline in higher education. In their book Religion on Campus, Cherry, DeBerg, and
Porterfield “found the academic study of religion to be as vital and appealing to
undergraduates as religious practice” and examined the general ethos, religious practice,
and pedagogies of faculty members at four different institutions in the United States.7
This is much closer to what I explore, but I approach the academic study of religion from
a curricular perspective: what is being studied, how, and in what institution and cultural
contexts? I examine the history and development of religion curriculum in four Michigan
state universities in order to contribute new questions and perspectives to the dialogues
within and about the academic study of religion in higher education.
Curriculum Studies and Development in Higher Education
Scholars have studied curriculum and its development in higher education and
have approached the topic in the literature from primarily historical or institutional
perspectives. Frederick Rudolph’s Curriculum: A History of the American
11

Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636, first published in 1977, remains the standard
starting point and surveys broad changes from a national perspective. Rudolph argues
that, “Curricular history is American history and therefore carries the burden of revealing
the central purposes and driving directions of American society.”8 While Rudolph’s work
is sweeping in its historical scope and speaks to curriculum in general, my work is
focused on carefully selected state institutions and specific curricula. Although my focus
is narrower than Rudolph’s, it also points to national patterns and trends within the
context of the academic study of religion, as well as raises questions about the
relationship between the discipline, the curriculum, and the institutions that support and
develop both.
Others have sought to illuminate the breadth or depth to which curriculum
functions at different types of institutions in the academy. In his Handbook on
Undergraduate Curriculum, Arthur Levine organizes his approach to American colleges
and universities according to the 1970 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education’s
categories. He then discusses how these various types of institutions address the
curriculum through a wide variety of areas, including General Education, Majors or
Concentrations, Basic Skills, Credits and Degrees and Advising. My work occasionally
touches on some of the same areas as Levine, particularly Majors and Concentrations, but
differs because it explores the curriculum within the contexts of institutional cultures.
In addition, the field of Curriculum Studies, though it often focuses on K-12
curriculum systems, also deals with the ideas and developments of curricular histories.
Scholars and administrative professionals who comprise this field often speak about
curriculum from a national or theoretical perspective. There is, however, a gap in the
12

literature between institutional analyses of curriculum and disciplinary considerations, as
most of the scholars in this field are interested in assessing curriculum, learning
outcomes, or administrative perspectives. Typically, scholars in Curriculum Studies
focus separately on institutional histories, or on organizational culture, or on discipline
specific discourse, giving only an occasional nod in each of these areas to the integrative
function and nature of curriculum development. I view these areas as an interconnected
system rather than separately.
In his book The Opening of the American Mind, Lawrence Levine offers several
chapters on the struggles and evolutions the curriculum and canon faced throughout
scholars’ changing perceptions about the idea of culture and the purposes for higher
education. My approach is similar to Levine’s in these chapters, but instead of a national
and multi-disciplinary analysis of the changing battleground of the general curriculum, I
focus more specifically on religion curriculum in four institutions in Michigan. Our
approaches are similar because they highlight, and indeed celebrate, the differences and
peculiarities of curriculum in higher education. But my approach, for the reasons
mentioned above, differs in both scope and focus.
Many articles from scholars in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion
have addressed the study of religion in state universities, various aspects of the
curriculum, or the idea of culture and religion separately. The Journal of Higher
Education also has presented a variety of articles on organizational culture and its impact
on different dimensions of higher education.9 The journal American Quarterly has
addressed the idea of culture, curriculum or programmatic structure within a specific
institution. For example, Mechling, Meredith and Wilson’s article “American Culture
13

Studies: The Discipline and Curriculum” draws its analysis and examples from the
struggles at the University of California, Davis.10 And Hausdorff’s “American Studies at
Michigan State University” uses an historical approach to the development of that
program.11 My exploration of curriculum development and its connections to institutional
culture and the academic study of religion blends the approaches of these two articles.
The Idea of Culture: Organizational and American Studies Contexts
American Studies offers interdisciplinary approaches to scholarship and
curriculum, as well as fresh and integrative perspectives on the disciplines themselves.
American Studies scholars, along with struggling to define the borders and boundaries of
their work as a legitimate discipline, have wrestled with the idea of culture and how it can
best serve and be used. Indeed, they have been discussing the idea of culture in various
forms and the contexts for decades, but not often linked to organizations or curriculum.
Curriculum represents what is valued in and demanded of a university. Creating
and maintaining useful and meaningful courses are one of the primary processes and
goals that faculty members daily pursue. The process of curricular development connects
to the organizational cultures, missions, visions and values of the universities themselves.
William G. Tierney’s article “Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the
Essentials” briefly provides a rationale for examining organizational culture, attempts to
define culture in higher education, and presents a case study that emphasizes the essential
elements in academic culture. He explains, “Institutions with very similar missions and
curricula can perform quite differently because of the way their identities are
communicated to internal and external constituents” and argues that while external
factors such as demographics, economics and politics influence institutions, they are also
14

shaped from within.12 According to Tierney, “This internal dynamic has its roots in the
history of the organization and derives its force from the values, processes, and goals held
by those most intimately involved in the organization’s workings.”13 Curriculum,
therefore, is connected inextricably to the institution in which it develops.
American Studies scholars have addressed the methodological problems of their
discipline and staked a claim at various times, along with many other disciplines, within
the complexities of the idea of culture. In 1963, in his article “American Studies and the
Concept of Culture: A Theory and Method” Richard Sykes asks, “What then is American
Studies? Briefly defined, it is the study of American culture. Culture is the key concept,
the unifying concept, the root word which suggests both theory and method. It is a branch
of culture studies, and as such is closer to the social sciences theoretically than to the
humanities. It is a specialized branch of cultural anthropology.”14 However, scholars of
American Studies, while often dealing with elements of popular or material culture as
their subject matter, have not typically focused on or examined their own curriculum per
se, or on the organizational culture in which that curriculum develops.
Scholars have discussed, defined, and re-defined various aspects concerning the
idea of culture within American Studies and in academe as a whole. Further on in his
article, Sykes explains that “American Studies as a branch of modern literate culture
studies requires a general theoretical orientation to culture study, and additional special
knowledge of the written artifacts that are one of the defining characteristics of modern
cultures,” and that an interdisciplinary approach to culture has been essential.15 He
continues, “American Studies is interdisciplinary…because the concept of culture around
which American Studies revolves cuts across and includes the content of all other
15

disciplines. These disciplines are, in fact, the means our society uses to communicate a
knowledge of culture, and are thus one of the best sources for an investigator of
culture.”16 My exploration provides a needed link between the disciplinary culture of the
study of religion and the institutional cultures in which religion curricula develop.
Early in the development of American Studies, scholars began to address the
methodological problems of and stake a claim within the complexities of the idea of
culture. Sykes continues his analysis:
the student of historical American Studies would gain from explicitly recognizing
that real culture…is defined as those documents and artifacts which survive from
the historical period under study. These are empirically observable. When he
infers avowed or masked patterns he is doing so on the basis of this evidence…
The methodological problem then becomes how to infer patterns from the
products of behavior, i.e., cultural artifacts.17

Curriculum functions as an observable artifact and document through which to explore
such patterns. Furthermore, Sykes advocates that an “American Studies method involves
three stages of approach. First one perceives a pattern. Certain patterns are obvious, but
many are not. Probably the original perception will be an insight or intuition. This will
then be stated clearly and explicitly in the form of a hypothesis. The second stage
involves proving the hypothesis true or false.”18 The third stage involves disseminating
this research on culture to the community of scholars. The majority of my dissertation
follows and develops in Sykes’ first stage, and my conclusion offers some potential and
fruitful areas in which to explore his second stage, hopefully adding to and advancing
ideas in several areas of academic scholarship.
How should scholars envision integrating the idea of culture into American
Studies? As early as 1956, in his article “‘The American Adam’ and the state of
16

American Studies,” Roy Harvey Pierce had caught a glimpse of how to incorporate the
concept. Pierce speculated, “It may well be that one of the main achievements of the
American Studies movement will be its contribution toward a new kind of History, in
which intellectual history becomes not a matter of ideas analyzed but of ideas dramatized,
ideas so placed in their cultural matrix that they are shown to be possible beliefs.”19
Examining curriculum as part of such a cultural system is a crucial part of this vision.
Furthermore, in 1973, Jay Mechling, Robert Merideth and David Wilson, besides
articulating other serious problems the field faced, revived the idea of culture as playing
an essential role in American Studies. They write,
the culture concept belongs at the center of an American Studies disciplinary
matrix. The necessary if not sufficient condition for engaging in American Studies
is an applicable theoretical model of culture in the largest sense, embracing
elements ranging from the biological heritage through institutions and belief
systems to individual phenomenal experience. The concept locates the terms of
our activities as scholars and teachers. If the ‘transition to maturity’ in American
Studies is to be rich in ideas, exciting in debate and efficient in focus, it is to the
concept of culture that attention should be paid.20

However, due to the complexity of the term “culture,” the wide variety of definitions and
disciplines claiming culture in their methodologies, and the basic struggles many
American Studies programs faced in the structure of the university for mere survival
(funding, staffing, legitimacy), others in the field abandoned the idea of culture and
continued searching for a distinctive identity and method as a solution to their struggles.
In his 1979 article “The Americanness of American Studies,” Robert Berkhofer,
Jr. stated, “The paradox of identity therefore results from this attempt to reconcile
bureaucratic achievement in absorbing new interests with the concern for a perspective
unique to American Studies…If scholars no longer speak confidently of the American
17

mind, they still hope to find at the end of the intellectual rainbow what some call THE
METHOD to provide an intellectual unity for the field.”21 Furthermore, “if culture was
the supposed unifying concept of the classic American Studies synthesis, then society is
the foundation of the new synthesis that seems to be emerging so rapidly. If the idealistmentalist approach dominated the older scholarship, then a social-materialist approach
seems to pervade the newer scholarship, whether focusing upon non-elites, material
culture or mentalite.”22 Berkhofer tried to expand the primarily sociological and
anthropological disciplinary perspectives of culture to include “larger intellectual
orientation that preserves and perpetuates the division between the two cultures of
intellectual life: between a scientific outlook and a humanistic view.”23 Through the
examination of the development of curricula, my dissertation offers a new way to
negotiate and view the complex cultural system of intellectual life in the academy.
Gene Wise added another perspective through which to view the idea of culture
and its position in, and relevance to, American Studies. He wrote, “I also suggest that we
try to understand our own movement as we would any other experience in America—that
is, critically, in cultural and institutional context. As culture critics of American Studies
we should ask, ‘What imperatives are there in the larger American culture and social
structure, and in the culture and social structure of academe, which have made possible
the quest for an integrating ‘American Studies’? and ‘How have these imperatives
changed over time?’ ”24 Wise’s idea of paradigm dramas stems from the theater and
“views historical ideas…as a sequence of dramatic acts—acts which play on the wider
cultural scenes, or historical stages.”25 In defining “paradigm” Wise stated, “The
commonest use, at least in historical scholarship, is a paradigm as a consistent pattern of
18

beliefs held by a person, a group or a culture.”26 He explained how Thomas Kuhn, in The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions “handled paradigms not only as patterns of belief but
also as the characteristic acts which function to dramatize those beliefs.…For Kuhn, then,
a paradigm is not just the content of a thought pattern, but, more fundamentally, an actual
instance of that pattern of thinking in action.”27 Wise draws his examples from this
complex understanding of cultural patterns, or paradigms. For me and in this dissertation,
the development of religion curriculum functions as a paradigm drama.
In 1987, Giles Gunn offered another layer of complexity for American Studies
scholars to explore, the idea of cultural formations. He explained, “[W]e are now in a
position to see that whatever we mean by the United States as a cultural formation, we
mean nothing less than a configuration of comparable but often competing regional or
sectional or otherwise minority traditions that were, and are, always seeking primacy over
one another, or at least are seeking not to be displaced by one another.”28 Gunn calls for a
cross-cultural approach, advocates for exploring multiple cultures in American society,
and asserts:
in order for the cross-cultural challenge to be met critically within American
Studies, …the field needs to develop a more sophisticated understanding of what
cultures consist of and of how they change…it will prove necessary … a more
complex model of the relationship between culture and society, and this will
entail reformulating the central subject of inquiry in American Studies in terms
that are at once more valuational and more political.29
Gunn concludes, “The real subject of American Studies should be the structure of
experience within culture by means of which certain relations of dominance and
subordination are socially maintained in the name of meanings and values…[It] involves
an understanding of those qualities in the lived or felt context of their relations, that is, in
terms of the whole implied system of hierarchically arranged, hegemonic modalities of
19

which this or that expression or pattern of behavior is but one variant.”30 While such
discussions of hegemony, power, and subordination are beyond the scope of this
dissertation, I hope my work will offer additional contextual layers and perspectives
about curriculum development as part of an interconnected system for American Studies
scholars as well as scholars in other disciplines to explore.
Finally, in his 1990 article “Listening to Learn and Learning to Listen: Popular
Culture, Cultural Theory, and American Studies,” George Lipsitz proposes that,
American Studies would be served best by a theory that refuses hypostatization
into a method, that grounds itself in the study of concrete cultural practices, that
extends the definition of culture to the broadest possible contexts of cultural
production and reception, that recognizes the role played by national histories and
traditions in cultural contestation, and that understands that struggles over
meaning are inevitably struggles over resources.31
While I do not suggest that examining curriculum development will point to a grand
theory that will usher in a new age for theories or methods in American Studies, I do
think that scholars have overlooked curriculum as a way to link many of their discussions
about culture and the survival and legitimacy of American Studies in higher education.
Methodology
According to James L. Ratcliff in “What Is the Curriculum and What Should It
Be?” curricular models take several different forms. Descriptive or prescriptive models
“are primarily concerned with describing the formal and informal organizational
structures of institutions and their components” and are based on the premise that the
curriculum as a whole has a purpose beyond a single course. Analytic models on the
other hand, attempt “to discover the variables that affect student development and
describe the nature of those variable interactions.”32 Descriptive and prescriptive models
present ways to conceptualize basic and substantive elements of curricula and the
20

organizational structure of departments, programs and institutions. Analytical models
address the relationship and interaction between institutional characteristics and
students.33 My methodology involves both; although it primarily describes the nature and
development of religion curricula, it also analyzes the structures and interactions of those
curricula within the institutional context. Both describing and analyzing these four
curricula shows that curriculum development is shaped by disciplinary and faculty
values, the student population, and both internal and external administrative and social
factors.
For each institution, I provide a brief institutional history, focusing on key
developments in curriculum development and structural organization. Next, I examine
university mission, vision and values statements, establishing a complementary record of
this part of institutional culture. Finally, I chronologically examine catalogs, course
schedules, university publications, departmental (if applicable) self-studies, curriculum
committee minutes on religion curriculum, personal correspondence, speeches and any
source or written record of what religion courses were taught, when, and in what areas
and contexts of the four selected institutions. I analyze the curricular models in order to
compare and contrast the different approaches to religion curriculum development at
these institutions.
The curricular overview and the mission, vision and values, which are part of the
cultures of the university and perpetuate it, provide the background and context of the
story of how and why the academic study of religion developed the way it did at each
particular institution. The specific religion courses, so to speak, provide the details and

21

the plot. In essence, my methodology is primarily historical, with a focus on the social
history of religion curriculum at these selected universities.
My research on the development of religion curricula at these four institutions in
Michigan not only demonstrates that multiple approaches to the study of religion are a
natural response to the variety of demands and interests of students and the faculty (other
elements needing to be researched), but also illustrates an important link between the
institutional cultures and the academic study of religion. Although my research focuses
on religion curriculum and speaks most directly to the academic study of religion, I
believe my research will have an impact on and provide a model for other disciplines,
particularly American Studies.
Both Religious Studies and American Studies have shared similar problems
administratively within the university: How and where should the programs,
majors/minors, or departments be administrated and housed? What disciplinary or
interdisciplinary methodologies are appropriate? Who is qualified and allowed or
“borrowed” to teach? What should be taught and why? What do graduates with Religious
Studies or American Studies degrees know and have to offer their communities?
Religious Studies and American Studies scholars have spent a substantial amount of time
arguing for theory, method, validation, identity and indeed, at times, mere existence, in
the academy. It is my hope that my dissertation will not only offer a new framework and
direction with which to examine and better understand the academic study of religion, but
also provide a contribution to American Studies and the complexities and importance of
the disciplines, cultures, and curricula in American universities.

22

Chapter 2 – Religion Curriculum in Higher Education: National and
Michigan Contexts and Methodological Complexities in the Study of Religion
“…while it is possible to look at the shaping of American higher education primarily as
responses to practical forces and concerns, it is illuminating to recognize that the ideals
for which the universities stood and which helped define practical priorities were also
shaped by a powerful and distinctly Protestant heritage”
--George Marsden from The Soul of the American University
National Historical Overview
Religion curricula have been, explicitly and implicitly, present in higher education
in America from the establishment of Harvard in 1636. The various leaders of the
colonial churches and denominations educated their young adults to carry on their
religious convictions and heritage in the developing country. The first nine colleges
started out small and were founded by religious denominations: Harvard and Yale from
Puritan branches; The College of New Jersey from the Presbyterians; Dartmouth from the
Congregationalists; The College of Rhode Island from the Baptists; The College of
William and Mary and King’s College from the Anglicans; and Queen’s College from the
Dutch Reformed. In general, the colonists tolerated religious differences, formed
communities and institutions with similar religious belief systems, and valued their
religious freedom. Though a well-rounded, classical and liberal education lay at the heart
of each of the higher education institutions, religion was invariably a part of the
curriculum, either through the nature and presentation of the subject matter or the
instruction.
In structure, curriculum, and residential pattern, American colleges drew from the
forms and ideology of the Reformation, Renaissance, and English universities. According
to historian Frederick Rudolph in his classic book The American College and University:
A History, the curriculum usually included Latin, Greek, logic, rhetoric, natural
23

philosophy (later physics), mental and moral philosophy and some mathematics, each
course being taught from the religious perspective and worldview of the particular
denomination.34 These subjects were designed to instruct students how to think and act
as contributing citizens in a Christian country. Most colleges attracted their students from
the upper class, with a curriculum heavy in the study of classical languages, theology,
and philosophy. This curriculum, combined with the emphasis on the particular
denominations’ worldviews as preparation for the ministry, did not appeal to the common
man or to those for whom practical concerns, such as farming, took precedence over
formal education.
Enlightenment thinkers and writers added much dialogue and debate about the
nature and purpose of education in the young country, and more people began to perceive
higher education as a tool in the development of the ideology of independence. Faculty
members, students and administrators began to reconsider the purpose of the universities,
who should attend them, and how their curricula should adjust to serve the emerging
nation. Rudolph explains,
The legacy of the American Revolution to the American college was, then, a
heady mixture of French deism, unruly students, state controls and a widely held
belief that the colleges were now serving a new responsibility to a new nation: the
preparation of young men for responsible citizenship in a republic that must prove
itself, the preparation for lives of usefulness of young men who also intended to
prove themselves. The curriculum responded accordingly.35
The influence of the Enlightenment and the Revolution caused sweeping curricular
reforms, mostly in the form of adding new disciplines and courses. Thomas Jefferson
proposed to integrate the practical and the public, focus on modern rather than classical
languages, and introduce the nature of law and nations into the coursework. Although not
all of Jefferson’s proposals were implemented during his lifetime, as Rudolph explains,
24

soon after, King’s College “adopted a curriculum which would help young Americans
fulfill the functions demanded of them in an aspiring nation,” including economics,
natural history and French.36 Other colleges and universities followed the model. The
religious traditions and distinctions in doctrine that the various denominations argued
about seemed less important than the overall political struggles the country faced and the
debates over what constituted educated citizens.
The Great Awakenings of the eighteenth century sparked a rise in religious fervor
and denominationalism in the New England states, which later extended to Michigan and
the rest of the expanding country through the rising tide of settlers in the mid-nineteenth
century. Denominations began founding their own colleges. The strength of the religious
ties and the administrative politics that accompanied them varied, but religious
perspectives were inevitably a part of the curriculum and valued by the various
denominational communities. Many of the smaller Protestant colleges in Michigan at
their founding called themselves academies and specifically and intentionally created
curricula to prepare their students for entrance into more established institutions of higher
education. I discuss two of these in further detail below.
Perhaps even greater influence on curriculum during this time period was the
continuing integration of science into higher education; most curricula began to include
some form of natural science, anatomy, or chemistry. Although the Yale Report of 1828
defended the classical curriculum, the question remained: to whom exactly should the
curriculum appeal? The country was becoming increasingly focused on industry and
technology, and many people began viewing higher education as a way to provide
specialized and trained graduates to fill the needs of science, production and
25

manufacturing. As the curriculum broadened at most institutions, a college education also
began to attract more students than just elite and upper class white men.
The mid nineteenth century brought a prolific rise in the kinds and numbers of
educational institutions, including denominational and state colleges, universities, normal
schools, institutes, seminaries, and academies. In his book A History of American Higher
Education, historian John Thelin explains that “within colleges, curricula were from time
to time extended beyond the liberal arts to include medicine, law, engineering, military
science, commerce, theology and agriculture.”37 Many institutions were admitting
students who demanded more than the classical liberal arts curriculum. As the student
populations became more diverse in gender, race and socio-economic status, institutions
continued to adapt their curricula to serve increasingly more diverse needs.
In a country founded by those seeking religious freedom, promoting spiritual
development through denominational emphasis was an understandable focus for many
universities. According to George Marsden in his book The Outrageous Idea of Christian
Scholarship, prior to the Civil War, there were more than one hundred colleges in the
United States, “but none with more than one hundred students. Most of the colleges had
denominational connections, had clergymen as presidents and among their other faculty,
and taught classical languages and literature.”38 All of the colonial colleges had their
roots in various denominations and sectarian politics abounded. Furthermore, as Rudolph
explains, the nation needed competent rulers, the church needed an educated clergy, and
society itself needed cultured men.39 And higher education created cultured, Christian
men. But, as the nation developed a more pluralistic religious identity, so did universities.
The function, purpose, and critique of religion curricula began as well. Promoting
26

particular denominational perspectives through the curriculum, or even giving attention
to Christian ideological perspectives at all, became less of a priority.
The Civil War (1861-1865) created many opportunities for curricular reform as
well as the rise and fall of many new educational institutions. As more states created
infrastructure and gained resources, ethnically diverse populations, and power, the need
and markets for people with a post-secondary education increased. Furthermore, the
release of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1861 heightened the debate over the divine
authority of creation and scripture versus the growing faith in science, evolution, and
empiricism. Although most disciplines at first tried to reconcile the Christian worldview
with evolution, eventually the lines in the curriculum were drawn. By the 1880s, the
curriculum was changing, theory of evolution was being taught in most of the major
emerging universities, and skepticism about the place of traditional religious views began
increasing.
During this period, Cornell University created a model of curriculum that many
mid-western colleges followed. As Thelin explains, there was an increase in the
“opportunities for women, and in the diversification of curricula offered by colleges and
related institutions, especially in the fields of teacher education, applied sciences,
engineering and agriculture.”40 If there was a need, colleges sought to create a course to
explain or train for it. The traditional curriculum emphasizing religion and the classics,
geared toward the upper class, expanded even further.
In addition, the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 had a huge impact on curriculum
development at existing institutions and offered land and funding for the development of
the land-grant colleges, which further increased diversity in curriculum. Rudolph
27

describes that “the threshold of opportunity in America had shifted from the land to the
factory; in combining the agricultural with the mechanical, the land-grant colleges were
uniting the past and the future, two schemes of life.”41 Many institutions implemented
agricultural, mechanical, vocational, and professional curricula during this time. More
students had obtained a secondary level of education and began viewing higher education
as a way to gain employment. Occupational training and technical education also became
legitimate functions of American higher education.
After the Civil War, according to Rudolph, a rise in vocational and professional
curricula also began to appear. Higher education, through a variety of non-religious
organizations “was institutionalizing new prestige values, the attributes of a successful
man of the world, this world, at the expense of those various signs of Christian grace—
humility, equality and morality—which had long been the purpose of the colleges to
foster.”42 Increasing secularization of the academy caused the influence of religious
denominations at state institutions to decline and theology and religion to become merely
subjects to study. In his work, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant
Establishment to Established Non-Belief, George Marsden explains that, “vocational and
technical education had become a legitimate function of American higher education, and
everywhere the idea of going to college was being liberated from the class-bound,
classical-bound traditions which for so long had defined the American collegiate
experience.”43 Religious perspectives and purposes in higher education curriculum were
still present at some public and research-oriented institutions, but rarely held a prominent
or primary position.

28

The establishment of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in 1876 also shifted
the role of religion curriculum and set the standard for the focus of many universities at
this time. Under the vision and administration of Daniel Coit Gilman, Johns Hopkins
quickly became the leader in graduate scholarship and research. Gilman listened politely
to the denominational religious agendas of his trustees but, as Marsden relates, asserted
that “as the spirit of the University should be that of intellectual freedom in pursuit of the
truth and of the broadest charity toward those from whom we differ in opinion, it is
certain that sectarian and partisan preferences should have no control in the selection of
teachers, and should not be apparent in the official work.”44 Johns Hopkins was the first
to make graduate and professional education and technical institutes the center of the
university, and, according to Marsden, these “were being established with almost no
reference to religious concerns. The value-free ideal declared religion irrelevant to
scientific inquiry.”45 The institution quickly became the leader in graduate scholarship
and professional education and other institutions followed suit by creating their own
technical institutes and graduate programs, which further diversified and created
specialized niches in the curriculum.
Cardinal John Henry Newman’s Idea of a University (1852) and John Burgess’
The American University: When Shall It Be? Where Shall It Be? What Shall It Be? (1884)
as well as other national dialogues continued to debate the nature and function of the
university and therefore the curriculum. By the end of the nineteenth century a national
trend toward secularization in higher education existed. In his book Religious Studies in
Public Universities, Milton McLean explains,
In the late nineteenth century, when curricular policies in land-grant colleges,
normal schools and state universities were being formulated, the study of religion
29

was largely a sectarian enterprise. Courses in Bible were usually taught from a
limited Christian perspective, and were often pastoral in intent… A sharp line was
drawn between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ learning. In such a climate of opinion, it
is not surprising that tax-supported colleges and universities attempted to avoid
the teaching of religion.46
For more detailed explorations of this process of gradual secularization of higher
education culture and curriculum, George Marsden’s and Bradley J. Longfield’s The
Secularization of the Academy (1992) and Marsden’s later, more comprehensive work
The Soul of the American University (1994) mentioned above, are excellent resources.
Finally, founded by the Baptists and emerging with the financial backing of John
D. Rockefeller, the University of Chicago set the standard for much of the curricular
reforms in the late 1890s and early 1900s. Led by president William Rainey Harper, as
Marsden explains, the university “came to epitomize American pragmatism and
enterprise applied to higher education.”47 For many years, Harper initiated and nurtured a
significant contribution in religion curriculum development: to study the Bible as a
standard part of university’s curricula.48
While the study of the Bible had long been connected with higher education
within the context of the worldviews and agenda of the various denominations, Harper
wanted to include it on scientific grounds. Marsden details the arguments, stating that
there “were ‘laws of religious life’ just as there were laws of health and physical life...
Advances in the scientific study of religion, not only in biblical studies, but notably also
in the psychology of religion, now made possible a scientific approach to this part of life
as much as any other.”49 In earlier times, the authority of the Bible was taken for granted;
colleges and universities, particularly those that still maintained strong denominational
ties, merely incorporated it without question. Now, however, the Bible could “be studied
30

as simply another subject alongside all the rest, if it was studied at all.”50 Study of the
Bible typically occurred in English or Literature departments.
As early as 1908, under leading biblical scholar Charles Foster Kent’s direction,
the University of Iowa offered courses in religion. In 1924, a School of Religion was
formally established, offering a wide variety of courses on religious topics and
coordinating campus religious programs and ministries. According to Marsden, “The
original purpose of the school was not simply the academic study of religion. Rather the
school was also explicitly to promote religious interests, to foster sympathy for religion
among students and to encourage students to go into religious vocations.”51 One way to
accomplish and promote these goals was to endow “Bible Chairs” at the centers of the
schools or programs so that men with adequate academic credentials could offer courses
in the Bible. In the 1920s, the Bible Chair idea was expanding in some states into larger
efforts to establish schools of religion.52 Marsden explains that in 1922, Kent established
a National Council of Schools of Religion (later the National Council of Religion and
Higher Education) in order to “reestablish a substantial place for religion in the university
curriculum.”53 Faculty members and administrators engaged in these developments and
efforts in order to create a separate yet stable organizational structure for religion
curricula within higher education.
By the 1930s and 1940s, however, some of the zeal and success for separate
schools of religion began to decline. More and more colleges and universities were
offering courses in religion and establishing religion departments. Marsden explains that
it was in the interest of the administration of the universities to offer the courses within
scientific or literary studies, rather than be administered by Bible Chairs or individual
31

denominations, whose “primary purpose was to promote a religious cause. The result was
a hybrid field that typically had Christian form and implicitly Christian direction, but in
which specific Christian purposes were subdued.”54 Infused by scientific empiricism and
studied abstractly as just another academic discipline, religion curriculum at this time
likely would have been unrecognizable to the founders of the denominational and
colonial colleges.
As American universities faced a second looming world war, great debates about
religion occurred in the academy. According to Marsden, at a 1940 conference on
“Science, Philosophy and Religion,” almost every speaker addressed the responsibilities
of intellectual and religious leadership while arguing that
democracy was in danger of extinction unless some compelling rationale were
provided to underwrite its basic values. Albert Einstein suggested that the conflict
between science and religion could not be resolved, and hence true unity cannot
be achieved unless religious people give up the idea of a personal God and ‘avail
themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True,
and the Beautiful in humanity itself.’55
This rising tide of secular humanism, coupled with the increase of totalitarian regimes
worldwide, caused many Protestant and Catholic colleges and universities (i.e. those who
promoted religious authoritarianism) to be viewed as threats to tolerance and free
inquiry.56 The complexities of World War II affected higher education and, according to
Marsden, “brought increasing talk of the importance of religion to civilization” and a
“wartime religious revival.”57 Even after the war, as Rudolph explains, an expansive
program of government-financed education for veterans was implemented and about a
third of all veterans postponed their careers and entered college.58
The subsequent decades in higher education included a rise in federal funding and
grants for research institutions, the establishment of experimental colleges, and the
32

continued expansion of curricula that dealt with religion, but typically in a nondenominational and discipline-specific manner. Many universities now offered secular
courses on the sociology of religion, the psychology of religion, the philosophy of
religion, and biblical literature in the classics or English departments. The proliferation of
religion curricula and the variety of methodologies by which to approach the study of
religion began blurring disciplinary boundaries, causing or forcing many religion scholars
to rationalize their place and purpose in the academy.
Finally, as D.G. Hart explains in his book The University Gets Religion: Religious
Studies in American Higher Education, in 1963 the Supreme Court ruled in Abington
Township School District v. Shempp “that the practice of Bible reading and prayer in
public schools violated the First Amendment and thus was unconstitutional.”59 The court
also said, however, that the study of religion “comparatively, historically or in ‘its
relationship to the advancement of civilization’ was part of a complete education…This
distinction the teaching of or about religion was the doorstop by which religious studies
could keep the door to the university ajar.”60 In 1964, Hart continues, the professional
organization of religious scholars, the National Association of Biblical Instructors
(NABI) changed its name to the American Academy of Religion (AAR), “a change that
stemmed precisely from the concerns prompted by the Court’s decision,” and reflected
the organization’s broader scope of scholarship about religion.61
The current mission statement of the AAR declares, “In a world where religion
plays so central a role in social, political, and economic events, as well as in the lives of
communities and individuals, there is a critical need for ongoing reflection upon and
understanding of religious traditions, issues, questions, and values. The American
33

Academy of Religion's mission is to promote such reflection through excellence in
scholarship and teaching in the field of religion.”62 A glance at a program guide for a
national AAR conference, or the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, will
reveal that the academic study of religion flourishes in higher education today.
Michigan Historical Overview
While chapters three through six of this dissertation provide details on the religion
curriculum at four state institutions, in order to understand the context and culture in
which these institutions were founded, it is necessary to provide a brief historical
background of the settlement of Michigan, some of its religious and educational
influences, and their overlaps. Some of these influences are best illustrated from details
of the founding of denominational colleges, and, while I cannot give attention to all of
them, I have chosen two Protestant colleges, Hope and Calvin, to serve in this capacity.
While denominational colleges, and indeed the influence of Protestantism in general,
have played integral roles in the development of education and curriculum in Michigan in
general and West Michigan in particular, they are not the focus of this dissertation, and
therefore I must keep them in the background for now.
Although Native American tribes in the area that would eventually become
Michigan had their own religious and educational systems, the French were the first
settlers to enter the area and fur traders continually sought new lands and resources for
their industry. According to historian Willis F. Dunbar in Michigan: A History of the
Wolverine State, by the winter of 1615-16, Samuel de Champlain, founder of Quebec,
had heard rumors of “a great lake forty days’ journey to the west” and around 1620,
explorer “Etienne Brule…reached the St. Mary’s River—the first European to step on
34

Michigan soil.”63 In 1668, Jesuit Fathers Jacques Marquette and Claude Dablon
established the first mission at Sault Saint Marie and more Jesuits arrived soon after.
Historian Floyd R. Dain, in his book Education in the Wilderness, explains that while
making maps, creating trails, describing the flora and fauna of what would become the
Upper Peninsula, and establishing missions at the Soo and at Michilimackinack,64 the
Jesuits
lived with the Indians, learned their languages, shared their food and treated them
when they were ill. Above all, they endeavored to win them to the [Catholic]
faith. When Mass had been recited and time and place permitted, these seekers of
souls became wilderness schoolmasters, instructing Indian youths in the French
language and teaching them elementary facts about French geography,
government, and customs.65
Although the educational efforts of the Jesuits to convert Native Americans in northern
Michigan ultimately failed, Dain notes that they did provide a “monumental advance in
education” through their reports, observations and descriptions of their encounters.66
After Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac (whose methods and philosophies essentially worked
against the Jesuits) had established Fort Pontchartrain in 1701, at the site that would
become Detroit, many of the Odawa and Huron tribes were attracted to that area, and the
Jesuits eventually abandoned their northern Michigan missions to regroup.
Cadillac sought support from France to establish an educational program in
Detroit to instruct both the Native Americans and the French children of the families that
had begun to settle in the area. He urged his superiors for the establishment of a
“seminary,” but his plans were hindered by the Jesuits and frustrated by lack of funding.
According to Dain, “In 1705 he made a final, fruitless attempt to have [the] Canadian
Sisters of Charity come to Detroit to minister to the sick and educate the children of both
races.”67 After even these efforts failed, Cadillac realized that support for a school was
35

futile, and he left in 1710 when offered the governorship of Louisiana. Detroit had lost its
only true advocate for public education; it would be almost one hundred years before
Cadillac’s cause for education would be revived.68
In 1760, the French surrendered Fort Pontchartrain to the British, ending French
rule in Detroit. In the same year Jean-Baptiste Roucout, who holds the distinction of
being Michigan’s first professional school teacher, arrived and began conducting classes
for French children in his small home. There are no certain records of the number of
students, or of subjects taught, but, according to Dain, his efforts “must be recognized as
the first building in Michigan to be specifically designated as a school.”69 Although by
1763 a few English children began arriving in Detroit, settlers still viewed education as a
private matter for individual families, not as a public responsibility or right.70
The Revolutionary War (1776-1783) had little effect on the lack of educational
advancement in Michigan. Although power, boundaries, and control of key trading areas
shifted during this time, the idea of formal education in Michigan still floundered. For the
last part of the eighteenth century, the subscription school gained some popularity in
Michigan as more Americans arrived in the state. Dain explains that, “A group of
interested parents simply hired a schoolmaster to teach a designated curriculum at a
stipulated rate for each subject. The school room was usually located in the home of the
teacher, in a room rented for the purpose or in a place provided by the subscribers.”71
Parents were expected to share costs of supplies. Several schools functioned in Detroit in
this manner at this time.
The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided a method of surveying, dividing, and
selling the land in the Northwest Territory, of which Michigan was a part. Dain indicates
36

that the better known Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established “a framework of
government for the people who would live there” and promoted and supported
education.72 Among provisions that encouraged settlement and homesteading of land in
the area, as Dunbar explains, the Northwest Ordinance also contained the well-known
statement, “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and
the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.”73 Incoming settlers still had a difficult time ahead of them, however, as
much of the land had not yet been surveyed, roads were scarce, and obtaining supplies
was difficult.
In 1792, Britain gave up control of Detroit and other posts in the Northwest
Territory. Briefly, from 1801-1802, schoolmaster David Bacon, sent by the Missionary
Society of Connecticut, established a schoolhouse in Detroit, but this endeavor ended as,
according to Dain, Bacon’s religious zeal apparently “alienated many of his students by
mixing preaching with teaching.”74 At this same time, the bishop of Baltimore sent two
French priests to serve the remote Detroit settlement. One of these was Father Gabriel
Richard, who throughout the next thirty years would greatly advance education in the
state.
Richard, a university scholar and educator from Paris, played a significant role in
the development of education in Detroit, though his earliest efforts to found schools were
diminished by small enrollments and interest, and by the 1805 Detroit fire.75 However,
when in that same year Michigan was established as a Territory, Richard realized a great
hope and future for the area and renewed his efforts. He had support from Territorial
Governor William Hull, Judge Augustus Woodward and the legislation of the territory,
37

which encouraged and supported education. Furthermore, as Dain explains, “since the
governor and judges also constituted the Land Board and had been given wide
discretionary powers as to the disposal of the lands granted by Congress, they now had at
their command the means to aid the establishment of educational facilities.”76 Thus, for
the next several years Richard had tremendous enthusiasm, vision, and means for creating
a system of education in Detroit. He spent considerable time and resources trying to
promote and advance a school through the already existing St. Anne’s parish, as well as
to find women teachers to run a school for girls where, as Dain relates, “‘languages,
ancient and modern, and several sciences, etc.’ would be taught.” Richard maintained
these schools and, “improved their physical setting, supplied additional teaching
materials and extended the curriculum.”77 His vision and efforts did not end there.
In 1808, Richard began extensive plans to establish Spring Hill, an educational
facility at which he envisioned Native American and French children learning together.
He sought governmental support and funding, including direct support of President
Thomas Jefferson,78 who was a strong advocate for educational reform. Dain explains
that Richard’s educational plan for Spring Hill was tuition free and included vocational
training for boys and girls, as well as “reading, writing, orthography, arithmetic,
Geography, use of Globes, Grammar, history, natural philosophy, Composition etc.”
Further instruction in languages and mathematics and, for the girls, sewing, spinning, art
and music were also proposed.79 Richard worked diligently on this vision, even securing
the support of Jefferson and the verbal promise of federal funding for the project.
Ultimately, however, through several years of bureaucracy, politics and with the outbreak

38

of the War of 1812, he had to abandon his plans and put his zeal for education on hold for
several years.
According to Dain, on August 26, 1817, Judge Woodward “presented the bill
which would establish the Catholepistemiad, or the University of Michigania” and the
territorial legislation was approved. The Catholepistemiad was “a complete system of
education extending from the lowest grade of primary school to the highest level of
college.”80 The non-sectarian institution would be run by governor-appointed professors
who would have
complete authority over educational activities within the territory. They could
establish schools at all levels wherever they deemed it necessary and appropriate;
they could hire instructors, appoint inspectors, select books, determine
curriculum; and they were empowered to found and administer ‘libraries,
museums, athenaeums, botanical gardens, laboratories and other useful literary
and scientific institutions.’81
Woodward appointed Father Gabriel Richard and Reverend Richard Monteith
(a Presbyterian minister) as the first two professors of the comprehensive system, and
they immediately began by establishing a primary school and an academy. The Primary
School of Detroit’s curriculum, Dain explains, included “Reading, Writing, Arithmetic,
English Grammar, and Elocution”82 and the Classical Academy of the City of Detroit’s
curriculum included instruction in the “French, Latin and Greek languages, Antiquity,
English Grammar, Composition, Elocution, Mathematics, Geography, Morals and
Ornamental accomplishments.”83 The supporters of the Catholepistemiad attempted to
create a comprehensive educational system in the state, but after ten years had failed to
do so. It eventually developed into the University of Michigan, left Detroit, and in 1841
moved to Ann Arbor.84

39

The period from 1820-1860 brought waves of immigrants and settlers into
Michigan. Roads, railroads, and towns sprung up and supported flourishing mining,
lumber, and agricultural industries. As the state grew in population, its value and
development of educational systems expanded as well. Even though legislation had been
created to reserve and manage lands for schools in the territory, according to Dain, early
administrators realized that years might pass before a township acquired sufficient
population to qualify for a board of trustees to watch over the lands in the territory, and
create and manage schools. The School Act of 1829 established the office of
Superintendent of Common Schools and the framers of the Michigan Constitution of
1835 gave the office constitutional status. Because of these actions, Dain argues that
“Michigan today can be credited with having provided for a department of public
instruction for a longer continuous period than any other state.”85 The settlers and
immigrants began supporting educational efforts in the state.
In 1837, Michigan entered the Union as the twenty-sixth state. C. Grey Austin,
author of A Century of Religion at the University of Michigan, explains, “When Michigan
became a state…a Presbyterian home missionary, John D. Pierce, was appointed State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, the first to hold the office in this country under a
state government.”86 With statehood came a surge of primary and secondary institutions,
enthusiastic settlers, and missionaries from numerous denominations energized by the
Second Great Awakening. Religion and the administration of education were intertwined
from the beginning of statehood and had direct influence on the development of the
curriculum. To provide further evidence of this and context for the development of
religion curriculum in state universities, I will now briefly highlight two examples from
40

denominational colleges. The curricular questions, struggles, and visions these two
institutions encountered provide a historical foundation and context for many of the
issues concerning the development of religion curriculum in state universities in
Michigan.
Hope College – Holland
On November 17, 1846, Dutch pastor Albertus Van Raalte arrived in New York
with a group of fifty-three settlers, intending to join an existing Dutch settlement in
Wisconsin. After seeing the land in several other locations surrounding Lake Michigan,
Van Raalte instead decided on a location in West Michigan by the Black River where the
city of Holland soon lay. The Dutch colonists were hard-working and, because of their
geographic isolation and poverty, became close knit and community oriented. The first
few years were difficult, and by 1848 the colonists formed their own classis (governing
body).87 At this time, according to Wynand Wichers, who wrote A Century of Hope:
1866-1966, the Holland classis determined that “schools must be promoted and cared for
by the churches as being an important part of the Christian calling of God’s church on
earth.”88 But the kind of school and level of education that the community needed were
hotly debated issues.
Van Raalte felt strongly that all children should have access to an elementary
education, and he lobbied for a church-controlled secondary school. VanRaalte, Wichers
notes, was “a graduate of Leiden University, [and] he could not overlook the need of his
people for higher education.”89 He argued for the need for educated ministers and
teachers, believed “that the future leadership of a growing church could be met only by
recruiting and training Western men for the Western church service” and was convinced
41

