Bob Jones University Enters a New Era

I am leery of talking about “higher standards” here, and I presume we are talking about the modesty issue, as that’s really the main thing that’s changed. The reason is simply that if one description of Biblical modesty is correct, then the other is ipso facto incorrect. We would therefore speak of not higher or lower standards, but rather Biblical or less than Biblical standards.

Alternatively, if we admit the possibility that both standards are Biblically plausible, we again find that “higher” standards is still not the right term. We might speak of a more Victorian application, or one with greater coverage of the bodice and legs, but we cannot say that someone’s application is “higher” if we admit that both are Biblically plausible.

And for that matter, I really don’t like the term “standard” here, as that very term implies a certainty about a bunch of things that are really cultural. We might find that a skirt standard of tea length or knee length alike would appall the ancients—or perhaps they might wonder why we need to cover so much in the Grecian parts of the church. I’m almost certain they would have been puzzled at the modern habit of relegating nursing mothers to the cry room or nursery. “You have private rooms for that?”, they might say to us.

In the same way, those celebrating weddings in ancient days would certainly be perplexed at the Baptist antipathy to dancing and music with a strong beat, not to mention another issue I won’t name directly here.

So I would dare say that in a lot of these cases, BJU does not have standards, and they even more certainly do not have higher standards, way back when or now alike. They rather have policies which try, successfully or otherwise, to implement what the Bible says about certain areas, and these policies are inevitably informed by our modern culture.

Larry gave a great illustration of the difference between treating young people like adults, and between a strong view of in loco parentis; attendance rules. Most colleges don’t have them because the consequences of non-attendance are pretty obvious; you don’t get assignments, therefore you cannot turn them in, and without hearing the lectures, most people have a heck of a time passing the exams—never mind that if you don’t attend, you don’t know when those exams are. Get to class late, and the same goes to a lesser extent.

Hence at most colleges, you’ll find that those not in class are those who are either sick, or who are on their way out but haven’t stopped paying tuition yet. I was a TA for many semesters in college and grad school and never, ever needed to take attendance except for the first day of class each semester. To do so every class would have been a waste of time.

And really, unless one works for a BJU-style employer, most white collar employees find that their employment works about the same way. It’s not strict 7am-3pm (3-11, 11-7) shift work, but there is a window where you’re expected there, or expected to tell your boss, and if you don’t show up at that time, you’re simply missing out on those opportunities.

I’m not totally against in loco parentis, and I’m definitely not against a school playing a role in discipleship and sanctification. I just think that for too many fundamental colleges, the parenting is done not as in young adults (“Dad, what kind of car should I get?”), but rather as resembling more of an elementary school.

Bert, Not sure who you are referring to. I didn’t say anything about attendance rules.

But since you brought it up, I have talked to a fair number of college students who make no bones about the fact that they don’t go to class all the time. They go the first day to get the syllabus and show up for whatever they have to. Everything you mention (assignments, exams, etc.) are usually (always?) in the class syllabus.

An MIT survey revealed that only 2/3s attend at least 90% and only 93% attend at least half of the classes. A Brown study revealed that 23% skip once a week or more and only 14% have never skipped. Those statistics probably would be borne out across other campuses as well.

As far as employment, that’s an almost completely different thing and no, you are not simply missing opportunities if you don’t show up. It’s a bit more significant than that.

In any case, I wouldn’t say that attendance rules aren’t in loco parentis.

My argument (and TylerR’s) is that at 17/18, these are already fully cognizant and formed adults.

In my mind, this continues to be a major issue that no one has answered. How did you conclude that 17/18 year olds are adults? What is an adult? What standard did we use to determine this? And how can we say anything about the students at any school as a whole?

I have dealt with a lot of 17 and 18 year olds (almost on a daily basis right now), and they are not fully cognizant and formed adults. They are yahoos. And I deal with the 15-16 year olds and barring some miracle akin to the dividing of the Red Sea, they won’t be full cognizant and formed adult any time in the next few presidential cycles.

I have no doubt that some at 17/18 are adults.

But I wonder how you can make this declaration that they all are adults?

[Larry]

In my mind, this continues to be a major issue that no one has answered. How did you conclude that 17/18 year olds are adults? What is an adult? What standard did we use to determine this? And how can we say anything about the students at any school as a whole?

I have dealt with a lot of 17 and 18 year olds (almost on a daily basis right now), and they are not fully cognizant and formed adults. They are yahoos. And I deal with the 15-16 year olds and barring some miracle akin to the dividing of the Red Sea, they won’t be full cognizant and formed adult any time in the next few presidential cycles.

I have no doubt that some at 17/18 are adults.

But I wonder how you can make this declaration that they all are adults?

So, is adulthood now also a fluid, subjective matter? :) DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY MATURITY LEVEL? #triggered
I do get your point, Larry. At the same time, one way we as a society make that declaration is by objective age. Voting, sexual/marriage matters… A child leaves the foster care system loses funding objectively at 18, whether or not they have reached suitable maturity.

