August 2014 – Page 2 – Homeschoolers Anonymous

The Day We Fall Silent is The Day We Don’t Care Anymore: Nikki’s Story, Part Two

August 26, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team7 Comments

HA note: The author’s name has been changed to ensure anonymity. “Nikki” is a pseudonym specifically chosen by the author.

< Part One

Part Two

I was raised in a fundamentalist homeschooling family.

To say my parents were patriarchal is an understatement. My father once sent me this article from Rushdooney’s Chalcedon Foundation to explain why I couldn’t choose my own husband. For those who don’t care to click through, the article’s thesis is summarized by this quote: “As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God.”

Needless to say, I was grateful to get out.

I chose PHC because it was 1000 miles away from my parents. I was young and naïve—homeschooling in the hands of controlling, fundamentalist parents has that effect. I had no idea at the time that I could have applied to other schools. PHC also seemed safe. I had attended PHC’s constitutional law camp a few years before (I know, I know, homeschool nerd). The campus was small and not intimidating. And being around other, conservative Christians meant I would be able to trust everyone around me—or so I thought. PHC just seemed right.

It’s been almost eight years since I first stepped foot on that campus as a new student. Now I’m hated by the administration and have been told by Dean Corbitt that I’m not fit to speak to freshmen.

But in August 2006, I wanted nothing more than to be at PHC and to belong.

The first few weeks were a lot like summer camp. We were the class of 2010, the redemption class, the first students to arrive post-Schism. (Yes, we really did name the faculty’s dramatic departure the year before after the famous church split in the 11th century. Homeschool nerds.) Everything seemed hopeful. It was a new beginning for everyone. Of course, that didn’t last long.

At the time, PHC was cursed by something called an ASE or an “all student e-mail.” Sometimes, ASE wars would erupt, and our inboxes would be flooded with the (rarely witty) back and forth between our fellow students. One such war started shortly after the beginning of the semester. An older male student emailed this link to the entire school, thinking it a marvelous joke. For those who don’t want to watch the video, one of the punch lines is that over-education in women leads to “ugliness, premature aging, and beard growth.”

Unfortunately, sexist banter and jokes are common at PHC. A year or two ago they were still sending out “girl-friend applications” to incoming freshmen, a form that compared getting a girl friend to signing up for extracurricular activities. “Make me a sandwich” and barefoot and pregnant jokes are ubiquitous. Not that sexism is extinct in the rest of American society—far from it. But sexist jokes at PHC have an especially cruel edge because as much as people claim it is all in fun, in PHC’s culture women are expected to marry and stay home with their children, men are expected to be providers, women are expected to be submissive and to obey their husbands, and men are expected to be the leaders in the home.

The majority position at PHC is that a woman can have a career only if it does not interfere with or limit her primary purpose, which is to be a wife and mother.

Complementarianism, the idea that men and women have distinct roles and that women must submit to their husbands, is taught in PHC theology classes as fact. Until recently, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology served as the primary textbook in that class—for those who don’t know Grudem, he co-founded the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and devotes much of his academic work to combating Christian feminism. It is also not a coincidence that the past two Faith and Reason lectures (school-wide, mandatory lectures held each semester to highlight the work of a Christian thinker) were anti-feminist screeds damning both birth control and domestic violence laws.

Sexist jokes are damaging in any environment—at PHC they are a maddening reminder that some people think it’s funny to mock women’s ambitions, abilities, and experiences in a place where many women had to fight their families to even come to college and where even more must fight for the freedom to choose their own husbands (or wives, let’s not forget there are queer students at PHC).

But let’s return to that ASE. At the time, I was rooming with two of the more liberal women on campus—by which I mean we were all moderate Republicans. The video and the universally positive reaction it elicited enraged us. One roommate and I decided to fire back—with our own ASE.

It was really quite tame, in hindsight. We were impertinent freshmen who told older students they weren’t nearly as funny as they thought they were. Shots were fired both ways. There was no cursing, no name-calling, and probably way too much Christianese. But we had dared to stand up to older students in front of the entire school.