“that higher education was a prime essential in the process of Americanization and for the
preservation and extension of the Dutch church in the West.”90 The community spent
several years gathering financial resources, books, and securing teachers. In 1851, it
opened its first educational academy, the Pioneer School.91
The Pioneer School was originally intended to serve as a preparatory school for
boys intending to attend Rutgers College, founded by the Dutch Reformed. However,
increasing populations in the Holland area and doctrinal conflicts caused a split in the
Reformed Church in America (RCA). The Holland classis maintained its affiliation with
the RCA and became a part of the larger Chicago Synod. Another denomination, the
Christian Reformed Church (CRC) formed from the split, and the educational interests of
the Dutch now became divided. The split created greater demands for education for RCA
members and also provided regional resources for the Pioneer School. Though starting
out small and with little in the way of financial resources, by 1857, under the direction of
Revered John Van Vleck, the school had been renamed to the Holland Academy and the
quality of work done impressed the examining committee of the Chicago Synod, who, as
Wichers explains, reported:
We examined classes in Vergil, Greek Reader, Arithmetic, Cicero, Greek New
Testament, Algebra, Homer, Geometry, and English Grammar. We were surprised
at the extent and the accuracy of the information acquired. It is not often that so
much is achieved in so short a time, and among such difficulties as those young
men have to contend with. The larger part have studied only one year.92
In addition to exposure to the classics, the faculty trained students and required them to
have substantial practice at oral essays, recitations, dialogues and music.
By 1862, Wichers indicates, enrollments had continued to increase and, with the
support of Van Raalte and the classis, Van Vleck maintained “the hope that the
42

curriculum of the academy would soon be of such an elevated grade as to make it
unnecessary for graduates of the academy to enter other institutions of higher learning.”93
With the support of Van Raalte, Van Vleck, the classis, the Synod, and the RCA
community in Holland, the Holland Academy was incorporated in 1866 under the terms
of the Michigan General College Law as Hope College.94 In the opening address to the
community, Reverend Isaac N. Wyckoff stated that the new college “shall be a seminary
of evangelical religion as well as of secular education.”95 The early supporters and
leaders of the college were convinced that a well-rounded education integrated the study
of religion. That conviction meant formal Bible study and required chapel attendance for
all Hope students.96
The College’s Articles of Association in the incorporation charter stated that “the
character and object of the school and of the Corporation are to provide the usual literary
and scientific course of study, in connection with sound evangelical religious instruction,
according to the standards of the Reformed Church, as based on Holy Scripture.”97 And,
as Wichers notes, the new college was allowed to maintain a “Grammar School
Department, preparatory for business or for higher courses of study, an Academic
Department, qualifying for the degree of Bachelor of Arts” and “such other departments
as are in harmony with these Articles of Incorporation.”98 A Department of Sacred
Literature was established even before Hope was officially incorporated.99
Soon after incorporation, several faculty and community members lobbied for a
place for theological studies. This idea quickly became a hot debate. Should they create a
school of theology to be a department under the authority of Hope College or create a
theological seminary used to train RCA clergy under the control of the General Synod?
43

Eventually, after much dialogue, the Theological School at Hope College was formed,
under the direction of both a Council and a Board of Superintendents, drawn from
members of the Synod.100 The Theological School was disbanded in 1877 and reinstated
1884, as the debate as to the nature and purpose of the curriculum at Hope College
continued to develop. 101 Wichers explains, “The Early curriculum included Harmony of
the Gospels, Moral Science and two terms of Evidences of Christianity… and a
Department of Bible and Ethics was organized.”102 From its very inception, the
curriculum at Hope College, like the Reformed Church in America, was firmly grounded
in and focused on scripture.
The curriculum did not undergo many other changes at this time. Curricular
programs remained heavily classical, and, according to Wichers, in 1887 a four-year
normal course was introduced for “the instruction for the due preparation of teachers in
the public schools, and at the same time, placing no obstacles in the way of the regular
and established course in the college.”103 Typical of most American colleges and
universities in this decade, however, the extra-curriculum flourished at Hope. Student
organizations, clubs, and inter-collegiate athletics gained popularity across the growing
campus.
Students continued to find their voices in campus affairs and even threatened to
boycott commencement ceremonies in one dispute.104 Enrollments were steady in the
1890s and, as Hope gained students and alumni, funding increased for expanding the
buildings and resources on campus. New departments entered as well. In 1893, chairs in
Chemistry and Physics were established, in 1898 a Department of Education was added,
and in 1899 a chair of Biological Science arrived. Wichers explains, “By 1916 all
44

departments had increased their offerings, which were arranged in five groups: Classical,
Philosophical, Natural Science, Modern Language Mathematics and Modern Language
English.”105 Students were required to take courses in these categories, but the growing
curriculum allowed them to choose some electives as well.
By 1918, World War I had called eighty-one Hope students away for combat and
the President of Hope declared his “satisfaction and pride of knowing that Hope College
is as ready to serve the nation in its need as she is to serve the church…and as a step in
that direction, it proposes to inject its spirit into the Camp and into the Barracks.”106 Hope
introduced war extension courses into the curriculum and servicemen were encouraged to
take these courses via correspondence.107 This merging of religion and education into
service of God and country and into all aspects of student development continues to be an
integral part of Hope’s educational vision today.
Wichers explains that Hope, like many other colleges and universities at this time,
reevaluated its curriculum as “humanistic studies began to suffer before the onslaught of
technology, vocationalism and specialization.”108 The increasing influence of science and
economic pressures also loomed. In 1922, Hope’s president, Edward D. Dimnent, was
able to convince the Synod and the trustees that curricular emphasis should stress that
learning was for service and that, as Wichers notes, “the highest service lay in responsible
citizenship, and in a dedicated devotion to the Christian cause.”109 The curriculum at
Hope needed to prepare students for meaningful Christian lives in an increasingly global
and secular society.
Through creative fundraising and generous gifts from RCA benefactors, Hope
survived the Great Depression and decades after with growing financial stability. World
45

War II created accelerated programs for servicemen. These included engineering and
military science as well as a lucrative collaboration with the Army, which established a
unit of the Army Specialization Training Program.110 Hope once again provided ways in
which students could serve God by serving country.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Hope experienced a surge in enrollments as did
many other colleges and universities in Michigan. The curriculum expanded to include
international exchange programs. According to Wichers, Hope accumulated many
national awards and research grants, which created an intellectual climate “exceptionally
favorable for the education of scientists and of scientifically literate laymen.”111 In 1966,
Hope celebrated its centennial anniversary and created a Profile Committee to address
future planning and development. The committee held foremost in its vision that “under
the guidance of Almighty God, Hope College has toiled and persevered to translate
dreams and visions into a reality that lives and grows in the lives of its students.”112
A current examination of Hope’s curriculum reveals that religion curriculum
continues to flourish and respond to contemporary issues. All students are required to
take two religion courses as part of their general education program. Course topics vary
from semester to semester and recent offerings at the introductory (100) level include:
The Bible in the Real World, Earth and Ethics, The Many Faces of American
Christianity, The Big Questions, and Christianity and Chinese Religions.113 Religion
majors are required to take four courses at the 200 level (primarily introductory courses
to biblical literature, the history of Christianity, theology and world religions), five
courses at the 300 level (increased biblical, historical and theological studies as well as
courses in ministry) and three courses at the 400 level, which include seminars, special
46

topics, internships and independent studies.114 The course selection is varied and students
can often tailor curriculum choices to their individual needs and interests. The Religion
Department at Hope College has approximately sixty majors and twenty-five minors each
year.115
Calvin College – Grand Rapids
In 1857, a small group of struggling churches left the Reformed Church of
America in Holland, Michigan and began calling themselves the True Holland Reformed
Church, renaming themselves in 1890 to the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).116 After
little success obtaining financial or ministerial support from the Netherlands, the group
created their own governing body, a General Assembly (later Synod), moved to Grand
Rapids, Michigan, and drafted plans to prepare students for the ministry in 1863.
According to John J. Timmerman, author of Promises to Keep: A Centennial History of
Calvin College, on February 18, 1876, Reverend Egbert Boer began teaching students
“Dutch, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, General History and Dutch History, Geography,
Psychology, Logic, Rhetoric,…Dogmatics, Hermeneutics, Exegetics, Isagogics, Church
History, Symbolism, and Practical Theology.”117 It took him seven years to do this. From
these ambitious beginnings the Theological School, as it was called, quickly gained
community support and more faculty members. Like Hope College, the Theological
School started out with a handful of students, most of whom planned on becoming clergy.
In 1876, the CRC, following the example of Hope College, founded Calvin
College.118 The first building on Williams Street was small, but the rigor of the
coursework and the academic excellence of the students who studied there quickly earned
the school a respected reputation. By 1878, according to Timmerman, students were
47

required to take four years of literary studies, including two years of seminary.
Furthermore, Calvin was incorporated under the laws of Michigan.119 The CRC
supported the new institution and the growing numbers of students who enrolled.
As elementary and secondary schools increased in Grand Rapids, the need for
trained teachers became greater as well. The General Assembly planned to separate the
theological and literary departments of the Theological School and, as Timmerman notes,
to expand the curricula so that “youth would receive proper preparation for Christian
school teaching. They would become acquainted with Reformed perspectives as they
applied to teaching and they would be spared the unsettling influences of the American
public schools and colleges.”120 The early Calvinists struggled with whether they should
flee the lost and sinful worldly culture, restricting, as much as possible, their life to
family and church, or whether they should confront the opposing cultures directly from a
scholarly Christian Reformed perspective. Administrative and curricular debates reflected
this struggle. One value clear from the start, however, according to Timmerman, was a
“dynamic faith in a living God revealed in Scripture” and that value would remain
evident throughout Calvin’s curricular future.121
Prior to 1894, only pre-seminary students were allowed into the literary
department, a rigorous four-year engagement predominantly comprised of studying six
languages and passing an oral examination afterward. The curriculum was designed,
from the start, for pre-seminary students. However, in 1894, the Synod of the Christian
Reformed Church approved a resolution for the Theological School, and stated “those
who do not wish to be prepared for the ministry, may be admitted to studies in the
Literary Department after satisfactorily passing [an] entrance exam.”122 This resolution
48

created a dramatic increase in enrollments. In 1900, the Synod appointed two more
professors, opened the academy to the study of purposes other than Seminary, and added
a fifth year of Theology to the curriculum for those who did want to pursue the
seminary.123
By 1913, according to Timmerman, the curriculum included, in three main
pathways (seminary preparatory, classical, and modern classical), “Latin, Greek, German,
French, Dutch, Hebrew, English, Bible Study, History of Education, Public Speaking,
Logic, Psychology, Sociology, History, History of Philosophy, Mathematics, and
Political Economy.”124 This variety in the curriculum served a greater need within the
community, was grounded in the traditional liberal arts, and caused such an increase in
enrollment from the Reformed community that a new and larger building was purchased
in 1916 on Franklin Street.125
The liberal arts curriculum that Calvin offered in 1921 was intended to be an
important means by which the institution hoped to achieve its religious ideals through
education. As stated in the catalog in 1921, and found in successive catalogs until very
recently,
The aim of the college is to give young people an education that is Christian, in
the larger and deeper sense that all class work, all the student’s intellectual,
emotional and imaginative activities shall be permeated with the spirit and
teaching of Christianity. Calvin’s curriculum was, however, borrowed, not
specifically designed by the faculty to fit the unique goals of the institution.126
The college continued to struggle in its development and its relationship with the
governing body of the CRC and American society. Clashes were often tense and
unpleasant. Should the college seek to assimilate and “Americanize” its students to

49

society or strive to transform that society to the Reformed perspective? This conflict was
often mirrored in the curriculum.
Calvin began to look much like other denominational and liberal arts colleges of
the era as it tried to prepare its students, while maintaining their religious convictions and
heritage, in an increasingly secular academic world. By 1957, Calvin modified its
language requirements and courses so that pre-seminary students could receive a regular
A.B. degree. Dr. William H. Jellema initiated an extensive assessment of the curriculum
and in 1958 he published the monograph, The Curriculum in a Liberal Arts College. In
this work Jellema contended that
if ‘education is for wisdom’ in the deepest Calvinistic sense, Calvin’s curriculum
failed because it did ‘not curricularly insure liberal education.’ The wisdom that
Calvin’s traditional curriculum yields is naturalistic. In the first two years only
Bible and history acquaint the student curricularly with a different mind, and then
only if the right history course is chosen; in the latter years the only required
subjects that insure the same end are philosophy and more Bible.127
Jellema insisted that a curriculum aimed at “the man of God completely furnished”
should have an intrinsic design insuring such a goal. The curriculum would acquaint the
student with the mind a Christian man ought to think with and the fundamental
perspectives that should determine his entire way of looking at life. He added, “No
student is liberally educated who is not familiar from the inside with the Pagan Mind,
both on its idealistic and materialistic side, the Christian Mind (Middle Ages and the
Reformation), and the Renaissance-Contemporary Mind.”128 A curriculum that insured
this would not only acquaint students with the Christian mind in its deepest dimensions,
but force them to judge other minds on its terms. Whether confronting views of the
modern mind engaged in the system of nature, or the classical mind limited to rational or
humanistic dimensions, students would meet these perspectives with the basic
50

commitments of the Christian mind.129 Jellema then presented a more concrete pattern of
courses designed to fill the needs of a Christian liberal education, but his proposals were
too radical for the times and were not seriously considered by the faculty. They did,
however, reemerge in part a few years later at Grand Valley, as he was a key planner of
that institution’s founding curriculum.
Jellema’s ideas acted as a catalyst to additional discussion and committee work on
curriculum reform. In 1963, Calvin’s Curriculum Study Committee met over one
hundred times. And in 1965, Nicholas Wolterstorff published the book Christian Liberal
Arts Education. In this book Wolterstorff argued that a “Christian education does not
consist in a preparation for a flight from life, nor a genteel contemplation of it, nor a
successful adaptation to it. Christian education proceeds from faith, instructs according
to its imperatives and helps in maturing a student to live the Christian life in the
world.”130 Wolterstorff also argued that “the primary focus of a Christian liberal arts
education…[is] on teachers and students together engaging in various scholarly
disciplines, directed and enlightened in their inquiries by the Word of God,” which has
arguably been at the heart of Calvin’s focus from the start.131
Wolterstorff laid out a plan for a new Christian liberal arts curriculum called the
“4-1-4” or thirty-six courses plus three Interim courses (an Interim course was an intense,
seventeen day course taught between semesters) in four years. The rigorous schedule
also included a mandatory course called Christian Perspectives on Learning. According
to Timmerman, the course used various media, was taught interdepartmentally, and
examined “contemporary alternatives and challenges to Christianity.”132 It also addressed
how Reformed Christian students should respond to challenges, through critical
51

examination and reflection, regarding their Calvin educational experience.133 The “4-1-4”
curriculum was hotly debated through the mid-1970s.
A current examination of religion curriculum at Calvin reveals a general major in
religion as well as a teaching major for students in secondary education. Students are
also “encouraged to design group majors, such as Religion and Philosophy, Religion and
History or Religion and Sociology.”134 Courses vary by topic but students majoring in
religion must take one course each in the following categories: Old Testament, New
Testament, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Religious Studies. In addition,
they must take four electives (two from lower level courses and two from upper level
courses) as well as participate in a seminar course. The major in religion at Calvin “is
designed for students seeking a strong background in biblical and theological studies as
preparation for various professions, for graduate education, or for Christian service
generally. It is not limited to students preparing for the ordained ministry.”135 The
Religion Department at Calvin supports approximately sixty majors and twenty minors
each year.136
Methodological Complexities in the Academic Study of Religion
The above examples illustrate many of the issues that Michigan denominational
colleges faced in their curricula and the roles and relationships religious affiliations had
with institutional organization and missions. Such issues become even more complex
with state institutions; as secularization and disciplinary boundaries became more
pronounced in higher education, religious affiliations and the rationale behind and for
religion curriculum typically became more suspect. Religion scholars, like scholars in
most disciplines, necessarily engaged a struggle to balance scholarship, teaching, and
52

service responsibilities. Increasing pressures from the tenure system for faculty members
to publish and make contributions to the development of their disciplines often
overshadowed or replaced arguments about curriculum and its function.
According to Jon R. Stone in his book The Craft of Religious Studies, Wilfred
Cantwell Smith articulated a fundamental problem of the late twentieth century in the
academic study of religion: “separating the essence of religion from its myriad of
manifestations.”137 The study of religion includes thoughts, perceptions, communities,
activities, objects, human culture and human existence. Beyond defining these aspects of
religion, “religious studies has occupied itself with the search for a method—a way—by
which religion can be properly and effectively studied. If such a method exists, one might
ask, does it differ from those of other disciplines in the academy?”138 Smith also later
argued that “Academic method is what all scholars have in common, not what
differentiates them.”139 According to Stone, this quest for a method, the history of the
development of religious studies “as a legitimate field of inquiry alongside other
academic disciplines… traces its birth to 1873, when the German linguist Max Muller,
coined the term ‘Religionswissenschaft’ (science of religion).”140 Stone explains that
Muller’s method
though a decided break from theology, was primarily philological, examining
linguistic developments in pre-literate societies in order to discover the essence of
religion, which, he believed, was the personification of natural phenomena.
Though its methods were modestly comparative, adding insights from the
anthropological findings of its day and even adopting theoretical terminology
from the newer disciplines of sociology and psychology, the science of religion
remained well within the wider disciplinary orbit of philosophy.141
Shortly after, Stone continues, “this new field of inquiry branched out into several
different areas and became known as ‘die Religionsgeschichteschule’” (history of
53

religions) and since its disciplinary foundations lay in history and literature, early
methodological discussions centered around textual and linguistic problems.142
The methodological debate and critiques continued to grow in complexity,
particularly at the University of Chicago, as scholars questioned how personal religious
faith could affect objectivity. In their collection of essays The History of Religions:
Essays in Methodology (1959) authors Mircea Eliade and Joseph Kitagawa attempted to
distinguish the history of religions from other disciplines in the academy by arguing “the
phenomenon of man as a religious being.”143 In the preface to this volume, scholar Jerald
Brauer wrote,
…it will not be easy for the history of religions to establish itself as one of the
leading scholarly activities in the modern university. In fact, the great danger is
that it will be completely absorbed by certain other fields. The history of
religions deals with materials handled also by philosophy of religion, psychology,
sociology, anthropology, history and theology. Its problem is to demonstrate that
it is not merely ancillary to these other studies but is a discipline in its own right,
drawing upon, yet making unique additions to, these areas of knowledge.144
The essayists in this collection based their ideas on the premise that “there is something
unique or sui generis about religion, [and] those who study it must do so without
reducing its essence to something other than itself, as sociologists and psychologists
tended to do.”145 The study of religion “as such” must have its own set of rules and
methodologies that make it different from other disciplines. Stone argues that, although
“Eliade and the Chicago School were largely unsuccessful in setting forth a theoretical
approach to the study of religion that was both unique and unifying, the question they
raised still begs an answer: Is there a methodology—a way to study religion—that is
unique to the history of religions, or to the field we now call Religious Studies?”146
Scholars’ focus on finding appropriate methodologies for studying religion dominated the
54

discourse within the discipline and so neglected to explore the development of or context
for religion curriculum within particular institutions.
Russell T. McCutcheon in Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis
Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia argues directly against the Eliade school of
thought. He makes the case that religion studied and taught by the sui generis method is
unscholarly and self-reflexive because it limits and defines humans as believers in
creeds.147 Thus, the human subject is “constricted and estranged from historical
interrelations, manufactured into a subject informed only by beliefs and limited by
interpretations that are not in the least concerned with investigating the material relations
of these human subjects.”148 McCutcheon continues his critique that sui generis
approaches are detrimental to the study of religion and the academy in general and that
scholars of religion must defer to more “explicit and testable theories of religion.”149 He
even examines the textbooks used by those using the sui generis approach and argues
they are perpetuating the school of thought as well. In Critics Not Caretakers:
Redescribing the Public Study of Religion he argues again that “the study of religion can
be rethought as the study of an ordinary aspect of social, historical existence”150
conflicting with those from the Eliade school of thought who argue that there is
something unique or special about religion. While McCutcheon and those who side with
him represent a minority in the vast field of religious studies, he does provide a useful
and alternative perspective for understanding the complexities and positions in the
ongoing debate about how scholars should study religion and how the discipline
functions in the academy.

55

In addition to debates on the methodology of religious studies, there have also
been ongoing critiques about its theoretical position. In The Transformation of American
Religion: The Story of a Late Twentieth Century Awakening, religion scholar Amanda
Porterfield explains that, “The academic study of religion debate about the merit of ideas
…takes place in the context of a larger question about the role of theory in religious
studies. Theories of religion provide frameworks of interpretation to help organize the
massive jumble of religious stuff—symbols, rituals, artifacts, stories, doctrines,
communities, institutions, and histories.”151 Although theories can offer insight to the
meaning of these things, Porterfield argues they “can also overshadowed [sic] the stuff of
religion and, in some cases, even function as a substitute for it.”152 For example, the
theories of ultimate concern (Tillich), sacred space (Eliade), the hero myth (Campbell)
and archetypal symbols (Jung) were useful to sort, organize and interpret the details and
ideas in religions. Porterfield explains that
in religious studies courses, these theories enabled many students to think about
religion as a universal human phenomenon, to learn about religions other than
their own, and to appreciate certain aspects of their own traditions in new and
often exciting ways. But at the same time, the utilization of these theories led
some to make theory the object of study in a way that oversimplified the nature of
religion and denigrated some of its most prevalent and important aspects.153
While the organization and interpretation of the many details and ideas in the study of
religion is certainly a practical methodology, an examination of the religion curriculum
that examines such content could also help historically contextualize theoretical
perspectives.
There have also been many scholars critiquing the role and function the academic
study of religion plays in higher education. Donald Wiebe, in The Politics of Religious
Studies, argues that
56

if the academic study of religion wishes to be taken seriously as a contributor to
knowledge about our world, it will have to concede the boundaries set by the ideal
of scientific knowledge that characterizes the university. It will have to recognize
the limits of explanation and theory and be content to explain the subject-matter—
and nothing more—rather than show itself a form of political or religious
behavior (or an injunction to such action). A study of religion directed toward
spiritual liberation of the individual or of the human race as a whole, toward the
moral welfare of the human race, or toward any ulterior end than that of
knowledge itself should not find a home in the university.154
In direct contrast to Wiebe and many others, George Marsden—who, in his earlier work
The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief illustrated the decline and separation of religion in higher education—offers
another critique in The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. In this text, Marsden
argues that there essentially needs to be more integration and articulation of faith and
belief into scholarship by scholars who profess to be Christian.
He questions why all but a tiny minority keep quiet about the intellectual
implications of their faith and submit to a dominant university culture in which explicit
religious perspectives, particularly Christian perspectives, “are increasingly considered
unscientific and unprofessional.”155 He continues, “Even though many academics are
religious, they would consider it outrageous to speak of the relationship of their faith to
their scholarship. That is not only true in religious studies, but in almost every discipline,
no matter how relevant religious beliefs might potentially be to academic
interpretation.”156 One of his goals, therefore, in his critique is to explain how “without
resorting to dogmatism or heavy-handed moralizing, Christian faith can be of great
relevance to contemporary scholarship of the highest standards.”157 Marsden offers yet
another position for religious studies to consider and thus adds another layer of
complexity to the dialogue about the discipline.
57

Finally, there are scholars who argue and advocate for the study of religion from a
wide variety of other disciplines and perspectives. Robert N. Bellah, Peter Berger and
Steve Bruce advocate for sociological approaches. Abraham Maslow and William James
speak to psychological approaches to religion. And others call for a more empirical and
scientific study of religion, such as Todd Tremlin’s Minds and Gods: The Cognitive
Foundations of Religion and E. Thomas Lawson and Robert McCauley in Rethinking
Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture, which contextualizes the idea of religion,
particularly ritual structures, with cognitive theory.158
In short, there are scholars who offer perspectives on religion from practically
every discipline in the academy, but only occasionally do any give attention to
curriculum development in the process. Just like scholars in any other discipline, scholars
of religion have struggled with the variety of approaches, theories, methods, perspectives
and arguments as well as with issues of resources, curricular duplication, accountability,
changing demographics of students. It is my hope to provide another layer to this
disciplinary dialogue: examination of religion curriculum development and the cultures
that are connected to it in state universities in Michigan.

58

Chapter Three – Religion Curriculum at Grand Valley State University: An
Emerging Major and Minor?
“It is liberal education which gives a man a clear conscious view of his own opinions and
judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in
urging them. It prepares him to fill any post with credit,
and to master any subject with facility.”
-Cardinal John Henry Newman
At the heart and soul of Grand Valley, through the many transformations and
evolutions over its first half century, lies the idea of liberal education. Exactly how the
pursuit of liberal education manifested itself in the institution has changed throughout the
institution’s growth, but a broad range of courses and innovative learning environments,
designed to engage students in self-reflection and rigorous academics has been a part of
Grand Valley’s mission from the start. The institution has primarily served West
Michigan and the surrounding regions by providing a comprehensive and career-oriented
liberal arts education focused on community engagement. In this chapter, I provide a
brief institutional and curricular history. Next, through highlighting organizational
distinctions and characteristics, I examine the missions, visions and values of the four
primary undergraduate “cluster” colleges from Grand Valley’s early development to the
present. Finally, I will trace the development, expansion, decline and current reemergence of religion curriculum within these shifting organizational contexts and
cultures.
Brief Institutional and Curricular History
In 1956, a committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Education and local
entrepreneurs reported the need for a new four-year college in the area sufficient to serve
the 10,000 high school graduates projected to arrive in the next fifteen years. In 1960, a
group of ten men, including prominent businessman William Seidman, formed the
59

Committee to Establish a Four-Year College (CEFYC) in the eight-county area
surrounding Grand Rapids and founded the institution of Grand Valley.159 In 1962,
James H. Zumberge, who had come from the University of Michigan, was elected Grand
Valley State College’s first president. According to historian and education professor
John X. Jamrich, many thought that the appointment of Zumberge would cause the
institution to ignore the practical needs of the surrounding community and become a
replica of the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan, calling Grand Valley
a potential “Harvard of the West.”160 Furthermore, William “Harry” Jellema, who had
spent the latter part of his career at Calvin College as a proponent of a classical liberal
arts curriculum, was also a part of the early dialogues on curriculum and planning for the
new institution. According to historian Anthony Travis, the earliest planners were divided
about what the nature of the new institution should be. Travis explains,
The civic leaders represented by Bill Seidman wished to see a college dedicated
to a liberal arts base but with professional programs that admitted students with a
solid ‘C’ high school GPA. They accurately reflected the desires of most local
civic leaders for a regional college aimed at educating the future local work force.
The relatively small but academically respected community faction led by Harry
Jellema favored a small elite pubic liberal arts college.161

Despite the differences in opinion, under the new Michigan Constitution of 1962 the
institution and its board achieved constitutional status, and Grand Valley State College
became the first new four-year institution in Michigan in sixty years.162 The remarkable
conflicts and story of these founders, fundraisers and visionaries, the obstacles they had
to overcome and the support they received from other Michigan universities, citizens and
businesses is detailed in A Study of the Establishment of Grand Valley State College,

60

written by Marinus Matthius Swets. Swets wrote and published the dissertation in 1963,
the same year the first catalog appeared and the first group of students arrived on campus.
Grand Valley is located on an 876 acre campus near the town of Allendale,
approximately twelve miles west of Grand Rapids. The Grand River borders the campus
on the east and most of Grand Valley’s facilities sit on plateaus among deep wooded
ravines. Early catalogs note that the founders had given careful thought and attention to
humanistic and social aspects of learning and their relationship to physical and
organizational environments. Organizers and faculty members created Grand Valley
with the ‘college within a college’ design in mind. They envisioned and planned separate
college societies and affiliations, each society having attributes of a small college,
designated buildings and shared spaces for students, classrooms, study areas, and offices.
Early catalogs state that students would
become identified with a particular collegiate society, and much of their life on
campus will involve the activities and social contacts that their own society
affords its members. Membership in a collegiate society smaller than the total
college enrollment allows each student an especially meaningful experience in
collegiate living. At the same time, students would ordinarily be permitted to
share in the course offerings of societies other than their own…The day will come
when the college will be known by its distinctive collegiate societies, and then
their founders may recall with pride their part in having started them on their
way.163
This plan of organization encouraged a close working relationship among the students
and their instructors.164 From the earliest planning stages, the founders of Grand Valley
had decentralization and innovation in mind as well as humanization of its education,
curriculum and administration. The facilities and interest in the experimental college
grew rapidly.

61

From the start, the institution fostered close scholarly relationships between
students and faculty members, centered on the idea of liberal education. Early catalogs
declared that a liberal education “is successful not only as it imparts knowledge but as it
brings a working familiarity with the most effective ways of gaining knowledge and
expressing ideas. What to know and think can be taught to students by impersonal
means, but how to know and think requires that faculty and students intimately share in
scholarly experiences.”165 Professors strongly emphasized individualized instruction and
experimental pedagogies. At the heart of its system was the tutorial session, during
which two or three students met with their professor at regularly scheduled hours for
suggestions and critiques related to each student’s needs. Through these tutorial sessions,
professors encouraged students to undertake programs of independent study and create
individualized study plans that encompassed a liberal education.
In the first few years, enrollments were small, but Grand Valley began growing
vigorously. The first catalog, for the 1964-65 academic year, maintained that “mere size
does not make a college great. Quality in education does. It is to the best in teaching and
learning that this college is dedicated.”166 Students were admitted with the expectation
that they would actively pursue and benefit from a liberal education and graduate “as
alert, fair, concerned citizens of a complicated human world.”167 Although this
expectation remained at the heart of Grand Valley’s mission, there was also a growing
core of students who wanted a more practical curriculum and programs that would help
them secure jobs in West Michigan and throughout the state after graduation.
In the first years of the young institution, Grand Valley provided a program of
liberal education for all its first-year students through a common curriculum known as the
62

Foundation Program. Through Foundation requirements and subsequent courses chosen
within a particular distributional pattern, the 1965-66 catalog explained that each student
was “expected to explore subjects representative of all principal disciplines.”168 Another
rather unusual aspect of the academic program proposed for Grand Valley was the nature
of the freshman course requirements. All first year students, regardless of their
aspirations in a major field, had to take a highly structured course load during the first
year. In essence, this freshman curriculum consisted of nine courses: three in the
humanities, three in social studies and three in science and mathematics. The only
variation on this program was a choice of one of three foreign languages—German,
French, or Russian—as part of the humanities requirement. Other than that, no
substitutions were permitted. Indeed, during the first academic year, 1963-64, when all
students were freshmen, only courses in the Foundation Program were taught.169
As a new college, Grand Valley prided itself on its non-traditional approaches and
innovative pedagogies. Catalogs highlighted the fact that professors sought to
“accommodate the multiple needs and interests of its growing student body and…vary its
ways of teaching to make more personal and meaningful the learning experiences of each
student.”170 Grand Valley was not alone in its endeavors and visions. Experimental and
innovative colleges, schools, and programs were being founded in many other higher
education institutions in Michigan and throughout the United States at this time, to
varying degrees of success. However, according to Travis, “the new college was
admitting students with indifferent high school records but had designed a first year
curriculum more appropriate for a selective liberal arts college.”171 The goal of creating a
distinctive and liberal arts college seemingly conflicted with the goals of business
63

leaders, local politicians, and academically average high school students, who wanted a
college that focused not on the liberal arts, but on professional education programs and
training for careers in the local area.172
The North Central Association (NCA) was the accrediting body for the area, and
Grand Valley State College (GVSC) became accredited when all four years of its
program were in operation. Although official accreditation by NCA did not arrive until
1967, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University
and Western Michigan University had already indicated that they would accept GVSC
credits for transfer.173 In the early years, Grand Valley offered its students a program of
liberal education based on courses in the humanities, the natural sciences, and in social
studies. The program allowed students to achieve basic skills and knowledge in a variety
of subject areas. Through courses in specific majors, it also prepared them for careers or
graduate work at other universities.
The young institution attracted a wide variety of students and enrollments rose
steadily each year. In his President’s Report of 1964-1968, Zumberge explained, “To
protect the small group concept as the college expanded, all elements of the college,
including the Board of Control, administration, faculty, and students, supported the idea
of a decentralized campus…None of these college groupings was to exceed 1500 students
and 75 faculty members (20:1 student-faculty).”174 The original College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS) was the largest, and offered courses while other colleges were being
planned. CAS emphasized a traditional curriculum and encouraged students to specialize
in a major. The next college (or ‘collegiate society’ or ‘cluster college’ as they were also
called) was the School of General Studies. Later renamed Thomas Jefferson College
64

(TJC), it was authorized in 1968 and emphasized individualized and innovative
curriculum design. William James College (WJC) followed in 1971 and emphasized a
career orientation integrated with individually designed study plans and coursework.
College IV followed in 1973, and, according to the 1976-77 catalog, provided particular
instruction modules that “could be studied away from the campus at the individual’s own
pace.”175 Each college created its own set of guiding principles, objectives, grading
systems, courses, and pedagogical approaches.
In 1968, the hiring of the second president of the university, Arend “Don”
Lubbers, inaugurated an administrative leadership and culture that, remarkably, would
last for the next thirty-two years. Lubbers, a West Michigan native and graduate of
nearby Hope College, was fully aware of the potential and struggles the young college
faced and was eager for the challenge to shape and guide the growing institution.
According to Travis,
President Lubbers, an acute observer of political forces, realized shortly after his
arrival that the institution needed to go down two different roads at once. The
local community (civic leaders and students) as well as the state government were
increasing their pressure on the college to create undergraduate and graduate
programs in the areas of business, nursing, public administration, criminal justice,
etc. Such areas of study were becoming extremely popular with students at other
state regional comprehensive institutions.176
However, Lubbers was also a strong proponent for the intrinsic value of a liberal
education. Over the length of his tenure at the institution, Lubbers faced many difficult
decisions regarding these two tensions, and carefully nurtured the survival of and vision
for Grand Valley through his exceptional leadership abilities.
According to Stephen Rowe, Professor of Philosophy at Grand Valley and
author of Old Hopes for a New Place: The Legacy of Arend D. Lubbers at Grand Valley
65

State University, Lubbers’ vision was distinguished by “education and learning,
supported by (and supportive of) a democratic understanding of public life, and grounded
in a strong religious commitment.”177 While Lubbers had his own personal religious
beliefs, his religious commitment to and work at the university, according to Rowe, was
more of a public or civil religion that emphasized learning. Lubbers believed that
“learning moves in two directions: first it leads to objective, new knowledge for all who
care to contemplate it; second, it adds to an individual’s capacity for deeper personal
understanding…Understanding properly sought, learned, and applied contributes to the
transformation of people and, thus, to their spiritual growth.”178 Rowe explains further
that Lubbers viewed the work of the university as a “sacred profession” and that his
educational vision could be summed up in a single statement: “There is no more
important profession than the one that deals with knowledge in the search for truth and
understanding.”179 Lubbers’ vision and philosophy were inextricably intertwined with the
struggles the young institution faced; he was committed to its meaningful growth,
service, students, the faculty and staff, and the surrounding community.
The turmoil of the 1960s, the disintegration of many experimental and alternative
forms of higher education, and the rapid deterioration of Michigan’s economic situation
did not bode well for Grand Valley. In the 1969-70 academic year, and under Lubbers’
newly established presidency, Grand Valley reorganized and, as a result, “each of the
cluster colleges gained an amount of autonomy which is probably unparalleled at other
state-supported institutions of higher education.”180 This autonomy created tremendous
freedom for students and faculty members to work closely together to design
individualized programs of study. It also served to create a “perfect storm” environment
66

for the increasingly divided factions arguing about the scope and purpose of the
curriculum and competing for ever-shrinking resources in the institution.181 On January
10, 1973, Governor William Milliken approved a bill changing the name of the institution
from Grand Valley State College to Grand Valley State Colleges, which more accurately
described the character of the institution and its educational concept.182
By the1976-77 academic year there were a total of six colleges, the four
undergraduate mentioned above and two additional graduate colleges. The 1977-79
catalog explains,
The idea behind this division is simple—students benefit most when they are
allowed to choose the educational path best suited to their needs, interests and
capabilities, and faculty members become better teachers when they work in the
teaching environment in which they feel most comfortable. The separate-colleges
concept also helps create an atmosphere of personalized education.183
The idea of maintaining separate colleges and continued emphasis on individual
programs of study and liberal education remained at the heart and vision of a strong core
of the faculty and students at the institution. However, confusion regarding the differing
organizational structures of the colleges by the surrounding West Michigan community,
overlapping within the curriculum, and increasing economic difficulties in Michigan
began to erode at the functionality and practicality of maintaining such an individualized
approach in higher education. Conflicts began to emerge. Many of these conflicts
centered around TJC, and I briefly highlight these within the details of the mission, vision
and values of that college below.
The 1970s saw economic struggles in Michigan and increasing pressures from the
state. Year after year Grand Valley was forced to cut budgets, reassess and provide
rationale for programs, and justify similar curricula among the differing colleges. The
67

institution, in the midst of great debates and disillusionment by many of the founding
faculty members and administrators, eventually was forced to abandon the ‘college
within a college’ idea.184 By the early 1980s, one by one, the individual colleges had
disbanded. Most of the curriculum and the faculty merged into CAS.
In the 1982-83 academic year, the institution substantially restructured itself and
returned to the name Grand Valley State College. The more streamlined and conventional
curriculum, re-organization of programs, and transparency in the objectives and vision
for Grand Valley had a dramatic effect, particularly on enrollment. By the 1983-1984
academic year, enrollment in both undergraduate and graduate programs began
increasing, and has done so every year since. In the 1987-88 academic year, the
institution renamed itself Grand Valley State University and organized most of its
departments and programs within divisions and schools. Structurally and
administratively, the institution now looked and functioned more like other universities in
the state. Confusion from the surrounding community quieted.
Finally, after enrollment had surpassed 22,000 students, the university
restructured again in the 2004-2005 academic year. GVSU had, in a way, come full
circle, re-establishing colleges as the primary units of organization, such as the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) and the newly created Brooks College of
Interdisciplinary Studies. Brooks College became the dynamic and integrative home for
most of the area studies, the Honors College, Women and Gender Studies, Environmental
Studies, developing interdisciplinary programs, study abroad programs, and the
sustainability initiative. It also contains the Liberal Studies Department, which carries on
the spirit of WJC and the early cluster colleges’ values of individualized and self68

designed study plans, while leading many dialogues and events that promote the value
and philosophy of a liberal education.
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History
In and prior to the 1982-83 academic year, the Grand Valley catalog listed and
explained the objectives and goals for each of the four individual colleges separately and
to varying degrees of detail. While each college remained committed to the idea of a
liberal education, exactly how the colleges explained and manifested that commitment in
the statements describing their distinctive identities and characteristics varied. A brief
description of these missions, visions and values statements follows:
College of Arts and Sciences (CAS)
The founders of this first academic program and cluster college at Grand Valley
were committed to the tenet of high quality undergraduate education that emphasized a
broad range of course work during the freshmen and sophomore years and culminated in
a specialized field or major program during the junior and senior years. Students could
choose majors in the traditional fields of knowledge generally categorized as the
humanities, social studies, and science and mathematics. In addition, the college offered
courses that prepared a student for teaching at the elementary or secondary level.185 This
program, started in 1963, was unusual compared to other colleges that categorized
themselves as liberal arts institutions. As Zumberge’s 1962-64 Presidential Report
explains, “it involved a public institution supported by tax dollars. In the United States,
almost all of the ‘true’ liberal arts colleges are to be found in the private rather than the
public sector or [sic] higher education.”186 Liberal education lay at the heart and mission
of CAS, and was the focus of its majors, learning objectives, and goals.
69