In relation to this discussion, perhaps one of the things that changes at this point is penalties. In the case of something like class attendance… you don’t get the information, you get the bad grade, period. At many schools, if you can do that without physically attending (say, having someone record classes or take notes for you), that’s your call. I’m not contending against attendance policies, BTW- just observing that this is how society can pass on natural consequences and confront people with mature choices.
The subjective immaturity you are talking about I think is something many people consciously seek because they avoid responsibility and thus deprive themselves of the experiences that help them mature properly. My two oldest are at college now. They have had paying jobs (starting with paper routes) since they were 9-10 years old. They have worked to pay for school, buy their own cars, pay the tuition that grants and scholarships don’t cover… ny oldest at state university at age 18 now has her own apartment lease. My second oldest at age 17 is already taking at least one Masters’ level course because of taking PSEO classes her last two years of high school.
My oldest tells me plenty of stories about her friends and classmates who aren’t equipped to handle the responsibility she does (not that she puts it in those exact terms). But our daughters are prepared because we prepared them to. Not that they don’t make foolish choices here and there… but at 17-18 now, they also bear the penalties of those choices. That’s how they continue to mature. When they were younger, we actually did fine them for certain violations (say, parental disrespect). Now that they are at this stage, they may not be perfect, but we don’t do that anymore. We let them learn, offer counsel… but we don’t enforce things with them to the extent we did when they were at home under our roof. The stricter rules we have at home when they are here are less for their sake and more for the 5 still here.

Not that it matters that much 35 years removed but The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performed Stravinski’s Firebird Suite in the Amphitorium in 1981. I have still have the showbill if anyone needs proof.

I’m glad the Stravinsky/Bolero matter has been clarified. It was probably one of those rumors like the pink and blue sidewalks. I do remember that there was an Artist Series where some boy’s choir did the Beatle’s “Yesterday” for an encore in 1974.

One of the old “controls” that disappeared a while ago was “the bells”. Being told when you had to get up (including weekends), when you had to turn out your lights, when you could eat (although logistically that may have been necessary), and not being allowed to take naps during the week was a practice that wasn’t missed when it was retired.

[Larry]

What it is is a simple question of whether the BJU behavior standards can, or should, be transported to even the churches, not to mention society as a whole.

And if they cannot, then we must question whether the student handbook—either the old one or the new—is helping students prepare for adult life, or whether it’s hindering that process.

Where did this idea come from that the only rules that an organization can have are rules that can be transported into a church? Why would you translate rules like being late to class or having homework done and turned in or some such into church? Or paying your school bill late or not at all. There are all kinds of rules for good order and living in community that aren’t necessary in church for various reasons, or would be handled differently in church. This seeming obsession with only having rules that work in church or with disciplship only taking place in church seems weird to me. It seems to me that no business, no organization, or no school could operate successfully under such a rubric.

Your reference to attendance/being late bolded, Larry. Regarding the MIT data, sure, some people do skip classes from time to time. Do we have evidence, then, that MIT students have an extremely high rate of flunking out of college, or that when they get into the labor force, their habits translate into getting fired?

You see that class attendance and such is therefore a very weak predictor of academic success. Adults realize what they need to attend, and what they do not, and making a huge fuss about the matter, as is the case in the BJU handbook, will therefore serve mostly as an irritant.

When you say…

But I wonder how you can make this declaration that they all are adults?

How can you argue that they are not? On what basis?

Someone who is 16-17-18 is more than capable of determining right from wrong, from making serious choices that have life-altering consequences, are (generally) fully physically mature, and are more than capable of covenanting together in marriage. For a long time, the age at which a person was matched with a spouse went as low as 13 or 14 - Mary herself was likely that age. Jewish children are considered adults according to OT law and Jewish tradition as young as 12 or 13 years old. In the US, once you turn 18, you can vote for President, Senate, a Representative, and in local offices like judge or mayor. Eighteen year olds can kill and follow orders to kill (if in the military), do prison time as a felon (not as a juvenile), and more. They are legally capable of entering into contracts and breaking them with legal penalty. It used to be that they were capable of buying alcohol until that was later raised, and in many places, can still buy cigarettes, which we know could cause cancer that may kill them.

So why are we saying they’re not adults?

Sure, there are lots of 17 / 18 year olds that aren’t mature. There’s lots of 30 year olds that aren’t mature either - do we say that adulthood starts at 35? Or 40? Or 50?

SusanR has covered this topic repeatedly, and I have generally agreed with her. Here’s one of her posts from a while back:

Maturity is a process. It doesn’t magically happen the minute a child reaches puberty. I don’t believe in the idea of ‘adolescence’ and I think teen culture has contributed to the moral and intellectual decay of our country. But we shouldn’t go to the extreme of ignoring the fact that the teen years are a time of incredible physical, mental, and emotional change. I mean, my 16 year old has grown 8 inches in the last 16 months, not to mention the fact that he eats 14 pounds of food every day. Sheesh!

I don’t believe that anyone is saying that teens aren’t responsible for their behavior- it is the degree of responsibility to which we hold them. Teens often don’t understand risk, or the long term effects and consequences of their behavior. Many adults understand the repercussions of certain actions and behaviors because of their own experiences (mistakes), which they then (should) try to impart to their children.