It doesn’t take much to mark you as one of them at PHC. And by “them,” I mean the vague and nebulous group of “bad kids” we were warned not to join. RAs told us about them. “Stay away from those seniors,” “That person is a bad influence,” “That group will ruin your reputation,” you get the idea. Few ever explained to me what these people had done to earn the red letter sewn onto their clothes. When there wasn’t an older student taking you under their wing to steer you away, there were still feelings and whisperings. You got to a certain point where you just knew, based on how the good kids behaved and the subtle changes in conversation, who was in and who was out.

It would be years before I realized that most of those “bad” upperclassmen were just as boring as I was my senior year, kids just trying to keep their heads down, finish their assignments, and get out. But young, impressionable, freshman me wanted none of that—I wanted to be good. I wanted to be one of the well-liked RAs who seemed so on top of everything. I didn’t think that fighting back about that video would be the first tick mark on my record.

A week later two, older male students stuck a pig’s head on a stake, pounded the stake into the ground outside our first-floor dorm window, and attached a note to it: “Thus to all feminazis.”

They were never caught. No one even looked for them. There was no investigation. The administration never interviewed me or either of my roommates. At a school where Student Life seeks to know everything about everyone’s business, this incident was simply unimportant, and the entire thing was shrugged off. It would be years before one of the perpetrators came forward to tell me what he’d done—not to apologize, but to reminisce about an “awesome joke,” one of the great “unsolved pranks of PHC.”

It wasn’t funny to us.

I was so ashamed. I never even told my parents. I was afraid of what they would do to me, since I was obviously advocating for “feminist” (and therefore evil) things while away at school. I never sought help from the administration, believing instinctively that they would take the perpetrators’ side. I never even told my professors, even though I would form close relationships with many of them. I buried the incident so deeply, I had to go back to old gchat records to verify it happened—there comes a point where it just sounds too outrageous to have ever happened to me. And there it was. September 25, 2006.

I know it’s hard to comprehend, but we were so naïve, so sheltered, so ignorant about the world, we didn’t even realize the gravity of what had happened to us. I didn’t understand that I had the right to express my opinion and not fear reprisal for it. It seemed to be just another example of “boys will be boys,” a comeuppance for my temerity.

Whatever it was, I mark this incident as the first time I realized everything at PHC was not as it appeared.

To be continued.

The Day We Fall Silent is The Day We Don’t Care Anymore: Nikki’s Story, Part One

August 25, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team2 Comments

HA note: The author’s name has been changed to ensure anonymity. “Nikki” is a pseudonym specifically chosen by the author.

Part One

It’s hard to capture Patrick Henry College in a blog post.

You could fill a book describing the campus culture. Its students are mature yet naïve, well-read yet inexperienced, good-intentioned yet self-absorbed. To understand PHC, you have to grasp the cognitive dissonance of a student body that steadfastly believes it will change the world but fears standing up to the administration, that touts academic freedom yet mocks dissent, and that champions liberty but despises human rights.

It’s hard to know where to start. Readers will need a foundational understanding before I can even launch into my own story. So I’ll begin with something that underlies all the experiences I’m about to share with you: the perpetual friction between those who steadfastly (sometimes blindly) believe in the institution and those who don’t.

Many PHC students have a strange response to criticisms of the school, even when current or former students are the source of the criticism. It’s strange because humans are, as a rule, petty and selfish beings. They like to get their own way, even if they have to hurt others to get it. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that individuals at PHC, like every other institution, have at times been petty, selfish, and desperate to get their own way.

It should surprise PHC students least of all, since PHC’s classes are saturated with the doctrine of original sin—the idea that all humans, even babies, are innately sinful.

A student body that reads Montesquieu, Locke, and the (much revered) “Founding Fathers” also understands that while power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. After all, “[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary”—a quip by James Madison that I saw again and again in the student papers I edited during my time as a student.

PHC students love this principle so fiercely that many are Tea Party advocates.

They believe that you shouldn’t give anyone, least of all the government, too much power over your life. PHC actively supports these political beliefs, teaching its students that government power is innately dangerous, if not evil. Since almost all PHC students analyze politics through this lens, it’s understandable that Michelle Bachmann is revered by many (if not most) of the students. In fact, not that long ago, the current student body president posted a picture of herself with Bachmann. The caption read: “Today we had the honor of welcoming Congresswoman Michele Bachmann onto the campus of Patrick Henry College! She’s long been a hero of mine, and it was such a blessing to meet her!”