According to Zumberge, “the best kind of education was that which took place
between professor and students in the small group environment; hence, they emphasized
discussion sessions, seminar-like classes, and the tutorial experience” in CAS.187
Dialogue about study plans, coursework, future career interests, or whatever the current
needs and questions of the students dictated the direction and vision. At the start of the
institution, since enrollments and student to faculty ratios were small, individualized and
personalized attention were highly valued and part of the goals and mission of CAS.
Thomas Jefferson College (TJC)
In the 1970-71 catalog, TJC described itself as “a four-year liberal arts college
with a freely structured experimental program offering unusual opportunities for
interdisciplinary approaches to learning. It is designed for the student who is as interested
in human problems and current intellectual issues as he is in specialization in a given
subject.”188 Like all of the cluster colleges at Grand Valley, TJC was committed to the
idea of decentralization and valued an individualized approach to students’ educational
paths.
Students and faculty members at TJC were free to work out their own policies
regulating personnel, grading, curriculum, method of governance, development and
spending. Policy decisions did not have to be ratified by an all-college senate, which
insured the unique identity of TJC. New projects and ideas were initiated quickly,
sometimes within hours, and if the experiments proved unsuccessful they were dropped
just as quickly. In the 1976-77 catalog, the faculty explained, “This capacity to change
rapidly and continuously seems to lie at the heart of experimental education. It also
seems to encourage the generation of creative solutions to the problems facing higher
70

education.”189 The flexibility of the curriculum was, in part, possible because of the low
student to faculty ratio.
TJC emphasized process-skills education. The 1977-79 catalog explained that
process-skills education was “based on the assumption that the truly educated person
needs certain information and the skills essential for organizing and making meaningful
use of information.”190 Every course in TJC examined a particular body of knowledge
from the perspective of increasing students’ capacities in one of five process-skills areas:
establishing identity, problem-solving, creating, valuing and implementing/performing.
There were no specific course requirements for graduation. Faculty advisors worked
closely with students to “assess needs, interests, strengths, weaknesses, short-term goals,
long-range plans and preferred styles of learning.”191 Students and faculty members
designed a learning program that best satisfied these characteristics. Work was graded as
satisfactory/unsatisfactory. Students could earn a Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Ph.) or a
Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) degree.192
The introductory prose of the TJC section of the 1976-77 catalog offers a series of
belief statements regarding rejection of specialization, grading systems, and
departmentalized knowledge, as well as statements advocating for a balance of
information and action, problem solving, the nature of knowledge, and enjoyable
learning. TJC declared that college “should be a setting for the emergence of values,
creativity and knowledge through inquiry rather than an authoritative transmitter of
established values and knowledge” and tried to integrate this mission in its courses.193
The entire TJC curriculum was organized according to the above mentioned five
process-skills, which students could apply to any particular learning experience. Thus,
71

for example, students could study art history as a problem-solving course with the
emphasis on basic information, terms and concepts, or as a course in which values,
judgment, decision-making and choice were the emphasis.194 Exactly how students
decided to approach their coursework was determined on an individual basis in
collaboration with the faculty.
The mission and curriculum at TJC were, according to the 1971-72 catalog,
characterized by “responsive stability,”195 which also allowed students to determine their
own educational goals and choose the courses that best related to those goals. TJC
offered traditional as well as interdisciplinary content in its courses, but the modes of
learning available at TJC were held in higher regard and deemed more important than any
specific content. Essentially there were seven modes of learning available to the
students: Exams, Seminars, Special Studies, Group Special Studies, Individualized
General Studies, Independent Projects and Senior Projects. TJC maintained a
commitment to flexibility, focused inquiry, and student-centered learning in all of its
objectives and goals. TJC’s commitment to flexibility in course design and openness to
individual student modes of learning and inquiry were essential values, as well as primary
reasons why conflicts about the college emerged.
Extreme budgetary pressure, internal politics and shrinking enrollments
combined, more often than not, to put TJC into a malevolent media spotlight. The
perception in the conservative, surrounding community was that TJC students were
throwback hippies who lacked both rigor in their education and employable goals for
their future. Grand Valley historian Lynn Mapes explains that the perceptions about TJC
became increasingly problematic, “as the more unusual classes and independent studies
72

attracted critical attention from the local community, The Grand Rapids Press, as well as
college accrediting agencies. Backpacking, Indian flute making, the student staying silent
for a month raised the ‘flakiness’ image that was difficult for TJC to counteract.”196 A
closer examination of any one of the “conflicts” usually reveals that the students were
indeed held to rigorous standards and assessments of their educational studies and
experiments, or were not given credit. The educational practices and student experiences
were in line with the alternative approaches and mission TJC fostered. However, the
surrounding community began to equate and associate all of Grand Valley with TJC and
these conflicts, the perceptions became real enough. Virginia Elaine Hines, a TJC
alumna, wrote a more detailed and personal account of much of the above in her
dissertation, “Thomas Jefferson College: The Rise and Fall of Ultra-Liberal Arts at Grand
Valley State Colleges (Michigan).” Although the students and faculty mounted an
impressive resistance to the proposal to close TJC, it dissolved in 1979.
William James College (WJC)
The philosophy of William James, nineteenth century physician, psychologist,
physiologist, philosopher and teacher, shaped the mission and goals of this college. The
WJC planning task force stated that William James “was justly associated with a
pragmatic approach to social, technical and economic areas, with a pluralistic attitude
toward the physical and social sciences he pursued, and with an urbane humanism in his
personal life.”197 At the heart of WJC was the pursuit of a liberal education through the
merging of career and education.
WJC offered career and community-oriented concentration programs in
computers and management, arts and media, urban and environmental studies and social
73

relations. Each student, with the aid of a faculty advisor, designed an individualized
academic program responsive to the student’s needs and purposes in life and work.
Studies lead to the Bachelor of Science (B.S.) or the Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.)
degree.198 WJC’s concentration programs maintained both a theoretical and a practical
emphasis. Most courses were interdisciplinary (also called transdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary in places) and were concerned with solving problems rather than
studying subjects. WJC students developed independent study projects and participated
in internships and projects within area communities. Like TJC, there were no grades.
Academic work was evaluated as ‘credit,’ ‘incomplete,’ or ‘no credit.’ An important
goal—to which most members of the WJC community were personally committed—was
“to enable students and faculty to lead personally meaningful lives of action in the public
world.”199 WJC believed students and faculty members grew best when they were
actively involved with the problems, and more importantly, the solutions to those
problems, in the world around them.
The intellectual mission of WJC included exploring literary, philosophical, and
scientific traditions, as well as perspectives from the natural and behavioral sciences.
Students and professors worked in close collaboration at WJC to create an integrative
process of liberal education, which enabled both to find fulfillment in their lives and
work. In a visionary statement from the 1976-77 catalog, WJC declared, “We want to
find ways to bring together our careers and our personal lives, our practical experiences
and our ideals. We hope not only to prepare our students for the future job market, but to
enable them to create new types of jobs.”200 This attempt at synthesis was most clearly
evident in the Synoptic Program and Lecture Series, which permeated the activities,
74

thinking and curriculum of the college, and promoted the discovery and merging of
vocation and avocation.201
In May, 1973, the WJC Council created a “Statement of Principles and
Objectives,” which in essence more clearly outlined the mission, vision and values of the
college. They were:
1. WJC aims to be person-centered, fostering intellectual and personal growth
within a community of learners.
2. WJC aims to be future-oriented, connecting our programs and activities with
humanity’s projected needs.
3. WJC aims to be career-directed, with programs and activities designed to
enable persons to do personally satisfying and socially useful work, as well as to
enable those who wish, to move on to advanced study.202
In addition to the three operating principles, the faculty in WJC did not make the
traditional distinction between ‘career education’ and ‘liberal arts education.’ Rather,
they believed career-oriented subjects could be studied and taught in a liberally educative
manner. They championed that
one’s career, one’s vocation—the way one acts for good or ill in the public world
or in organizations and institutions—is one of the critical determinants, perhaps
the most critical determinant, of personal identity and potentiality for personal
growth. We think a person’s potential is largely a function of the public contexts
in which that person acts and the public responsibilities which he or she
assumes.203
WJC maintained a non-departmental form of organization so that problems rather than
disciplines remained the focus of the educational enterprise. Students in the college
created programs rather than declared majors, and in doing so worked to foster pluralistic
and transdisciplinary perspectives. Originally these programs included concentration in
four main areas: Administration and Information Management, Arts and Media, Urban
and Environmental Studies and Social Relations, but students could also design their own
75

concentrations. Neither courses nor faculty members were confined to or associated with
any one program, “making the actual concentrations in programs the constructs of
individual students according to their individual aims and goals.”204 WJC promoted
integration throughout learning experiences, both in and outside the classroom, which
manifested in students receiving academic credit for internships, independent studies, and
practicum experiences in their surrounding communities.205
WJC was characterized as a close-knit and integrated learning community. When
the college disbanded in 1981, many of the current students, alumni, and faculty members
were heartbroken and disillusioned. However, the spirit of WJC is very much alive and
well in the present day Liberal Studies major, which still offers student designed study
plans, interdisciplinary and integrative learning experiences, practica and senior seminars.
Furthermore, the Liberal Studies department maintains the William James Synoptic
Lecture, advises more than two hundred fifty majors, is growing rapidly, and is
reconnecting with WJC alumni through various events and media.206
College IV
College IV was founded in 1973 as the fourth college at Grand Valley State
Colleges. It focused on and fostered the professional and career interests of all students.
New programs were offered to prepare students for specific careers, and at the same time,
College IV recognized occupational education that students had completed at a
community or junior college. Career updates and professional advancement were
available through several programs. College IV was, like TJC and WJC, based on the
values of a liberal education. It recognized that for graduates to meet the challenges of a
rapidly changing society they must be skilled in communication, interpersonal relations
76

and problem solving. It stressed understanding of basic scientific principles,
organizations, management, and the basic values that inform both individuals and society.
College IV offered interdisciplinary majors in humanities, social science or natural
science leading to the Bachelor of Applied Science or Bachelor of Arts degree.207
Like TJC and WJC, College IV stressed flexibility through a variety of
instructional styles, from “classes and individual work to weekend courses and learning
via media such as television and cassette tapes.”208 Professors directed individualized
learning experiences that allowed students to demonstrate mastery of the material at their
own pace. With personal attention and carefully designed instructional materials and
“learning modules,” the faculty helped students achieve their educational and career goals
in a manner appropriate to individual abilities, backgrounds, and schedules. Students had
to complete courses or satisfy, through assessment, requirements in each of the five
general competencies, which were: basic concepts, communication, problem solving,
social interaction and value clarification.209
Students in College IV could achieve the five general competencies in three main
paths through the curriculum: The divisional curriculum, the competency curriculum and
the career curriculum. The 1976-77 catalog explained the divisional curriculum
“includes liberal arts studies in the humanities, natural sciences and social sciences. The
competency curriculum includes mastery of skills in basic concepts, communication,
problem solving, social interaction and value clarification. The career curriculum
includes preparations in the professional fields of advertising and public relations, applied
studies and occupational safety.”210 This college appealed to many non-traditional and

77

transfer students for its facilitation of the learning modules and self-directed study and
pace.
By the 1983-1984 academic year, College IV followed TJC and WJC and merged
into CAS. A series of statements philosophically describing the newly renamed Grand
Valley State College and its scope, goals and purposes now occurred at the beginning of
the catalog instead of throughout. Curriculum was no longer listed under separate
colleges, but instead alphabetically by departments, programs or schools. In the 1983-84
catalog, Grand Valley listed for the first time a statement at the beginning of the
publication that addressed “The College and Its Objectives.” This section has remained
in every catalog, with a variety of changes, through the present.
In the 2003-2004 academic year, after many animated meetings and dialogues,
GVSU revised its mission vision and values statements to its present wording. The
mission became a very streamlined: “Grand Valley State University educates students to
shape their lives, their professions and their societies. The university contributes to the
enrichment of society through excellent teaching, active scholarship and public
service.”211 The vision statements draw upon and merge many of the ideas, goals and
objectives of TJC, WJC, and College IV detailed above. Values statements elaborate on
ideas present at the founding of Grand Valley as well, including effective teaching,
liberal education, active scholarship, diversity, community, and service. It is not difficult
to see how the current mission, vision and values of the institution have been a work in
progress through the various organizational structures that have come and gone since
1960.

78

Religion Curriculum History
Religion curriculum at Grand Valley has had almost fifty years of history,
appearing in a variety of colleges, departments and programs. The importance of
studying religion has been an issue and concern of faculty members and administrators
from the founding of the college to the present; how, where and in what capacity the
study should occur has been debated through the years. The following section
chronologically describes specific religion courses that have appeared and a few attempts,
most of which were unsuccessful, at establishing a formal place or structure for the
academic study of religion at Grand Valley.
1960 – 1969: Humble Beginnings
During the early years of this decade, the young institution had yet to evolve into
its separate colleges, and no specific religion courses (or any courses for that matter)
appeared in the first catalogs. In the 1963-1964 academic year, the first year students
were admitted to Grand Valley, all students were required to take courses in the
Foundation program. The following academic year, within the College of Arts and
Sciences, a course opened for Philosophy majors called Advanced Study (499). This
course presented a variety of philosophical topics for students to choose, including the
Philosophy of Religion. This course appeared until the 1966-1967 year, when
“Philosophy of Religion” was dropped from the description of Advanced Study and
added as its own course with the description: “A study of such topics as the nature of
religion, the arguments for and against the existence of God, the nature and validity of
religious experience, and the relationship between faith and reason.”212 The 1967-1969
catalog added a Comparative Religion course for Anthropology and Sociology majors,
79

which explored, “A cross-cultural study of the development and function of religious
beliefs and magical practices in primitive and contemporary society; cults, sects,
denominations, and nativistic movements.”213 These two courses were the small
foundation upon which Grand Valley would build its religion curriculum.
1970 – 1979: The Golden Years
The two above mentioned courses remained on the books throughout the decade
but with the establishment of TJC and WJC, religion courses were prolific and course
descriptions became more and more elaborate. In the 1970-1971 academic year, TJC
added courses on the History of Far, Middle and Near Eastern Religions, covering
Taoism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism,
Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. TJC also added its own Philosophy of Religion
course with the description, “Examines knowledge of the world's religious traditions as
they have answered the following four questions: A. From where or from what do we
come? B. With what or whom have we to do? C. What is man and where is he bound? D.
Why do men suffer?”; a Psychology of Religion course which, “Examines knowledge of
‘religion as salvation,’ and the experience of the world's religious traditions as they have
developed their classical patterns of salvation through: A. The way of works. B. The way
of devotion C. The way of knowledge”; as well as a Sociology of Religion course which
“Examines knowledge of religions as social patterns and experience of the world's
religious traditions as they have lived out their relationship with the sacred and the
transcendent in community by means of myth, ritual and sacrament.”214 Courses in TJC
that dealt with religion primarily fell under the Problem Solving process skills area, but
because of the reluctance to adapt and maintain traditional collegiate procedures, many of
80

these courses had no descriptions beyond a mere mention of a title in the catalog, such as
Shamanism, History of Spiritual Disciplines, or Myth and Ritual.
Already the religion curriculum began to show signs and areas of potential
overlap and confusion. Students could take a Philosophy of Religion course through
CAS or TJC. Students could pursue Comparative Religion through the
Anthropology/Sociology major, or explore the Sociology of Religion through TJC, or
enroll in The Religious Experience course in WJC through the Social Relations Program.
While each of these courses offered different approaches and perspectives from which to
explore the study of religion, the flexibility of each college and the growth and fertility of
curriculum development created an environment that appeared to duplicate, particularly
to those who did not identify with the experimental and innovative nature of the cluster
college system.
Additional courses arrived, though these were not always listed in the main
catalog but instead on flyers, in course schedules or departmental announcements for
seminars. These included: Introduction to Religion; Phenomenology of Religion; Old
Testament Literature; Existential Religion; Experiential Theology; Science and Religion;
Judaism: Psychology and Identity; Intertestamental Literature; Cultural Backgrounds of
the Old Testament; and Magic, Science and Religion, among many others. WJC began
contributing to the religion curriculum by 1973 in its Social Relations Program. It added:
Religion in America; Primitive Religions; The Religious Experience; Family, Religion
and Education; and Humanistic Religion courses, the latter of which explored
Selected readings from four modern religious humanists--Hannah Arndt, William
James, Alan Watts and H.N. Wieman, and discussion of their implications for our
contemporary situation. Topics for discussion will include: the religious function
of life which is common to all human beings; appeals which we can make to one
81

another across the boundaries of our particular tribes, cults, nations, churches, etc.
as human beings; and the senses in which humanistic religion might be an
important resource for dealing with contemporary crises.215
As the decade progressed, the choices and courses continued growing. College IV added
a World Religions course in 1976 while CAS brainstormed about creating a Religious
Studies Program and solicited the help of interested students and faculty members.216
Another noteworthy development to give religion curriculum a more formal place
and structure was the attempt to create a Religious Studies Institute (RSI). Grand Valley
already had an International Studies Institute, an Urban and Environmental Studies
Institute, an Educational Studies Institute and a Developmental Skills Institute, so the
idea and structure were familiar. The planners of the RSI proposed to meet the needs of
three specific, large constituencies—the students on campus, the adults in the greater
Grand Rapids area and others in the immediate West Michigan community. According to
the 1976-77 catalog, the goal of the RSI would be “to assist these constituencies in their
development of an appreciation, approval and acceptance of the broad scope and nature
of religion, historical religious traditions and the scholarship which enlightens us about
religion”217 The RSI would provide an administrative structure and resources for
organizing the existing religion courses throughout the campus.
The RSI had four main objectives: 1. Offering and coordinating a set of curricular
offerings each academic term on campus, 2. Offering and coordinating public service and
personal enrichment conferences, workshops and seminars off campus, 3. Providing
academic and career counseling for students interested in religion-related professions,
and 4. Doing research and developing publications, thus providing sound information for
the community about religion. The planners of the RSI believed, quoting Supreme Court
82

Justice Clark, “that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative
religion and its relation to the advancement of civilization.”218 They expected that the
program would assist persons who wished to teach about religion and the academic study
of it. They planned to develop courses in content and methodology as well as new
courses such as Religion, Public Schools and the Supreme Court and Teaching About
Values Clarification, in order to assist undergraduates as well as secondary education
majors or teachers who desired new information and experiences with the academic study
of religion for their high school course offerings.219
Hugh E. (“Bud”) Haggard and Erv Bode were the primary co-investigators into
the feasibility of RSI. They gathered data during the 1974-75 academic year from the
students, faculty, staff, administration, and others in the West Michigan community. In
their report they wrote,
As we now see it, the RSI would serve these two communities of persons—GVSC
and the larger Western Michigan population—in two specific ways. First, it
would be a coordinating agency to facilitate the public service courses in the area
of religion which would be offered by the several faculty within GVSC. Second,
it would be a clearing house for students who are interested in religion to assist
them in the development of individual academic undergraduate programs (majors,
minors, concentrations, interdisciplinary area programs, etc.).220
Surveys solicited suggestions for speakers for the RSI to bring to campus, for grading
(C/NC) or evaluation systems, and for course titles, locations, and interest areas for
additional subjects or courses. Some of these were: religion and the arts, religion and
literature, religion and the environment, religion and culture, religion and economics, as
well as history and literature of world religions.
In a memo to the RSI committee, responding to the article, “College Religion:
Catechism or Discipline?” by Andrew R. Eickhoff, Haggard indicated he agreed with,
83

and that the RSI should align with, the following six guidelines: 1. Religion should be
taught in a department of religion or separately organized, 2. The university must have
total control over the staff, 3. The university must have total control over the curriculum,
4. Denominational courses should not appear, 5. Teaching staff should be from varied
backgrounds so that the RSI will not reflect only one point of view, and 6. The men
brought in to teach must be without any formal pastoral responsibilities. Haggard
explained, “The role perception of most religion teachers in undergraduate religion
departments is considerably different from that of a professor in a theological
seminary.”221 Haggard was the primary champion and impetus behind the RSI and he
secured approval for budgets, teaching and workload releases and administrative staffing.
Although Haggard came very close to establishing a formal home for religion
curriculum through the RSI, he and his family were tragically killed in a car accident on
February 15, 1980. This led to great sadness on campus for the tremendous loss,
administrative disillusionment, and eventual abandonment of the idea to create a structure
and place for the study of religion at GVSC at the time. After Haggard’s loss, the plans
and support for RSI disappeared in the severe budget cuts of the early 80s. In essence, the
RSI died before it could begin.
The Campus Ministry Council was also founded in the mid-1970s and became
Grand Valley’s recognized agency for interdenominational work on campus. In addition
to conducting worship services for students on or near campus, the Council sponsored
courses in religion, Bible study groups, speakers, retreats, discussions and personal
counseling services.222 Though the organization did not have a primary influence on the

84

curriculum, students and faculty members often included it in their dialogues and
considerations about the role and place of religion on campus.
1980 – 1999: The Decline and Recovery
By the 1980-1981 academic year, religion curriculum, GVSC enrollment, and the
feasibility of the ‘college within a college’ model were all in decline. CAS still offered
Comparative Religion through the Sociology/Anthropology Department, Introduction to
the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Religion through the Philosophy
Department as well as Psychology of Religion through the Psychology Department.
WJC students could pursue the study of religion through individualized study plans in the
Liberal Studies Program, which offered the course The Religious Experience, which
explored, “Religious experience as fundamental to human experience. We will consider
the place, interpretation and sources of religious experiences-- and, as much as possible,
their implications as well.”223 College IV, which had been renamed to Kirkhof College,
offered no courses, and TJC was dissolved entirely.
With the reorganization in the 1982-1983 academic year, only five religion
courses, in four departments, remained in the curriculum: Anthropology (which had
separated from Sociology), offered Comparative Religion; History offered The Arab
World (later called The Islamic World); Philosophy offered Introduction to the
Philosophy of Religion and The Philosophy of Religion; and Psychology offered The
Psychology of Religion. The Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion was deleted in
1985 and the remaining four courses remained unchanged through 1999, with the
exceptions of a few variations in pre-requisites or frequency and timing of offerings.

85

2000 – Present: The Rebirth?
In 2000, the faculty and administration at Grand Valley restructured the General
Education program and created “Themes” as part of the graduation requirements.
Students had to take a minimum of three upper level courses, from three separate
disciplines, to satisfy their Theme requirements. The Religion Theme sparked the
creation, or revival, of several religion courses in order to offer sufficient choices for the
student population, which had continued to grow every year. Philosophy added Medieval
Great Philosophers, which emphasized key figures in the development of religious
thinking in the time period, the Liberal Studies Program created Scriptures as Literature,
the Classics Department added Ancient Religions, History added History of East Asian
Religions, Sociology offered Sociology of Religion and the Political Science Department
added Religion and Politics in America to the curriculum. These courses typically were
not only connected to the Religion Theme, but also imbedded into another area of the
General Education program, such as the Supplemental Writing Skills requirement.
Interest in religion course increased after 9/11, and the Religion Theme became one of
the most popular choices for students. The growth in the Religion Theme curriculum and
a variety of Special Topics courses such as Women and Religion and Religion and
Terrorism also helped increase student interest.
After the most recent reorganization of the university and the establishment of the
Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies, and through the aid of the faculty in the
Liberal Studies Department and collaboration from other colleges, dialogues about the
feasibility of a Religious Studies program began. The program would be facilitated and
administered through Brooks College and sparked great interest and debates as to the
86

nature and approach of the religion curriculum and how it would best be administered
and serve the students. These conversations no doubt echoed those that had occurred at
GVSU years before.
Analysis and Conclusion
In the early years of Grand Valley, faculty members designed religion courses in
congruence with the cultures and missions of each of the individual colleges. For
example, CAS created more traditional approaches to the study of religion within
declared majors such as Philosophy and Sociology. TJC, with its problem solving and
individualized approaches to curriculum design, offered a much wider variety of courses
dependent upon and determined by student needs. WJC religion courses focused on the
individual as well as career and vocation, and the courses blended content with
pragmatism; for example, The Religious Experience, Humanistic Religion, Religion and
Family courses. College IV, with its practical and functional approach offered only one
course on world religion. The religion curriculum developed in congruence with the
missions, visions and values of the various colleges and the faculty and students who
taught and learned there.
What the students actually learned was individualized and dependent upon their
goals and study plans. Two students with comparable religion coursework, if taken in
different colleges or with different goals or foci, could have emerged with degrees and an
understanding of religion that had little in common in terms of content. This approach
offered students a great deal of flexibility and opportunity to customize their studies and
integrate their academic and professional career choices. It also offered faculty members
many pedagogical possibilities for meaningful and intentional collaboration with students
87

and colleagues alike. The experimental college and individualized curriculum model,
however, did not gain the support of the external communities. The administration was
forced to abandon the idea and develop a more conventional model.
Each of the colleges had great appeal to different students, and the customdesigned programs and study plans offered ample and diverse opportunities for selfreflection that extended far beyond the courses concerning religion. The Synoptic
Lectures and Program often dealt with religious topics, brought in religion scholars, and
created widespread and well-attended events. The RSI envisioned a larger merging of the
Grand Valley and Grand Rapids communities in the study of religion. In short, the
academic study and exploration of religion, at least through the late 70s, was encouraged,
promoted and nurtured on individual and institutional levels. Yet, because of the
turbulent growth and conflicts in the scope, mission, and direction of the young
institution that were present from the founding, a formalized and secure structure for
religion curriculum was never firmly established.
Another possible reason that a religion curriculum did not take root at Grand
Valley in the 1970s when the curriculum was exploding and the cluster colleges were
expanding (which would have been the most likely time), relates to larger movements in
American society, particularly, Theodore Roszak’s idea of “counter culture.” In his
book The Making of a Counter Culture, Roszak argues that starting after the end of
World War II and lasting through, approximately, 1972, “Questions about the quality and
purpose of life, about experience and consciousness, about the rationality and
permanence of industrial growth, about our long term relations with the natural
environment arose more readily in America.”224 The founding of experimental colleges,
88

innovative pedagogies, and student-centered learning proliferated in higher education in
the 60s and 70s in the United States. However, most of these attempts had failed or been
transformed and assimilated by the early 80s. Many faculty members and students at
Grand Valley had, through the innovative approaches to establish meaningful and
alternative educational programs in TJC and WJC, viewed their colleges as a viable way
to respond to, and in many ways reject, traditional forms of mass education. But with the
closing of each college, many saw the countercultures they had worked hard to establish
and maintain, struggle and die. In short, Roszak’s increasingly complex mainstream
society and culture devoted to consumption, abundance and “technocracy” had pushed
back.225
The explosion of religion curriculum at Grand Valley in the 1970s occurred partly
because of the autonomy and flexibility of the colleges, and partly because of the creative
and passionate commitment of the faculty to doing something different, innovative and
experimental at Grand Valley. However, practical concerns such as how to continue
individualized educational plans for students with increasingly practical yet diverse
career goals, misunderstandings and misperceptions from community, highly publicized
conflicts arising from unsustainable counter-culture movements in the alternative
educational model, overlap in curriculum, vicious economic struggles in the state, and
the conservative nature of West Michigan in general, made the young institution even
more carefully scrutinized and accountable for its structure, budget, mission and
curriculum. Finally, these combined elements created the most dangerous threat of all:
enrollments began to decrease by the late 70s and early 80s. Without students, Grand
Valley would die.
89

A reorganized and traditional structure that was easily understood by the
surrounding community, a lean and transparent budget and administration, a streamlined
curriculum, and greater options for professional programs, all helped transform Grand
Valley into a conventional institution of higher education that engaged each of the four
main participants. Faculty members developed and organized the curriculum according
to disciplinary structures that created a wide variety of majors and career options for
students. With the exception of the Liberal Studies major, which is flourishing, studentdesigned and individualized study plans were eliminated and the curriculum was
comparable to those at other state universities. Continued enrollment growth, along with
changes in the General Education Program in 2000 and the inclusion of a Religion
Theme, sparked renewal of interest in developing a more formalized structure for religion
curriculum and student interest began to increase. Finally, the reorganization in 2004 and
the establishment of the Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies created the structure,
stability and administrative support to move into planning stages for an interdisciplinary
Religion major and minor.
In 2005, the Brooks College provided space, an atmosphere and context of
stability, as well as resources for faculty members and administration to explore the idea
of a religion major and minor. An interdisciplinary committee formed and drafted a
prospectus. The major and minor proposed the creation of several new courses, but
primarily drew upon already-existing courses. The prospectus was approved by the
Provost in 2007. An interdisciplinary committee drafted the Final Plan, which entered
the curriculum approval process in Fall 2011. The proposed curriculum for the major and
minor includes five main components:
90

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

An individual study plan and emphasis area for each student, designed
in collaboration with an advisor.
Two core courses (Introduction to Religious Studies and a Capstone
course).
Three Global Traditions courses (for example: Christianity/Global
Traditions or Islam/Global Traditions).
Two Topics courses, which are primarily already-existing courses
throughout the university (for example: Classics 315-Ancient Religions
or History 342-History of East Asian Religions).
Two courses dealing with disciplinary perspectives (for example:
Philosophy of Religion or Sociology of Religion).
Two additional electives.

Majors and minors may pursue either a B.A. or B.S. and must complete the cognate
courses for these as well. The Religious Studies Program will be administered through
the Brooks College of Interdisciplinary Studies and will draw faculty members from all
colleges to teach its courses.
Students who graduate with this major will have both structure and flexibility to
create their own study plan that can be oriented toward their individual career goals and
plans. They will also have grounding in the methodological approaches to the study of
religion, three courses in global traditions, two courses that deal with disciplinary
perspectives, two topics courses that come from existing courses in the curriculum and
two electives.226 They will also have the opportunity to create independent studies and
research courses, and will have a culminating capstone class with other majors. The
major provides both content and a flexible method in which students and faculty
members can synthesize a rigorous study of religion that prepares students for a wide
variety of careers. It also offers ways to integrate and apply the academic study of
religion into the community.
The newly emerging major and minor at Grand Valley has intentionally
considered and balanced the involvement of students, the faculty, administration and
91

external participants. When the curriculum becomes available in Fall 2012, there are
many people among these four communities who will be attentively watching and
assessing the effectiveness of its interdisciplinary and flexible content and model. Also,
faculty members active in Grand Valley’s Kaufman Interfaith Institute, which was
created and designed to promote interfaith understanding and dialogue, have strongly
supported the new curriculum. The greater Grand Rapids community has named 2012 as
The Year of Interfaith Understanding and is actively sponsoring a wide variety of events
and speakers that will provide a robust co-curriculum.227 The potential for synthesis is
present; the reality is still emerging.

92

Chapter Four – Religion Curriculum at Western Michigan University: A
Comparative and Humanistic Approach
“Religion courses are designed to give students (1) an understanding of the nature and
role of religion in human societies, both past and present, both non-Western and Western,
(2) a grasp of the various methods used by scholars to describe and explain religion, to
assess achievements of these methods, and to develop new methods for increasing their
knowledge of religious thought and practice, (3) an opportunity for raising questions
about the present and future significance of religious thought and practice.”
From the Preamble to the Religion Department Curriculum
Western Michigan University 1977-78 Catalog

As indicated in Chapter Two, the first attempt at creating a comprehensive system
of public education in Michigan came in 1817 with the establishment and subsequent
failure of the Catholepistemiad, the remnants of which eventually became the University
of Michigan. In the twenty years between the founding of that institution and Michigan
gaining statehood in 1837, settlers were attracted to the Michigan frontier primarily for
the opportunity to gain land, and were not particularly concerned with schools or the
preparation of teachers for them. Yet, as the demand for a basic education for the
growing population increased, new problems and questions arose: How should the state
staff the growing number of common schools? Who should be responsible for training
teachers? What constituted adequate training? What role should the university play in
this process? In his doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Normal Schools and Teachers
Colleges in Transition, with Special Reference to Western Michigan College of
Education, Avis Leo Sebaly explained that the first Superintendent of Public Instruction,
John Pierce, planned for seven branches of the University of Michigan throughout the
state. These branches would train teachers for the common schools and to prepare
students for entrance to the University.

93

By 1840, Pierce was implementing his plan, and branches had been established at
Detroit, Monroe, Tecumseh, Pontiac, White Pigeon, Niles, and Kalamazoo. Students
could gain entrance to these branches with satisfactory completion of an entrance
examination in reading, spelling, grammar, arithmetic and geography.228 Such entrance
exams were a common practice throughout the expanding country. However, because of
difficulties in communication, financial deficits, and low enrollments, by the middle of
the decade, the University of Michigan could no longer financially support these
branches. Although legislators and advocates for education knew that the state needed
some sort of public system of institutions to bridge the gap between the growing number
of common schools and the University, they hotly debated the nature and scope of such a
system. According to Sebaly, the branches “did, however, even in their failure, lay part of
the foundation for the establishment of a normal school for no public institution was
available to prepare teachers for the common schools of the state.”229 Present day
Western Michigan University (WMU) was founded as such a normal school, in order to
provide training for teachers to serve the state. In this chapter, I will provide a brief
institutional and curricular historiography of WMU, explain the tensions and
consistencies to the continually shifting mission, vision and values of the university, and
highlight the key developments in the religion curriculum.
Brief Institutional and Curricular History
On May 27, 1903, Michigan Governor Aaron T. Bliss signed a bill that provided
for the establishment of Western State Normal School and gave the Michigan State Board
of Education the task of selecting a location for the new institution.230 Three normal
schools, which had the primary purpose of training teachers for the emerging K-12
94

systems in the state, had already been established: The State Normal School at Ypsilanti
(later Eastern Michigan University), Central Normal School at Mt. Pleasant (later Central
Michigan University), and Northern State Normal School at Marquette (later Northern
Michigan University), but there were no institutions to serve the southwest part of the
state. Two months after Bliss signed the bill, founders and advocates for the school
selected Kalamazoo as their site.231 Kalamazoo, located halfway between Chicago and
Detroit, was quickly increasing in population, commerce, and industrial development.
The local residents welcomed the idea of establishing such an institution.
Dwight B. Waldo was chosen as the school’s first principal. Born in 1864, Waldo
had lived in nearby Plainwell during his childhood and was familiar with educational
systems in the state. He had attended Michigan Agricultural College and Albion College,
had experience as a faculty member, and had been principal at Northern State Normal
School.232 Upon being appointed, Waldo immediately began hiring teachers and outlining
curriculum. Although state normal schools were expected to follow a basic pattern in
courses, along with the proscribed curriculum, Waldo proposed an innovative rural
school department, since most of the teachers that trained at Western would be teaching
in rural schools.233 According to Sebaly, “Western was established in an era when the
rural leaders were not sure what the future held for the farmer,” and recent developments
in railroads, labor saving agricultural equipment, the telephone, daily newspapers, mail
delivery and the rise of mail order stores were transforming the landscape of rural life in
Michigan. 234 Waldo’s rural program was innovative and timely.
According to historian James O. Knauss, author of The First Fifty Years: A
History of Western Michigan College of Education, 1903 – 1953, in addition to Waldo’s
95

rural school department, teachers also could select “history, civics, science, mathematics,
psychology, methods, English, drawing, manual training, domestic science and physical
education.”235 These areas of study formed the foundation of Western’s curriculum.
Students and faculty members in the early years of the institution held a common
understanding that the purpose and focus of the institution centered on teacher training
and preparation.
In the early years, students attending Western had three options (called general
courses) in which to structure their curriculum choices: 1. A life certificate course, 2. A
three-year certificate course, or 3. A rural school course.236 According to Knauss, the life
certificate course formed the basis of later curriculum development in the institution and
“could be completed in two years by graduates of approved four-year high schools, but a
preparatory course of two years was attached, for those students who had only completed
two years of high school work.”237 Students completing the life certificate course could
specialize in five areas: 1. music and drawing, 2. public school music, 3. kindergarten, 4.
manual training, or 5. domestic economy, and, as the title indicates, the certificate was
valid in Michigan for their lifetime.238 Students completing the three-year course received
a certificate that allowed them to teach any grade below the tenth, was good for three
years, and could be renewed for an additional three. The rural school course required
seven terms to complete, was open to students who had completed the eighth grade, and
also allowed graduates of the program to teach for three years, with a possible three year
renewal.239 The variety of these options quickly attracted growing numbers of students to
the new institution.

96

Western State Normal School followed the above basic curricular structure for its
first decade, but in 1913, the institution’s first shift in purpose and direction occurred.
According to Sebaly, Western graduates who had earned a life certificate, could now
receive fifty-six credit hours toward a degree at the University of Michigan.240 And, in
1915, Western was placed on the approved list of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Secondary Schools. The following year the organization that eventually
became the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education also approved
Western.241 By 1917, enrollment was nearing 1000, and according to Knauss, the
curriculum was thoroughly revised, mainly through restructuring the paths toward the
general life certificates, now called normal life certificates, and including “early
elementary, later elementary, junior high, household art and rural school” instruction in
the increasing number of courses.242 Furthermore, during this same year, the State Board
of Education authorized each of the normal schools in Michigan to offer a third year of
coursework beyond the two already required for the life certificate. As Knauss explains,
“This was the first step leading to lengthened teacher preparation” and the increase in
preparation time also allowed Western to more easily adapt to the subsequent
developments to the education system by the State Board in the next several years.243
In 1918, the Board authorized teacher training institutions to develop curricula
that would lead to the development of the Bachelor’s degree. Western’s curriculum
continued to primarily focus on teacher preparation, but, in 1924, Western granted its first
Bachelor of Science degrees (in manual arts and physical education for women) and a
Bachelor of Arts degree in music.244 President Waldo was an advocate for further
increasing the length of time for preparation for teachers to four years. In his article,
97

“Should the Two Year Normal Schools, Become Four Year Teachers Colleges? Why?”
he stated, “The four year teacher training institution will not be looked down on upon by
the universities, land grant colleges and private colleges, with the result that the
damaging inferiority complex sometimes found in normal schools will disappear.” He
also maintained, “The teachers’ colleges will attract a strong staff of competent
instructors, because trained scholarly teachers of attractive personality prefer to teach in
institutions of high scholastic standards.”245 Waldo’s arguments indicate that in the
developing higher education system in the state, there was a hierarchical structure among
the existing institutions, and he thought Western should seek a higher status by
broadening the scope and purpose of the institution. He continued to support increasing
time and coursework for teacher preparation and expanding the curriculum. In 1927,
according to Knauss, “the state legislature gave recognition to the curricular changes
made in the preceding decade by passing a law making Michigan’s three normal schools
officially teachers’ colleges” and Western State Normal School became Western State
Teachers College. 246
The process of requiring teachers to increase their training and preparation time
continued and, by 1931, a new life certificate, “the three-year certificate” was in place at
Western.247 This certificate was put into place to address the reality that increasing
numbers of students were entering Western with a high school education. Knauss
explains that the increase in students with a secondary education, along with the increase
in time required to obtain the certificate, caused the faculty to develop more courses and
curricula to fit the demand. And, just one year later, the State Board “ordered that four
years of training would be henceforth required to obtain a life certificate.”248 Students
98

who were already enrolled had time to complete their work under the previous
requirements, but by 1936, all students at Western seeking a life certificate had to
complete four years at the institution.
Toward the end of his term, Waldo also encountered increasing tensions among
the faculty of the young institution. Knauss notes that in 1904 there were twelve
departments facilitating a total of seventy-eight courses, all with an emphasis on teacher
training, and Waldo had hand-picked most of the faculty. By 1936, there were twentythree departments, including, “agriculture, art, biology, chemistry, commerce, education
and psychology, English, geography and geology, handwriting, home economics, Latin,
library, manual arts, mathematics, modern languages, music, physical education for men
and for women, physics, rural education, social science, speech and directed teaching”
with a total of 580 courses.249 Many of the courses were still focused toward preprofessional training, but many were non-teaching professions, including business
administration, dentistry, engineering, forestry, journalism, law and pharmacy.250 Some
of these areas of study required increasingly specialized and trained faculty members in
very particular subject matters, who often had not attended a teacher training institution
themselves, and who cared more for research than for the practical applications of their
subject. There was an increasing tension between the faculty in the “academic
departments” and those in the Education Department. As Knauss explains,
The members of the latter, knowing the needs of the public schools and having
studied educational problems, often feel that their academic brethren lack
understanding, or at least sympathetic understanding, of the complexities and
implications of the educational problems. They fear that the subject matter
teachers are often narrow factual specialists who live in their individualized ivory
towers. On the other hand, the academic teachers are afraid that many of the
professional educators are doctrinaire theorists who are wafted to and fro by the
shifting breezes that blow from graduate schools of education. They suspect that
99

many of the teachers of education prefer to stress reasons, thought and attitudes
with no adequate basis of facts.251
All students were also required to take a Principles of Teaching course, which involved
elements of general and educational psychology. Sebaly explains that although, “this
emphasis on the historical and philosophical background of public education was in line
with the State Board of Education policy that prospective teachers should have
information about the Michigan system of public education,” it no longer made sense for
students being prepared for other professions.252 Such tensions remained through the
end of Waldo’s presidency and continued for several decades.
Further financial pressures stemming from the Great Depression impacted
Western in the 1930s. Historian Leo Stine, in his case history Western—A Twentieth
Century University, contends, “It was the combination of President and faculty who were
successful in bringing the institution through a great depression when there were strong
pressures within the state legislature to close the institution.”253 Though the institution
was only twenty-five years old, state appropriations were cut by almost half and Waldo
had to make up the difference through reductions in faculty salaries, layoffs, terminations
and reductions in operational costs.254 However, by the end of the Depression, Western
had survived and enrollments began to slowly increase again.
In 1936, President Waldo deemed thirty-three years at the institution sufficient
and the responsibility of leadership at the institution fell to its second president, Paul V.
Sangren, who would remain president for the next twenty-four years. Such longevity in
the tenures of these two men certainly provided stability and consistency in the
administration of the young institution. Each had to rise to particular challenges in the
rapid growth of Western; Waldo laying the foundations and vision, Sangren developing
100

and building upon those foundations and vision. The Sangren years were characterized by
great growth in enrollments, facilities, and diversity in curriculum.
Knauss explains that the major curricular and administrative challenges that
Sangren faced over the beginning of his term lay in four main areas: 1. The increase in
educational curricula as a result of the change in the requirements to complete the life
certificate, 2. Very rapidly increasing non-teaching curricula, 3. The establishment of a
General Education curriculum, and 4., “a further attempt to secure greater mutual
appreciation on the part of professional educators and academic teachers.”255 This last
challenge was rooted in some of the same tensions that Waldo faced as to the nature and
purpose of the institution and in the development of its mission, vision and value
statements below.
In 1938, the State Board approved a plan to allow each of the teacher’s colleges to
develop graduate courses. According to Knauss, the University of Michigan had to
approve instructors, courses, and the credentials of the graduate students who “had
satisfactorily completed twenty-four semester hours of graduate work and had written an
acceptable thesis, or thirty semester hours without any thesis.”256 This added to the
tensions already existing in the institution as to its direction and purpose, but as a result,
Western created a Graduate Division and graduate council. Enrollments in the division
started slowly, but had increased dramatically by the end of Sangren’s presidency.257
Also noteworthy was Sangren’s encouragement for Western to participate in a
three year Teacher Education Study, conducted by the American Council on Education
from 1939-1942. Though beyond the scope of this work, the Study had a large impact on
the faculty, research, and development of Western, including creating adult education and
101

guidance programs. The greatest expansion of the curricula occurred in business
education, music, home economics, special education, vocational aviation, occupational
therapy and librarianship.258 These areas continued to expand with the formation of a
committee to explore the development of General Education courses.
Knauss notes that the committee, which developed out of the Teacher Education
Study, had the objective to guard against the growing trend of over-specialization. It also
developed a plan “whereby the students would obtain a broad general background of
knowledge which would make them conscious of the relationships of the various fields
and of the social implications of all knowledge.”259 The courses that made up the
foundation of this General Education program typically cut across departmental lines, for
example, the History Department offered a course in the foundations of Western
Civilization, and the Economics, Political Science and Sociology departments offered a
course in the introduction to contemporary society. The hard sciences offered other
courses, primarily at the freshman and sophomore levels.
In 1941, Western State Teachers College became Western Michigan College of
Education. Though the institution had only recently begun to gain ground from the
Depression, in the 1940s it experienced a sharp decrease in enrollments during World
War II and then a dramatic surge after through the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (G.I.
Bill). Like other higher education institutions at the time, Western’s curriculum
expanded tremendously. By the end of the decade, each student pursuing a bachelor’s
degree was required to take a minimum of twenty-four semester hours of General
Education courses including communication, physical science and social science.260