How we teach and train children is not One Size Fits All scenario. While society has put ages on certain activities - 16 to get a driver’s license, 18 to vote, 21 to drink alcohol - we know that young people have different levels of understanding and maturity. On the ground, we treat them as individuals, and not en masse.

If parents are failing to address these issues with their children, then the church has some work to do in equipping parents and holding them accountable for being responsible parents.

and also here, from 2013:

Shooting from the hip here- I don’t think the focus should be on marrying young, but in raising adults who are responsible and intelligent enough to make mature decisions, including when and whom to marry.

The problem is that we’ve infantilized our young people so much that they don’t reach adulthood until 30. Our expectations become lower and lower, and teens end up playing limbo to meet them. No wonder most think that young marriage is a bad idea. Many young people couldn’t maintain the life of a parakeet, much less a family.

And that is the fault of parents and churches. Churches don’t equip and encourage parents to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and parents have abdicated their responsibilities to churches and schools. It’s a whirlwind of failure.

Greg’s post at 8:52 AM is solid gold. I’ll cite some of it to reemphasize:

I do get your point, Larry. At the same time, one way we as a society make that declaration is by objective age. Voting, sexual/marriage matters… A child leaves the foster care system loses funding objectively at 18, whether or not they have reached suitable maturity…

…The subjective immaturity you are talking about I think is something many people consciously seek because they avoid responsibility and thus deprive themselves of the experiences that help them mature properly. My two oldest are at college now. They have had paying jobs (starting with paper routes) since they were 9-10 years old. They have worked to pay for school, buy their own cars, pay the tuition that grants and scholarships don’t cover…my oldest at state university at age 18 now has her own apartment lease. My second oldest at age 17 is already taking at least one Masters’ level course because of taking PSEO classes her last two years of high school.

My oldest tells me plenty of stories about her friends and classmates who aren’t equipped to handle the responsibility she does (not that she puts it in those exact terms). But our daughters are prepared because we prepared them to. Not that they don’t make foolish choices here and there… but at 17-18 now, they also bear the penalties of those choices.

The problem is that we’ve infantilized our young people so much that they don’t reach adulthood until 30. Our expectations become lower and lower, and teens end up playing limbo to meet them. No wonder most think that young marriage is a bad idea. Many young people couldn’t maintain the life of a parakeet, much less a family.

And that is the fault of parents and churches. Churches don’t equip and encourage parents to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and parents have abdicated their responsibilities to churches and schools. It’s a whirlwind of failure.

Universities have to deal with what is, not with what you wish it to be or idealize it to be.

If young people are infantilized (and they are, but not just because of churches and parents), then all the more reason that colleges/universities need to maintain discipline for further training.

#1 Because some/most young adults aren’t mature, a Christian school should have rules that hopefully prevent them from making bad choices and to help them develop structure in their lives.

#2 Young adults should be allowed to make decisions and live with the results of their decisions. Making mistakes is part of life. The only people who don’t make mistakes are people who aren’t doing anything or who are dead.

BTW, if BJU’s method of training through rules and demerits that is now history is so effective, why is it so “unusual”? Who else incorporates it?

How can you argue that they are not? On what basis?

Back up a second. You made the declaration about a bunch of people you don’t even know. My question is how can you declare the maturity of someone that you don’t know? It is widely argued (by people who have no use for Christian colleges) that adulthood is being delayed today. That’s seems hardly disputable. Except here. So again, how can we make a blanket statement about people we don’t know? Are you prepared to say the 18 year old that lives down the street from me is an adult?

If I was going to argue they are not, as a general rule, it seems evident that most 17-18 year olds are very ill-equipped to handle life on their own. If you doubt that, go hang out at a high school or a college/jr. college for a while. These are people who can’t pull their pants up. They get in fights in the lunchroom over who got the chair first. They have little respect for others. The average 18 year old has never had a full time job and many have never had a part time job. They play video games until the wee hours of the morning. They drive cars someone else bought while being covered by insurance someone else paid for. They eat meals that someone else shopped for and cooked. They can’t take care of themselves. Yet those are basic elements of adulthood.

Yes, there are exceptions, and that’s the point, they are exceptions. You make my point when you point out that in ages past, people married at 13 and 14. When you go into an average (or even above average) high school today and try to picture that, you should see my point. The idea that adulthood is an age is an absurd idea.

It is true that this is largely because parents have failed. There are a lot facets like the changing of times from agriculture and farming to industy to technology. There’s the media in all its various forms. There is the dissolution of the traditional family. There’s a whole bunch of reasons. But it seems odd to me that we are having a debate over whether we can make a blanket declaration that all 18 year olds are mature adults. Maybe it’s just my small corner of the world.

BTW, Jay, you cite Greg’s post as pure gold. Greg’s post makes my point, at least Greg’s daughters make my point.

[Larry]

So again, how can we make a blanket statement about people we don’t know? Are you prepared to say the 18 year old that lives down the street from me is an adult?

If that person is sexually involved with someone under 18, or the draft is implemented (and he is male), the government identifies that person as such. It’s an objective legal determination, is it not?