Book Excerpt from The Christian University & The Academic Establishment

This excerpt from

(Excerpted from the concluding chapter of Ron Highfield, The Christian University & The Academic Establishment. Sulis Academic Press, 2025, pp. 195-203. Reprinted with the permission of the author and publisher. To download the full chapter and read the Table of Contents, go to the publisher page for The Christian University.)Book Excerpt from The Christian University & The Academic Establishment

Conclusion

Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Shared Governance

In the Preface, I promised to examine the founding principles of the modern research university—academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance—and to explore the extent to which these values are compatible with the idea of a Christian university. We discovered that academic freedom lacks a universally accepted definition and that its scope and limitations are inherently institution-specific. While often equated with freedom of speech, it is not a constitutional right and does not entail absolute liberty in teaching or scholarship. Rather, it is best understood as the discretion granted to professors to teach within their areas of expertise and in alignment with the missions of their institutions. Christian universities, therefore, are under no legal or moral obligation to allow professors to teach in ways that subvert their faith commitments. To maintain integrity and clarity, such universities should explicitly define and communicate their version of academic freedom in institutional policies and faculty contracts.

Our investigations led us to conclude that tenure is not a guarantee of lifetime employment, though often misunderstood to be such. In fact, however, tenure is conditioned on continued competence, ethical conduct, and fulfillment of contractual obligations. For Christian and other private universities, there is no obligation— legal, professional, or moral—to adopt the conventional tenure model. They may instead establish and enforce doctrinal or moral criteria for continued employment, provided due process is afforded in cases of alleged misconduct. Tenure, then, should be viewed as a conditional commitment, rooted in trust but governed by the institution’s mission and policies.

Similar to our discoveries about academic freedom and tenure, we learned that there is no fixed definition of shared governance in higher education. The extent of faculty involvement in governance typically depends on how academic freedom is defined within a given institution. Faculty input is most crucial in areas where their disciplinary expertise and pedagogical experience are central, particularly in curriculum development and classroom practices. However, within Christian universities, boards and administrators have both the authority and responsibility to ensure that the curriculum faithfully embodies the institution’s Christian identity. Thus, while faculty governance has an important place, it must operate within the framework of the university’s overarching mission.

The Christian University and the New Left

In Part Two, we learned just how pervasive and insidious leftist politics has become in American higher education. The New Left, or neo-Marxism, redefined the concept of revolution by broadening its focus from class struggle to include race, gender, sexual orientation, and other identity categories. This ideology positions the white, straight male—often also Christian—as the primary oppressor and seeks to invert traditional social hierarchies through political and cultural upheaval, often justified by accusations of “systemic violence.” After failing to achieve its goals through street-level activism, the New Left turned to educational institutions to spread its theories and recruit adherents. Its core principles—atheism, utopianism, identity politics, and revolutionary violence—are fundamentally at odds with the Christian faith. Consequently, Christian universities should reject such neo-Marxist ideologies as DEI, CRT, Critical Pedagogy, and anti-racism as incompatible with their Christian mission. Instead, they should aim to be sanctuaries for truth, justice, freedom, and a shared human identity grounded in Christian faith and love.

The Idea of a Christian University

In Part Three I argued that to be truly Christian a university must function as an extension of the church’s mission, embodying faithful witness and good works that glorify God. A Christian university should make its identity unmistakably clear in its affirmation of the Christian faith as taught in the canonical New Testament. Like any university, it must adhere to sound academic principles: it respects the freedom of students, delves deeply into the subject matter, explores the subject’s connections to other subject areas, states clearly its presuppositions and axioms, presents evidence for its assertions, gets informed about the views of others, and argues logically for its conclusions. But the Christian university denies that to follow sound academic principles it must maintain neutrality toward the Christian faith. In terms of the academic method, it treats its firmly-held faith as a well-established and fruitful theory, the implications and applications of which it explores with the same tools used by all academics: reason, evidence, logic, etc. Nevertheless, the historical record shows that Christian universities often drift toward secularization under the pressures of cultural acceptance, academic ambition, and peer influence. In view of this pattern of assimilation, I call on Christian universities to remember that their existence makes sense only as a countercultural alternative to secular academia. Embrace your mission with courage and conviction!

Suggestions for the Christian University

Develop Dual Competence

Carrying out the mission of a Christian university demands a double competence. At every level its people must possess professional and theological competence. Boards of trustees, who are the guardians of both the academic and Christian identity of the university need to possess a sound philosophy of higher education and a good grasp of the Christian faith and doctrine. How can the trustees guard the Christian mission unless they know what it means to be Christian and can judge when faculty or administrators veer from that course? I suggest that trustees not rely totally on external experts to advise them in these two competencies but that some of their number educate themselves in these areas.

As the strategists and executors of the university’s academic and Christian mission, the president, provost, deans, and all other administrators must also have a similar dual competence. In the not-too-distant past, Christian university presidents were chosen from among the clergy, and for good reason: the Christian mission of the university was central to its identity. I am not suggesting that universities return to this practice, but I hope that Christian university presidents, whatever their professional expertise, will take the time to educate themselves in the faith and doctrine of the church. Indeed, every administrator in every office, from provost to department chair and all the associate and assistant deans in between ought to become conversant with the history and doctrine of the Christian church. The Christian mission of the university … must be understood, embraced, embodied, and executed at every level.

That dual competence must extend to the faculty…I urge Christian universities to place as high a priority on continuing education for faculty in Christian Scripture, history, and theology as they do for continuing education in the academic disciplines and pedagogical strategies. Attending church once a week is not enough.

Cultivate Christian Confidence

From the beginning of my academic career, I have been amazed at the lack of confidence in the truth and power of the Christian worldview demonstrated by faculty in Christian universities. Instead of thinking through moral, social, pedagogical issues from a deeply Christian point of view, midlevel administrators and faculty uncritically import programs and values from secular universities, schools of education, disciplinary guilds, and other alien sources. Many of these programs and the values they teach are manifestly incompatible with Christianity … I suggest that Christian universities … examine every suggested program, structure, and workshop thoroughly and critically from a Christian point of view. Or, what would be much better, clarify our needs and concerns and think about the best way to meet them by drawing on our faith.

Institute Policy Reform

I have noticed over the years that Christian university faculty handbooks, policy manuals … and strategic plans contain contrary, contradictory, or more often, ambiguous language concerning the nature of the Christianity embraced by the university. What does the university mean by Christianity? Does it signify a morality of acceptance for everyone? Do faculty members get to define Christianity as they please? Or, does the university define Christianity as the teaching and morality of the Bible? Does academic freedom extend to rejecting the theological teaching and moral rules of the Bible? Could tenure be revoked for teaching atheism or heresy?

I suggest that trustees and administrators read all policy documents and remove all contradictions and ambiguities. Make clear what the school affirms as the Christianity for which it stands. Make clear what it expects from faculty with respect to the teaching and practice of Christianity and how violations of policy will be adjudicated.

De-Marxify the Curriculum and Pedagogy

Do not allow workshops, programs or courses of study based on Critical Theory, CRT, DEI, intersectional identities, and Critical Pedagogy to be instituted. Discontinue them if they are already in place … Don’t hire and don’t grant tenure to adherents of these anti-Christian philosophies. Make clear to all faculty that the university does not acknowledge an academic freedom and tenure that protects them from persistent refusal to honor the Christian mission of the university.