102

The developing scope and expansion of the campus and curriculum over the next
three decades, coupled with the increasing numbers of students seeking bachelor’s
degrees created a wide variety of majors and minors. In 1955, Western Michigan College
of Education shortened its name to Western Michigan College to better reflect this
expansion. This new name was short lived because the curriculum was no longer
primarily focused on teacher education and training, offered a wide variety of
professional and academic curricula, and had growing graduate programs granting
Master’s degrees. According to Stine, Sangren “had recommended to the State Board of
Education a change in the organization of the institution in 1956,” which was approved,
and the state legislature subsequently approved a final change in name to the present-day
Western Michigan University.261
A university, both in terms of administration and curriculum, is more complex
than a college, and Stine notes that Western “accepted the obligations to change, expand
its offerings, and to provide greater depth for its students” primarily through course
changes, the development of undergraduate curricula and the growth of graduate
curricula.262 Western reorganized its four academic schools (Applied Arts, Arts and
Sciences, Business, and Education) into Colleges and each expanded the numbers of its
majors. In addition, the College of General Studies was created in 1966 to facilitate the
general education components for all students, the College of Fine Arts was created by
1972, and the College of Health and Human Services by 1977. Programs and majors in
the latter of these two Colleges were often moved from other colleges, but the end result
was the same: students now had access to a huge variety of programs, majors, technical

103

and vocational career options, and graduate studies at an institution dedicated to
providing a comprehensive education to the communities it served.263
Currently, Western’s profile offers over 140 undergraduate programs, 67 master’s
programs and 29 doctoral programs. According to their website, WMU “is Michigan’s
fourth largest higher education institution, attracting a diverse and culturally rich student
body from across the United States and some 80 other countries. Its nearly 900 full-time
faculty members have been trained at some of the world’s finest institutions and they
bring to the University a global perspective that enhances the learning environment.”264
Although the institution started out with a much more specific and focused purpose than
it holds today, graduating responsible and culturally sensitive citizens who support and
give back to their communities, has remained central to Western’s programs,
departments, and curricula.
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History
From the start, Western’s mission, vision and values, like those of other normal
schools, centered on training teachers. The first Western Michigan State Bulletin, the
predecessor of the present day catalog and first published for the 1904-05 academic year,
notes that the fundamental purpose of the school was to train students who expected to
teach in public school systems. Western also offered training for teachers who wanted to
improve their skills and knowledge for their profession. The catalog explained that the
curriculum, methodology and “the spirit of the school are largely determined by this
special purpose… At the Western Normal no reasonable effort will be spared to secure
the best results in professional training. As far as practicable, the personal needs of each
student will be taken into consideration. Character, scholarship, teaching efficiency and
104

true professional spirit, are all emphasized.”265 A commitment to training teachers
provided the foundation for Western’s institutional culture.
While the Waldo years were characterized by organizing the administration,
building the faculty, and creating the vision for the future of the institution, the Sangren
era focused on the growth of the campus facilities and expansion of the curriculum and
co-curriculum. Sangren pushed for facilities and programs that encouraged students and
faculty members to integrate their values into their education. Sangren took great pride in
the Kanley Memorial Chapel, completed in 1951. Located in the center of the new West
Campus, it contained a narthex, auditorium with seating for 350, choir loft and robing
rooms, organ practicing rooms, and offices. According to Knauss, Sangren expressed,
“Our interest in this chapel is in religion as a life and not as a subject.”266 The 1952-53
catalog highlighted and described the tower and new building as “a non-sectarian Chapel
designed to serve all religious groups. Events in the Chapel include weddings, college
Chapel services, and meetings of campus religious groups.”267 And there were a wide
variety of religious groups on campus.
Western valued and encouraged religious organizations and social opportunities
for its students. These included: The Canterbury Club (Episcopal students); Alpha Psi, a
chapter of Gamma Delta for Lutheran students; Hillel Counsellorship for Jewish students;
Inter-Church Student Fellowship (an inter-denominational student group sponsored by
four local churches); Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship; The Newman Club (for Catholic
students); the Y.W.C.A.; and a Religious Council. The 1952-53 catalog stated that “the
life of the spirit is an integral part of the life of man and that the college has an obligation
to facilitate the participation of students in activities of their respective faiths which make
105

for the development of the whole man, the Religious Council functions as a coordinating
agency to that end.”268 While such organizations do not necessarily speak directly to
curriculum development, they do indicate that the institution provided and nurtured a cocurricular culture that included tolerance, dialogue and opportunities to learn about
differing religious perspectives.
In his 1956 article, “Religion at a State-Owned Institution: The Western Michigan
College Story,” Leonard Gernant, Dean of the Chapel, explained that the mission and
philosophical vision concerning the role of religion on campus was based on three main
tenets:
First, parents who send their children to college have a right to expect that
opportunities will be provided in the campus community to strengthen the
religious faith that students bring with them. Second, it is the function of the
college to help create a permissive atmosphere conducive to the free growth of
religious programs officially sponsored by regularly organized denominational
groups of any faith. And third, if faculty members are to make their own
contributions to the religious program, in class or outside of class, they must do so
not by order or direction, but of their own volition and in the same atmosphere of
academic freedom that prevails in the teaching of all subject matter.269

While Gernant’s comments were primarily relevant to religion as praxis for students, and
thus were more directed to the co-curriculum than the curriculum, they are useful in
illustrating the complex ways in which religion influenced the campus cultures at
Western. Also, in noting the parental perspective, Gernant placed the campus in direct
relationship to the surrounding communities. Although Western remained committed
locally, it also began expanding globally.
In 1959, according to Stine, Western established the Institute of Regional Studies
and by doing so secured “the interest of the University in the Non-Western world.”270
Later renamed the Institute of International and Area Studies (IIAS), its programs
106

included Latin America, Africa, Asia and Slavic Studies and it later developed minors in
Far East-South East Asia, and Russia-Eastern Europe. In 1960, the Institute received a
$144,000 grant from the Carnegie Foundation that assisted in faculty training, library
development, study abroad and campus seminars.271 Western was establishing roots and
connections globally and such opportunities benefited students, attracted professors, and
expanded programming.
Furthermore, the institution was gaining an international reputation in and
connections with the non-Western world. With its relationship with the Agency for
International Development, Western established a poly-technical college in Nigeria,
numerous arrangements for study abroad for students, teaching exchange programs for
faculty members, and special programs for study in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeastern and
Middle Asia.272 By the mid-1960s, Western was unique in its requirement for students to
engage in non-Western world coursework. And, in 1966, Western received the Institute
of International Education’s Distinguished Service Award for its contributions to the
development of international understanding.273 Such opportunities, requirements,
accolades, and institutional support helped create a culture at Western that promoted
global perspectives and understanding.
Martin R. Joe Gagie, editor of Western Michigan University: A Pictorial History,
notes that Western created many international venues including “area studies programs
and centers, staffing of a doctoral studies in educational leadership at the University of
Guam, its annual International Travel/Study Night, Honors College seminars, many study
abroad programs… [and] by 1977 there were 790 international students from 60 countries

107

enrolled at Western.”274 Students and faculty members could engage ideas, people, and
opportunities with international and multicultural perspectives.
In the 1966-67 catalog, Western claimed commitment to serving the educational,
cultural and intellectual needs of Michigan citizens and its students. Introductory prose
stated, “The education of young men and women to become teachers, the purpose for
which the university was created, continues to be one of Western’s primary concerns,
although it has developed into a multi-university. Western ranks second in the nation in
the number of certified teachers educated annually.”275 The academic organization of the
institution now included schools of Applied Arts and Sciences, Business, Education,
General Studies, Liberal Arts and Sciences and Graduate Studies.276 Faculty members
responded to these new educational options by expanding the curriculum within the
growing numbers of departments and programs.
The 1966-67 catalog also stated that the program of study for the first and second
years was organized, “To provide the student with a general education which includes
and integration of knowledge, skill, and perspective with regard to the process of
communication, the social sciences, the natural sciences and the humanities;” and also,
“To prepare the student for undertaking more advanced and specialized work embraced
in the curricula of the third and fourth years or for more advanced work elsewhere.”277
The institution graduated students who planned for careers in teaching, but other
programs, such as aviation technology and occupational therapy, began to gain national
and international recognition and reputation. Students were attracted to the institution for
many reasons and these statements illustrate Western’s recognition of its multi-purpose
mission.
108

The1968-69 catalog acknowledged the history of the institution’s mission and
affirmed:
Western Michigan University, created by the legislature in 1903, ranks fourth
among the States institutions of higher education in number of students, diversity,
complexity and level of programs. Organized as a school to educate men and
women for the teaching profession, Western has developed into a multi-purpose
university, yet it continues to meet its original obligation. In 1966, Western
ranked second among all colleges and Universities in the nation in the number of
its graduating seniors who were certified teachers. Western occupies a unique
place in Michigan’s system of higher education. It fills a special niche capably
with quality programs in all its areas and with certain programs offered only at
Western. It is the intent of Western to send into society students who will serve
well Michigan’s industries, schools, hospitals, businesses, libraries, colleges and
universities.278

But such niche programs needed professors with very specific training. Thus, tension
remained between those who advocated for a teacher and educational training focus and
those who wanted a more traditional approach and structure to the institution, centered on
academic disciplines. The 1968-69 catalog emphasized that the educational goals of
Western Michigan University were
to develop in each student the ability to think objectively and critically so that he
may be capable of assessing the validity of the information with which he is
confronted and his own response to his environment—to introduce him to the
world in which the educated and responsible citizen must live—to provide him
with a foundation for tenable values—to provide each student with sufficient
knowledge in a discipline, or a group of related disciplines, so that he will have an
understanding of its methodology, some initial competence in the field and an
appreciation of the vastness of knowledge still to be explored.279
This was indeed a far broader series of goals and sense of purpose than teacher
preparation and training with which the institution began. The institution was committed
to liberal and general education values on the one hand, and disciplinary specialization
and research on the other. While these two value systems are not necessarily or

109

inherently conflicting, commitment to one or the other often results in competition for
resources and curricular support.
The current mission of the institution declares that,
Western Michigan University is a student-centered research university, building
intellectual inquiry, investigation, and discovery into all undergraduate, graduate and
professional programs. The University provides leadership in teaching, research,
learning, and public service. Nationally recognized and internationally engaged, the
University:
 Forges a responsive and ethical academic community
 Develops foundations for achievement in pluralistic societies
 Incorporates participation from diverse individuals in decision making
 Contributes to technological and economic development
 Engenders an awareness and appreciation of the arts280
In addition, to work toward fulfillment of this mission, Western has claimed pursuit of
the following nine goals:
1. To foster a safe, civil and healthy University community, 2. To provide access
to academic programs at reasonable cost and in multiple settings, 3. To strengthen
interdisciplinary collaboration and international programs, 4. To increase diversity
within the student body, faculty, and staff through institutional practices and
programs, 5. To recognize excellence in the teaching, research, learning, creative
work, scholarship, and service contributions of students, faculty and staff, 6. To
conduct ongoing assessment activities and engage in continuous improvement
initiatives within the University, 7. To establish life-long relationships between
alumni and the University, 8. To advance responsible environmental stewardship,
and 9. To support community and regional partnerships that elevate civic,
cultural, social and economic life.281

Although the emphasis of being a teacher-training institution has faded from the current
mission statement, Western remains committed to providing its students a well-rounded
education, career preparation, and graduate research. And the institution continues to
value and support its faculty, staff and relationships with the surrounding communities.

110

Religion Curriculum History
Charles Foster Kent, in The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the TaxSupported Colleges and Universities in America notes that as early as the 1922-23
academic year, Western Michigan Normal School offered a course entitled The English
Bible.282 Though many normal schools offered such courses, treating the Bible as
literature, this was the first opportunity for students at Western. Additional religion
courses followed, scattered throughout other departments and programs. Through the
years, Western’s catalog did not merely list courses in its certificate, programmatic, or
departmental arrangements. Catalogs also added sub-categories, substantive preambles,
and career and professional options that could result from the curricula. For example, the
History major offered The History of the Far East, Ancient Greece and Rome,
Renaissance and Reformation and The Modern Near East, all of which dealt in part with
aspects of religion and religious influences in those geographic areas or time periods.
However, no programs, certificates or departments were devoted solely to the exploration
or study of religion until much later in the institution’s history.
The next courses specifically dealing with religion appeared in the 1948-49
catalog under the Division of Social Sciences and the Philosophy major. History of
Philosophy: Greek and Christian Philosophy included study of “The great thinkers of the
Greeks and Romans, Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, etc. The church fathers and the
schoolmen of the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance.”283 Two years later, Great
Religions of the World provided “Analysis of religious experiences and of the types of
religious phenomena. Primitive religions, Mythology. Religions of India, China and
Japan. Persian Religion. The religion of the Old and New Testament, Judaism and
111

Christianity. Islam.”284 These courses were the foundation of the religion curriculum at
Western.
In the 1950s, the Sociology and Anthropology department began to offer religion
courses under the following nine categories: Theory; Social Problems; Social
Psychology; Anthropology; Community and Class; Social Work; Research; Marriage and
Family; and Independent Studies. Examples of early courses include The Sociology of
Religious Institutions, which involved, “A study of the role of religious institutions and
beliefs, with particular reference to the United States; the relation between religion and
other aspects of society. The course considers social factors affecting the development of
different types of religious institutions and the influence of religion on American
society.”285 The Sociology and Anthropology department also offered People and
Cultures of North Africa and the Middle East, as well as a course on Cultural Ecology,
part of which dealt with religious aspects of culture. Aside from these few courses, no
program options or administrative structures specifically for the study of religion
appeared at Western.
According to Robert Michaelsen, author of The Study of Religion in American
Universities: Ten Case Studies with Special Reference to State Universities, in 1953,
“Western was chosen as one of fifteen teacher education institutions for the Danforth
Foundation-financed project on teacher education and religion […] and a committee was
given the task of studying the relevance of religion in the curricular offerings. [They
recommended] that a department of philosophy and religion be established.”286 Western
followed the committee’s recommendation. Michaelsen notes that the committee
originally intended to “use the well-established practice of many other state-owned
112

institutions [and] employ local clergy,” who would be qualified to teach religion courses
at the institution.287 The committee, however, could not gain unanimous support for this
model. In 1958, Dr. Cornelius Lowe was appointed as a regular faculty member and
became the first chair of the Department of Religion and Philosophy.288 The program
flourished under his leadership.
In 1960, the History Department added a course on The Medieval Church, which
explored “the impact on Christianity of classical culture, and the barbarian invasions; the
church and feudalism; church-state relations; the rise and fall of papal theocracy,
scholasticism, and mysticism.”289 The Anthropology of Religion, added in 1968,
examined “anthropological theories and findings relating to the origin, nature, and
function of religion as a universal category of culture. A scientific cross-cultural
consideration of religious beliefs and practices and their relation to concepts of the nature
of the universe. The role of religion in revitalistic reactions to culture contact.”290 With
the newly formed Department of Philosophy and Religion and these additional courses,
the support and structure for the study of religion became more visible and defined.
Another noteworthy development that follows Western’s original purpose for
teacher preparation and involves religion curriculum was a training program for
ministerial vocations. Starting in the 1966-67 academic year, Western’s School of Liberal
Arts and Sciences offered a Pre-Professional Curricula, which trained students for
particular professions and vocations, including Christian Ministry. The catalog warned
that, “It should be noted, however, that the courses outlined are only suggested plans to
illustrate in general the kinds of program that pre-professional students should follow.
[…] It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the student should exercise care to see to it
113

that the specific requirements will have been met.”291 The Christian Ministry program
included the basic recommendations of the American Association of Theological
Schools, declaring that “most seminaries urge that undergraduates major in a humanistic
field such as Philosophy, History, or Literature. Many seminaries, especially those which
have the highest reputation for excellence, recommend a major in Religion at the
undergraduate level” and advising:
A. Minimum of 124 credit hours
B. Course Requirements:
1. General Studies requirements (described on page 20 of the 1966-67
catalog)
2. Foreign language 16 hours (4 semesters of German, French, Latin, or
Greek
3. Religion 16 hours (minor in religion)
4. Philosophy 12 hours (Philosophy 200, 300 , 301)
5. Political Science 200, 3 hours
6. Physical Education or Military Science (4-8 hours)
7. Remaining 33 hours of Electives
C. Degree Requirements must be met.292
The Pre-Professional program outlined above was not mandatory, but students deviating
from it were required to gain approval from the Head of the Department of Philosophy
and Religion. This program illustrated the tension between the practical, but diminishing,
teacher-oriented track in the curriculum and the increasing prominence of the academic
study of religion at the institution. The Pre-Professional program disappeared from the
catalog by 1970, as the academic study of religion continued to grow.
The 1966-67 Catalog was also the last year in which religion courses were listed
collectively under the Philosophy and Religion Department. No less than twenty-five
courses appeared, ranging from Catholic and Protestant Theology, Myth and Ritual,
Introductions to the Old and New Testaments, Religion and Social Ethics, and a variety
of seminars. The following year, in the 1967-68 Catalog, the Philosophy and Religion
114

departments were first listed separately. The Philosophy Department offered four courses
dealing with religion: The Philosophy of Religion, 20th Century Philosophers of Religion,
Metaphysics, and a new course on Asian Thought: China. The newly formed Religion
Department housed the remaining courses, added three seminars, and a significant
preamble to their course listings. This statement outlined the ideological and disciplinary
rationale of the new department and curriculum:
The very fact that in both past and present men and cultures have defined their
humanity in either religious or non-religious terms is to understand that man’s
religiousness, wherever it appears, in whatever form, is a problem to be dealt with
on various levels and in various ways. To study religion in the university means
to be engaged in an academic discipline which is in the process of developing
methods of description and analysis appropriate to this subject matter.
Religion as an academic discipline is allied with the social sciences and the
humanities. It affirms the validity of the methods and insights of these scholarly
endeavors. It also stands on its own feet and uses methods not reducible either to
those of the social sciences or the humanities. It affirms the contributions of the
social sciences and the humanities because religious experiences and expressions
are human. Because they are human they are eminently available for
psychological, social and cultural analyses and interpretations. But it affirms the
autonomy of the discipline of religion because different peoples and cultures have
defined their humanness in a variety of forms. Such definitions can be understood
and affirmed as human possibilities within the contemporary world. Thus the
discipline of religion has a constructive as well as an analytical aspect.
The autonomy of the discipline is reflected not so much in the data themselves
(for such data are available to all), but in the structuring of the data in such a
matter that man’s definition of his humanness is revealed within the fabric of his
psychological, social, and cultural life.293

A major in religion consisted of a minimum of 28 hours and included Introduction to
Religion. At least one course from the following: History of Christian or Jewish
Thought, the History and Phenomenology of Religions, the Philosophy of Religion, or
Religion and Culture was also required. The catalog advised students to take cognate
courses in history, Latin, or Greek. The suggested cognates, many of which were upper
115

level courses, indicate that from the start of the department, faculty members were
concerned with providing a rigorous and integrative approach to the study of religion.
They were also in the process of transitioning and restructuring the existing courses to
align with their vision for the department’s future.
Reorganizing the existing courses in its first year, the newly formed Religion
Department categorized their courses under the following seven headings:

1. Introductory Course: Introduction to Religion, which was “an introductory
study of the basic problems, issues, and concepts in religion with an emphasis on
the historical and cultural contexts in which religions have emerged.”
2. History of Christian Thought: The Catholic Tradition: Trent to Vatican II,
Moral Theology, 20th Century Catholic Theologians, 20th Century Protestant
Theologians, and two seminars, one in Patristic and Medieval Theology and the
other in Reformation and Post-Reformation Theology.
3. History of Jewish Thought: The Jewish Tradition, which involved “A
comprehensive survey of the development of Judaism from its pre-exilic roots to
the present. Attention will focus on the problem of the nature and continuity of
the Jewish religion within the context of Near Eastern, Greek and Western
Culture” and a seminar in Contemporary Jewish Thought.
4. History and Phenomenology of Religions: Myth and Ritual, Primitive
Religions, Religions of Africa, India, China and Japan, and Seminars in Hinduism
and Buddhism as well as one in Non-Western Religions.
5. Philosophy of Religion: Two courses, cross-listed in the Philosophy
Department, which were The Philosophy of Religion and 20th Century
Philosophers of Religion.
6. Religion and Culture: The Shaping of Religion in America, Religion and
Culture in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Modern Challenges to Christianity,
Religion and Social Ethics, and The Religious Quest in Modern Literature.
7. Biblical Studies: Introduction to the Old and New Testament courses as well
as an Independent Study option.294

116

But this first year was primarily a transition. According to Brian Wilson, former chair and
professor in the department, “The program was redesigned with four components:
Historical Studies, Morphological and Phenomenological Studies (later changed to
Comparative Studies), Methodological Studies, and Constructive Studies. In so doing,
Western's was the first religion department in the United States to build a program that
paid as much attention to Non-Western religions as it did to those of the West.”295 In the
1968-69 Catalog, just one year later, the Department of Religion completely revised its
preamble to the curriculum, and lengthened and substantially enhanced its course
descriptions. Although significantly more explicit, it is useful to view this statement in
its entirety because it provides the scope and context in which religion curriculum at
Western developed and remains today. The statement also outlined the revised and
streamlined subcategories, now called Fields, for newly-developing curriculum. The
preamble now read:
The study of religion in a public university is universal in scope and theoretical in
intent. It is universal rather than parochial because the course offerings are not
confined to any particular religious tradition such as the Judeo-Christian heritage
peculiar to Western culture, but are attempts to consider the religious experiences
and expressions of mankind. It is theoretical rather than practical in that students
are challenged to learn and think about religion both critically and constructively.
There is no explicit attempt to make the students more religious.
Since religion is a basic mode of experiencing, expressing, and appropriating
humanness, the study of religion can contribute to an appreciative awareness of
that humanness. Thus its purpose is generally humanistic, at least as far as the
education or undergraduates is concerned. The various courses which comprise
the curriculum in Religion can serve to deepen the student’s self-understanding
both within the context of Western culture and in the light of cross-cultural
perspectives. This humanistic emphasis should not, however, obscure the fact
that courses in Religion can be useful to students who wish to continue the study
of religion on a graduate level, to students who plan to go into professional
religious work, or to students who need to deepen their knowledge of other
cultures.
117

The data for the study of religion are drawn from many sources, including the
disciplines of anthropology, archaeology, sociology, psychology, history,
philosophy, and from the arts. But in the Department of Religion these data are
structured and interpreted in terms of an autonomous discipline which is
specifically designed to consider the nature and history of man’s encounter with
the sacred.
In the context of this discipline that data are approached in four different ways,
and the courses are thus listed under four specified fields of study. In the Field of
Historical Studies, the focus is on the development of various religious traditions
and on the development of religion in different periods and places. The Field of
Morphological and Phenomenological Studies approaches religious phenomena
through the study of recurring religious patterns, forms or structures as they can
be discerned regardless of time or place. This Field is considered with the
structure of religion rather than the history of religion. The Field of
Methodological Studies is analytical and critical in its approach to religion. An
important element in this Field is a disciplined consideration of how to study
religion. The Field of Constructive Studies is especially concerned with the poser
of religious situation, the significance of new religious forms, and the religious
possibilities for the future which emerge in and through ecumenical and crosscultural perspectives.296

Such a sweeping and detailed description of the rationale and scope for the academic
study of religion at Western is noteworthy because it articulates the vision and
comparative ideologies of the department. Faculty members certainly discuss ideas and
contexts when developing curricula, but rarely do statements like these appear in a
catalog today.
At this time, the department also revised the parameters and requirements of
degree completion to match its new statement and categories as well: A major consisted
of 28 hours and included REL 200 - Introduction to Religion, two courses in the Field of
Historical Studies, and at least one course from each of the remaining three Fields
mentioned above. Two of the courses needed to be at the 500 level or above. A minor
consisted of a minimum of 16 hours including REL 200, one course in Historical Studies

118

and two in the remaining three Fields.297 After taking the introductory course, students
now found the curriculum organized in the following manner:
1. Historical Studies: Included Prehistoric and Primitive Religions; Protohistoric
Religions: Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, MesoAmerica; Religion in the
Indian Tradition; Religion in the Chinese and Japanese Traditions; African
Religions; The Christian Tradition; The Jewish Tradition; The Islamic Tradition
and Historical Studies in Religion.
2. Morphological and Phenomenological Studies in Religion: Included The
Myth and Ritual; Religious Forms in Modern Literature; and Morphology and
Phenomenology of Religion, which involved “Method in the most general sense
refers to a way of organizing data with a specific goal in mind. This course will
attempt to organize selected religious data in terms of forms (morphe) and
structures (phenomenology). The specific purpose of the course will be to
elucidate both the specificity of religious structures and their comprehensiveness.
Types of data to be included are Divine forms, cultic practices, initiatory
scenarios, religious symbols, etc.”
3. Methodological Studies in Religion: Included The Philosophy of Religion,
The History of the Study of Religion and Methodological Studies in Religion,
which offered, “Topics to be announced in the time schedule. The content of the
course will vary from semester to semester. Students may repeat the course for
credit as long as the subject matter is different. Topics such as the following will
be studied: Philosophical and Cultural Approaches to Religion, Psychological and
Sociological Approaches to Religion, Myth and Symbol in Religion and
Literature, Theological Method, Hermeneutics and Exegesis, Theological
Method.”
4. Constructive Studies in Religion: Included Studies in Contemporary
Theology; The Religious Quest in Modern Literature; Religion and Social Ethics;
and Constructive Studies in Religion.298

In philosophical congruence with its institution’s historical roots, the Department
of Religion established a Teaching minor in the field of the Academic Study of Religions
as part of the Elementary and Secondary Teaching Curricula at Western. The teaching
minor, which led to state certification, required a minimum of 22 semester hours,
including Introduction to Religion, African Religions, one course in either Christian,
Jewish or Islamic religions, one course within Comparative Studies, an additional
119

Historical Studies course or Methodological Studies course and, finally, REL 521 – The
Teaching of Religion in the Public School. This course focused on:
methods and issues involved in the teaching of religion in the public school.
Particular attention is given to the problems of constitutionality, the distinction
between the academic study of religion and religious instruction, and the question
of meaning. Various approaches to the teaching of religion are critically
evaluated. Teaching methods appropriate to the level of instruction, availability,
organization, selection and use of materials are discussed.299

Although the details are beyond the scope of this dissertation, it is noteworthy that
in 1990 the Department developed a graduate program and began accepting Master’s
candidates.300 The curriculum expanded to include graduate courses on World Religions,
Theory and Method in Comparative Religion, as well as several courses each studying
aspects of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Chinese and Japanese
Religions as well as Religion in America. A doctoral program followed briefly in 1995,
but was removed a few years later.301 With core of six full-time faculty members, the
department continues to offer a rigorous, humanistic and global approach to the study of
religion at the Master’s and undergraduate levels and produce scholars well-trained in
Comparative Religion.
Analysis and Conclusion
To better indicate the critical and cross-cultural nature of the academic study of
religion, the department changed its name to Comparative Religion in 1994, and
curricular offerings and enrollments remained fairly steady for the next decade.
Consistent with the catalog statements of the past thirty years, the Department of
Comparative Religion offers undergraduate courses designed with an historical and
contemporary understanding of the nature and role of Western and non-Western religions
120

in human societies. It also provides an understanding of the “various methods used by
scholars to describe and explain religion, to assess achievements of these methods, and to
develop new methods for increasing their knowledge of religious thought and
practice.”302 Many of the courses offered satisfy General Education requirements and
students may pursue either a major or a minor as a “good preparation for graduate study
in religion, for the teaching of the academic study of religion in the public schools, and
for a vocation associated with religion.”303 Thus, the Department of Comparative
Religion provides a curriculum that is both practical and scholarly and appeals to students
headed for a variety of career paths.
In the early 2000s, a major in religion consisted of a minimum of 28 hours and
included:




REL 1000 - Religions of the World and REL 2000 - Introduction to the Study of
Religion
one course in the field of Historical Studies, and
two courses from the remaining three fields (Constructive Studies,
Methodological Studies, Comparative Studies). Two of these courses may be at
the 4000/5000 level.

A minor in religion consisted of a minimum of 16 hours and included:




REL 2000 - Introduction to the Study of Religion
one course is recommended in the field of Historical Studies
the remaining course should be taken in any of the remaining fields

As of 2011, the department offers students a streamlined curriculum that emphasizes





an understanding of the nature and role of religion in human societies, both past
and present, both non-Western and Western,
a grasp of the various methods used by scholars to describe and explain religion,
and the means to assess achievements of these methods as well as develop new
methods for increasing their knowledge of religious thought and practice, and
an opportunity for raising questions about the present and future significance of
religious thought and practice.304
121

The department continues the tradition of providing rhetoric and rationale for prospective
students by explaining that the major and minor are “designed for those who, whether
they are religious or not, want to know more about religion, the role and significance of
religion in societies today and in the past, and the ways in which academics think about
and analyze religion and related concepts.”305 Students pursuing the academic study of
religion through this curriculum explore the idea of religion as a concept, as well as
historically analyze specific world religions and the relationships of culture through
various components of it such as “myths, rituals, doctrines, and institutions.” They also
“compare, evaluate, and employ academic definitions and theories of religion”306 that
will develop the “knowledge and skills relevant to and useful in a large and growing
range of careers and professions, including health care, nonprofit and public sector
careers, culture and the arts, journalism, religious vocations, and business and
marketing.”307 The department maintains a healthy rapport with its graduates and has
many distinguished alumni and Presidential Scholars among its ranks. 308

Effective fall of 2011, the Department of Comparative Religion slightly revised its
major and minor. It still contains 28 credits, but includes the following categories and
requirements:






REL 2000 - Introduction to the Study of Religion
Either REL 2010 – Buddhism or REL 2040 – Religion in India
Either REL 2050 – Christianity or REL 3025 – The Qur’an
Two Comparative and Theoretical Topics courses: REL 3115 – Myth and Its
Study and REL 3340 – Religion in Modern Society
REL 4500 Capstone Seminar in Religion/Baccalaureate Writing Course and 12
credits of electives, which can include REL 1000 and REL 4000, 5000-level
courses

122

The minor requires 16 credit hours minimum, has an online option, and includes four
courses:





REL 2000 - Introduction to the Study of Religion
One Traditions and Regions course
One Comparative and Theoretical Topics course
One 1000 to 3000-level elective course

From its establishment in 1903, Western’s development, focus, mission, and
curriculum is best understood in the context of a teacher training institution of higher
education in the state. Western has, through a variety of shifting roles and relationships it
has been asked to create, been a place of teaching, scholarship and responsible service to
its community. It has expanded with collegiality and tolerance and remained connected
to the vision and commitment of its faculty and administration. Though the roots of the
institution were grounded locally and regionally in teaching, and present day branches of
the institution continue to graduate for that profession within Michigan, Western has
become widely recognized for its contributions to other professions, scholarship, and
global service as well. Perhaps the longevity and commitment of service by Waldo and
Sangren helped too; both were committed to attracting an internationally recognized
faculty and developing programs, tolerance, and global perspectives.
At the heart of the curricular development of Western, lies the question, what is
the purpose of higher education, in particular, what is the purpose of this institution?
While it did not start out as an institution of higher education, but as a teacher training
normal school, Western, like others in the state, evolved into an institution that could
answer that question in a variety of ways as it grew. And it included the four main
participants in the process.

123

Students who major in comparative religion at Western have an understanding of
the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of religion and exposure to
both monotheistic and non-monotheistic traditions. They learn from a humanistic and
comparative approach and through a model of curriculum that is grounded in rigorous
study from multiple disciplinary perspectives. They emerge with an understanding of the
many practical applications and relationships that religion intersects, and are prepared for
a wide variety of careers or further graduate work.
Western, from the start, considered each of the four main participants: faculty,
students, internal administration and the surrounding communities as it developed its
curriculum and mission. These communities transformed the institution from a normal
school in a rural and agriculturally based economy, to a thriving university committed to
liberal education in metropolitan area with a strong commitment to the arts and global
perspectives. Throughout its evolutions in identifying as a normal school, a teachers
college and, finally, a state university, Western has supported its faculty, enriched the
surrounding community and provided a quality education for students, who graduate as
informed and engaged citizens.

124

Chapter 5 – Religion Curriculum at Michigan State University: A Land
Grant Approach
“The day has forever gone by when an enlightened liberal education was deemed useless
for a farmer. Agriculture has risen into a science which demands not alone bodily labor,
but active, vigorous, cultivated intellect”
Bela Hubbard, 1850
Qtd. in J. Bruce McCristal’s The Spirit of Michigan State
Article Ten, Section Two of Michigan’s 1835 Constitution states, “The legislature
shall encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific and
agricultural improvement.”309 Although this declaration does not specifically refer to
educational systems, as early as 1849, members of the Michigan Agricultural Society and
prominent members of various state communities began to push for agricultural
education in Michigan. Bela Hubbard, a Detroit farm owner and geologist, wrote a
memorandum to the Michigan legislature in 1850 arguing for an institution focused on
agricultural education. The legislature passed a joint resolution asking Congress for land
to support a mechanic arts and agricultural school in Michigan, but it was not until 1862
that Congress officially responded with the Morrill Act. Thus, the founding of Michigan
State in 1855 actually predates the Morrill Act; the institution holds the distinction of
being one of the first land grant colleges in the country.
In this chapter I will provide brief institutional and curricular history of Michigan
State University, with particular emphasis on what is currently called the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences. Next, I will highlight key developments of the mission, vision
and values of the institution to provide the contexts for the development of the religion
curriculum at the institution. I will then examine the evolution of that curriculum in
greater detail, with particular emphasis on recent developments and their significance.

125

Brief Institutional and Curricular History
On February 12, 1855 the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan was
created by a senate bill (Act No. 130). According to historian Willis Dunbar, in
Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State, the site of the institution that would
eventually become Michigan State University lay ten miles east of Lansing and contained
salt springs and swamp lands.310 The nine faculty members and staff could be paid no
more than $5,000 per year, and tuition was free for in-state students.311 Madison Kuhn,
in Michigan State: The First Hundred Years, explained that the initial curriculum of the
first agricultural college in America innovatively “promised a training that would be at
once scientific, liberal and practical.”312 J. Bruce McCristal, in The Spirit of Michigan
State, notes that the first president, Joseph R. Williams, indicated the new institution was
[e]stablished on no precedent, it is alike a pioneer in the march of men and the
march of mind. A great advantage of such colleges as this will be that the farmer
will learn to observe, learn to think, learn to learn. Every man who acquires the
information attainable in a college like ours, should become a perpetual teacher
and example in his vicinity. A farmer is a citizen, obliged to bear his portion of
public burdens. He should speak and write with ease and vigor. He should be
qualified to keep farm accounts. A farmer should be a chemist, a farmer should
receive instruction in the veterinary art, entomology and the principles of natural
philosophy. A farmer should perpetually bear in mind that one generation of men
hold the earth in trust for the next. […] The Institution should be good enough for
the proudest, and cheap enough for the poorest.313
Kinsley S. Bingham, governor of Michigan at this time, added, “One of the highest
objects to be attained by the establishment of an Agricultural College is to elevate and
dignify the character of labor. This can only be attained by increased amount of
knowledge, by making the laborer intelligent.”314 Thus, from the start, the founders of
the institution that would eventually be called Michigan State University recognized the
importance of educating the whole person, of providing an education that was well126

rounded and practical, and of preparing students to contribute in their communities,
which were primarily agricultural.
Admission, Kuhn explains, “required proficiency only in grammar, arithmetic,
spelling, writing and geography, ignoring Greek, Latin and elementary algebra required
by classical colleges. [The new College] recognized that the student who attended one of
the few academies or high schools was destined for the professions and would be an
unlikely candidate for instruction in scientific agriculture.”315 Science replaced the
traditional Greek, Latin, French and German found at other colleges and universities.
Kuhn notes, “This was one of the distinctive contributions of the land-grant college
movement.”316 From the beginning the institution recognized the value of an integrated
education that was both practical and useful, yet also offered opportunities to engage the
liberal arts.
In the first few years, there was little need to rush creating a specific curriculum.
However, the curriculum had solidified enough to include two years of chemistry and
math, one year of mechanics, engineering and biology, and one term of geology,
astronomy and physics. The rest of the curriculum included the liberal arts: ethics, logic,
psychology, ancient history, English language and literature, economy, geography and
constitutional law. Kuhn explains, “No undergraduate in a traditional college was
required to study as much science and yet few took much more in the liberal arts save
foreign language.”317 Thus, the curriculum focused on the sciences, but opportunities to
choose additional options existed.
In the early years, there were rumors of the campus moving or closing, but these
proved false each time they surfaced. The endeavor in East Lansing grew steadily in
127

enrollment, funding, support and scope. In 1870, ten women students, ranging in age
from sixteen to twenty-three, were admitted. This was a first for any college in Michigan.
Theophilus C. Abbot, the institution’s third president, stated, “They [the women] studied
chemistry, botany, horticulture, floriculture, trigonometry, surveying, entomology,
bookkeeping, and other branches. Their progress was rapid and their improvements
marked.”318 Various developments and innovations in agriculture and veterinary
medicine helped build the reputation of the College. In 1881, students could find steam
heat, telephones and a new Library-Museum building on campus. Enrollment had
climbed above two hundred. Oscar Clute, who graduated from the institution in 1862 and
became its fifth president in 1889, stated that the Michigan Agricultural College (MAC,
as it was now called, though not officially renamed until 1909), “had its origins in the
minds of men who were firm believers in a new order in education.”319 Clute’s successor,
Lewis G. Gorton, added, “The work of education should be so conducted as to make a
well-rounded soul.”320 The inclusion of women, increasing enrollments, and expanding
technology cultivated a creative environment in which the faculty, administrators and
students valued a humane educational experience with practical applications and
innovations.
In 1907, United States president Theodore Roosevelt gave the keynote address for
the College’s fiftieth anniversary. According to Lyle Blair, in A Short History of
Michigan State, Roosevelt addressed both the American farmer and land-grant
institutions in general when he asked, “How can life on the farm be kept on the highest
level, and […] be so improved, dignified and brightened as to awaken and keep alive the
pride and loyalty of the farmer’s boys and girls, of the farmer’s wife, and of the farmer
128

himself?”321 The MAC president, and others at that time, stressed the importance of
giving back to the surrounding agricultural community, and questioned what typed of
education was best suited to foster such an ideal. Several College faculty members and
administrators had accepted positions in federal agencies and departments, indicating a
growing national presence and reputation, as well as respect and support for the MAC
and the kind of education it encompassed. By 1911, the College had grown to thirty
departments, 1,700 students, 33,000 books and 466 periodicals in the library.322
Paul L. Dressel, author of College to University: The Hannah Years at Michigan
State – 1935-1969 explains,
In the early 1920s Michigan Agricultural College (MAC) was entering a new
stage of development and taking on a new character. It had achieved recognition
and a reputation, especially among land-grant institutions, for instruction,
extension, and applied research in agriculture, in home economics, and to a lesser
extent, in veterinary medicine and engineering. The institution was now
beginning to develop majors in the liberal arts and sciences and new career
programs based upon these disciplines.323

The curriculum expanded to include an “applied science” division as committees deemed
this name more appropriate to the College’s tradition than “Science and Arts.” Ninetyeight freshmen were attracted to the program in 1920 and the faculty approved seventythree new courses, which contributed to the rising numbers of students each year.324
Because the MAC had broadened its curriculum to such an extent, talk began again about
changing the name of the College. In 1925, the institution was renamed Michigan State
College of Agriculture and Applied Science, or MSC for short.
During the presidency of David Friday (1922-23), the faculty had converted the
Applied Science division of MSC to the division of Science and Liberal Arts. Kuhn
explains, “In the beginning students might major only in bacteriology, botany, chemistry
129

and entomology although they could minor in economics, sociology, English and English
literature, history, political science, mathematics, French, German, Spanish, physics or
zoology.”325 Students consistently asked to expand electives into minors and minors into
majors, causing faculty members to create new courses in each department of the
division. President Friday also expanded graduate studies and encouraged the
Engineering faculty to include courses in accounting, business law, economics and
industrial management.326
There were originally seven departments in the division of Science and Liberal
Arts housed in Morrill Hall. Morrill, for whom the Land Grant Act of 1862 was named
and, according to Kuhn, “whose legislation endowed colleges ‘where the leading object
shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies… to promote the liberal
and practical education’ of the people” would likely have approved of the diverse
curriculum.327 Blair adds that in 1924 the division had become so large that the institution
established two separate divisions: Applied Science and Liberal Arts.328
The Liberal Arts division grew quickly and offered majors in art, music, English,
modern languages, history, political science, economics, sociology, mathematics, and,
after 1927, philosophy and psychology. It composed an attractive yet practical
curriculum comparable to that in any liberal arts college, and also acknowledged the
importance of integrating students’ religious development into campus life. Indeed,
according to McCristal, President Shaw stated at the dedication of Beaumont Tower in
1929 that he “would like to have associated with this idea of inspiration, the idea of the
matter of standards. Inspired to do what? Inspired to advance and to elevate and to live
up to higher standards—scholastically, socially, morally and spiritually in all our
130

affairs.”329 The tower stands on the site of the Old College Hall, the first building on
campus, and the first place where scientific agriculture was taught in America alongside a
liberal arts curriculum. The faculty responded to Shaw’s call for integrated higher
standards accordingly, and as Kuhn notes, “During the first two years of Shaw’s
presidency almost every liberal arts department added courses.” 330 By the early 1930s
the college had become a very different institution, in both curriculum and administrative
structure.331
In the early 1940s, a discussion about required general education, or a General
College for all students, began to surface. The GI Bill of 1944 had created a surge in
enrollment but, according to McCristal, President Hannah believed and argued that every
student at MSC was there
in order to become an educated man or woman: a person with social poise, with ‘a
good control of his native tongue able to speak, to read and write with reasonable
fluency’ and ‘with an understanding and appreciation of literature and art and
music’, with a reasonable comprehension of the laws of nature and the laws of
men, with an appreciation of the spiritual values without which no life is complete
and adequate and finally the knowledge and skills that will help one make a
living.332
At the March faculty meeting in 1944, President Hannah warned the staff that American
victory would bring veterans back to the campus in overwhelming numbers and that the
normal enrollment would resume its annual increase. If the curriculum of the College
needed revision, any changes must be accomplished in the interlude before the veterans
returned. He pointed out that although the function of a university was to provide a wellrounded education, many of the graduates were not able to realize this because, in recent
years, the courses in the liberal arts had been partially displaced by studies designed to
prepare the students for a particular vocation.333 Blair explains,
131

The faculty studied the situation. They conceived a solution for the problem and,
after several months, approved a plan for the creation of a new school—the Basic
College. The new school was established in the late Spring of 1944, with its own
distinct staff. It taught courses in English, natural science, social science, and the
humanities. These courses were required of all students at Michigan State,
whatever their major might be and whatever their intended occupation, be it
agriculture, engineering, chemistry or journalism.334

The formation of the Basic College required all freshmen and sophomores to take
comprehensive exams and experience an integrated learning program. Willis F. Dunbar,
in The Michigan Record in Higher Education, explains that students were required to
take four courses, one each in communications skills, social science, humanities and
natural science. Each course extended throughout one year and the comprehensive exam
was eventually abolished.335 The institution now required a well-rounded liberal
education for all students without impairing their preparation for specialized
employment.
By 1949, the School of Science and Arts had expanded to six divisions:
Biological Science, Fine Arts, Language and Literature, Mathematics and Physical
Science, and Social Science. Faculty members typically taught in several departments
simultaneously, laying the foundations of interdisciplinary and integrated research, and
course offerings. For example, Harry H. Kimber headed the departments of history,
sociology-anthropology, foreign studies, and religion.336 The curriculum continued
expanding to meet the needs of the increasing enrollments each year, particularly with the
surge in the years after World War II.
The College of Arts and Letters (CAL) was officially established in 1960, and
became the new home for programs and departments in what was formally known as the
Liberal Arts Division. But the dialogue about the nature and scope of the new College
132

was not finished. On October 1, 1961, Provost Clifford E. Erickson sent a letter written
by Dean Paul A. Varg to the Academic Council, to the Council of Deans, to the
Department Chairmen and Directors and to the Educational Policies Committee.337
Attempting to define the boundaries, goals and vision of the newly formed College, Varg
called for a “preciseness of language” and “clear thinking” as well as outlined what
distinguished the new College from the others. 338 Varg acknowledged the ability “to
cope with this world, […] to maintain our integrity in an ever-changing society. Our
function is not to solve problems, but to recognize that problems are the very nature of
human existence.”339 In addition, recognizing the importance of cultivating the whole
person, Varg offered a foundation for the department of religion and clarified that, “In
teaching religion our aim is not commitment but an understanding of religion as an
expression of man’s encounter with the unknowable, unpredictable and inexplicable.”340
Varg concluded his reflections by stating, “If this College were to be guided by a motto,
let it be the words of Matthew Arnold ‘to see life steadily and see it whole.’ […]
Whatever our field or subject matter, our role is to assure our considerations of it with our
own best thought and the best thought of the ages.”341 Varg’s reflections about the nature
and role of the College provided a strong foundation from which the Department of
Religion would develop and grow.
Today, according to their website, graduates from the College of Arts and Letters
have “achieved success in many different fields, including business, government, human
services, education, law, communications and the arts […] and have always demonstrated
the capacity to continue to learn and thrive long after graduation.”342 The faculty and
administration, not only in CAL, but throughout the various programs and structures in
133

the institution, have sought to create balanced curricula and offer students a practical yet
integrated education focused on service to their communities.
The current profile states that Michigan State encompasses a 5,200-acre campus
with 2,100 acres in existing or planned development, has 577 buildings including 83 with
instructional space, and maintains 15,000 acres throughout Michigan used for
agricultural, animal, and forestry research. It facilitates more than 200 programs of study
offered by 17 degree-granting colleges. Students from every county in Michigan, every
state in the country and approximately 130 other countries attend.343 With more than 150
years of service to the state and its citizens, education and opportunities at MSU have
grown in breadth and depth and enabled its faculty, students and graduates to become
major contributors worldwide.
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History
From its founding, the administration and faculty of the Agricultural College of
the State of Michigan had the goals of educating the whole person, and this included
spiritual aspects. While at first there were no specific religion courses in the curriculum,
the College recognized the importance religion played in the lives of its students. Kuhn
explains, “Although this was a tax-supported institution without church affiliation, it
assumed a responsibility for the religious instruction of its students. At 5:30 each
morning the second bell summoned all to morning prayers in the first floor chemistry
lecture room of College Hall.”344 This became known as chapel. Each professor took
turns reading from the Bible, praying and leading hymns. Because the Lansing and
Okemos churches were too far away, the faculty often invited clergy from these towns to
conduct a Sunday afternoon service.
134

Many state colleges had their roots in religious activities and denominational
influences and with some courses and programs staffed by local clergy, but by the end of
1920s, the Michigan Agricultural College was moving away from this practice. The
institution, like others at this time, was also beginning to use a more secularized language
and to draw a clearer line between religious activities in the co-curriculum and the
academic study of religion in the formal curriculum.
The 1962-63 Catalog listed a statement from President John Hannah in the
introductory pages of the catalog that outlined some of the key principles and values of
the institution. Hannah stated that the University held to “what should be the
fundamental purposes of every university—to seek the truth, to teach the truth, and to
preserve the truth.”345 Hannah suggested that the entire state was MSU’s campus and
that, “In all our programs, our goal is to serve the people of the state by increasing their
knowledge and helping them to make practical applications of that knowledge.” Hannah
explained,
We believe that an educated man in a democracy is one who is trained and
conditioned to be an effective citizen. He need not necessarily be a man who has
attained great wealth, or professional distinction, or high public office. He may
not be known far beyond the borders of his own community.
But he will have been educated to contribute to society economically to the limits
of his creative and productive skills.
He will have been educated to contribute socially by his understanding of the
world around him and his tolerance for the rights and opinions of others.
He will have been educated to contribute morally by his acceptance and
observance of the fundamental values.
And he will have been educated to contribute politically by his reasoned, thinking
approach to political issues, his rejection of demagogic appeals and his
willingness and ability to lead or to follow with equal intelligence. […].
135

We strive to contribute to the preservation and further advancement of our
country, for men and women so educated will have confidence in America, her
principles and her destiny, and faith in America’s ability to lead the world into an
era of peace and understanding.346
Hannah’s statement remained in the catalog for the next ten years and was followed by a
statement from President Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. beginning with the 1970-71 Catalog.
Wharton declared that universities were being transformed “at a breathless pace
into a character far different than even a few years ago” and were “no longer removed
from the current concerns of major segments of our society.”347 Wharton emphasized the
importance of the individual and that, “Each individual is essential because of his
humanness, and this humanness is absolutely vital in today’s megaversity.” He continued,
Education is a central component in the realization of each person’s inherent
potential. Education affects his choice of values and goals, and most important,
his ability to accomplish them. Society is now being called upon to assure that,
regardless of the inherent differences among men, each should be allowed to
develop his abilities to the fullest. The accomplishment of this objective entails a
broad mandate to American educational institutions.348
Wharton’s statement concluded by affirming that “Michigan State University, with its
vast array of resources, can do much to implement changes in society that will lead to
improvements in the human condition…” and it would “continue to provide positive
impact and dynamic service to the individuals who compose it and the society of which it
is a part.”349 Wharton’s statement remained in the catalog until the end of the decade.
In 1982, the university created a formalized mission statement, which directly
developed from several of Hannah’s key points in his statement from the 1960s. In it,
Michigan State claimed a “unique position in the state’s educational system. As a
respected research and teaching university, it is committed to intellectual leadership, and
to excellence in both developing new knowledge and conveying that knowledge to its
136

students and the public.”350 After a substantial narrative highlighting the key historical
developments in the institution, particularly its commitments to research and public
service, MSU affirmed,
Underlying all educational programs is the belief that an educated person is one
who becomes an effective and productive citizen. Such a person contributes to
society intellectually, through analytical abilities and in the insightful use of
knowledge; economically, through productive applications of skills; socially
through an understanding and appreciation of the world and for the individual and
group beliefs and traditions; ethically though sensitivity and faithfulness to
examined values; and politically through the use of reason in affairs of state.351

The statement also acknowledged MSU’s commitment to graduating educated students
who, through their experiences with active learning processes, were ready to become
responsible leaders. MSU’s mission declared it fulfilled “the fundamental purposes of all
major institutions of higher education: to seek, to teach, and to preserve knowledge. As a
land-grant institution, this university meets these objectives in all its formal and informal
educational programs, in basic and applied research, and in public service.”352 MSU
articulated its ongoing relationship to the state by affirming, “Education of its citizens is
the state’s best investment in its future. Michigan State University has honored, and will
continue to honor, this public trust.”353 This commitment to enrichment of students and
society has been clear from the founding of the institution. The mission statement
remained the same for the next twenty-five years.
The most recent revision of the university’s vision statement occurred in 2008.
MSU currently affirms,
We are an inclusive, academic community known for our traditionally strong
academic disciplines and professional programs, and our liberal arts foundation. Our
cross- and interdisciplinary enterprises connect the sciences, humanities, and
professions in practical, sustainable, and innovative ways to address society’s rapidly
changing needs.354
137

And, as a public, research-intensive, land-grant university, MSU intends to advance
knowledge and transform lives by:




Providing outstanding undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to
promising, qualified students in order to prepare them to contribute fully to
society as globally engaged citizen leaders.
Conducting research of the highest caliber that seeks to answer questions and
create solutions in order to expand human understanding and make a positive
difference, both locally and globally.
Advancing outreach, engagement, and economic development activities that are
innovative, research-driven, and lead to a better quality of life for individuals and
communities, at home and around the world.355

Furthermore, the current president of the University, Lou Anna K. Simon, created a
statement on core values that declares,
Michigan State University was founded on the visionary idea that practical
knowledge could be combined with traditional scientific and classical studies to
create a rigorous higher education curriculum that would be good enough for the
proudest and open to the poorest. This bold experiment was overwhelmingly
successful. […] Underlying our success is a firm set of institutional values that we
hold to be the core of our civil engagement with one another and with the society we
serve.356
The above statements and priorities acknowledge the history of the institution and its
connections and commitment to actively seek practical and positive ways to improve the
lives of not only the students who attend, but also the surrounding communities, both
local and global.
In addition to university-wide statements, which have to be broad enough to
provide focus and direction to all programs and endeavors, it is useful to briefly examine
CAL’s mission statement as well, as it provides a more direct and ideological context for
the Religious Studies Department. In 2006, CAL’s mission claimed to honor and

138

maintain a curriculum and tradition which “provide[d] opportunities for students to
develop skills that will serve them for a lifetime” and in which,
Students in the college explore human expression, human experience, and human
values through a wide variety of subjects including the creative and performing
arts, languages and literatures, history, art history, philosophy, and religious
studies, as well as the interdisciplinary fields of American studies, ancient studies,
humanities, humanities pre-law, and women’s studies.357

Currently, the College has the goals of educating its students for global awareness,
creativity, and inclusive democracy through all of its departments and programs. The
website claims commitment to prepare students for work and life in a “dramatically
changing global environment” and to “provide them with the skills needed to understand
these changes and their impact on social justice and the fabric of our cultural
environment” in that preparation. 358 In pursuing human values in a global context, the
College seeks to cultivate, “critical and creative thinkers who address the challenge of
becoming world citizens by composing persuasive, artistic, and philosophical artifacts
that engage students to contribute to the development of a more humane world. Curricula
within the College emphasize creativity as well as careful argument, innovation as well as
tradition, expression as well as introspection.”359 The Religious Studies Department, as
illustrated below, gave careful attention to this mission in its recent revisioning and
revival.
Religion Curriculum History
In his article “Religion in a State University,” Harry H. Kimber explains three
basic principles that MSU followed and that the early curriculum supported. First, “the
religious life of the student body is a matter of necessary and proper concern for the
college faculty and administration,” second, “that religion as an integral part of a culture
139

and a proper field of knowledge must receive recognition in the curriculum” and, finally,
“a clear-cut distinction must be maintained between religious activities as such and
religion as a subject to be taught in the curriculum.”360 These three principles—along
with the idea that students who attended MSU would develop intellectually and morally
to become useful and contributing citizens—created the atmosphere and foundation for
the earliest religion curriculum.
In The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the Tax- Supported Colleges and
Universities in America, Charles Foster Kent notes that as early as the 1922-23 academic
year, Michigan Agricultural College had one religion course, Bible as Literature, in the
catalog. This course, offered through the English and Modern Languages department,
entailed “A brief discussion of the forms of Biblical literature, both prose and verse, is
followed by a study of several of the individual books of the English Bible, emphasis
being placed upon those books which combine high excellence of literary form with
exceptional nobility of content.”361 In the following academic year this course title
changed to The English Old Testament as Literature and another course was added, The
English New Testament. These two courses formed the beginning of religion curriculum
at the institution.
In the 1923-24 Catalog, under the heading Religious Education, three additional
courses were listed: Fundamental Moral and Religious Concepts, which attempted “to
fix student thought upon the teaching of Jesus in so far as they are revealed in the
gospels. The personality of Jesus is given a chance to reveal itself,” a course entitled
Christianity and Social Problems, which “beginning with some of the latter prophets,
traces the long struggle of the human race to achieve justice in their social, economic, and
140

religious relationships. An historical background is presented for the clearer definition of
Christianity” and, finally, a course entitled Christ and Science, which
points out ‘the social use and moral control of the new knowledge that has been
thrown up in the fields of the living sciences.’ Occasional lectures are offered by
department professors on such subjects as ‘Bacteriology and Human Need,’
‘Botany and Its Religious Purpose,’ ‘Chemistry and Social Betterment,’
‘Zoology: What Lies Behind and Before the Race.’ The course proposes a
synthesis which will lead students to see truth as a unit and to interpret knowledge
of facts in terms of significance and service.362
These three courses, along with the above mentioned courses on the Bible, comprised the
religion curriculum at the institution for the next decade.
The 1930s saw a gradual increase in course offerings in Religious Education:
Modern Social Problems of Christianity, Religion in Modern Life, which explored “basic
questions in religion, such as the existence and character of God, the efficacy of prayer,
and the validity of religious experience. The religious conclusions of the major
philosophers will be surveyed as background, but the main emphasis will be on modern
thought,” The Life and Teaching of Jesus, and a course entitled Biographies, which was
“a study of such men as Bradford, Penn, Edwards, Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy
Adams, John Brown, Lincoln, Lee, Emerson, Theodore Roosevelt, William James,
Woodrow Wilson.”363 The catalog also listed an Introduction to Christianity course, a
Philosophy of Christianity Course and an Ethics of Christianity course.364 Courses
remained grouped in the catalog under Religious Education, but a formal, administrative
home for the curriculum did not emerge until 1948.
In the 1946-48 Catalog, the Philosophy Department offered a Philosophy of
Religion course, which explored “an interpretation of facts of religious experience as
presented by the historian, psychologist, and sociologist, with special emphasis upon the
141

relation of religion to moral values.” The Sociology Department listed a course entitled
The Sociology of Religion, Knowledge, and the Arts, which was “an analysis of the
relationship between religion and the social structures: the sociological background of the
diverse ways of thinking and reasoning; social factors affecting the forms and styles of
music and the fine arts.”365 These two departments, however, could neither support the
growing demand for new courses about religion, nor offer a permanent home for the
courses that already existed.
Robert S. Michaelsen, in The Study of Religion in American Universities: Ten
Case Studies with Special Reference to State Universities, notes that a Department of
Religion was created in 1948 within the Division of Social Science of the College of
Science and Arts, and Harry H. Kimber served as the first chair.366 Although newly added
introductory courses on Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism were taught by clergy,
Kimber made it clear that faculty members must teach descriptively, that denominational
indoctrination was unacceptable, and that students were free and encouraged to enroll in
courses dealing with faiths other than their own.367 Early faculty members in the Religion
Department included Robert T. Anderson, Frances M. Donahue, and Peter B. Fischer.
The content of the introductory courses in Judaism, Roman Catholicism and
Protestantism, according to Michaelsen, primarily dealt with “the essential teachings,
beliefs, ethical outlooks and religious practices of the major religious traditions.”368 Titles
included Introduction to Christianity, The Protestant Reformation, Old Testament, New
Testament, Life of Christ, Writings of Paul, Eastern Christianity, Christian Ethics,
Christian Thought, Classics of Christian Literature, Religion in American Culture,
Religion and the Social Order, Comparative Religion and Religious Trends in the Far
142

East.369 The 1949-51 Catalog indicates a rapidly expanding religion curriculum, including
Introduction to Religion, The Life of Jesus, Christian Thought (The Formation of Creeds
and The Meaning of Creeds) Christian Theology, Jewish Institutions, Customs and
Rituals, Modern Jewish Movements, and The Protestant Reformation.370 These courses
formed the basic core of the curriculum for the first decade of the department.
An official undergraduate major in Religion was approved for the 1963-64
academic year.371 The Catalogue Material for the Proposed Major affirmed,
The courses offered in the Department of Religion are designed for students who
wish to become acquainted with the essential teachings, beliefs, ethical outlooks,
and religious practices of the major religious traditions and for those who wish to
study Religion as an integral field of knowledge and concern. Courses are offered
at all levels for inclusion in various programs of liberal education. Students who
desire to emphasize the study of Religion may do so by taking a major in this
Department; such a major will consist of course given in this Department together
with relevant courses offered in other departments of the University.372

Under the leadership of Robert T. Anderson, appointed chair in 1970, and who remained
chair for eighteen years, the curriculum expanded greatly in this decade. 373 In 1973, the
Religion Department changed its name to the Religious Studies Department and included
a much wider variety of courses. Although a majority still focused on historical
approaches to Christianity, other religious traditions appeared as well. Students could
choose from Judaic Studies, Classical Judaism: Ezra to Maimonides, Modern Judaism:
Maimonides to the Present, Islam, Life of Muhammad and the Qur’an, Hinduism,
Confucianism and Taoism, Shinto and Japan’s New Religions, Hinayana Buddhism,
Indian and East Asian Mahayana Buddhism, Religious Dimensions in Literature,
American Civil Religion, Religious Groups in Modern America and an Individual
Readings course.374 In addition, several introductory courses appeared, such as
143

Understanding Religious Man, which focused on the “nature of religion; character of
reality; symbolism, myth, sacred space, sacred time; rationalism and the nature of
religious knowledge; religion and morals, psychology of religious experience; societal
function of religion.”375 Finally, the department began to offer “Studies” courses in
various religious traditions and in Sacred Literatures. According to the 1979-80 catalog,
these courses offered “opportunities for inquiry in depth of a variety of themes, topics or
problems in several areas. They are planned for advanced students who have some
familiarity with the general area in question.”376 The content of these courses varied and
made for flexible and diverse subject areas.
In the 1980s and 90s, the number of religion courses at MSU began to decrease.
While most of the same core courses on Christianity and Judaism were still offered, some
of the Eastern traditions courses began disappearing. A few new courses emerged, such
as Issues in Science and Religion, which explored the “History of relationships between
science and religion. Methods of science and religion. Attempts at resolution of conflicts
and formation of new synthesis” and Denominations in America, in which students
examined “Religious denominations in America, their origin, history, beliefs, sociology,
influence, strengths, tensions; distinctions among sect, cult and denominations; analysis
of trends pointing to alternate futures; ecumenical movement.”377 The establishment of
two programs outside the department may have contributed to some of the decrease in
courses during this period.
Beyond the administration of the Department of Religious Studies, MSU also
developed a Muslim Studies Program and a Jewish Studies Program to students interested
in pursuing these areas. The specialization in Muslim Studies was supported and
144

encouraged through the efforts of Mohammed Ayoob. It is administered through the
James Madison College, acknowledges the growing number of Muslim communities
globally and explores, “the rich diversity of these Muslim communities. It encourages
students to acquire a solid background in the history, religion, and culture of the Muslim
peoples in general, while exploring in depth particular Muslim communities in Asia,
Africa, Europe and the Americas.”378 The specialization promoted cross-cultural,
interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches with a strong emphasis on research
and disseminating knowledge to multiple communities, locally and globally. The Jewish
Studies Program was established in 1992 and, according to their website, “introduces
students to the history and religion, culture and civilization of the Jewish people. Courses
survey these themes from biblical times to the present; from ancient Israel to Europe, the
United States and modern Israel; from the Inquisition to the Holocaust; and from biblical
texts to modern Hebrew.”379 The program emphasizes study abroad opportunities,
graduate work, professional and career development.
The department and curriculum recently underwent a substantial transformation
and revision through the implementation of the process of moratorium. Echoing a
previous moratorium in 1990, in the 2003-04 academic year, Dean Wendy Wilkins
imposed another on the department. Wilkins wanted to move the College away from the
more traditional humanities. The moratorium froze enrollment and demoralized the
faculty while scrutiny of the department and curriculum ensued. 380 After intense
dialogues, reflection, substantial faculty turnover, and a revisioning of the curriculum, a
newly organized and structured Department of Religious Studies emerged when the
moratorium was lifted. In 2007, in response to the moratorium, the department created a
145

Self Study explaining and outlining the curriculum and direction of the department, and
firmly connected both to the mission, vision and values of the university. According to
the Self Study, there is now a “new collective vision for the curriculum of the
department” and that vision includes new faculty, new courses, more intentional and
integrated learning opportunities for students, and a clearer articulation on the successes
of alumni and practicality of the religious studies major.381
The majority of the current faculty members in the department were not hired
when the moratorium was imposed. According to the Self Study, “Since 1998 three
senior faculty have retired; four tenure-stream faculty have been hired, as have two fixedterm faculty. […] A viable curriculum should reflect the strengths of the faculty as it now
stands and allow for future changes and expansions.”382 Faculty members teach courses
that are connected to their research interest areas and their projects and scholarship
indicates breadth and depth in their specializations.
The department continues to update its curriculum and course offerings, has
revised the major requirements, and added a minor and new specialization in Religion
and American Culture. New courses and themes that are complementary and attractive to
students in other programs include Sacred Music, Sacred Places, New Religions,
Philosophy of Religion, Islam and more.383 The structure for the new major clearly
indicates where the courses fit into the curriculum as a whole, course characteristics,
principal learning outcomes, and assessment measures. The curriculum is justified and
future oriented, with course content firmly grounded in contemporary disciplinary
practices.

146

According to the departmental website, students who pursue Religious Studies
will develop the capacity for analysis, interpretation and comparison and build an
individualized body of knowledge about historical and modern religion. The website
explains, “Although some in the past argued that religion would fade away in the modern
era, in fact today it is more vital than ever.”384 The statement applies to the study of
religion, to the often-present, student-posed question, “What sort of a job can I get with a
Religious Studies major?” and to the newly structured major as well. A redesigned
website and newsletter, with a clear student-centered emphasis are now available, as well
as FAQs for students and parents. Co-curricular activities and opportunities for students
to get involved are prevalent. Alumni have offered success stories about the practicality
and marketability of the major. The department has created a transparent and clearly
articulated major that will appeal to a wide variety of learners and career goals.
The Religious Studies Department also has student-run organizations, both formal
and informal. In Fall 2009, the Campus Interfaith Council (CIC) began. The CIC “seeks
to promote relationships between peoples of differing faiths, work to integrate a religious
aspect into student life, and encourage interfaith cooperation and understanding, and aid
students in maintaining personal religious identities through dialogue, community service
and collaborative events.”385 The CIC offers students bi-monthly meetings and engaging
ways to connect with others of differing belief systems and sponsor events for individual
and collective transformation through the co-curriculum. The Religious Studies Student
Discussion Group also meets to talk about topics connected to religion and
departmentally sponsored speakers and events. These two organizations interact via
Facebook groups, meet regularly, and present students with various and diverse co147

curricular opportunities to apply and practice the knowledge and theories gained through
their coursework.
As of 2011, the Department of Religious Studies added a series of Universitywide statements on Liberal Learning and clearly stated University goals and outcomes to
their current and prospective students:

Religious Studies belongs to the tradition of liberal arts education that informs the
best of American higher education. A liberal arts foundation enhances the
potential that MSU graduates will be outstanding leaders and life-long learners.
These liberal learning goals are intended to provide a framework for students’
active engagement in learning both in and out of the classroom.386
Students pursuing a major or minor in Religious Studies will engage in analytical
thinking, develop cultural understanding, effective citizenship and communication skills,
and practice integrative reasoning.387 The content of the curriculum contains specific and
measurable outcomes that are aligned with both College and University mission, vision
and value statements. The department also fosters strong connections with the community
through alumni spotlights, a wide variety of lectures and co-curricular events, and its
newly developed REL 493 Internship course, which facilitates student placement in
community centers and non-profit organizations.
Analysis and Conclusion
While the content of the curriculum is relevant, so is its method of delivery, and at
Michigan State, the Religious Studies major provides a core group of foundational and
methodology courses and enough flexibility in upper level courses to explore particular
traditions or aspects of religion for which the students have interest. As of 2009, to
complete the major and obtain a B.A. in Religious Studies, students must complete either
Exploring Religion or Introduction to Biblical Literature and take both Religion in
148

America and Methods and Theories in the Study of Religion. They must pick two of
either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, which offers a solid grounding in monotheistic
traditions, and pick two from the following: Native American Religions, Hinduism,
Religions of South Asia, Buddhism in South Asia, Southeast Asian Religions or African
Religion. Students have a wide variety of upper level courses to choose from, including:
Muhammad and Early Muslim Community, Bhakti Hinduism, Modern Hindu Thought,
Advanced Topics in the Philosophy of Religion, Advanced Readings in American
Religion, The Ritual Process, Comparative Studies in Religion, Independent Study,
Special Topics in Religious Studies, and Religious Studies Internship. Students must also
complete a Senior Thesis or Project and can pick up to six additional credits to attain the
34 required for the major.388

For a minor in Religious Studies, students must complete 15 – 19 credits,
including an intro level course, two from the 300 level courses, one 400 level course and
an additional 3-6 credits per approval.389 The department also offers a minor in Religion
in the Americas, in which the student must complete 15-18 credits:

1. At least one of the following courses:
Exploring Religion
Religion in America
2. At least three of the following courses
Islam in North America
Music and Spirituality in the U.S
Magic and Mysticism
Native American Religions
Evangelicalism in the U.S
Religion and U.S. Literature
New Religions and the World
3. One of the following courses
149

Advanced Readings in American Religion
Special Topics in Religious Studies
This is a standard approach to both the major and minor in undergraduate religious
studies programs, introducing students to the study of religion and its theoretical and
methodological approaches, exploring the major monotheistic and non-monotheistic
traditions, and allowing the student to focus in on particular areas of interest in upper
level coursework. There is choice and flexibility for the students and the curriculum
model is based on departmental expertise. Overall, such a model provides students with a
well-rounded approach and a global understanding of religious traditions.
Religious Studies at Michigan State has struggled periodically with administrative
and budgetary support, staffing issues, enrollments, and even justifications for its own
existence at times, but it has emerged as a vibrant and future-oriented department. Its
curriculum connects to both institutional and College mission statements and provides
clear and viable learning outcomes for its majors. The department’s 2007 Self Study laid
out a concrete and descriptive preamble that helped contextualize the importance of the
study of religion and its complex role in higher education. The department also
recognized that in order to ask better questions and gain insights about religion, scholars
often borrowed from other disciplines or identified with other sub-fields, such as
philosophy, anthropology, sociology or history.390 Such interdisciplinary endeavors
indicate strength and provide an opportunity for students to engage a variety of
perspectives and methodologies, expand their knowledge, and understand other cultures
and themselves.

150

The department has emerged from the most recent moratorium with a curriculum
that provides a broad based and grounded exposure to religious traditions (both
monotheistic and non), as well as theory and methods in the study of religion, and a
variety of electives and areas of focus for students interested in the study of religion. The
program at MSU offers a wide variety of speakers and community events for its majors
and even non-majors. Other programs and departments, both within MSU and at other
institutions, faced struggles similar to those of the MSU Department of Religious Studies.
There is much to learn from their experience and perseverance. Quoting Walter Capps,
their Self Study declares, “What distinguishes Religious Studies from any of its
individual component parts is its composite nature: it consists of all of these
methodological operations, and all of these selective foci of interest working together.”391
It is evident that many faculty members, staff, students, and administrators have thought
deeply and worked diligently to create the program—and the future—that now exists for
Religious Studies at MSU.

151

Chapter Six – Religion Curriculum at The University of Michigan: Many
Possibilities, Few Paths
“There was an original vision that characterized the Chicago School. This was the
contention that in secular America and in its universities religion mattered, as a theme in
the national past and as a presence in the present. Second, it argued that the study of
religious history belonged not only in the seminaries and archives of denominations, but
also in the rough-and-tumble of the secular university, where no religious meanings were
privileged and where each historian had to make a case for the value of his or her story.”
Jerald C. Brauer and Martin E. Marty
From the Introduction to: God’s People in the Ivory Tower:
Religion in the Early American University

A discussion about religion curriculum development and higher education in
Michigan could not be complete without attention to the oldest and arguably most
influential institution in the state, the University of Michigan. Spanning almost two
hundred years of history, intertwined with the histories of the universities discussed in
earlier chapters, and connected to the politics and government of the state from its earliest
days, there is little hope to provide a comprehensive view about much of anything related
to this complex and colossal institution of higher education. Early catalogs state that the
University of Michigan was an essential part of the territory’s educational system and
that by 1804, through an act of Congress,
a township of land in Michigan was set apart for the support of a University, and
in 1817 preliminary steps were taken by the Territorial Government for its
organization. In 1821 Trustees were appointed, and in 1824 another township of
land was devoted to its support by Congress. In 1841 the first building was
erected, and the University proper was opened.392
In a modest attempt to address my topic as I did in previous chapters, I will first provide a
brief institutional and curricular history, with a particular focus on how the administration
addressed sectarianism and supported dialogue about religion and its place in the
curriculum. I will then examine the mission, vision and values of the institution,
152

particularly in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA), where the majority
of courses about religion appeared. Finally, I will highlight the myriad ways religion
curriculum has developed over the years in a wide variety of structures, institutes,
schools, and centers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, as well as on the Flint and
Dearborn campuses.
Brief Institutional and Curricular History
Historian Floyd R. Dain, author of Education in the Wilderness, explains that on
August 26, 1817, Judge Augustus B. Woodward, along with Judge John Griffin and the
secretary of the Michigan territory, William Woodbridge, proposed and drafted the
territorial law that established the Catholepistemiad, a system of education from primary
school to the university. The first Constitution of Michigan required the establishment of
a Primary School in every township that would be kept open and run, without requiring
tuition, for at least three months each year. In larger villages, or wherever communities
shared resources, townships united and established Union Schools, which employed a
number of teachers, combined materials, and divided labor to create Classical and
Scientific Academies and Preparatory Schools for students desiring entrance to the
University.393 The Catholepistemiad was the first and only attempt at a complete and
comprehensive system of education throughout the territory.
According to Howard Peckham, author of The Making of the University of
Michigan: 1817-1992, Woodward had modeled his plan after Napoleon’s Imperial
University of France, founded a decade earlier and which was not a university at all, but a
centralized system of state supported schools throughout the country directed by a
minister of public instruction. The system would be organized under thirteen
153

professorships, the last of which, Ennoeica, or intellectual sciences, included psychology
and religion. The professor of Ennoeica would also be vice-president of the institution.
Woodward’s plan was innovative and bold, particularly with the emphases on science
and economics, which deviated from the traditional classical curriculum.394 Woodward’s
and the other founders’ hopes and goals were for the Catholepistemiad to organize,
promote, streamline, and systematically regulate all of the levels of the developing
system of education in the territory and, eventually, the state.
Father Gabriel Richard and Reverend Richard Monteith promoted and advocated
a noteworthy pedagogical approach in their newly developing educational endeavors: the
Lancasterian system. Named for Englishman Joseph Lancaster and already wellestablished in many schools in the East,395 the methodology involved the opportunity for
mass education through a rigidly-structured system of students helping students. Richard
and Monteith sought out and secured well-known educator Lemuel Shattuck, who was
skilled in the Lancaster system.396 Although the Catholepistemiad, its innovative
pedagogies and its early supporters envisioned a comprehensive educational system,
historian Willis F. Dunbar, author of Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State, notes
the scope and centralized control was abandoned a decade later.397 The core of the system
remained and developed into the University of Michigan, which moved to Ann Arbor in
1841.
C. Grey Austin, author of A Century of Religion at the University of Michigan
explains that the University of Michigan
was the first of the state institutions to attain the full stature of a University, the
first to be completely under public control, the first large institution to be
coeducational, and the first state university to provide for the teaching of
education, forestry, and engineering. Similarly, while it cannot be claimed with
154

certainty that Michigan was the home of the first college YMCA, it is clear that
this development, along with many of the early denominational programs, the
University-sponsored Student Religious Association and even the contemporary
pattern of Religious Affairs, was a response to the need of the local situation and
without precedent from other institutions.398
Students, parents and the surrounding denominational communities expected that religion
would have a place on campus, but what that place and role would be remained open for
much debate on campus. The University of Michigan maintained The Christian
Association, Union Missionary Society, YMCA, Christian Library Association, Student
Christian Association, Ministerial Band and the YWCA. Austin explains that, “The
University of Michigan was never intended to be a sectarian school, though it was
intended to have a distinctly religious atmosphere. From the beginning, leaders of the
various churches were active in its faculty and administration.”399 Early denominational
involvements in the university included: Unitarian, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist,
Roman Catholic, Disciples of Christ, Baptist, and Congregational influences. Religious
cooperation linked the University with the Federation of Christian Workers, Conference
of Christian Workers in State Universities, the First School of Religion the Christian
Association, and the Student Religious Association. These programs and organizations
often relied on financial and administrative support from the various denominations. But,
as Peckham notes, the institution stated in an annual report “that no trustee, professor, or
student should be barred from appointment or admission because of religious beliefs.”400
The administration publicly and intentionally gave no denomination or religious
perspective superiority over another.
The first students, six freshmen, one sophomore, and twenty-three to the
preparatory school, were admitted in 1841. According to Peckham, the freshmen “were
155

enrolled in a curriculum that included rhetoric, grammar, Latin literature and Roman
antiquities, Greek literature and antiquities, algebra, geometry, and natural science” and
the sophomore studied “advanced mathematics, surveying, rhetoric, logic, ancient
history, and Greek philosophy.”401 In addition to these subjects, students at Michigan
were required to attend daily chapel, which began at 5:00 a.m. and, on Sundays, to visit
one of the town’s churches. Peckham writes,
This decidedly Christian stance of a nonsectarian, government-supported
institution was defended in the Regents’ report to the superintendent in 1841:
‘Whatever varieties of sect exist in these United States, the great mass of the
population profess and attachment to Christianity and, as a people, avow
themselves to be Christian. There is common ground occupied by them, allsufficient for cooperation in an institution of learning, and for the presence of
religious influence… Attempts made to exclude all religious influence whatever
from the colleges, have only rendered them the sectarian of an atheistical or
infidel party or faction, and so offended and disgusted the majority of the
population agreeing in their respect for a common Christianity, that they have
withdrawn their support…’402
Peckham also notes that “nonsectarian” meant no favoritism toward any denomination,
not religious indifference. As the population in the recently established state continued to
grow, most denominations were founding their own colleges and curricula; the role they
were to play at the University of Michigan was less clear.403
Although most belonged to particular churches, the early presidents of the
University attempted to maintain openness to all denominations. For example, Henry
Philip Tappan, president from 1852-1863, was an ordained minister. But Peckham notes
that Tappan believed that “as a University President he ought to attend the various
churches in Ann Arbor instead of associating himself exclusively with the Presbyterian.
Such tolerance pleased neither the Presbyterians, who thought he was dissatisfied with
them, nor the other denominations, who regarded his circulation as indifference to any
156

creed.”404 Tappan also made conscientious efforts to select and secure faculty members
based on their research and scholarship, not their denominational or church affiliations.
Peckham continues, “in short, to make the University genuinely nonsectarian, was
interpreted by the denominations of the state as evidence that the University was a
‘godless’ institution, undeserving of the legislative support it sought and which they
hoped to procure for their own colleges.”405 Furthermore, in the spring of 1869, President
Erastus Haven, a Methodist minister, preached in a Unitarian Church in Detroit for
several Sundays. According to Peckham, “Several newspapers and church papers
professed to be shocked and wondered what kind of religious instruction the students
must receive under such an administration.” Haven responded, “‘It is not a godless
education that they fear, but a Christian education not communicated through the forms
and channels over which they preside.’”406 He left the institution shortly thereafter.
Although early presidents and faculty members, many of whom were also clergy, often
struggled with how and where religion was to be integrated into the institution, the
University continued to grow rapidly, develop curriculum, and add programs to its three
main departments, the Department of Science, Literature and the Arts, the Department of
Medicine and Surgery, and the Department of Law.407
In 1871, James Burrill Angell became president and led the institution for almost
forty years. Harlan Hatcher, author of The University of Michigan: 140 Years from
Michigan Wilderness to a World Center of Learning! (1817-1957) explains, “These were
the years of great industrial expansion in the United States, of the completion of the
transcontinental railways, and of the rise of corporations, including Ford and General
Motors in Detroit, and the expansion of the copper and iron-ore industries in
157

Michigan.”408 The programs and curriculum at Michigan expanded as well. The School
of Dentistry was founded in 1875, The College of Pharmacy in 1876, The School of
Nursing in 1891. Programs in teaching, political science, forestry, sanitary science,
journalism, public speaking, neurology, psychiatry, naval architecture and marine
engineering, landscape design and business administration also developed at this time.409
In 1903, President Angell gave the opening address at the Founding Convention
of the Religious Education Association (REA) and spoke about “The Next Step Forward
in Religious Education.410 And, a few years later in 1910, the University of Michigan
hosted the conference. D.G. Hart, author of The University gets Religion: Religious
Studies in American Higher Education, notes that membership in the REA was made up
of influential individuals “from a variety of educational, moral, and religious
organizations” who thought that “the study of religion in higher education had found a
justification that was plausible to other academics and consistent with the mission of the
university.”411 Biblical scholar and Yale Professor Benjamin W. Bacon argued that the
scientific study of the Bible and religion was appropriate to advanced learning in higher
education. Hart notes,
the study of and teaching of religion occurred in a more or less happenstance
fashion, with different organizations and individuals taking up the cause. What
united these efforts, even though lacking institutional organization, was Bacon’s
argument that religious studies primarily had to be scientific, coupled with his
belief that the study of religion would make students religious.412
While making students religious was not a stated function of the University of Michigan,
the institution often acknowledged the multiple levels of development it sought to nurture
and develop in its students.

158

The 1916-17 Catalogue contains a lengthy statement about the “Aids to Moral and
Religious Culture” that the University encouraged and facilitated. The statement began
with an invitation for students to attend the various churches in Ann Arbor, including
“Baptist, Congregationalist, the Disciples, English Lutheran, German Lutheran, German
Methodist, Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, Roman Catholic and
Unitarian.”413 It then highlighted the Students’ Christian Association (SCA), which
“devotes itself to moral and religious culture” on campus “through voluntary Bible and
Mission Study, religious education, religious meetings, social service and deputation
work, personal attention, and cooperation with the churches and student Guilds.”414
Furthermore, the Tappan Presbyterian Association housed “a theological library of
several thousand volumes” with the purpose of maintaining “courses of lectures upon
church history and church work.”415 The university provided multiple opportunities for
students and faculty members to discuss religion, participate in religious organizations,
and develop their own individual understanding and beliefs, but fewer opportunities in
the classroom to examine religion as an academic subject.
The early 1930s and the Great Depression caused the same strains and stresses on
the faculty and students at the University of Michigan as it did at other institutions of
higher education in the state. According to Peckham, “Each of the major church
denominations maintained a center and special program on the weekends for University
students. An assistant minister or campus pastor gave most or all of his time to
counseling students, yet Ruthven felt that the University itself should evince more
religious interest.”416 He appointed a counselor of religious education, the Reverend
Edward W. Blakeman, a former Methodist minister who, Peckham notes, had an advisory
159

faculty committee and “close association with the campus rabbi, the campus priest, and
the student pastors provided by the Protestant churches.”417 In addition to these
counseling resources, in 1936, the Student Christian Association donated Lane Hall to the
institution to be used as a center for religious study and activities. And a year later,
according to Peckham, the University founded the Student Religious Association, which
was available to all students interested in religious activities. Blakeman became the
director and served as an advisor on religious affairs to Ruthven for the next fifteen years.
418

The early 1940s saw an increase of three trends concerning religion in higher
education: fear and disillusionment about the lack of religious values, the rise of
secularism, and an increase in religious pluralism. Some scholars began to again look at
higher education as the place and venue to rekindle faith and values through a more
formalized approach to the study of religion. Some called for ways to more formally
integrate values and faith into the University. Peckham notes that the Provost at
Michigan held religion “was worthy of intellectual inquiry and should be a part of our
educational program.”419 And Merrimon Cuninggim, author of The College Seeks
Religion, explains that “Educators have been persuaded to give religion a chance as they
have viewed the state of the world with increasing alarm. This state is, of course,
secularism, but it is also much more—a general rottenness at the core of human life.”420
George Marsden, author of The Soul of the American University: From Protestant
Establishment to Established Non-Belief documents the rise of secularism at great length
as well. In addition to tensions connected to secularism, an increase of scholarship and
curriculum about non-Christian religions also added tensions concerning religious
160

pluralism in higher education. These three trends manifested themselves at University of
Michigan for the next several decades.
In his article “A Mess of Pottage: The Debate Over Religious Pluralism at the
University of Michigan, 1944-48” author Philip Harrold details the conflict between
Blakeman, who was nearing the end of his career at the institution, and Franklin Littell,
who had recently been appointed director of the SRA. According to Harrold, these two
men “were situated at the boundary between ideology and practice. In this microcosm of
the religious-education movement, definitions of religion, democracy, and the nation
were contested in a highly charged atmosphere of campus politics.”421 Blakeman
mistrusted religious sectarianism on campus and sought to foster loyalty, support and
higher “communal meanings and values” in students. 422 He believed that student groups
should think and act with a global perspective and also blend harmoniously with other
student groups. For Blakeman, according to Harrold, “‘Group loyalty’ was the proper
goal of religion, the ‘group’ in this case being the American democratic state as reflected
in the microcosm of the public university.”423 Littell, however, “insisted that the various
faiths, denominations, and campus guilds should serve as ‘primary religious groups’ for
the spiritual and intellectual formation of students… [and] that diversity within the
Christian community would serve as a sign of vigor and would enhance the profile of
religion on campus.”424 The conflict between the two men continued for several years and
eventually resulted in Blakeman resigning a year early and Littell pursuing his plans for
increasing and supporting individual denominational groups’ influence and events on
campus. According to Harrold, the conflict indicated “how individuals might hold to
very different understandings of religion as well as contradictory approaches to fostering
161

it on a university campus, and yet share a fundamental concern for the functional role of
religious experience at the national level.”425 This conflict is yet another example of the
differing views about how interaction with and integration of religion occurred within the
institution.
After Blakeman’s resignation, the Student Religious Association was directed by
Reverend DeWitt C. Baldwin, who started a Religion-in-Life Week with a variety of
guest lecturers.426 Interest in campus events concerning religion increased, including
hosting more national conferences. And, in 1956, the University created the Office of
Religious Affairs (ORA). Peckham explains that the purpose of the ORA was “to
encourage the religious growth of students through the special campus pastors of various
denominations and through recognition of religion in instructional programs as a valid
area of intellectual inquiry.”427
In a memo dated April 2 1959, the ORA detailed its function and the scope of its
responsibilities to the Michigan campuses, stating
In assuming the support within its official structure of a variety of personnel
services, the University has committed itself to the task of educating the whole
person. In designating religious affairs as one of these services, religion is
accepted as a factor contributing to this education. The basic concerns of the
ORA are the individual student and the community within which he lives; and
specifically with those elements within the community which affect his religious
life and growth.428
The ORA took responsibility for religious affairs at the institution and claimed to operate
from a perspective different from that of any other agency working with religion.
The Committee on Studies in Religion is concerned with academic offerings, and
the institutions of the various religious traditions work from a variety of points of
view with religion as a way of life, not without concern for the intellectual aspects
of religion but sufficiently outside the structure of the University’s academic
framework. […] The ORA is the only agency responsible for working from a
perspective which will permit an overview of the entire pattern of religious affairs
on the campus, to the end that a balanced variety of experience, both academic
162

and non-academic, but always worth of the support of the University, may be
available to the entire campus community.429
The self-stated tasks of the ORA were to provide clear interpretation of the place of
religion at the University of Michigan and other institutions, to communicate awareness
of trends and relationships among the many religious groups, the faculty, staff, and
students on campus, to sponsor events and distribute religious resources, to promote
campus acceptance of and the validity of religion as an area of intellectual inquiry, and to
provide counseling and advice concerning religion the campus community.430
In addition to the establishment of the ORA, the 1950s saw a huge expansion of
the University of Michigan. In 1952, the groundbreaking for the North Campus occurred.
The campus contained additional laboratories, instructional and service buildings,
housing for married students and would be the eventual home for most of Engineering,
the Schools of Music and Education and the College of Architecture and Design.431 The
University of Michigan founded campuses at Flint in 1956 and at Dearborn in 1959. The
curriculum expanded accordingly at these campuses as well.
The University of Michigan has, from the start, supported and encouraged student
religious organizations and events that initiated and promoted dialogue about religions. In
the fall of 1958, the University of Michigan hosted the National Consultative Conference,
which provided space for and dialogues about the roles and complexities of religion in
state universities. In his article “A Centennial of Student Religious Work,” written in
1959 and reflecting on that conference, Dewitt C. Baldwin stated,
From the time of its founding, the Board of Regents and the Administration at the
University of Michigan have maintained a judicious and friendly attitude toward
student religious life. When the student body was predominantly Protestant, the
university held daily chapel services. As the student body constituency changed,
policies and practices in this and other areas of student religious life were
163

modified. The fact that campus and church student religious groups have
flourished during the intervening years and that, in the words of Dr. Clarence P.
Shedd, ‘the University of Michigan is recognized as a conspicuous center for
experimentation’ in the area of student religious work, attest to the cordial and
friendly attitude toward religion on this campus.432
This cordial and friendly attitude, however, did not yet include an administrative or
departmental structure for the curriculum. While dozens of courses dealing with various
aspects of religion existed at the time, and many conferences, dialogues and speakers
were invited on campus with religious topics, the institution maintained a decentralized
approach to establishing a formalized curriculum specific to the study of religion.
Mission, Vision and Values – A Brief History
The earliest catalogs of the University of Michigan indicated that the institution
maintained a responsibility for the morals of its students and required each student to
“attend prayers daily in the College Chapel, and to attend public worship on the Sabbath,
at such one of the churches in the village of Ann Arbor, as his parents or guardians may
direct.”433 In its early years, the University took its job of in loco parentis seriously. But,
as enrollments grew rapidly in the early 1900s, the institution also grew in diversity of
religious influences. Not only home to a wide variety of Christian denominations, the
University began developing an international reputation and tolerance for non-Christian
religious perspectives as well. While its primary service was still focused on the state, the
University from the start recognized and fostered a leadership role among higher
education institutions, particularly in research and professional development.
In a section entitled “The University and the State,” the 1916-17 General Register
(the University of Michigan catalog) offered a preamble to the listings of the general

164

curriculum offered an introduction and scope to the purpose and function of the
institution. It read:
The University of Michigan is a part of the public educational system of the State.
The governing body of the institution is a Board of Regents, elected by popular
vote for terms of eight years, as provided in the Constitution of the State. In
accordance with the laws of the State, the University aims to complete and crown
the work that is begun in the public schools by furnishing ample facilities for
liberal education in literature, science, and the arts, and for thorough professional
study of engineering, architecture, medicine, law, pharmacy and dentistry. […]
While Michigan has endowed her University primarily for the higher education of
her own sons and daughters, it must be understood that she also opens the doors
of the institution to all students wherever their homes. It is this broad, generous,
and hospitable spirit that the University has been founded, and that it endeavors to
do its work.434
Indicating a rapidly growing and rigorous demand for admission, the 1925-26 General
Register altered the end of the statement to: “While Michigan has endowed her
University primarily for the higher education of her own sons and daughters, it must be
understood that she also opens the door of the institution to all persons who are qualified
for admission.”435 While these statements provided a broad framework and scope,
because of the varied nature and scope of the numerous and diverse colleges and schools
that were developing, no unified mission or vision existed for the institution as a whole.
The importance of developing and nurturing of the religious aspects of the
students’ lives was still evident in the introductory language of the General Register. For
example, the 1955-56 General Register noted,
At the entrance to Angell Hall, the following quotation from the Northwest
Ordinance appears: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
government and to the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged.’ In recognizing religion as one of the strongest
influences in shaping the mental attitudes of its students, the University maintains
Lane Hall as a center for extracurricular activities and studies in the field of
religion for the students of the University. It is the headquarters of the Student
Religious Association. Lectures, educational programs, discussions, and retreats
are arranged by the student members under the guidance of the Co-ordinator of
165

Religious Affairs and his staff. Students are urged by the University to continue
their own church affiliations when they come to Ann Arbor. A list of religious
counselors and consultants is posted in University buildings.436
While Lane Hall was open to students from every program or major, each of the colleges
and schools began developing their more specific missions and goals by the early 1960s.
For that reason, it is useful to focus in more specifically on the mission, vision and values
of LSA, where the majority of courses dealing with religion were housed.
Although the importance of a liberal education was evident in most of the
colleges in the institution, LSA, the largest college, claimed a direct responsibility to this
goal. The introductory language about the College in the 1967-68 General Register
explained that,
The curriculum of the College is an affirmation of the faculty’s faith in a fouryear program of liberal studies—that is, studies which will help prepare a student
to live a good life as an individual and as a member of a community. There are
two major phases in such a program: A wide experience of the different kinds of
thinking and understanding, and an intensive study of some particular field of
interest. Breadth and depth of learning are equally important.
Accordingly, every student must, before graduation, work in each of the major
fields of study: English composition, a foreign language, the humanities, the
social sciences, and the natural sciences. These requirements are intended to
ensure that every graduate of this College will have personal experience with the
content, method and system of values of the various disciplines by which men try
to understand themselves and the world in which they live.
Before graduation, every student must also choose a particular field of study in
which he plans to acquire a deeper and more intimate knowledge. This field may
be within a department of study such as anthropology or zoology, but it may also
cut across departmental lines and be centered in an area or topic which has its
own unity.437
This broad introduction was accompanied by a more detailed explanation of the College
in its own publication and course guide, called The Bulletin, which further noted:
The College of Literature, Science and the Arts is a public liberal arts college
dedicated to the discovery and transmission of knowledge. In its classrooms,
166

laboratories, and libraries may be found faculty and student working at the
frontiers of virtually every significant area of learning.
As one of the nation’s major undergraduate institutions, the College is able to
offer to a large, yet select, number of young men and women and unparalleled
opportunity to develop their intellectual capabilities. By offering students the
freedom to explore a wide variety of subjects and by requiring high standards of
performance, the College attempts to help each student realize his full intellectual
potential.
As a branch of the State of Michigan’s educational system, the College provides
unique services for the people of the state; in addition to the faculty’s direct
contributions to education, business, and government, the College serves the state
indirectly by aiding its outstanding young people to prepare themselves
intellectually and vocationally to assume responsible roles in society.
As a community of scholars who share the conviction that the good life is the
fully examined life, the College operates on the assumption that man can
successfully cope with his problems only after he has attained some insight into
the nature of his physical, social, and moral environment; for this reason the
College insists that the proper subjects for study are not merely techniques and
skills, but the liberal arts: the concepts, values, and basic principles which
characterize civilized man.
In all of these activities the faculty and student who comprise the College are
committed to the pursuit of excellence.
As its primary goal, the College aims at expanding the intellectual frontiers of
each student by stimulating him to explore the unknown and by providing him
with the knowledge, not in the narrow sense of facts alone, but in the broadest
sense of new awareness about man and his surroundings. The College hopes to
help every student understand himself and the world around him. In addition, the
College strives to give a student the ability to compare, contrast, analyze, classify,
discriminate, criticize, evaluate, and choose intelligently from among the myriad
experiences and ideas which confront him.
Specifically, the College attempts to insure intellectual growth by stipulating a
threefold division of study. Each student is expected to devote approximately
one-third of his college work to “distribution courses” which acquaint him with
the content and methodology of the major divisions of learning: his own
language, a foreign language, social science, natural science and humanities.
Furthermore, each student is required to devote another third of his efforts to the
study in depth of some one “concentration” subject. Finally, each student is
encouraged to devote the remaining third of his college experience to “electives”
chosen for their inherent interest. It is the hope of the College that this division
will introduce each student to the basic elements of his culture, provide him with
167

the grounding for pursuing a vocation, and stimulate him to continue throughout
his life the quest for enduring values which transcend mere daily existence.438
Beginning in 1997, the Studies in Religion Program also articulated its own
statement about the scope and vision for studying religion in the institution, which was to
provide students with “a basic knowledge of the history, psychology, philosophy, and
anthropology of religion” through promoting “an understanding of diverse religious
traditions” and examining “religious questions which arise in all cultures.” The program
did not seek “to inculcate a particular doctrine or faith but rather to broaden and deepen a
student's knowledge and understanding of religious traditions.”439 This statement
appeared at the beginning of all subsequent course listings until the program disbanded.
The current mission of the University of Michigan is “to serve the people of
Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and
applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens
who will challenge the present and enrich the future.”440 And the current mission of LSA
is “To achieve pre-eminence in creating, preserving and applying knowledge and
academic values, to enrich the lives of students, and to transform them into leaders and
citizens who challenge the present and illuminate the future.441
Religion Curriculum History
The University of Michigan has stressed the importance of religion in the lives of
its students and fostered discussions of and about religious matters from the founding of
the institution, but the formal place for and scope of a religion curriculum has been much
more fluid throughout its history. In the early years, students interested in studying
religion could do so through Judeo-Christian traditions and from literary, historical, or
philosophical perspectives. As the institution grew to include a greater diversity of global
168

traditions, there were a few attempts to create structures and models through which
students could pursue studying religion, but none of these manifested into any lasting
system or methodology for the academic pursuit of discipline.
The 1916-17 Catalogue, under the curricular listings of the LSA, lists a program
of “Semitics, Including Studies in the English Bible and the History of Religions,” which
sought to attract students seeking a “liberal culture…the study of classical and modern
languages…a special study of Semitics… ancient history…art and archeology…ethics
and theology… and missionary service in the orient.”442 While the Semitics curriculum
focused on a variety of languages, including Hebrew, Assyrian, Aramaic and Arabic, a
section on Semitic History and Literature listed courses about religion. First semester
offerings included the course Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, which
involved, “A critical inquiry concerning the Old Testament documents, including the
Apocrypha. Special attention is given to the value of the writings for historical study and
to their place in the development of religion” as well as Israelitish History and Prophecy,
which dealt with “the developments and the mutual relations of history and prophecy in
the great creative period of Israel’s religion, from the 9th to the 7th century B.C.”443
Second semester study in Semitics for the 1916-17 academic year added a course
on the History of Israel, the continuation of the Old Testament literature course and The
Bible as Literature, a “critical study of the chief literary masterpieces of the Bible, from
the literary standpoint, as contributions to world literature. Particular attention will be
given to the Book of Job, The Psalms, and examples of Hebrew poetry and oratory as
exemplified in the prophets. The American Revised Version will constitute the textbook.” A sub heading also listed The History of Religions, and included a course entitled
169

The Religions of the Semites, which surveyed “the religions of Babylonia, (Egypt),
Palestine, and Arabia, in their mutual relations,” and a course called The Ethnic Faiths,
which explored “the great living Ethnic Faiths of India, Persia and Japan.”444
In addition to the Semitics program, the LAS offered additional religion courses
in other departments. The English Department offered The English Bible— Its Literary
Aspects and Influence, which used The King James Version and aimed to “acquaint the
student with the Scripture Story as material for literary allusion and illustration.”445 The
Philosophy Department’s Philosophy of Religion course was recommended to “students
who proposed to follow the ministry, and to those who are interested in the relation of
religion to modern life.”446 These few courses formulate the origins of the religion
curriculum at the University of Michigan.
Although Charles Foster Kent, in The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the
Tax- Supported Colleges and Universities in America, notes that the 1922-23 academic
year, the University of Michigan had six courses dealing with religion: English Bible (I
and II)—Its Literary Aspects and Influence, Synoptic Gospels, Acts and John, Pauline
Epistles, and the Making of the Bible, a careful look at the catalogue as a whole indicates
the above mentioned courses as well. 447 But these courses were scattered, maintained by
a variety of faculty members and departments, no unified or administrative structure to
support them, and no formal way for students to approach the study of religion.
In his article “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: The Michigan School of
Religion, 1920-1930” author Peter Laipson provides details of a noteworthy
manifestation of religion curriculum in the university. Between 1925 and 1927, the
Michigan School of Religion (MSR), was “an independent institution on the campus of
170

the University of Michigan… [that] offered some forty classes each semester in various
topics in the study of religion” and was unique in that it attempted to be nondenominational, and avoided being managed by local sects.448 According to Laipson, the
aim of the MSR was “to make accessible, principally to the undergraduates of the state
institutions of higher learning, courses in the history of religion corresponding to those
now offered in such privately supported colleges and universities as Harvard, Yale,
Dartmouth, and the University of Chicago.”449 In September 1925, the MSR offered
thirty-six classes under five rubrics: “Religion and Civilization, Religion and Thought,
Religion and Conduct, Religion and Institutions and Religion and Feeling. Thirty-one of
these courses already were being taught at the university by ordinary faculty for full
credit and were simply cross-registered; visiting faculty at the MSR offered an additional
five each semester.”450 Because the MSR was riddled with contention and conflicting
agendas of the administration and faculty who ran the program, and because its
commitment to a non-sectarian approach had alienated the local pastors and churches that
could have helped promote the school and recruit students, the visionary program ended
in a mere two years.
Robert S. Michaelsen, author of The Study of Religion in American Universities:
Ten Case Studies with Special Reference to State Universities, explains that The
University of Michigan maintained and promoted its religion courses without a
traditional department, drawing on inter-departmental faculty and a committee to oversee
the curriculum and appointments. For example, the History Department ran courses in
early Christian history and thought, the Classics Department ran courses on the New
Testament and related literatures, the Philosophy Department ran courses on medieval
171

religious philosophy and modern religious thought, and the Near Eastern Studies
Department ran courses on Near Eastern history in the Hellenistic-Roman period with a
concentration on post-biblical Judaism.451 From the beginning, the University of
Michigan administered its religion curriculum through collaboration, integration and
innovative programs, courses and organizations and with the academic rigor and
reputation for which the institution was known.
The 1944-45 General Register lists a Degree Program in Religion and Ethics “for
those students who wish to concentrate during the last two years of their undergraduate
course in this general field.”452 Students could examine religion as an aspect of
civilization and take courses in anthropology, history, oriental languages, philosophy,
physics or sociology. They could also approach religion as an aspect of thought and
select from courses in astronomy, education, zoology and philosophy. Studying religion
as an aspect of social relations included courses such as Primitive Religion, The Bible as
Living Literature, The History of Israel and the History of Religions, and The Geography
and Ethnology of the Near East. [more here/WWII and GI Bill mention]
By the 1955-56 General Register, students who wished to study religion could
follow a “Studies in Religion” program, which was created from courses in many of the
above-mentioned departments and was “intended for students who wish to make religion
a primary field of study in connection with intensive work in some specific department.
The concern of that part of the program which deals with religion is not to teach any
particular doctrine or faith, but to broaden the student’s knowledge and understanding of
religion, whatever his faith may be.”453 Students pursuing this path were required to take
36 hours, 18 from courses in the major department and 18 from a pre-approved list of
172

courses, including: Primitive Religion, The Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Early
Christian Art and Archaeology, Greek Mythology, Basic Roman Ideas, The English
Bible: Its Literary Aspects and Influence, Religious Literature in America, Readings in
Chinese Thought, The Church and State, The Intellectual History of Medieval Europe,
Biblical Hebrew, Social and Religious Thought of the Hebrew Prophets, Muslim History
and Civilization, Ethics, Problems of Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Psychology of
Religion, and Religious Institutions, which was “an analysis of the structure and
functioning of religious groups, with particular reference to contemporary society.”454
While there was variance from year to year in the frequency of the courses offered, at any
given time students had a minimum of twenty courses to choose from across the
curriculum that dealt with various aspects about religion.
The 1980s saw a wide variety of courses in the curriculum, including many of the
previously mentioned courses as well as many new ones. REL 310 – Religion in the
Afro-American Experience offered a “general survey of the religious experience of AfroAmericans, concentrating on developments in the religious life of Black people in
America”455 and REL 312 – The Church and American Society, examined
…the impact which religion has had upon the society. The emergence of a
powerful religiously based right makes the question of what happens when
religion and society clash more important. This course is a survey of the ways in
which religion and society are influenced by each other in America. The course is
divided into three sections. Section one explores the religious underpinnings of
American society. Section two explores the changing nature of American society
as a result of urbanization, secularization, and changing ethics. Section three looks
at how religious groups have tried to come to grips with the contemporary
American society. It will cover a number of different responses, from the positive
thinking of Norman Vincent Peale to the evangelical revivals of Oral Roberts and
Billy Graham, to the social and political activism of Martin Luther King and Jerry
Falwell. The role of newer personality cults will also be explored.456

173

Several courses dealing with mysticism also appeared, including REL 425 – Great
Mystics of India of the 19th and 20th Centuries, REL 324 – The Biblical and Patristic
Roots of Christian Mysticism and REL 325 – Mysticism and the Early English Mystic, a
course which explored “the early English mystics in the English translation of the
original Middle English and Latin texts and glances at the antecedents in western
Christianity. No prerequisites are necessary, though acquaintance with other Christian
writings, especially the Bible, would contribute to full understanding and appreciation of
the English mystical tradition.”457 Other religion courses were often cross listed with
other departments and programs, including psychology, sociology, classical civilization,
ancient and biblical studies and general near east studies.

Along with their general education and university requirements, LSA students at
the University of Michigan gain further depth by focusing their study in “concentrations.”
Concentrations are comparable to majors at other institutions, and several of these
involve, at least in part, the study of religion. According to the College’s website, “The
concentration requirement provides the opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge in one
academic discipline while developing and refining skills that will serve students in a wide
array of academic and non-academic endeavors.”458 Students could construct
concentrations that dealt with religion from a variety of disciplinary perspectives,
including religious studies.

The Religious Studies Concentration required students to take two pre-requisite
courses, Introduction to World Religions: Near Eastern and Introduction to the Study of
Asian Religions. Students could then pick two from Problems of Religion, Psychology of
174

Religion, Anthropology of Religion: Ritual, Sanctity and Adaptation or Religion and
Society. With the approval of a concentration advisor, students then needed 18 additional
credits that could be taken through a single department and perspective, for example
“Religion as an Idea” (Philosophy), “Religion as a Cultural Force through Time”
(History), “Religion as a Social Phenomenon” (Anthropology, Psychology or Sociology),
“Religion as a Subject of Expression” (English or History of Art) or “Religion as a
Tradition” (Area Studies or Linguistics).459 These options provided students with
multiple paths and approaches to studying religion, and much flexibility, but no necessary
or common understanding was required or facilitated through this coursework.

In the spring of 2000, the LSA stopped offering a concentration in religious
studies in general, but students at the University of Michigan could still construct their
own program to study religion through the Individual Concentration Program (ICP).
According to the ICP website, “Students interested in developing an ICP must meet with
the ICP advisor to discuss goals, academic options, and procedures. After this initial
discussion, a formal application may be submitted. This application must include:

1. an intellectual statement containing a coherent rationale for the proposed
program;
2. a comprehensive academic plan of at least 30 upper-level credits;
3. an unofficial transcript; and
4. a letter of recommendation from two faculty members from two LS&A
departments offering courses in the student's defined concentration. These faculty
should have discussed the proposed program with the student and support the
proposal.”460
The Fall 2009 Course Bulletin listed forty five courses in Religion, all cross-listed with
other departments, programs and concentrations.

175

Starting in the Fall of 2010, the LSA began offering more specific concentrations
in a variety of religions, allowing students to explore Judaic Studies, Near Eastern
Studies and Asian Studies, but while these concentrations could very easily include
aspects about religion in their curricula, religion would not necessarily have to be dealt
with as a primary component. For example, Judaic Studies “offers students the
opportunity to broaden their knowledge of international affairs, historical change and
religious phenomena. The concentration introduces students to the history and cultures of
the Jewish people, and explores the world from distinctive Jewish perspectives.”461
Studying Jewish Culture, Literature and History could provide some exposure to the
religion, the content and methodologies involved would depend on the backgrounds of
the faculty and there is no standardized curriculum that can demonstrate what specific
knowledge about Judaism or learning outcomes the students could gain. This pattern
follows in the other areas studies as well.

In another area that could potentially include the study of Islam, LSA also created
the Near Eastern Studies Concentration in 2010. According to their website, the division
of Arabic, Armenian, Persian, Turkish, and Islamic Studies (AAPTIS) offers “instruction
at the introductory to the advanced levels in medieval and modern Arabic, Armenian,
Persian, and Turkish languages and literatures. Courses in the histories and cultures of
select regions represented by these language groups are also offered as are a wide range
of topics in Islamic studies” [italics mine]. 462 Although all Near Eastern Studies students
must complete the prerequisite course AAPTIS 100 - Peoples of the Middle East, which
is “an introductory course on the diversity of peoples, cultures, economies, and politics of
the Middle East. Topics include religion (Judaism, Islam, Christianity),[italics mine]
176

cities and nomads, women in the Middle East, economic change, social and political
systems, and the world's first civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt.”463 But again, the
study of the religious aspects is not required and a student could concentrate in these
areas without gaining much knowledge about the religions at all.

Students could also approach the study of religion through the International
Institute (II) which,
advances the exchange of knowledge, ideas, and resources across U-M’s campus
and with partnering institutions worldwide. Working actively with its centers and
other academic units, the institute expands and enriches instructional programs,
advances language study, and provides funding to students and faculty for
research and study overseas. The II also brings leading scholars together to
address national and international problems and collaborates with other academic
units to recruit faculty members with international expertise.464
Each of the eighteen centers and programs maintains its own mission and scope,
but most offer connections to and suggestions for courses and concentration options for
students interested in these areas. While the scope of the II primarily emphasizes
international business, security, government and development, there are intrinsic overlaps
with religion as well. The centers and programs that offer the most connections with
religion curriculum are: the Center for Chinese Studies, the Islamic Studies Program, the
Center for Japanese Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, the Center for Middle Eastern
and North African Studies, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, the Center for South
Asian Studies, and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. However, the II has the same
problem with its approach that the above-mentioned Judaic and Near Eastern Studies
concentrations have; there is no guarantee that students would get consistent or
substantive knowledge through these curricula.

177

The University also has free-standing centers that are not affiliated with the II that
have the potential to offer students a curriculum to study religion. For example, in 2007,
the Jean and Samuel Frankel Center for Judaic Studies was founded. The current website
states,
Since 1976 Jewish Studies at the University of Michigan has thrived as an
interdisciplinary endeavor drawing on the rich resources of a diverse faculty,
educating undergraduate and graduate students, and engaging the community.
With the inauguration of the Frankel Institute for Advanced Judaic Studies in
2007, the University of Michigan is a premiere site for Jewish Studies in the
United States.465
While students would certainly have the opportunity to study some religious aspects of
Judaism, again, there is no indication from the curriculum listed in the Frankel Center
that the academic study of religion or any theoretical or methodological approaches
would necessarily be covered.
Analysis and Conclusion – Flint and Dearborn Campuses
Religion curriculum at the Ann Arbor campus has had a long history with a
variety of models, but has resulted in no formalized structure for students to pursue the
study of religion; The Flint and Dearborn campuses, however, each provide a minor in
Religious Studies and so merit a brief discussion here. In 1956, the University of
Michigan founded Flint College of the University of Michigan, a two-year, senior level
campus in Flint. According to Peckham, by 1970 it “was stagnating with a student body
of less than 2000” and was confined to one building.466 Also in 1956, the University
accepted a gift of land from the Ford Motor Company and began offering upper division
and master’s level courses at the Dearborn Center, which offered work-study and degree
programs in engineering and business administration. Like the University of Michigan –
Flint (UM-Flint), the University of Michigan – Dearborn (UMD) campus also struggled
178

with enrollment within the first dozen years of its existence. According to Peckham, in
1971 the University more firmly committed to the idea of both campuses and “The
University of Michigan – Flint and The University of Michigan – Dearborn were created
as four-year colleges. Chancellors were appointed, and each campus had a full
administrative structure, increased autonomy and fiscal support.”467 Enrollments
increased and the faculty developed curricula that served increasingly diverse student
populations in both urban areas. Both campuses developed Religious Studies minors for
students, each with its own focus and scope and aligned with the mission, vision and
values of the institution.
The University of Michigan – Flint
According to their website, UM-Flint has “embraced the importance of ‘doing’ as
fundamental to each student’s growth” and, as part of the reputable University of
Michigan educational system, the campus is “committed to the creation and development
of the next generation leaders. Their vision explains, “At UM-Flint, the best leaders
become immersed in issues, explore varying points of view, seek input from others, and
become as familiar with realities as they do theories.”468 Faculty members at UM-Flint
have developed research and service-learning projects that align the curriculum with their
community’s most-pressing issues. The website articulates, “Such projects bring learning
to life, address community needs, and fulfill students’ desires to contribute to ‘something
bigger than themselves.’ Action-oriented academics are at the heart of the University of
Michigan – Flint experience—and why our graduates are so highly sought by employers
looking for leaders who know how to get things done.”469 This practical approach is

179

embedded in the mission, in the general education curriculum and in the idea of a liberal
education.
The 2010-2011 Catalog at UM-Flint explains that the courses comprising a
Religious Studies minor emphasize the development of critical thinking skills, effective
speaking and writing, and the ability “to make careful judgments on the basis of explicit
goals and values, and to understand Western traditions and their relation to other
traditions.”470 The interdisciplinary minor explores “some of the major western and nonwestern religious traditions in terms of their major historical movements and figures,
dominant conceptual concerns, and central literary and philosophical perspectives” both
historically and in today’s society. 471
The Religious Studies minor at UM-Flint approaches “the study of religion as a
doorway to understanding human nature and history, and hence an appropriate focus for a
liberal education.”472 As aligned with the institution’s mission and focus, the minor
prepares students for a variety of careers, including social work, law, or seminary. It
requires twenty-one credits of coursework, at least nine credits from each of the
following two categories:
A. African Religions; African Religions and Philosophy; World Religions; The
Bible as Literature: The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; The Bible as
Literature: The New Testament and Lost Gospels; Philosophical Foundations
of the World Religions; Philosophy of Religion; and Religion in American
Society.
B. The Black Church and Civil Rights Movement; The History of African
American Religion; Islamic Civilization to 1500; Islamic Civilization since
180

1500; Introduction to Islam and the Modern “Middle East”; Islam and
Political Change; Medieval Philosophy; Mythological Thought; and
Existentialism.473
While there is some structure and flexibility for students to pick the courses most
meaningful and relevant to their education and career paths, there is still not a common or
underlying curriculum required of all students who are interested in studying about
religion. Also, the absence of a theoretical or methodological course indicates that
students with a Religious Studies minor at UM-Flint may have very different knowledge
bases and disciplinary exposure to the academic study of religion.
The University of Michigan – Dearborn
From its founding, UMD has been influenced by interactions with the businesses
and industries in the region and its curricula have offered degrees in the arts and sciences,
education, engineering, computer science and management. According to the
institution’s website, students will “learn and grow, explore new ideas, and acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to achieve their personal and professional goals. [They]
will have a broad knowledge of the many fields of human achievement, and will be
prepared for their careers with imagination, reasoning, and creative problem-solving
abilities.”474 UMD students gain practical experiences and engagement through
internships and service learning in the community.
The current mission of UMD states that the institution is
An interactive, student-centered institution committed to excellence in teaching
and learning. We offer undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to a
diverse, highly motivated, and talented student body. Our programs are
responsive to the changing needs of society; relevant to the goals of our students
and community partners; rich in opportunities for independent and collaborative
study, research, and practical application; and reflective of the traditions of
181

excellence, innovation, and leadership that distinguish the University of
Michigan.475
UMD accomplishes this mission by:







Providing a strong foundation in the liberal arts and sciences;
Providing the knowledge and skills essential for career and personal
success;
Integrating teaching, research and service in ways that enhance the
learning experience;
Providing a dynamic environment where innovation, openness, and
creativity are fostered;
Using advanced technologies to meet changing educational needs and
establish links with the global community; and
Forging partnerships with business, industry, educational institutions, and
government agencies.476

UMD is located in one of the most culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse regions in
the United States, which claims a history of religious centers dating to 1701. Their
website highlights this, stating,

Since the establishment of that first place of worship, Ste. Anne de Detroit Roman
Catholic Church, Southeastern Michigan has become home to people of many
faiths, including a wide array of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Janis,
Buddhists, Baha'is, and others. It is impossible to understand even our own
Western cultural context without some detailed knowledge of the traditions,
influence and rationale of its religious underpinnings. Thus, the Religious Studies
Program at UM-Dearborn has been established to provide a focus for discussions
of the ethical standards and the cultural orientations which have been fostered by
various religions.477
UMD’s vision statement focuses on metropolitan Detroit and contends that “a university
needs to be an active partner in addressing the challenges its communities face. We seek
to bring the knowledge resources of the university into engagement with the needs of the
people of southeastern Michigan. We aim to achieve a major impact in meeting the needs
of our regions evolving economy, environment and culture.”478 The College of Arts,

182

Sciences and Letters (CASL), or “castle” as it is commonly called, offers many
interdisciplinary and college wide programs, including the religious studies minor.

In 2001, faculty members at UMD in CASL established a Center for the Study of
Religion and Society. According to their website, the Center was designed to serve a
number of purposes:





Provide a focus for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary scholarly
research on Religion and its relationship to American society.
House and support the existing interdisciplinary minor in Religious
Studies.
Coordinate with other activities on campus related to religion, the Harvard
Pluralism Project being one example.
Serve as a point of contact for members of the metropolitan community
interested in issues related to religion and to engage that community in a
dialog about those issues.479

Faculty members affiliated with the Center and who teach courses in the Religious
Studies minor come from many disciplines including History, Anthropology, English,
Political Science, Psychology, and Philosophy. Some are involved in research and service
learning projects with their students throughout religious communities in Dearborn and
Detroit.
Students pursuing the Religious Studies minor at UMD must take either
Philosophy and Religion or Religions of the World and then fifteen credits of upper
division courses, which comprise the majority of the religion courses at Dearborn. These
courses are primarily interdisciplinary in scope and include: Introduction to Gospel
Music; Women in Medieval Art and Religion; Religion and Literature; Religion and
Politics; Religion and Culture; Myth, Magic and Mind; Philosophy of Religion;
Sociology of Religion among many others. All course selections must be approved by the
183

director of the minor. Like UM-Flint, the UMD minor offers students a wide variety of
upper level course options dealing with religion, but there is no guarantee that two
students pursuing the minor at this institution would have the same knowledge base or
theoretical grounding with this model.
At the University of Michigan, courses about religion have been present since the
early 1920s. But, there has been little formal administrative structure to support the
academic study of religion, no departments established to consolidate the curriculum or
systematically approach the discipline, and no core faculty who solely teach in the field.
Although there have been a variety of schools, centers, institutes, and concentrations
(both structured and individualized) where students interested in studying about religion
can do so, the lack of a consistent structure and home for the curriculum has created an
environment for inconsistent learning outcomes. And, because the University of
Michigan has left the process up to individual students, even with the minors at UM-Flint
and UMD, there is no guarantee that those taking the same courses would necessarily
emerge from them with a measurable, basic, or even common knowledge base.
Dialogues, conferences, student organizations and a healthy co-curriculum on a
wide variety of religious topics and traditions through the years have kept the subject
matter accessible to students and faculty members who are interested in it, but the
responsibility for making sense of the variety of courses and opportunities, and, more
importantly, the organized and systematic approach to the study of religion, is left up to
the students. And, because of the lack of explanation by the institution of the relevance
of religion to students’ formal or general education and to the faculty’s professional
interests, and the marginalization of religion to the co-curriculum by the administration,
184

and exclusion of the external participants in these processes, religion curriculum has
remained decentralized at Ann Arbor. None of the four participants have significant
opportunities to create dialogue about or synthesis through the religion curriculum or its
development. The minors at the Dearborn and Flint campuses remain the only structured
way students can pursue the study of religion at the University of Michigan, and even
these campuses do not provide a common learning experience or measurable outcomes
connected solely to the discipline.

185

Chapter Seven – Conclusions: Religion Curriculum Development as Synthesis
and Intercultural Dialogue
“Modern man is a specialist and specialization requires knowledge of a particular
discipline or profession. But such depth itself becomes a form of existential dilettantism
unless, standing in his specialty, the specialist sees his work as related to his life, his
discipline as related to other disciplines, and his knowledge as related to the world of
action and value. If this is breadth, it is also a more profound depth—a depth without
which we cannot hope to live in the modern world.”
William Kolb
“A College Plan Designed for Flexibility”
In Joseph Axelrod’s New Patterns in Undergraduate Education:
Emerging Curriculum Models for the American College480

“Curriculum development is founded on curriculum study, and is its applied branch. Its
object is the betterment of schools through the improvement of teaching and learning. Its
characteristic insistence is that ideas should encounter the discipline of practice and that
practice should be principled by ideas. The curriculum development movement is an
attack on the separation of theory and practice.”481
Roger Stenhouse, qtd. in “Curriculum Development”
Encyclopedia of Educational Research
Sitting in a University Curriculum Committee (UCC) meeting, listening to faculty
members from a variety of departments and disciplines discuss the minutiae of a proposal
to revise a Master’s program, I found myself wondering how my view of curriculum as a
transformative process of substantive content and dialogue meaningfully arranged with
development of the students in mind, and grounded in the mission, vision and values of
our institution, could be reduced to questions about pre-requisites, typos, confusion about
dual listing, and catalog copy discrepancies. Newly appointed to a tenure-track position,
this was my first venture into a university-wide service commitment, and I soon
discovered that UCC differed in many ways from my previous experience on my own
College’s committee. I knew little about the history of the program we were considering,
186

the faculty, or the students. I sensed among the participants political tensions,
frustrations, confusion, and at times suspicion, as well as a genuine desire to see the
program through the curriculum development process. I listened to arguments about
fiscal responsibility and questions about the feasibility of jobs in the community for
graduates of the program. There was a genuine respect and commitment to ensure that
the program offered a rigorous curriculum and would benefit our students while they
pursued the degree and after they graduated. The committee scrutinized each course, its
relevance, and impact on enrollments in this program and on other departments. After
nearly an hour and a half of discussion, the proposal was tabled and with the decision to
request further information and support from the proposers.482 The UCC would review it
all again upon resubmission.
How could this experience possibly connect to my own ideas of what my research
about curriculum development involved? I would never teach courses in this program.
How could I assess its value to our students? I would have no contact with these students.
How could my commitment and responsibility to this committee help me understand my
own thinking about religion curriculum and how it is connected to the academic study of
religion? This program developed from completely different disciplines than I knew.
How did this process affect the final plan for a Religious Studies major and minor my
department was working on? Were there connections I could make or problems I could
avoid that this proposal had with our own proposal for a major and minor? How and why
was the curriculum proposal we were considering connected to the discipline(s) from
which it was created? How did any of what we were doing on this curriculum committee
matter to students or connect to the community beyond the university? The entire process
187

of developing curriculum seemed chaotic, time-consuming, disconnected even from the
people involved with developing it, and almost pointless to me after this meeting.
General Models of Curriculum
My examination of religion curricula at Michigan universities showed that each
institution arrived at its own models and structures and that these curricular models
changed according to the needs of the institutions over their varied histories. I have
demonstrated that a balance between the content and method of delivery of the religion
curricula, and the intentional inclusion of the four primary participants, offers an
opportunity for synthesis through the process of curriculum development. In order to
contextualize this work and its contributions to the three main disciplines to which it
connects—Religious Studies, Michigan History and the study of Higher Education—
it is useful to provide a brief discussion about curricular models in general in order to
think about the significance of religion curricular development in particular. In his book
New Patterns in Undergraduate Education: Emerging Curriculum Models for the
American College, Joseph Axelrod provides a valuable reflection on the shift in
curricular models since the late 1960s. He calls these “old” and “new” models and claims
that the new models attempt to address five main weaknesses in the old models. He
writes:
1. The old models fostered standardization in the curriculum and
depersonalization in the relations between faculty and student and between
student and student. The new models are experimenting with the formation of
‘primary groups’ of students and faculty who work together and care about
each other.
2. The old models set breadth in a student’s education against depth and, on the
whole, achieved neither. The new models have liberated themselves from this
opposition and seek a new principle of unity. The distinctions between
general and specialized education, liberal arts and professional curricula,
transfer and terminal programs are no longer useful.
188

3. The old models built a wall between the campus and the surrounding
community and between the campus and the world at large. In the new
models, involvement in the off-campus community and the world at large has
become an integral part of the curricular structures.
4. In the old models, teaching was mainly telling, and learning was mainly
receiving and repeating. In the new models, faculty members become learners
and students become, in a sense, teachers. Classrooms following the new
models exhibit a new pattern of authority and status.
5. The old models did everything by count—class hours, course credits, grade
points—and ‘excellent’ students turned out to be the best gamesmen. The new
models are seeking to escape the yoke of number and have redefined
‘excellence.’483
Axelrod adds, “If the new models are widely followed they will change the face and spirit
of American undergraduate education.”484 One need only take a look at the variety of the
religion curricula discussed in this dissertation to see that the characteristics of Axelrod’s
“new” models are visible and at three of the four institutions, even when only examining
catalogs and mission statements.
In post-secondary education, the most stable and familiar curricular models take
the form of majors and minors and offer students a particular body of knowledge, through
a disciplinary perspective, and within the structure and resources of a department. Of
course, the faculty members in that department typically have specialization in that
discipline and are responsible for teaching and research that will both transmit the
information and ideas to students and develop it through scholarship to the greater
academic community as well. With these structures and responsibilities in place, faculty
members tend to expand their particular interest and areas of scholarship through
developing courses in the curriculum. Daniel and Laurel Tanner in Curriculum
Development: Theory Into Practice explain
The engagement of university scholars in the pursuit of specialized knowledge,
within the departmentalized structure of the university, mitigates against thinking
about the curriculum beyond compartmentalized and specialized domains.
189

Curricular change tends to occur mainly within each domain by means of
accretion, deletion, and certain modifications of courses and programs. [...]
Departments add new courses to their offerings, modify old courses, and
occasionally delete a course here and there. But rarely does the faculty of a high
school or a college engage in comprehensive and systematic curriculum
development and evaluation that transcends departmental lines.485
If a faculty member leaves the department, often a gap in the curriculum occurs. And
when new faculty members arrive, they often create new courses or advocate for their
area of expertise to be included in the core classes of the major or minor, or at least be
created to offer as electives. This interaction between the faculty and curriculum often
creates a sense of “ownership” by faculty members for a particular course and limits the
curriculum to the expertise of the department.
This traditional pattern of curriculum development through a major or a minor
often becomes more complicated with interdisciplinary structures or fields, or as new
knowledge and areas of study between the disciplines emerge. Interdisciplinary majors
and minors are frequently housed in disciplinary departments, creating additional tension
on the faculty, which I will discuss further below. In The Handbook of the
Undergraduate Curriculum, author Carol Geary Schneider, drawing from the report of
the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) The Challenge of
Connected Learning, proposed that majors should
be restructured as a locus for integrative learning, a center through which students
bring different parts of their intellectual explorations together, in personally and
societally meaningful syntheses [and that the] majors assume a dual obligation: to
ground students in a particular set of dialogues to the perspectives of other
communities in the academy and in the larger society.486
Such an integrative view on the major and minor offers a challenge to faculty members,
whether they work from disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives: to rethink and
revision curriculum models in order to better participate in such dialogues with students
190

and communities within and outside of their institutions. The challenge is particularly
significant for those engaged with religion curricula as well.
Specific Models of Religion Curriculum
In 2007, the AAC&U published a report, “College Learning for the New Global
Century”, and suggested four essential learning outcomes for all American college
students:






Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World,
“focused by engagement with big questions, both contemporary and enduring.”
Intellectual and Practical Skills, including “critical and creative thinking,”
“inquiry and analysis,” and “written and oral communication.”
Personal and Social Responsibility, including “civic knowledge and
engagement — local and global,” “intercultural knowledge and competence,” and
“ethical reasoning and action.”
Integrative Learning, including the synthesis and “application of knowledge,
skills, and responsibilities to new settings and complex problems.”487

Departments have become responsible for demonstrating how students are fulfilling
learning outcomes and for providing evidence of that learning. Accreditation teams
examine curriculum closely and assessment and development are linked to strategic plans
and budgets. Put simply, there is a much greater influence from and accountability to
outside sources on the internal workings of and justification for particular courses and
curriculum within an institution. Most meetings of professional organizations include
tracks on best practices in or across the curriculum as well as assessment and evaluation
workshops and sessions. Programs and departments must have self-studies, strategic
plans and assessment measures in place to justify their curricula and budgets.
The American Academy of Religion (AAR), in the article “The Religious Studies
Major in a Post 9/11 World: New Challenges, New Opportunities” responded to these
learning outcomes. They noted,
191

For many of us in the field of religious studies, these ‘new directions’ for
American college students seemed anything but novel. The four essential
outcomes embraced by the AAC&U outline themes that religious studies has been
focusing on for decades: intercultural learning, engagement of big questions,
critical thinking and writing, moral reasoning, and the application of all of these
skills to new global contexts and lived behaviors. It is safe to say that few
disciplines in the academy more centrally and more naturally address the
AAC&U outcomes than does the field of religious studies.488
The AAR concluded that “The discipline must continue to work to articulate the
distinctiveness of the religious studies endeavor and to define the specific characteristics
and value of the religious studies major” and made the following recommendations:

1. Beginning in 2009, the AAR should parallel its highly successful “Syllabus Project”
web pages by launching a new web feature, “The Major Project,” compiling disciplinewide information on central aspects of the undergraduate major.
2. In light of a growing consensus about the characteristics of the religious studies major,
the discipline and its members should work to distinguish the religious studies major
from undergraduate majors in theology, history, philosophy, sociology, classics, and
other distinct disciplines.489
Defining a major or minor in general is a formidable task, even for a very clearly defined
discipline or field. Defining the religion major adds layers of complexity discussed in
earlier chapters to the task as well. While not trying to speak for all majors at every
institution, the AAR did arrive at some characteristics that could be useful when
developing religion curriculum. They state that the religious studies major is, by its very
nature:





Intercultural and Comparative: The major explores more than one religious
tradition and engages the phenomena of religion comparatively across and within
cultures.
Multi-disciplinary: The major promotes the understanding and application of a
range of methodological and theoretical approaches to religious phenomena.
Critical: The major teaches students to examine and engage religious
phenomena, including issues of ethical and social responsibility, from a
perspective of critical inquiry and analysis of both the other and the self.
192




Integrative: The major applies theoretical knowledge of religious phenomena to
lived, practical contexts, both historical and current.
Creative and Constructive: The major employs knowledge of religious
phenomena and the skills of religious studies in the solving of complex problems,
including those raised in the personal and social engagement of issues of life,
death, love, violence, suffering, and meaning.490

There are obvious connections between the characteristics of the religious studies major
and the AAC&U outcomes of liberal education; the two are compatible and articulating
this compatibility could help departments or programs define the parameters of their
religion curriculum. The AAR also stresses the importance of articulating these
characteristics “to assist our colleagues in their discussions with administrators who
might otherwise blend the lines between the study of religion and its practice, to make
clear to others and to ourselves the links between the discipline and the essential
components of a liberal education.”491 Faculty members can align the courses in a
religion major and minor with these essential learning outcomes and the values of a
liberal education, and typically do. The four religion curricula I examined in this
dissertation are certainly aligned as well, though the extent to which each institution has
articulated these connections varies.492 Historically, religion majors and minors have
most often followed either a seminary model or a comparative model. A seminary
model, called such because originally it was designed to train students for the ministry,
contains a significant amount of courses in biblical scripture and theology and is usually
centered on the Judeo-Christian traditions, doctrine and history. A comparative model
includes religions beyond Judaism and Christianity, typically operates from multi-cultural
not theological perspectives, provides theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches to the
study of religion and, as much as possible with the expertise of the faculty members,
treats each religion studied equally. With these two models, the former usually develops
193

into a form of the latter. The curricula at the University of Michigan, Michigan State and
Western started primarily with a seminary model, but each expanded differently as the
institutions developed their missions, visions and values (and in particular the global
dimensions of these), as indicated in earlier chapters. All three are comparative in nature
now. Grand Valley, by contrast and partly because it was only recently developed in
2010, is intentionally interdisciplinary and integrative in nature. The AAR notes that
“there is a very real shift occurring in the field of religious studies—not a shift away from
the study of Western religions per se, but one away from the study of Christianity in
isolation.”493 The curricula examined in this dissertation certainly support this claim.
Finally, while from the founding of their programs, most state institutions have
internally tried to be transparent about the nature and scope of their religion curriculum,
more recently their accountability emerges from professional or accrediting
organizations. Often through strategic planning and assessment directives, faculty
members are required to connect courses to the departmental mission, as well as to vision
and values statements, and to provide evidence that their students are achieving specific
skill sets and learning outcomes. The AAR notes,
The challenges to the religious studies major are thus multiple: rapid growth,
especially in public universities; a pronounced if uneven shift away from a
seminary and toward a comparative model for the major; a range of
misperceptions about the major and its goals on the part of administrators and
colleagues; new, emerging subfields and interdisciplinary emphases; questions
posed about the content of the major and its assessment; and the rapid and
newfound growth of religious studies in community college contexts.494
While these challenges are significant, a greater understanding of religion curriculum
development and an appreciation of how and why that development occurred at their own

194

institutions, can help faculty members who teach religion envision and engage the most
beneficial and productive directions for the future.
Four Main Participants in Curriculum Development
My exploration of religion curricula at state universities in Michigan revealed that
there are four main participants most directly involved in curriculum development: 1. The
students (through the co-curriculum, career orientation, service learning, connection to
major, minor, and with their Millennial Generation characteristics fully engaged), 2. The
faculty (through the main areas of their responsibilities: teaching, service, scholarship), 3.
Internal institutional influences (such as administration, the development of mission,
vision and values statements, assessment and accreditation teams) and 4. External
influences (such as economic conditions, perception of the surrounding communities,
interaction and PR, changing demographics, parents and perhaps most importantly,
alumni). These four participants each have an influence, stake and investment in playing
an active role in curriculum development.
Thinking about the development of religion curriculum over time, I realized that
at each of the institutions, these four participants influenced the process of how and why
curriculum developed as it did. While many of these factors were beyond the scope of
my examination, faculty influence, student influence, internal/institutional influences
such as administration, budgetary concerns and mission, vision and values statements,
and external influences, such as changing demographics, economic concerns, community
perceptions/public relations all affected the complex process of curriculum development.
To the extent that the curriculum, or even a particular course, was able to allow each of
these four participants to be in balance and dialogue with the others, it was stable. To the
195

extent that one of these four participants became a dominant factor, the curriculum was at
risk. By “in balance” I mean that each area was allowed to have an influence and input
on the curriculum, and by “at risk” I mean that the curriculum was in jeopardy of being
eliminated or revised.
At the four institutions I have explored, the religion curricula at Grand Valley and
Michigan State have seen the greatest amount of overall change and development. For
example, at Grand Valley in the early 1980s, the faculty and students engaged in a very
wide variety of religion courses, but many of which, from the perspective of the internal
administrative forces as well as the external community, appeared to be redundant or
superficial.495 Because of this negative perception from these two influences, and despite
strong advocacy from the faculty and students, the curriculum was necessarily
streamlined from the push back from both internal administration and increasing
economic pressures from the state. The institution as a whole restructured and the
curriculum shrank until enrollments began increasing again. Religion curriculum, until
very recently, remained a lower priority.
At Michigan State, a comparable scenario evolved, but not because of curriculum
overlap. Here, internal administrative forces pushed back through the process of
moratoria and questioned the financial feasibility and relevance of the religion
curriculum. At MSU, the primary reason for the scrutiny of religion was administrative,
economic, and a lack of transparent connection to the mission, vision and values of the
university and college. While the faculty and students again advocated that the
curriculum belonged in the university, a clearer case had to be made, twice, while the

196

major and minor were put in moratorium. The end of the process, each time, resulted in a
satisfied administration and a more stable curriculum.
At Western Michigan, religion curriculum has remained fairly consistent and
stable, despite large shifts in growth and missions of the institution. Western’s
Comparative Religion major created a strong case for a humanistic approach to studying
religion, which was clearly aligned with the liberal education values of the institution.
When the undergraduate program expanded to include a Master’s degree, this rationale
was maintained, but with the inclusion of a Ph.D. program, the faculty was stretched too
thinly, resources from the administration were much harder to attain, and the Ph.D. had to
be dropped. In short, the undergraduate curriculum was supported by all four areas, but
further desire by faculty members and students for a Ph.D. caused a push-back from
internal and external influences that could not support additional curriculum.
At the University of Michigan, students have had a wide variety of rigorous
courses to choose from that explore religion, but there has not been a consistent major for
them to pursue. While the Religious Studies Concentration provided some structure for
several years, and the Individual Concentration Program could facilitate an exposure to
the subject, students were basically left to their own individual choices in constructing a
plan of study. In short, there was no consistency or guarantee that two students interested
in studying religion would have a common knowledge base or assessable learning
outcomes. The addition of minors at the Flint and Dearborn campuses does provide
some structure and commonality for students, but each of these models leaves so much
choice over the content of the coursework up to the students that there is little opportunity
for continuity in the shared knowledge they are likely to master.
197

Values and Synthesis in the Curriculum
Curriculum is a crucible in which the values of the faculty, students, internal and
external participants play out. Students need to understand the value of the content and
methodology of a course and how they will apply it to their future. Faculty members
must understand and communicate the value of what they contribute both in the
classroom and in scholarship and service, and have to balance and integrate all three
areas. The administration has to understand how the curriculum is connected to the
overall values of the institution and how it is assessed and measured. The external
community needs to understand the value of and engage the curriculum as well; this
usually manifests in community service projects, internships or career opportunities.
Healthy curriculum is connected to and needs to be in balance with the values of these
four participants if they are to achieve synthesis.
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – Student
Perspectives
Writing this final chapter coincided with revising the syllabus for a core course in
our major, LIB 100 – Introduction to Liberal Education. Even though I have taught the
course for more than ten years and it is a part of our general education program,
rethinking it each semester is daunting, as I have to continually adapt to the changing
demographics of my students. More often than not, students enter LIB 100 with an “I just
have to endure this class so I can cross it off my Gen Ed requirement list” attitude. As I
began sketching out new discussion questions for Paulo Freire’s idea of the Banking
Concept and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, among others, I reflected about how
198

transformative these readings have been for past students and braced myself for the
barrage of questions: “Why do we have to take this course?” and “What is liberal
education?” and “Why do I need to know this material?” and “What is the point of Gen
Ed classes anyway?” and “Why can’t I just take classes in my major?” and “This class is
just another way Grand Valley wants my money” and “How will I ever use this in my
career as a (fill in the blank)?” I realized that my students’ experience and understanding
of this course, and any other that they took, was very different from my own experience
and understanding of the course, and what the course meant. They would not know the
history of the course, the rationale, what went into planning it or developing the
assignments.
Yes, we would go over course objectives, methods of evaluation, and the
AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) learning outcomes they
were to reflect on and develop throughout the course, but they would not know me, I
would not know them, and yet once again we would all commit to fifteen weeks of a
teaching and learning process with each other, though with different motivations. I also
thought about the newly hired faculty members in the department, who were teaching
LIB 100 for the first time. What would their experience be with the course, and how
would that shape their students’ perceptions about liberal education differently than my
students’? Those teaching or taking different sections LIB 100, to some extent, were not
teaching or taking the same course at all.
My thinking about how student values intersect with curriculum development
revealed that their voice and influence has the least impact of the four participants.
Characteristics of the Millennial Generation have been well-documented. In The
199

Millennials Go to College, authors Neil Howe and William Strauss explain how today’s
students are sheltered, and need to be connected to broader values and see the
applicability of the content of their courses. In his article “A Look at New Curriculum
Models for Undergraduate Education,” Paul L. Dressel asserts that,
The college or university which is concerned with the ethical development of the
student should help him to become aware of his own values, to see differences in
the values held by his associates and among peoples of vastly different cultures,
and to recognize some of the factors underlying these value systems. Finally, it
should encourage him to reassess his own set of values. To plan a series of
experiences that will accomplish this is an arduous task, and one which will never
be achieved in unrelated individual courses.496

This assessment of values is embedded in the way I teach LIB 100, but is also highly
compatible with other areas of study and especially with religion curriculum.
In When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student, authors
Arthur Levine and Jeannette Cureton discuss that in terms of curriculum, students today
need a curriculum that highlights, emphasizes communication, the study of human
heritage, an understanding of environmental issues, an understanding of their own
individual roles in order to develop a sense of efficacy and an understanding of their own
and respect for others’ values. Levine explains,
Students must learn the meaning of values, be able to distinguish between values
and facts, understand the difference between relative and absolute values, and
differentiate between good, better, and best values. They also need to develop
mechanisms for weighing and choosing among values. Finally, they need to
comprehend how values function in our society and in their lives: the changing
nature of values over time, how values fit into cultures, the place of values in an
individual’s life, and what happens to minority values in a society.497
Although students may have difficulty articulating their values at first, I have discovered
in LIB 100 that when discussing liberal education and vocation, they are eager to
incorporate such discussions. At Grand Valley and Michigan State in particular, students
200

took an active role in advocating for the inclusion and continuation of religion
curriculum, to differing outcomes. While any proposal for new curriculum would secure
student surveys, input and interest, once the curriculum is established, students seemingly
lose their voices as to the content or methodology of the courses, at least until the final
course evaluations. The popularity of websites like Rate My Professor.com or Pick a
Prof indicate however, that although the higher education system itself does not offer
much for them in terms of feedback about curricular development in general, they do
want a way to have their voices heard.
Millennial students do have an ongoing and engaging commitment to the cocurriculum, however. Student organizations abound, and many of these deal with
religious aspects and opportunities to engage discussion and development of values and
value systems. Those teaching and organizing religion curriculum must pay attention to
and synchronize class topics and activities with the co-curriculum; speakers, panels,
service learning as well as fellowships have been widely present on campuses since the
1960’s. While the Millennials may not be as active and engaged as students in that
period of time, Levine notes that they are a generation that “believes they can make a
difference, and the curriculum must give them the skills, knowledge, and experience to
perform.”498 Faculty members can structure their courses accordingly.
Recommendations: 1. Students should gain awareness of the full extent and
opportunities of their religion curriculum. While this includes understanding the
requirements of the major and minor, or departmental guidelines, students should also be
aware that relevant courses may lie outside these structures as well. 2. Students should
gain experience and take advantage of co-curricular opportunities that are connected to
201

religion topics and discussions. These could include speakers, conferences, student
organizations or community events. Participation in the co-curriculum has been welldocumented to enhance the undergraduate experience and retention rates, and to create
valuable connections and networking for students. 3. Students should seek to engage
faculty members and administration (particularly student services and career
development and internship opportunities that allow for integration of perspectives about
religion) in conversations. It is in the best interests of institutions to help students,
regardless of major or concentration to find ways to apply and use their degrees after
graduation.
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – Faculty
Perspectives
Faculty members are typically evaluated and promoted in three areas: teaching,
service and scholarship, and these responsibilities are prioritized differently by faculty
based on what kind of work is most highly valued at their particular institution. Michigan
State and the University of Michigan, being Research I institutions, have placed a very
strong value and priority on scholarship for decades. Western Michigan, even with its
various transitions from normal school to teacher’s college, is currently ranked as a
“research university with high research activity”499 by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching. And Grand Valley, though only fifty years old, has also
embedded research and active scholarship into its mission, vision and values statements.
While faculty members are responsible for all three areas, I am going to focus here on the
scholarship, as that area seems to have the greatest impact on faculty culture and creates
the largest imbalance with curriculum development.

202

At each of these institutions, faculty members experience a strong expectation to
produce scholarship, and this expectation holds more weight in decisions or
conversations about full-time positions, tenure-track positions and promotion and tenure
decisions.500 In Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe,
authors William G. Tierney and Estela Mara Bensimon state that, “Such a view coincides
with analysis by other scholars such as Roger Geiger (1993) and Burton Clark. Clark
writes, for example, that ‘the discipline rather than the institution tends to become the
dominant force in the in the working lives of academics. If this view is correct, the
research—a disciplinary activity—takes precedence over the primarily institutional
activities of teaching and service.”501 This indicates an inherent and structural imbalance
in the lives of the faculty. Tierney and Bensimon also state that, “The result is that the
conversations about the purpose of the institution, or dedication to the work and life of
the campus has fallen into disfavor, if not disrepute.”502 Since curriculum development
typically falls under teaching or service responsibilities, and scholarship is more highly
valued, it is no wonder that professors avoid or ignore conversations or thinking about
curriculum development.
Tierney and Bensimon also discuss many of the problems and barriers teacherscholars in postsecondary education face within the tenure system. They state that, “the
beliefs one holds about the academy inevitably frame how one acts in a postsecondary
institution. Far too often, the actors in an institution believe that there is only one possible
interpretation of the organization. Consequently, decisions are made in an instrumental
fashion with neither a vision of what could be nor an understanding of the cultural
context in which the institution exists.”503 Understanding and accepting curriculum
203

development as both a form of scholarship and method of intercultural communication
among the four primary participants offers greater opportunities for faculty members to
achieve synthesis between their teaching and scholarship responsibilities.
In his work Scholarship Reconsidered, Ernest Boyer lays out a broader
framework for thinking about scholarship and challenges institutions to view it in four
main categories: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the
scholarship of application and the scholarship of teaching. Boyer advocates for a more
creative view of the professoriate and that “we need a climate in which colleges and
universities are less imitative, taking pride in their uniqueness. It’s time to end the
suffocating practice in which colleges and universities measure themselves far too
frequently by external status rather than by values determined by their own distinctive
mission.”504 My exploration of religion curriculum development is very compatible with
Boyer’s ideas on scholarship and can offer faculty members a way to find a greater
synthesis in their areas of responsibility, if they can get the institutional support for their
efforts.
Primary support for curriculum development typically comes from within
departmental structures, so it is important for faculty members striving for synthesis to
consider the structures in which that curriculum will develop. In his 1972 article
“Religion in the University: Changing Consciousness, Changing Structures,” Robert
Bellah argues that, “The department of religion has emerged in the American University
as a place for the study of the whole range of […] religions, including…a wide range of
theoretical and methodological approaches, including especially those of the social
sciences: anthropology, sociology, and psychology.”505 Such a wide range of
204

backgrounds and disciplines is not surprising, since more state universities are or have
shifted to comparative or interdisciplinary models. Bellah also notes that “The
department of religion as it has taken shape, particularly in the last ten years, represents a
form of religious consciousness not wholly reconcilable with that of the traditional
seminary or the secular university.”506 The Department of Religious Studies at Michigan
State demonstrates the importance and opportunity to study religion is valuable and can
be completely in line with the mission, vision and values of the university. The
decentralized approach at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor illustrates what happens
to the curriculum—and more importantly to students interested in studying religion—
when there is no formalized structure for support. And, as the emerging program at Grand
Valley indicates, even at younger institutions, the demand for a formalized and supported
structure for the study of religion is present. Faculty members need to be aware of the
dynamics of their departments and institutions, and cultivate ways, particularly in the
promotion and tenure process, in which curriculum development is respected and
rewarded.
Recommendations: 1. Refuse to view curriculum as something static or fixed. 2. Be able
to articulate exactly how each course connects to and satisfies departmental, college or
university values, goals or missions… this is particularly important in terms of
assessment and identifying learning outcomes and skills for graduates/students. Create
solid rubrics that can demonstrate this. 3. Make sure syllabi of record are appropriate,
current, and communicated to all faculty members, particularly contingent and adjunct
faculty. A course is only as strong as the most ineffective faculty member who is
teaching it. Faculty workshops, training, and dialogue are essential in creating effective
205

pedagogies and assignments. 4. While seemingly obvious, faculty members must know
their students. Millennial students have particular characteristics and what has worked
for seasoned faculty members in years past, may no longer work as well in the classroom.
Technology, online courses, new ways of presenting and disseminating information is
essential. 5. Whenever possible, integrate religion curriculum into general education
programs, as well as university requirements, and cross-list and collaborate with other
departments, majors and/or minors. This may require more flexibility of disciplinary
boundaries and a greater acceptance, appreciation and reward of interdisciplinary
scholarship and collaboration.
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis –
Internal/Institutional Participants Perspectives
In times of upheaval, or when reflection and analysis is no longer a choice, the
intentional examination of what courses a department offers, who teaches them, and why
they are important, that is, the examination of the value of the curriculum, becomes a
necessity. Perhaps, however, such an in depth consideration of the curriculum should not
be reserved for such times. To the extent the curriculum is intentionally aligned with
administrative structures, goals and values is the extent that the curriculum is stable, and
safe in the academy. Many times, however, economic values and quantifiable factors
hold more influence: is demand for the course sufficient, are enrollments consistent, and
is staffing efficient? Once a course has been created and available for a few semesters, it
may seem secure. The difficulty lies in intentionally and transparently communicating
the importance and alignment of the course and curriculum with institutional values, not
just the economic ones.
Institutional support for religion curriculum is essential. The AAR notes,
206

Unlike a number of undergraduate disciplines that have accrediting bodies
enforcing uniform content for the major or that spring from long-established
disciplinary histories, religious studies is relatively new and evolving. Its strong
interdisciplinary content complicates assessment further, as the major often
straddles multiple departments. A final problem is the relative lack of reliable data
collected by departments and the discipline about the career paths of students
graduating with undergraduate degrees in religious studies.507
Internal participants who are in a position to promote religion curriculum and gather
information that can help develop it must do so. Working on curriculum and assessment
committees, strategic planning, developing links to the co-curriculum are all essential
processes in which synthesis can occur. Internal participants are perhaps the most
influential voices in creating and connecting dialogues among the other participants.
Recommendations: 1. Be aware and knowledgeable of curriculum, its structures
and nuances. 2. Seek ways to help the faculty balance teaching, service and scholarship
and reward faculty members for activities that integrate all three. This could include
easier ways to reward those who team teach, or who pursue joint appointments,
interdisciplinary scholarship, and service connected to curriculum development. 3.
Establish and nurture the student and community voices in dialogues about curriculum. 4.
Make sure curriculum policies and procedures and resources are transparent, adequately
distributed, and understood. 5. Increase data gathering and analysis about curriculum and
its development. 6. Include feedback about curriculum in climate studies, self-studies and
assessment procedures.
Recommendations for Curriculum Development as Synthesis – External
Participants Perspectives
The Society for Values in Higher Education is an organization that can help foster
and integrate dialogue about religion curriculum development among the four
participants; they have been doing so since 1923. Formerly called The National Council
207

for Schools of Religion, The National Council for Religion in Higher Education, and
Society for Religion in Higher Education,508 what is now the Society for Values in
Higher Education declares that it is “a fellowship of teachers and others who care deeply
about ethical issues—such as integrity, diversity, social justice and civic responsibility—
facing higher education and the wider society. We believe that such values call for study,
reflection, discussion, and action.”509 Several of the organization’s projects, including
Institute on Religion Curriculum and Culture in Higher Education have gathered data
about religion curriculum in higher education. 510 With funding and support ten different
campuses, the organization has developed programs to address religious illiteracy and
curricular and co-curricular programs related to issues of religion and public life. They
have also stressed the need for better integration between higher education institutions
and their surrounding communities.511
Creating service learning experiences, encouraging study abroad opportunities,
facilitating community based projects and internships, and soliciting alumni feedback on
curriculum are ways institutions can allow external participants to have a greater voice in
curriculum development. Greater involvement of external participants and reflection on
their underlying values can support curriculum development, secure resources and
networking connections for students, and enhance the co-curriculum. Although often
overlooked in discussions about curriculum development, external participants offer great
value and perspective and can enrich the process for the other three participants.
Recommendations: 1. Be aware of what courses, programs and majors are offered in the
institution 2. Seek to cultivate co-curricular events and volunteer opportunities that could
allow for faculty, student and administrative participation and engagement with religion
in the community. 3. Reconnect with graduates of institutions via fundraising and
development, but also to their departments and programs as well, and invite them to serve
as resources and a networking system for current students/majors. 4. Foster stronger
208

relationships with career service and service learning offices. 5. Collaborate with student
academic organizations and participate in campus events through the co-curriculum. The
co-curriculum often has very identifiable learning outcomes and direct connections to the
curriculum. 6. Offer financial incentives for programs for demonstrated and transparent
learning outcomes that are actively integrated into the community. 7. Promote alumni
participation in curricular development processes.
Conclusions
At the beginning of this dissertation, I argued that curriculum development is a
part of a cultural system that includes faculty, student, internal and external cultures. I
now realize that my methodology of examining curriculum via course catalogs and
mission statements was not nearly as complex as it needs to be. Successful curriculum
development requires an ongoing series of dialogues between the four main participants,
indeed four cultures: the faculty, students, and internal and external communities
connected to and creating the institution. In short, curriculum development is a series of
cultural interactions and dialogues among these participants. In their book
Communication, Conflict and the Management of Difference authors Stephen Littlejohn
and Kathy Domenici define culture as “a set of fundamental ideas, practices and
experiences of a group of people that are symbolically transmitted generation to
generation through a learning process” and explain that there are three characteristics of a
cultural system. 512 These are: Cultural Abstractions (values, morals, ideas about how
things fit together), Cultural Artifacts (products of the culture, such as courses, syllabi,
degrees, jobs or positions) and Language and Communication.513 My methodology
focused primarily on one aspect of this system, the artifacts, mainly the courses and
209

majors as curriculum development. I learned that curriculum development, if viewed
holistically and if the faculty, students, and internal and external participants each have a
voice in the conversation, can create synthesis and become part of a much larger and
more meaningful conversation. While this dissertation examined the development of
religion curriculum in state universities in Michigan, the development of religion
curriculum at each of the institutions shows the variety and interplay of the interactions of
the four main participants. I conclude by contextualizing my work into the disciplines of
Religious Studies, Michigan History, and Higher Education and by pointing to several
potentially productive areas for future research.
Because of the interdisciplinary nature of this dissertation, addressing how and
why it contributes to three main disciplines to which it connects— Religious Studies,
Michigan History, and the study of Higher Education— both situates this work and points
to future directions ripe for additional research. First, although Religious Studies as a
discipline has addressed curriculum development in some ways, like most other
disciplines it has treated curriculum as peripheral topic, discussing it primarily in terms
of best practices or collections of syllabi. While some of the AAR’s efforts, particularly
the white papers on the major and minor are helpful, they are merely a starting point and
still take the underlying position that curriculum is mechanism for delivering content, not
the means of creating synthesis. This dissertation hopefully offers a way for curriculum
development to take a more central and meaningful place in the dialogues of the
discipline. Secondly, this work contributes to Michigan History via its intersections with
institutional and educational histories, and to a lesser extent, denominational influences in
the state. In order to provide a more complete picture of this topic, adding both oral
210

histories from the institutions and including denominational colleges would help deepen
and broaden my work.
Although this work is a starting point, further exploration of the importance and
influence of Michigan’s constitutional autonomy in higher education is another key area
to explore; comparing this system to other states with and without constitutional
autonomy would help contextualize this work nationally. Finally, the study of Higher
Education also contains many opportunities to benefit from this work. While my ideas of
including all four participants and working toward greater integration and synthesis are
helpful, my work also helps provide the framework for more meaningful discussions on
the purposes and functions of higher education itself. Curriculum and the processes that
develop it are deeply integrated into the system of higher education; my
recommendations listed above can be starting points for the four participants to more
intentionally and transparently engage these processes.
In “Supporting Curriculum Development” authors G. Roger Sell and Barbara
Lounsberry advocate, as I have in this dissertation, that curriculum development should
be linked with faculty development and organizational development.514 They explain,

If well-conceived and appropriately coordinated, such a multifaceted approach
can lead to faculty empowerment, better teaching, stronger institutions, and a
high-quality curriculum strategically aimed at clearly defined outcomes and finetuned by regular review. From this approach can come faculty, not under siege,
but with a firm sense of the institution’s mission and how its curriculum works to
fulfill its promise. This process can encourage faculty to focus on common
concerns, and thus enhance collegiality. Perhaps most important, faculty and
organizational development linked with curriculum development can maintain
institutional vitality.515

211

Religion as a concept or a field is complex enough to maintain disciplinary boundaries
and be interdisciplinary, and certainly, the development of religion curriculum has room
for a multiplicity of approaches and structures in higher education. The academic study of
religion, with its numerous methodologies, multiple functions and varieties of locations
within higher education cause it to be a fruitful arena for new perspectives and
interdisciplinary scholarship, including its intersections with curriculum development.
While it cannot speak for or to all of the complexities within the study of religion
curriculum development, it is my hope that by adding a challenge to include the voices of
these four participants, this dissertation has contributed a small part to the ongoing
conversations about religion in higher education and encouraged an opportunity for
synthesis.

212

APPENDIX

213

Chapter 1 Endnotes
1

Casmir, Fred L. “Culture, Communication and Development,” in Culture,
Communication and Development, ed. Fred L Casmir (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991), 78.
2
Qtd. in Gunn, Giles, “American Studies as Cultural Criticism,” in Culture of Criticism
of Criticism and the Criticism of Culture, (Oxford UK: Oxford University Press,
1987): 164.
3
Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretation of Culture,” in Interpretation of
Cultures; Selected Essays, (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 17. Geertz goes on to
argue that this treatment of symbolic cultural systems should include consideration of
behavioral or social action elements as well. In terms of this dissertation, this would
involve a closer examination, perhaps through interviews, of the activities of the
faculty who created the religion courses, the experiences of students who took the
courses and/or the administrators involved in supporting the curriculum development.
Such interviews, while certainly a currently unexplored and valuable future research
area, are beyond the scope of this work.
4
This, of course, assumes a seamless integration of the three main areas of faculty
responsibilities: teaching, scholarship and service. Unfortunately, in my experience,
there is often a disconnect between how faculty members view, and are rewarded by,
teaching and scholarship. Perhaps in a tangential way, this exploration of curriculum
will offer opportunities to reflect on how better to integrate scholarship and teaching.
5
Rowe, Stephen, “Access to a Vision: The Paradox of a Liberal Education,” in Reflection
and Engagement: Liberal Education at GVSU, ed. Judy Whipps (Acton, MA: Copley
Custom Publishing, 2009), 387.
6
Achieving synthesis in a particular course is often a matter of pedagogy. While
obviously related and essential in this process, a discussion about it is beyond the
scope of this dissertation.
7
Cherry, Conrad et al, Religion on Campus, (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press, 2003), 283.
8
Rudolph, Frederick, Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of
Study Since 1636, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978), 24.
9
For example, see the Thematic Issue on Religion and American Popular Culture (1996):
LXIV (4), the
report “Religion in the Curriculum: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development” (1987) LV (3): 569-588, or Elizabeth Bounds’ “Three-Ring Circus at a
Combustible Crossroads: Teaching Religion as a Core Curriculum in the Journal of
the American Academy of Religion. In the Journal of Higher Education see Courtney
Thornton and Audrey Jaeger’s “The Role of Culture in Institutional and Individual
Approaches to Civic Responsibility at Research Universities,” 59, no. 2 (2008): 160182, Adriana Kezar and Peter Eckel’s “The Effect of Institutional Culture and Change
Strategies in Higher Education,” 73, no.4 (2002): 435-460 or Douglas Torra’s
“Alternative Inquiry Paradigms, Faculty Cultures and the Definition of Academic
Lives,” 68, no. 6, (1997): 679-705.
214

10

Mechling, Jay, Robert Merideth and David Wilson, “American Culture Studies: The
Discipline And the Curriculum.” American Quarterly. 25, no. 4 (1973): 363-389. The
authors discuss that American Studies as a discipline lacks a sense of itself, the
academic environment, and its subject. They also acknowledge that “the culture
concept belongs at the center of an American Studies disciplinary matrix.” They then
comment on curricular characteristics at several universities and detail their own
institution, University of California, Davis.
11
Hausdorff, Don. “American Studies at Michigan State University” American
Quarterly. 22, no. 2, part 2 (1970): 546-559. Hausdorff details the development of the
American Studies program at Michigan State from its origins in 1963 through 1970.
He focuses on administrative structures, and spends substantial time discussing
particular courses and curricular development.
12
Tierney, William G., “Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the
Essentials,” Journal of Higher Education, 59, no. 1 (1988): 3.
13
Tierney, “Organizational Culture,” 3.
14
Sykes, Richard E., “American Studies and the Concept of Culture: A Theory and
Method,” American Quarterly 15, no. 2, part 2 (1963): 254.
15
Sykes, “American Studies,” 255.
16
Ibid., 256.
17
Ibid., 264.
18
Ibid., 265.
19
Ibid., 264.
20
Mechling et al., “American Culture Studies,” 368.
21
Berkhofer, Jr., Robert F., “The Americanness of American Studies,” American
Quarterly, 31, no. 3 (1979): 342.
22
Berkhofer, “Americanness,” 343.
23
Ibid., 344.
24
Wise, Gene, “‘Paradigm Dramas’ in American Studies: A Cultural and Institutional
History of The Movement,” American Quarterly, 31, no.3 (1979): 167-8. Wise’s idea
of a paradigm drama would be a useful lens through which to view many additional
areas in academic culture, including the co-curriculum, student life and increasing
external and economic constraints in higher education.
25
Wise, “‘Paradigm Dramas,’” 169.
26
Ibid., 170.
27
Ibid., 170.
28
Gunn, “American Studies,” 150.
29
Ibid., 164.
30
Ibid., 167.
31
Lipsitz, George, “Listening to Learn and Learning to Listen: Popular Culture, Cultural
Theory, and American Studies,” in Locating American Studies: The Evolution of a
Discipline, ed. Lucy Maddox (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 316.
32
Ratcliff, James L. “What is a Curriculum and What Should It Be?” in The Handbook of
the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures,
Practices, and Change, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997), 11.
33
Ratcliff, “What is a Curriculum,” 11.
215

Chapter 2 Endnotes
34

Rudolph, Frederick, The American College and University, (Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press, 1990), 26.
35
Rudolph, American College, 40.
36
Ibid., 36.
37
Thelin, John R., A History of American Higher Education, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2004), 42.
38
Marsden, George M., The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997), 16.
39
Rudolph, American College, 5-6.
40
Thelin, History, 75.
41
Rudolph, American College, 252.
42
Ibid., 148-9.
43
Marsden, George M., The Soul of the American University: From Protestant
Establishment to Established Non-Belief, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994),
263.
44
Marsden, Soul, 151.
45
Ibid., 154.
46
McLean, Milton D. Religious Studies in Public Universities, (Carbondale, IL: Central
Publications Southern Illinois University, 1967), 3.
47
Marsden, Soul, 236.
48
Ibid., 243.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid., 336.
52
Ibid., 335.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid., 337.
55
Ibid., 382.
56
Ibid., 384.
57
Ibid., 383.
58
Rudolph, American College, 486.
59
Hart, Darryl G., The University Gets Religion: Religious Studies in American Higher
Education, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 200.
60
Hart, University Gets Religion, 201.
61
Ibid., 202.
62
American Academy of Religion. “Mission Statement.” http://www.aarweb.org.
63
Dunbar, Willis F. and George May, Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State,
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 18-19.
64
Dain, Floyd R., Education in the Wilderness, (Lansing, MI: The Michigan Historical
Commission, 1968), 7.
65
Dain, Education, 8.
66
Ibid., 8.
216

67

Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 13.
69
Ibid., 16.
70
Ibid., 16-17.
71
Ibid., 22.
72
Ibid., 40.
73
Dunbar, Michigan: A History, 97.
74
Dain, Education, 31.
75
Ibid., 35.
76
Ibid., 41.
77
Ibid., 41-42.
78
Ibid., 44.
79
Ibid., 45.
80
Ibid, 80-81.
81
Ibid., 81.
82
Ibid., 82.
83
Ibid.
84
Dunbar, Michigan: A History, 279.
85
Dain, Education, 140.
86
Austin, C. Grey. A Century of Religion at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan, 1957), 1.
87
Wichers, Wynand, A Century of Hope: 1866-1966, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, 1968), 27.
88
Wichers, Century, 31.
89
Ibid., 30.
90
Ibid., 31.
91
Ibid., 30.
92
Ibid., 49.
93
Ibid., 66.
94
Ibid., 68.
95
Ibid., 174.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid., Appendix A
99
Ibid., 175.
100
Ibid., 74.
101
Ibid., 118.
102
Ibid., 175.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid., 121.
105
Ibid., 160-1.
106
Ibid., 155.
107
Ibid., 155-6.
108
Ibid., 187.
109
Ibid., 188.
68

217

110

Ibid., 222-3.
Ibid., 260.
112
Ibid., 272.
113
Hope College, “Religion Department Courses.” www.hope.edu/academic/religion
114
Hope College, “Religion Department Courses.” www.hope.edu/academic/religion
115
Email correspondence with Steven Bouma-Prediger, chair of the Religion Department,
9.30.11.
116
Timmerman, John J., Promises to Keep: A Centennial History of Calvin College,
(Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin College and Seminary, 1975), 13-14.
117
Timmerman, Promises, 13.
118
Dunbar, Michigan: A History, 599.
119
Timmerman, Promises, 16.
120
Ibid., 19.
121
Ibid., 23.
122
Ibid., 24.
123
Ibid., 27.
124
Ibid., 29.
125
Ibid., 31.
126
Ibid., 166.
127
Ibid., 167.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid., 169.
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid., 170.
133
Ibid.
134
Calvin College, “Religion Department Programs of Study.”
www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/program
135
Calvin College, “Religion Department Programs of Study.”
www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/program
136
Email correspondence with Laura Geelhoed, administrative assistant of the Religion
Department, 10.3.11
137
Stone, Jon R., The Craft of Religions Studies, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000),
3.
138
Stone, Craft, 3.
139
Ibid., 6.
140
Ibid., 4.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
Ibid., 5.
145
Ibid.
146
Ibid.
111

218

147

McCutcheon, Russell T., Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis
Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997),
22.
148
McCutcheon, Manufacturing Religion, 23.
149
Ibid., 193.
150
McCutcheon, Russell T., Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of
Religion, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), xii.
151
Porterfield, Amanda, The Transformation of American Religion: The Story of a Late
Twentieth Century Awakening, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 225.
152
Porterfield, Transformation, 225.
153
Ibid., 225.
154
Wiebe, Donald, The Politics of Religious Studies: The Conflict with Theology of
Academy, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), xiii.
155
Marsden, Outrageous, 6.
156
Ibid., 7.
157
Ibid., 9.
Chapter 3 Endnotes
158

Lawson argues that our brains are essentially “hard-wired” to be receptive to ritual and
thus religion.
159
Swets, Marinus. A Study of the Establishment of Grand Valley State College.
(Dissertation from Michigan State University, 1963), 9.
160
Jamrich. “GVSU: A Justification for Its Creation.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. The
website, created and supervised by GVSU History Professors Anthony Travis and
Lynn Mapes, is no longer available. Created prior to the fiftieth anniversary of GVSU,
it was the only comprehensive written record of GVSU history. With the advent of the
fifty year anniversary, additional resources and histories were established.
161
Travis. “The Struggle to Found a New College.” and “A Clash of Educational
Philosophies.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. Other details concerning the events and
conflicts leading up to the founding of the institution can be discerned from the
Russell Report of 1958 and the Jamrich Report of 1959.
162
Lydens, Z.Z. The Story of Grand Rapids, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1966), 506-7.
163
Grand Valley State College 1966-67 Catalog, 28.
164
Grand Valley State College 1964-65 Catalog, 11.
165
Grand Valley State College 1966-67 Catalog, 7-8.
166
Grand Valley State College 1964-65 Catalog, 11.
167
Grand Valley State College 1965-66 Catalog, 10.
168
Ibid., 21.
169
Zumberge, James, Grand Valley State College: Its Developmental Years 1964-1968,
(Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State College, 1969), 5-6.
170
Grand Valley State Colleges 1970-71 Catalog, 4.
171
Travis. “The Struggle to Found a New College.” and “A Clash of Educational
Philosophies.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory
219

172

Ibid.
Grand Valley State College 1964-65 Catalog,16.
174
Zumberge, James, Report of the President – Grand Valley State College 1962-64: An
Account of the Formative Years of a New Liberal Arts College in Michigan,
(Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State College), 6.
175
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 2.
176
Travis. “The Second President.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory.
177
Rowe, Stephen, Old Hopes for a New Place: The Legacy of Arend D. Lubbers at
Grand Valley State University, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press,
2006), 2.
178
Rowe, Old Hopes, 6.
179
Ibid., 6.
180
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 96.
181
See Travis “Fiscal Troubles.” and “A Near Death Experience: Grand Valley State
Colleges, 1973-82.” http://www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory.
182
Grand Valley State College Self Study for Accreditation at a Higher Degree Level.
Part 1: Academic Programs and Cluster of Colleges, 1.
183
Grand Valley State Colleges 1977-79 Catalog, 9.
184
See Travis, www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory under the histories of the various colleges.
185
Zumberge, Report, 5.
186
Ibid., 5.
187
Ibid., 6.
188
Grand Valley State Colleges 1970-71 Catalog, 132.
189
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 96.
190
Grand Valley State Colleges 1977-79 Catalog, 10.
191
Ibid., 10.
192
Grand Valley State Colleges 1977-79 Catalog, 10-11.
193
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 98.
194
Ibid., 92.
195
Grand Valley State Colleges 1971-72 Catalog, 176.
196
Lynn Mapes, “Thomas Jefferson College.” and “The Death of TJC.”
www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. Mapes goes into greater detail on the site.
197
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 106.
198
Grand Valley State Colleges 1977-79 Catalog, 11.
199
Ibid., 11.
200
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 106.
201
From the Robert Frost poem, Two Tramps in Mud Time: “My object in living is to
unite my avocation and vocation as my two eyes make one in sight.”
202
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 106.
203
Ibid., 106.
204
Ibid., 106-107.
205
Ibid., 107.
206
See Barbara Roos’ “An Unfinished Conversation” and “The Conversation Continues”
at the following websites: http://vimeo.com/unfinishedconversation ,
http://vimeo.com/continuingconversation and
173

220

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/roosb/conversation/libed/libed.html. These sites offer the
video-story of WJC, blogs, and contact information for WJC alumni who wish to
reconnect with Grand Valley. DVDs of each are also available.
207
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 130.
208
Ibid., 130.
209
Ibid., 131.
210
Ibid., 132.
211
Grand Valley State University 2003-04 Catalog, 2.
212
Grand Valley State Colleges 1966-67 Catalog, 61.
213
Ibid., 29.
214
Grand Valley State Colleges 1970-71 Catalog, 100-101.
215
Grand Valley State Colleges 1976-77 Catalog, 72.
216
Ibid., 72.
217
Ibid., 148.
218
GVSC 1976-77 Catalog, 148.
219
Ibid., 148.
220
GVSU Archives “Religious Studies Institute” folder (A79-5), 4-2.
221
GVSU Archives, “Religious Studies Institute” folder (A79-5), 4-2.
222
GVSC 1976-77 Catalog, 6.
223
GVSC 1980-81 Catalog, 10.
224
Roszak, Theodore, The Making of a Counter Culture, (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1995), xxvi. Roszak contextualizes the political, environmental and
technological turmoil as emerging from an Age of Affluence from (approximately)
1942 – 1972. During this time, he argues, an elusive yet rigorous counterculture
movement pushed back against the foundations of the traditional establishment and
questioned the “very meaning of reality, sanity and human purpose” (xxvi). The
development of religion curriculum at Grand Valley, as well as some of the conflicts
that arose in TJC, are small illustrations of Rosazk’s argument.
225
Roszak, Making, 5.
226
Currently this category requires three courses. Since it includes both monotheistic and
non-monotheistic traditions, a student could focus on either (depth), or take a
combination of both (breadth). These courses emphasize the global aspects and
connections in the traditions.
227
See http://www.gvsu.edu/interfaith/welcome-to-the-kaufman-interfaith-institute89.htm and http://www.gvsu.edu/2012interfaith/ for a variety of events that are
planned for the upcoming year. Grand Valley faculty members Douglas Kindschi,
Sheldon Kopperl and Stephen Rowe (whose years as faculty at the institution total
more than 100) have supported and advocated for the new Religious Studies major
and minor and they have fostered community support for it as well. Several
community members active in the Year of Interfaith Understanding also wrote letters
of support for the Religious Studies major and minor Final Plan.

Chapter 4 Endnotes
221

228

Sebaly, Avis Leo, Michigan State Normal Schools and Teachers Colleges in
Transition, with Special Reference to Western Michigan College of Education,
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Michigan, 1950), 45.
229
Sebaly, Michigan, 55.
230
James O. Knauss, The First Fifty Years: A History of Western Michigan College of
Education 1903-1953, (Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan College of Education,
1953), 4.
231
Knauss, First Fifty, 6. There was considerable struggle and bureaucracy to overcome
even after the selection of the site. Early advocates for Western had to raise and pass a
bond, gain clear possession of the title to Prospect Hill, and, of course, fund and
construct the first building.
232
Knauss, First Fifty, 8.
233
Ibid., 8.
234
Sebaly, Michigan, 196.
235
Knauss, First Fifty, 9.
236
Ibid., 46.
237
Ibid.
238
Ibid.
239
Ibid.
240
Sebaly, Michigan, 414.
241
Western Michigan University 1966-67 Catalog, 12.
242
Knauss, First Fifty, 50.
243
Ibid., 52.
244
Ibid., 53.
245
Ibid., 54.
246
Ibid.
247
Ibid., 55.
248
Ibid.
249
Ibid., 57.
250
Ibid., 56. A pre-professional program in Christian Ministry was added in 1959 and is
detailed in the religion curriculum section.
251
Ibid., 60.
252
Sebaly, Michigan, 381.
253
Stine, Leo Clair, Western – A Twentieth Century University, (Kalamazoo, MI: New
Issues Press, 1980), 6.
254
Stine, Western, 7. Waldo did this in the most serious and humane way possible, Stine
argues. Retirement age faculty members were retired, others resigned voluntarily,
some were granted sabbatical with half-pay, some took leaves without pay, only a few
had to be released unconditionally.
255
Knauss, First Fifty, 66.
256
Ibid., 68.
257
Ibid. In the summer session of 1939 eleven courses were offered and 154 students
enrolled. In 1951-52 there were twenty-eight courses and 209 students.
258
Ibid., 75-76.
259
Ibid., 77.
222

260

Ibid., 78. Some options were permitted, for example, Rhetoric could be substituted for
communication and students had choices between biology and geography.
261
Stine, Western, 18.
262
Ibid., 26.
263
Ibid., 27.
264
Western Michigan University, “About WMU.” http://www.wmich.edu/about/profile/
265
Bulletin of the Western State Normal School, 1904-05, Summer Term, 8.
266
Knauss, First Fifty, 43.
267
Western Michigan University 1952-53 Bulletin, 64.
268
Western Michigan University 1952 Bulletin, 64-65.
269
Gernant, Leonard, “Religion at a State-Owned Institution: The Western Michigan
College Story,” Religious Education 19, Jan./Dec. (1957): 375.
270
Stine, Western, 111.
271
Ibid., 111.
272
Gagie, Martin R.J., Western Michigan University: A Pictorial History, (Kalamazoo,
MI: Western Michigan University, 1978), 2.
273
Gagie, Western, 2.
274
Ibid., 39.
275
Western Michigan University 1966-67 Catalog, 11.
276
Ibid., 11.
277
Ibid., 12.
278
Western Michigan University 1968-69 Catalog, 11.
279
Ibid., 11.
280
Western Michigan University, “Mission.” http://www.wmich.edu/about/mission/
281
Western Michigan University, “Goals.” http://www.wmich.edu/about/mission/
282
Kent, Charles Foster, The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the Tax-Supported
Colleges and Universities in America, (New Haven CT: Bulletin of the National
Council on Religion in Higher Education, n.d.), 20.
283
Western Michigan University 1948-49 Bulletin, 245.
284
Western Michigan University 1951-52 Bulletin, 274.
285
Western Michigan University 1956-57 Bulletin, 280.
286
Michaelsen, Robert S., The Study of Religion in American Universities: Ten Case
Studies with Special Reference to State Universities, (New Haven, CT: The Society for
Religion in Higher Education, 1965), 43.
287
Michaelsen, Study of Religion, 43.
288
Stine, Western, 227.
289
Western Michigan University 1960-61 Catalog, 242.
290
Western Michigan University 1966-67 Catalog, 247.
291
Ibid., 252.
292
Ibid.
293
Ibid., 386.
294
Ibid., 387.
295
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “History.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/history.html
223

296

Western Michigan University 1968-69 Catalog, 405-406. The statement is also
significant because it indicates the changing role of the catalog itself and the role it
plays in attracting students to the study of religion. Most of today’s catalogs are stark
by comparison, with little or no preambles present, course descriptions often limited
(in some cases to fifty words or less) and it is difficult to get a sense of the values and
scope of the department and courses from such short text compilations. Western, out
of the four institutions examined in this dissertation, has retained, even to the present,
the most descriptive and detailed language in its printed catalogs. This most certainly
has aided and attracted students to the option of studying religion in the institution.
297
Ibid., 406.
298
Ibid., 407.
299
Western Michigan University 1977-78 Catalog, 337.
300
Wilson, Brian, “History - Department of Comparative Religion: 1956 to Present.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/about/history.html
301
Interview. Brian Wilson. 29 September 2009. Though the Ph.D. program was wellreceived, simultaneous cutbacks in funding and an abrupt decline in the numbers of
the faculty (due to retirement and who were not replaced) in the department made
supporting it impossible. The Master’s program allows 8-10 graduate students
admission per academic year, depending on aid needs. The undergraduate program
has maintained about 60 majors consistently for the past ten years.
302
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Undergraduate
Programs.” http://www.wmich.edu/religion/undergrad_programs.html
303
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Undergraduate
Programs.” http://www.wmich.edu/religion/undergrad_programs.html
304
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Homepage.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/
305
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Undergraduate
Curriculum.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/academics/index.html
306
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Undergraduate
Curriculum.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/academics/index.html
307
Western Michigan University Department of Comparative Religion. “Undergraduate
Curriculum.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/academics/index.html
81
The Presidential Scholars Award honors WMU's outstanding senior students, as
nominated by the faculty of each academic department. The scholars are chosen on the
basis of their general academic excellence, academic and/or artistic excellence in the
department's program, and their intellectual and/or artistic promise. See:
http://www.wmich.edu/marketing/scholarships/presidential.html

Chapter 5 Endnotes
309

Michigan Agricultural College 1914-16 Catalog, 26.
224

310

Dunbar, Willis F., Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 292.
311
McCristal, J. Bruce, The Spirit of Michigan State, (Bloomfield Hills, MI: J. Bruce
McCristal, 2004), 10.
312
Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: The First Hundred Years, (East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Press, 1955), v.
313
qtd. in McCristal, Spirit, 11.
314
Ibid., 11.
315
Kuhn, Michigan State, 24.
316
Ibid., 27.
317
Ibid., 26.
318
qtd. in McCristal, Spirit, 19.
319
Ibid., 35.
320
Ibid., 37.
321
Blair, Lyle and Madison Kuhn, A Short History of Michigan State, (East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State College Press, 1955), 24.
322
McCristal, Spirit, 53.
323
Dressel, Paul L., College to University: The Hannah Years at Michigan State – 19351969, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Publications, 1987), 31.
324
Kuhn, Michigan State, 276.
325
Ibid., 279.
326
McCristal, Spirit, 63.
327
Kuhn, Michigan State, 366.
328
Blair, Short History, 28.
329
qtd. in McCristal, Spirit, 71.
330
Kuhn, Michigan State, 335.
331
Dressel, College to University, 31.
332
McCristal, Spirit, 93.
333
Blair, Short History, 31.
334
Ibid., 31.
335
Dunbar, Willis, The Michigan Record in Higher Education, (Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1963), 334.
336
Kuhn, Michigan State, 339.
337
Varg, Paul, Letter to the Educational Policies Committee, (Michigan State University
Archive and Historical Collections: Folder 15.9): par. 2.
338
Ibid., par. 3.
339
Ibid., par. 4.
340
Ibid., par. 5.
341
Ibid., par. 9.
342
Michigan State University, “College of Arts and Letters.”
http://www.cal.msu.edu/about/facts.html
343
Michigan State University. “About MSU.” http://www.msu.edu/thisismsu/facts.html
344
Kuhn, Michigan State, 27.
345
Michigan State University 1962-63 Catalog, 9.
346
Ibid., 9.
225

347

Michigan State University 1970-71Catalog, 9.
Ibid., 9.
349
Ibid., 9.
350
Michigan State University, “Mission Statement,”(Approved by the MSU Board of
Trustees, June 24-25, 1982).
351
Ibid..
352
Ibid.
353
Ibid.
354
Michigan State University, “Mission Statement.” http://president.msu.edu/mission.php
355
Ibid.
356
Michigan State University, “Core Values.”
http://president.msu.edu/core_values.php?statement_values,
357
“College of Arts and Letters.” Michigan State University.
http://www.cal.msu.edu/about/facts.html With recent economic tensions in the state,
MSU has once again begun examining the fiscal feasibility of many programs and
curricula.
358
Michigan State University, College of Arts and Letters. “Engaging the World” flyer.
Found at http://www.cal.msu.edu/Mission.php
359
Michigan State University College of Arts and Letters. “Mission Statement.”
http://www.cal.msu.edu/Mission.php
360
Kimber, Harry H., “Religion in a State University,” The Journal of Higher Education,
22, no. 6 (1951) : 293.
361
Michigan Agricultural College 1922-23 Catalog, 137-38.
362
Michigan Agricultural College 1923-24 Catalog, 197. All three courses were taught by
Ray Bennett Weaver, Assistant Professor of English.
363
Michigan State College 1935-36 Catalog, 199.
364
Ibid., 200. At this time, the department of Philosophy and Psychology was a single
unit.
365
Michigan State College 1946-48 Catalog, 403, 448.
366
Michaelsen, Robert S., The Study of Religion in American Universities: Ten Case
Studies with Special Reference to State Universities, (New Haven, CT: The Society for
Religion in Higher Education, 1965), 32.
367
Michigan State University Department of Religious Studies Self Study, 08.15.2007,
4.
368
Michaelsen, Study of Religion, 32.
369
Michaelsen, Study of Religion, 33-4.
370
Michigan State College 1949-51 Catalog, 427-428.
371
Michigan State University Archives: UA 16.102.
372
Michigan State University Archives: UA 5-1526, 19.
373
Michigan State University Department of Religious Studies Self Study, 08.15.2007, 5.
374
Michigan State University 1977-78 Catalog, A-164-5.
375
Ibid., A-164.
376
Michigan State University 1979 Catalog, A-176.
377
Michigan State University 1984 Catalog, A-183-4.
348

226

378

Michigan State University, “Muslim Studies Specialization.”
http://www.isp.msu.edu/muslimstudies/specialization/
379
Michigan State University, “Jewish Studies Mission.”
http://jsp.msu.edu/index.php?page=mission
380
Michigan State University Department of Religious Studies Self Study, 08.15.2007, 6.
381
Ibid., 4.
382
Ibid., 9.
383
Michigan State University, “The Department of Religious Studies.”
http://www.religiousstudies.msu.edu/get-a-major-or-minor
384
Michigan State University, “The Department of Religious Studies.”
http://www.religiousstudies.msu.edu
385
Michigan State University, “The Department of Religious Studies.”
http://www.religiousstudies.msu.edu/news-and-events
386
Michigan State University Department of Religious Studies. “Homepage.”
http://www.religiousstudies.msu.edu/liberal-learning-goals
387
Ibid.
388
MSU Department of Religious Studies “Checklist of Requirements for a Minor in
Religious Studies.” http://www.religiousstudies.msu.edu/get-a-major-or-minor
389
Ibid.
390
Michigan State University Department of Religious Studies Self Study, 08.15.2007, 3.
391
Ibid., 3.
Chapter 6 Endnotes
392

The University of Michigan, 1865-66 General Register, 49.
Ibid., 13.
394
Peckham, Howard H., The Making of the University of Michigan: 1817-1992 (Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 5-6. The thirteen didaxiim, or
professorships, included: 1. Catholepistemia, or universal science (the professor of this
would be president of the institution), 2. Anthropoglossica, or literature and languages,
3. Mathematica, or mathematics, 4. Physionostica, or natural history, 5. Physiosophica,
or philosophy, 6. Astronomia, or astronomy, 7. Chymia, or chemistry, 8. Iatrica, or
medical sciences, 9. Oeconomica, or economics, 10. Ethica, or ethics, 11.
Polemitactia, or military science, 12. Diegetica, or history, and 13. Ennoeica, or
intellectual sciences.
395
Dain, Floyd R. Education in the Wilderness (Lansing, MI: The Michigan Historical
Commission, 1968), 88.
396
Dain, Education, 91.
397
Dunbar, Willis F., Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 279.
398
Austin, C. Grey, A Century of Religion at The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan, 1957), vii –viii.
399
Austin, Century of Religion, vii-viii.
400
Peckham, Making, 10.
401
Ibid., 24.
393

227

402

Ibid., 25.
Albion (United Methodist Church) was founded in 1835, Hope College (Reformed
Church in America) in 1866, Calvin College (Christian Reformed Church) in 1876,
Aquinas (Roman Catholic) in 1886, and Alma (Presbyterian Church) in 1886, for
example.
404
Peckham, Making, 44.
405
Ibid., 45.
406
Ibid., 71.
407
The University of Michigan, 1864-65 General Register, 41.
408
Hatcher, Harlan, The University of Michigan: 140 Years from Michigan Wilderness to
a World Center of Learning! (1817-1957) (New York: The Newcomen Society in
North America, 1958), 15.
409
Hatcher, University, 16.
410
Baldwin, DeWitt C. “A Centennial of Student Religious Work,” Religious Education,
54, Jan./Dec. (1959): 86.
411
Hart, Darryl G. The University Gets Religion: Religious Studies in American Higher
Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 67- 68.
412
Hart, University, 68-9. Hart also notes that the REA’s purpose was “to coordinate the
work of religious education in its various components, which included departments of
universities and colleges, theological seminaries, elementary and secondary public
schools, private schools, teacher training, churches and pastors, Sunday schools, young
peoples’ societies, the home, libraries, the press, art and music, and the YMCA and
YWCA.” He notes that the REA’s efforts were typical of the way mainstream
Protestants thought about religion and higher education.
413
The University of Michigan, 1916-17 General Register, 70.
414
Ibid., 70. Guilds, the catalogue explains, were primarily comprised of students and
were “organized in several of the churches both for religious and moral culture and for
social entertainment.” Some of these included The Hobart Guild (connected with St.
Andrews Church and the Protestant Episcopal denomination), The Wesleyan Guild
(affiliated with the Methodist Episcopal Church) and The Baptist Students’ Guild (for
those associated with the First Baptist Church).
415
Ibid., 71.
416
Peckham, Making, 210.
417
Ibid., 210.
418
Ibid., 211.
419
Ibid., 239.
420
Cuninggim, Merrimon. The College Seeks Religion, (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1947), 222.
421
Harrold, Philip, “‘A Mess of Pottage’: The Debate over Religious Pluralism at the
University of Michigan, 1944-48, ” The Michigan Historical Review, 24, no. 2 (1998):
4.
422
Harrold, “Mess,” 6.
423
Ibid., 6.
424
Ibid., 7.
425
Ibid., 15-16.
403

228

426

Ibid., 15-16.
Peckham, Making, 257.
428
The University of Michigan Bentley Historical Library, Office of Ethics and Religion
Box 17 87299 BI f272, “Office of Religious Affairs – Purpose and Function” folder.
429
Ibid.
430
Ibid.
431
Hatcher, University, 26.
432
Baldwin, DeWitt C., “Centennial,” 85.
433
The University of Michigan, 1843-44 General Register, 14.
434
The University of Michigan, 1916-17 General Register, 49.
435
The University of Michigan, 1925-26 General Register, 76.
436
The University of Michigan, 1955-56 General Register, 46-47.
437
The University of Michigan, 1967-68 General Register, 24.
438
The University of Michigan, 1967-68 Bulletin, 5-6. In the mid-1970s the Office of
Publication stopped printing catalogs, and thus individual Colleges became
responsible for printing their own publications. The Bulletin became the primary
source for indicating the mission, vision and values of CLSA.
439
The University of Michigan. “College of Literature, Science and Arts – First Year
Course Guide: Religion,” Fall 1997.
440
The University of Michigan. “Office of the President.”
http://www.umich.edu/pres/mission.php
441
The University of Michigan. “College of Literature, Science and Arts - Mission.”
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/bulletin/chapter1/mission
442
The University of Michigan, 1916-1917 General Register, 163.
443
Ibid., 164.
444
Ibid., 165.
445
Ibid., 184.
446
Ibid., 230.
447
Kent, Charles Foster, The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the Tax-Supported
Colleges and Universities in America, (New Haven, CT: Bulletin of the National
Council on Religion in Higher Education, n.d.), 10.
448
Laipson, Peter. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: The Michigan School of
Religion, 1920-1930,” The Michigan Historical Review, 21, no. 2 (1995): 94-95.
449
Laipson, “And the Walls,” 98.
450
Ibid., 101.
451
Michaelsen, Robert S. The Study of Religion in American Universities: Ten Case
Studies
with Special Reference to State Universities, (New Haven, CT: The Society for
Religion in Higher Education, 1965), 18.
452
The University of Michigan, 1944-45 General Register, 234.
453
The University of Michigan, 1955-56 General Register, 246.
454
Ibid., 201.
455
University of Michigan. Course Listings LSA. Winter 1982. The course descriptions
at this time were often quite detailed. The remainder of this particular course
continued: “Various religious impulses within the Black community will be studied,
427

229

including traditional Christianity, Islam, Judaism, cultic Christianity (as expressed in
the various Pentecostal movements) and other movements which have been described
as ‘personality cults’ such as those led by Father Divine, Daddy Grace, Prophet Jones,
and Rev. Ike. A brief survey of the traditional African approach to religion is given as
a background for a proper understanding of the ways in which the introduction of
Christianity affected African people, followed by a study of the development of
religion among Black people in the ante-bellum America. A study of Black religion
since 1900 will explore the social and political cross-currents which led to the rise of
separatist religious groups early in the twentieth century. The role of mainline
churches and their success or failure in translating the needs and aspirations of the
Black community to the larger society will be studied in relation to the civil rights
struggle of the 1960s and the development of new social-action oriented religious
movements. The course will conclude with an exploration of Black religious moods in
contemporary society.” In addition, course descriptions also included a general
breakdown of format, assignments and assessment methods.
456
University of Michigan. College of Literature, Science and the Arts Course Listings,
Religion. Fall 1989.
457
University of Michigan. College of Literature, Science and the Arts Course Listings,
Religion. Winter 1982.
458
University of Michigan. “College of Literature, Science and Arts – Concentration.”
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/umich/v/index.jsp
459
LS&A Course Bulletin 1998-99.
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/saa/publications/bulletin/archive/98-99/reli/reli.html
460
University of Michigan. College of Literature, Science and the Arts. “Individual
Concentration Program.” www.lsa.umich.edu/icp
461
University of Michigan. “College of Literature, Science and Arts – Judaic Studies
Concentration.” http://www.lsa.umich.edu/umich/v/index.jsp
462
LSA Fall 2011 Course Guide
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cg/cg_results.aspx?termArray=f_11_1860&cgtype=ug&dep
artment=AAPTIS&allsections=true&show=40
463
LSA Fall 2011 Course Guide,
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/cg/cg_detail.aspx?content=1860AAPTIS100001&termArra
y=f_11_1860
464
The University of Michigan. “International Institute Homepage.”
http://www.ii.umich.edu/
465
The University of Michigan. “The Jean and Samuel Center for Judaic Studies
Homepage.” http://www.lsa.umich.edu/judaic/
466
Peckham, Making, 305.
467
Ibid., 306.
468
The University of Michigan-Flint, “About.” http://www.umflint.edu/aboutumflint.page
469
Ibid.
470
The University of Michigan-Flint. “Catalog,”
http://catalog.umflint.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=5&poid=1133
471
Ibid.
230

472

Ibid.
Ibid.
474
The University of Michigan-Dearborn, “About Us.” www.umd.umich.edu
475
The University of Michigan-Dearborn, “Mission.”
http://www.umd.umich.edu/mission/
476
Ibid.
477
The University of Michigan-Dearborn, “College of Arts, Sciences and Letters.”
http://www.casl.umd.umich.edu/index.php?id=653001
478
The University of Michigan-Dearborn, http://umd.umich.edu
479
The University of Michigan-Dearborn, “College of Arts, Sciences and Letters.”
http://www.casl.umd.umich.edu/index.php?id=653001
473

Chapter 7 Endnotes
480

Qtd. in Axelrod, Joseph, New Patterns in Undergraduate Education: Emerging
Curriculum Models for the American College (Durham, NC: Duke University and the
United States Office of Education, 1967), 16-17.
481
Qtd. in Miriam Ben-Peretz. “Curriculum Development.” Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 256-7.
482
I have been intentionally vague about the details of this scenario, as this proposal is
still active in the curriculum process. Disclosing further details could hinder the
neutrality of my role and responsibility in the process.
483
Axelrod, New Patterns, vi.
484
Ibid.
485
Tanner, Daniel and Laurel Tanner, Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice
(New York: MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1975), 5.
486
Schneider, Carol Geary, “The Arts and Sciences Major,” in The Handbook of the
Undergraduate Curriculum, ed. Jerry G. Gaff (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1997),
250. While Schneider’s article was addressing the Arts and Sciences major within the
context of liberal education, I think the idea increasingly applies to all majors.
487
Association of American Colleges and Universities. “College Learning for the New
Global Century,”
https://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_ExecSum_3.pdf 3.
488
The American Academy of Religion (AAR), “The Religious Studies Major in a Post9/11 World: New Challenges, New Opportunities.” The Religion Major and Liberal
Education – A White Paper,
http://www.aarweb.org/Programs/Religion_Major_and_Liberal_Education/ 3-4.
489
Ibid., 11. While the Syllabus Project has since been moved to another organization’s
purview, the AAR continues to discuss the major, most recently at the 2010 annual in
Atlanta and through workshops and conferences.
490
Ibid., 11-12.
491
Ibid., 11.
492
In order of clarity and transparency of learning goals and outcomes, I think Michigan
State has done the best job, Western second, Grand Valley third (though admittedly
231

this is still in progress as the major and minor will not officially be available until fall
2012) and the University of Michigan fourth.
493
AAR, “Religious Studies Major,” The Religion Major and Liberal Education – A
White Paper.
http://www.aarweb.org/Programs/Religion_Major_and_Liberal_Education/ 8.
494
Ibid, 8.
495
Although upon closer examination, these courses contained unique learning outcomes
and pedagogical approaches, this was not sufficient rationale from the internal and
external perspectives.
496
Dressel, Paul, “A Look at New Curriculum Models for Undergraduate Education,”
The Journal of Higher Education 50, no. 4 (July-Aug. 1979): 392.
497
Levine, Arthur, When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 165.
498
Levine, When Hope, 164.
499
Western Michigan University. “About WMU homepage.”
http://www.wmich.edu/about/
500
Although beyond the scope of this dissertation, these four institutions, mirroring a
national trend, are also relying heavily on contingent faculty positions in order to cut
budgets and save money in benefits. While this means that not all faculty members
have rigorous scholarship expectations, the highest paying and most secure positions
require it, and the job market for such positions is highly competitive.
501
Tierney, William G. and Estela Bensimon, Promotion and Tenure: Community and
Socialization in Academe (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996),
11.
502
Tierney, Promotion, 11.
503
Ibid., 5.
504
Boyer, Ernest, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, (Princeton,
NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990), xiii.
505
Bellah, Robert N., “Religion in the University: Changing Consciousness, Changing
Structures,” in Religion in the Undergraduate Curriculum: An Analysis and
Interpretation, ed. Claude Welch (Washington D.C.: Association of American
Colleges, 1972), 13. In this essay Bellah talks about three forms of religious
consciousness: religious orthodoxy, enlightenment orthodoxy and symbolic realism.
Controversies within departments of religion in the universities often arise from
unresolved conflicts between these three forms and/or from faculty members holding
different views within the same department.
506
Bellah, “Religion,” 13.
507
AAR, “The Religious Studies Major.” The Religion Major and Liberal Education – A
White Paper.
http://www.aarweb.org/Programs/Religion_Major_and_Liberal_Education/
508
The Society for Values in Higher Education, “History.”
http://www.svhe.org/content/our-history
509
The Society for Values in Higher Education, “Mission.”
http://www.svhe.org/content/our-mission
232

510

The Society for Values in Higher Education, “Institute on Religion in Curriculum and
Culture of Higher Education.” http://www.svhe.org/content/institute-religioncurriculum-and-culture-higher-education%20.
511
Ibid. Participants in the Institute include Robert Spivey, Florida State University;
Miriam Diamond, Northwestern University; Allen Dunn, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville and Richard Miller, Indiana University among others.
512
Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Kathy Domenici, Communication, Conflict, and the
Management of Difference (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2007), 94.
513
Littlejohn, Communication, 94.
514
Student development and external community engagement are also essential.
515
Sell, G. Robert and Barbara Lounsberry, “Supporting Curriculum Development,” in
The Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum, ed. Jerry G. Gaff (San Francisco:
Jossey Bass, 1997), 662.

233

BIBLIOGRAPHY

234

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alkin, Marvin C., ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Sixth Edition. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.
American Academy of Religion. “Mission Statement” http://www.aarweb.org.
The American Academy of Religion. “The Religious Studies Major in a Post-9/11 World: New
Challenges, New Opportunities.” The Religion Major and Liberal Education – A White
Paper. http://www.aarweb.org/Programs/Religion_Major_and_Liberal_Education/
Austin, C. Grey. A Century of Religion at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan, 1957.
---. “The Student Religious Association.” In The University of Michigan, An
Encyclopedic Survey. Wilfred B. Shaw, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
1942.
Axelrod, Joseph. New Patterns in Undergraduate Education: Emerging Curriculum Models for
the American College. Durham, NC: Duke University and the United States
Office of Education, 1967.
Baldwin, DeWitt C. “A Centennial of Student Religious Work.” Religious Education 54,
(January-December 1959): 84-86.
Berkhofer Jr., Robert F. “The Americanness of American Studies.” American Quarterly 31,
no. 3 (1979): 340-345.
Blair, Lyle and Madison Kuhn. A Short History of Michigan State. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State College Press, 1955.
Bracco, Kathy Reeves. “State Structures for the Governance of Higher Education: Michigan
Case Study Summary.” San Jose, CA: California Higher Education Policy Center, 1997.
Boyer, Ernest. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Cabrera, Miguel. Postsocial History: An Introduction. New York: Lexington Books, 2004.
Calvin College. “Religion Department Programs of Study”
www.calvin.edu/academic/religion/program.
Casmir, Fred L. Building Communication Theories: A Socio/Cultural Approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1994.
235

---. “Culture, Communication and Development,” In Communication in
Development. F.L Casmir, ed. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991.
Cherry, Conrad, Betty DeBerg and Amanda Porterfield. Religion On Campus. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Cuninggim, Merrimon. The College Seeks Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1947.
Dain, Floyd R. Education in the Wilderness. Lansing, Michigan: The Michigan Historical
Commission, 1968.
Dressel, Paul L. College to University: The Hannah Years at Michigan State – 1935-1969. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Publications, 1987.
---. “A Look at New Curriculum Models for Undergraduate Education.” The
Journal of Higher Education 50, no. 4 (July-August 1979): 389-397.
Dunbar, Willis F. Kalamazoo and How It Grew. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,
1959.
---. The Michigan Record in Higher Education. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1963.
Dunbar, Willis F. and George S. May. Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Third
Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Freedman, D. Noel. “Program on Studies in Religion.” In The University of Michigan, An
Encyclopedic Survey. Wilfred B. Shaw, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
1942.
Gaff, Jerry G., James L. Ratcliff and Associates. Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A
Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices and Change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Gagie, Martin R. J., ed. Western Michigan University: A Pictorial History. Kalamazoo, MI:
Western Michigan University, 1978.
Gernant, Leonard. “Religion at a State-Owned Institution: The Western Michigan College
Story.” Religious Education 52, (January-December 1957): 375-383.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures; Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books,
1973.
Grand Valley State Colleges Catalogs 1963-1988.
236

Grand Valley State Colleges. “Self Study for Accreditation at a Higher Degree Level.” Part 1:
Academic Programs and Cluster of Colleges, 1.
Grand Valley State University. Academic Affairs Policy Council. “Role of Religion on Campus
Subcommittee. GVSU Archives. Folder 4x3.
Grand Valley State University Archives. A75-15.
Folder 1-15 TJC
Folder 2-3 WJC
Grand Valley State University Archives. 88-3 Office Files.
Folder 1-19 Curriculum Study
Folder 2-11 The Near Shutdown 1979
Folder 2-12 WJC 1979-81
Grand Valley State University Archives. 88-3 Office Report.
Folder 2-1 The Paper WJC 1976-78
Grand Valley State University Archives. Record Group: News Information. Box 4.
Newspaper clippings 1969-1971.
Folder 1-21 (May-December 1969)
Folder 1-22 (January-April 1970)
Folder 2-2 (May-December 1970)
Folder 2-3 (January-May 1971)
Grand Valley State University Archives. “Religious Studies Institute” folder (A79-5) 4-2.
Grand Valley State University Catalogs 1988-2008.
Gunn, Giles. "American Studies as Cultural Criticism." In The Culture of Criticism and the
Criticism of Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Haenicke, Diether H. Wednesdays with Diether: Opinions, Observations, and Reminiscences
from His Weekly Gazette Column. Kalamazoo, MI: Kalamazoo Gazette, 2003.
Harrold, Philip. “‘A Mess of Pottage’: The Debate over Religious Pluralism at the University of
Michigan, 1944-1948.” The Michigan Historical Review 24, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 37-54.
Hart, Darryl G. The University Gets Religion: Religious Studies in American Higher
Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Hatcher, Harlan. The University of Michigan: 140 Years from Michigan Wilderness to a World
Center of Learning! (1817-1957). New York: The Newcomen Society in North America,
1958.

237

Hausdorff, Don. “American Studies at Michigan State University.” American Quarterly 22, no.
2. (Part 2-1970): 546-559.
Hope College. “Religion Department Courses.” www.hope.edu/academic/religion.
Jamrich. “GVSU: A Justification for Its Creation” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 18 January 2009.
Kent, Charles Foster. The Undergraduate Courses in Religion at the Tax- Supported Colleges
and Universities in America. New Haven, CT: Bulletin of the National Council on
Religion in Higher Education, n.d. [c.a. 1923?].
Kimber, Harry H. “Religion in a State University.” The Journal of Higher Education 22,
no. 6 (June 1951): 293-296 + 343-344.
Klein, Julie Thompson. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and
Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1996.
Knauss, James O. The First Fifty Years: A History of Western Michigan College of Education
1903-1953. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan College of Education, 1953.
Kronman, Anthony. Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the
Meaning of Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.
Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: The First Hundred Years. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press, 1955.
Lattuca, Lisa and Joan S. Stark. “Will Disciplinary Perspectives Impede Curricular Reform?”
The Journal of Higher Education 65, no. 4 (July-August 1994): 401-426.
Lawson, E. Thomas and Robert McCauley. Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and
Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Laipson, Peter. “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: The Michigan School of Religion, 19201930.” The Michigan Historical Review 21 no. 2 (Fall 1995): 93-123.
Levine, Arthur. When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Levine, Lawrence. The Opening of the American Mind: Canons, Culture and History. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1996.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Kathy Domenici. Communication, Conflict, and the Management of
Difference. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2007.
Lydens, Z.Z. The Story of Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1966.

238

Maddox, Lucy, ed. Locating American Studies: The Evolution of a Discipline. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Mapes, Lynn. “The Death of TJC.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 16 January 2009.
---. “Thomas Jefferson College.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 16 January 2009.
Marsden, George M. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997.
---. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established NonBelief. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
McCristal, J. Bruce. The Spirit of Michigan State. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Published by J. Bruce
McCristal, 2004.
McCutcheon, Russell T. Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of Religion.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001.
McCutcheon, Russell T. Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and
the Politics of Nostalgia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
McCutcheon, Russell T. Religion and the Domestication of Dissent: Or, How to Live in a Less
than Perfect Nation. London, Equinox Publishing, 2005.
McKevitt, Kathleen. “Eight By 10: Eight Arts and Letters Alumni Share Their Memories of
MSU Through the Decades.” In Muses: A Magazine of the Arts and Humanities at
Michigan State University 17 no.1 (Spring-Summer): 2005.
McLean, Milton D. Religious Studies in Public Universities. Carbondale, IL: Central
Publications Southern Illinois University, 1967.
McLean, Milton D. and Harry H. Kimber. Teaching of Religion in State Universities:
Descriptions of Programs in Twenty-five Institutions. Office of Religious Affairs: The
University of Michigan, 1960.
Mechling, Jay, Robert Merideth and David Wilson. “American Culture Studies: The Discipline
And the Curriculum.” American Quarterly 25 no. 4 (1973): 363-389.
Michaelsen, Robert S. The Study of Religion in American Universities: Ten Case Studies
with Special Reference to State Universities. New Haven, CT: The Society for Religion
in Higher Education, 1965.
Michigan Agricultural College Catalogs 1909-1925.
Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science Catalogs 1925-1955.
239

Michigan State University Catalogs 1964-2011.
Michigan State University. “About MSU.” http://www.msu.edu/thisismsu/facts.html
Michigan State University. “College of Arts and Letters.”
http://www.cal.msu.edu/about/facts.html
Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science Catalogs 1955-1964.
Michigan State University Archives. Box 15.9.
Mitchell, Pamela. “What Is ‘Curriculum?’Alternatives in Western Historical Perspective.”
Religious Education 88 no.3 (Summer 1988): 349-366.
Peckham, Howard H. The Making of The University of Michigan 1817 – 1992. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 1994.
Porterfield, Amanda. The Transformation of American Religion: The Story of a Late Twentieth
Century Awakening. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counter Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1995.
Rowe, Stephen. “Access to a Vision: The Paradox of a Liberal Education.” In Reflection and
Engagement: Liberal Education at GVSU. Ed. Judy Whipps. Acton, MA: Copley Custom
Publishing, 2009.
Rowe, Stephen. Old Hopes for a New Place: The Legacy of Arend D. Lubbers at Grand Valley
State University. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2006.
Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press, 1990.
Rudolph, Frederick. Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study
Since 1636. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.
Searles, Herbert L. “The Study of Religion in State Universities.” University of Iowa Studies:
Studies in Character 1 no. 3. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, 1927.
Sebaly, Avis Leo. Michigan State Normal Schools and Teachers Colleges in Transition, with
Special Reference to Western Michigan College of Education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation submitted to the University of Michigan, 1950.
Shepard, Robert S. God’s People in the Ivory Tower: Religion in the Early American University.
Brooklyn, New York: Carlson Publishing, Inc., 1991.
240

Smith, Seymour A. Religious Cooperation in State Universities: An Historical Sketch. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1957.
Society for Values in Higher Education. “About Us.” http://www.svhe.org/content/about-us-0
Society for Values in Higher Education. “Institute on Religion in Curriculum and Culture
of Higher Education.” http://www.svhe.org/content/institute-religion-curriculum-andculture-higher-education%20
Society for Values in Higher Education. “Mission.” http://www.svhe.org/content/our-mission
Stine, Leo Clair. Western – A Twentieth Century University. Kalamazoo MI: New Issues
Press, 1980.
Stone, Jon R., ed. The Craft of Religious Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.
Swets, Marinus Matthius. A Study of the Establishment of Grand Valley State College.
Dissertation from Michigan State University, 1963.
Sykes, Richard E. “American Studies and the Concept of Culture: A Theory and Method.”
American Quarterly 15 no. 2 (Part 2-1963): 253-270.
Tanner, Daniel and Laurel Tanner. Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice. New York:
MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1975.
Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2004.
Thomas, David A. Michigan State College: John Hannah and the Creation of a World
University 1926 – 1969. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2008.
Tierney, William G. “Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the Essentials.”
Journal of Higher Education 59 no. 1 (January-February 1988): 2-21.
Tierney, William G and Estela Mara Bensimon. Promotion and Tenure: Community and
Socialization in Academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Timmerman, John J. Promises to Keep: A Centennial History of Calvin College.
Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin College and Seminary, 1975.
Travis, Anthony. “A Clash of Educational Philosophies.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory 18 January
2009.
---. “Fiscal Troubles” http://www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 18 January 2009.

241

---. “A Near Death Experience: Grand Valley State Colleges, 1973-82.”
http://www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 18 January 2009.
---. “The Second President” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory 18 January 2009.
---. “The Struggle to Found a New College.” www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory. 18 January
2009.
Travis, Anthony and Lynn Mapes. “History of Grand Valley State University Home Page.”
http://www.gvsu.edu/gvhistory/ 17 January 2009.
Tremlin, Todd. Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
The University of Michigan. General Register. 1843 – 1995.
The University of Michigan. The Bentley Archives and Historical Collections. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
The University of Michigan. The Bulletin. 1871 – 2000.
The University of Michigan. “College of Literature, Science and Arts - First Year Course
Guide: Religion.” Fall 1997.
The University of Michigan. “Office of the President.” http://www.umich.edu/pres/mission.php
The University of Michigan–Dearborn. “About Us.” www.umd.umich.edu
The University of Michigan-Flint. “Catalog.”
http://catalog.umflint.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=5&poid=1133
Varg, Paul A. Letter. (UA 15.9) Michigan State University Archives and Historical
Collections, East Lansing, Michigan.
Welch, Claude C. Religion in the Undergraduate Curriculum: An Analysis and Interpretation.
Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1972.
Western Michigan College of Education. Semi-Centennial Convocation Speeches 1954: The
Teaching Profession Comes of Age. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan College, 1954.
Western Michigan College Catalogs 1955-1956.
Western Michigan College of Education Catalogs 1941-1954.
Western Michigan University Catalogs 1955-2009.

242

Western State Teachers College Catalogs 1927-1940.
Western State Normal School Catalogs 1903-1926.
Whipps, Judy, et al. “Religious Studies Final Plan.” Grand Valley State University, 2009.
Whipps, Judy, et al. “Religious Studies Prospectus.” Grand Valley State University, 2007.
Wichers, Wynand. A Century of Hope: 1866-1966. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s
Publishing Co., 1968.
Widder, Keith R. Michigan Agricultural College: The Evolution of a Land-Grant
Philosophy 1855 – 1925. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Press, 2005.
Wiebe, Donald. The Politics of Religious Studies: The Conflict with Theology of Academy.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
Wilson, Brian. “History of Comparative Religion Department: 1956 to Present.”
http://www.wmich.edu/religion/about/history.html
Wise, Gene. “’Paradigm Dramas’ in American Studies: A Cultural and Institutional History of
The Movement.” American Quarterly 31 no. 3 (1979): 293-337.
Zumberge, James. Grand Valley State College: Its Developmental Years 1964-1968.
Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State College, 1969.
Zumberge, James. Report of the President. Grand Valley State College 1962-64: An Account of
the Formative Years of a New Liberal Arts College in Michigan. Allendale, MI: Grand
Valley State College, 1965.

243