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s recent attorney general, is another hero among PHC students. He spoke at graduation a few years back, and students campaigned for him in the Virginia governor’s race last year—some at the explicit request of current Associate Professor of Government Michael Haynes. (In case you were wondering, yes, Bachmann and Cuccinelli are typical of the guests who speak at the school, and no, Democrats don’t speak at Patrick Henry College. You would be hard pressed to find a single person, whether among the students or in the administration, who voted for Obama in the last election.)

Most of us probably don’t want to be held accountable for the candidates we supported during college—I certainly don’t. And professors have been steering their students to support their pet issues since . . . always. Rather, I mention the political bent of the student body to point out a strange fact:

To the majority of PHC students, individuals in power are inherently dangerous—unless they are PHC administrators, PHC professors, church leaders, or parents.

Somehow, critiques of PHC by current and former students have proven impervious to both the doctrine of original sin and the obviously cherished belief that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instead, their response is “Chancellor Michael Farris couldn’t have done that,” “President Graham Walker wouldn’t be so heartless,” “Dean Sandy Corbitt is such a nice person”

. . . you get the idea.

To the majority (but not all) of PHC students, criticisms are the result of bitter, disillusioned, unsafe people who are bent on destroying a wonderful, godly institution, one of the last citadels of Christian academia. It’s a doe-eyed naiveté that has been a large part of the student body ever since I joined the PHC community in 2006—and yes, I was doe-eyed and naïve too. Once students become alumni things often change. Some grow out of it completely. Some partly grow out of it, recognizing that some parts of the PHC experience are harmful while failing to see the school’s larger, institutional problems. And some never grow out of it at all.

So when you read about PHC, know several things.

First, people’s impression of the school often changes dramatically. It’s called growing up.

Second, there is a chasm between the majority of current students and many alumni, a chasm I doubt we’ll ever bridge.

The “bitter” alumni are condemned by many current students as angry people acting on irrational hatred for the hard-working, god-fearing administration and faculty, an interpretation of reality that is actively promoted by Student Life under Dean Corbitt’s leadership. The “bitter” alumni, in turn, are frustrated by their detractors’ naïve belief that the administration and faculty are innocent. We don’t want to tell current students that they are too young and inexperienced to see what’s happening—because we hated being told that when we were students, and no one is wholly blind. But at the same time . . . when you have compiled eight years of incidents (in your own personal experience alone) where the administration misbehaved, it’s hard to take freshmen or sophomores seriously when they assure you that “such things never happen at PHC anymore.”

Mhmmmm. Right, kid. I used to think that too.

This is why writing about PHC is hard. There is constant friction between those who trust in the institution and those who don’t, leading to multiple interpretations of the same events. You’ve witnessed that over the past several weeks, as current students provided glowing reports of the school while alumni shared a different tale. Then there is a whole new culture to explain—after all, where else would your RA tell you that you have a “heart problem” because you wore jeans 10 minutes before dress code expired? And then there are so many possible topics, from the students’ arrogant belief that PHC provides a better education than the Ivy Leagues, to the school’s systematic adherence to traditional gender roles. So many daily indignities occur and the students are fed so much misinformation, it’s hard to know where to start.

So after sifting through a lot of topic possibilities, I decided to explain how I joined the “bitter” alumni.

Part Two >

Israel Wayne on the (Patriarchal) Father’s Role

August 24, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team8 Comments

HA note: The following is reprinted with permission from Libby Anne’s blog Love Joy Feminism. It was originally published on Patheos on August 4, 2014.

Israel Wayne is supposed to be a voice of reason in the Christian homeschooling community. A homeschool graduate himself, and now a homeschool father, he travels the convention circuit and has written blog posts criticizing various patriarchal homeschool leaders. It’s a pity he’s unaware that he is himself one of those patriarchal homeschool leaders.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock lately, you’ve heard the smash pop hit, “Rude” by the group Magic!. It speaks about a young man, seeking permission to marry a traditional man’s daughter.

He is turned down by the young lady’s father, but rather than being rebuffed, he retorts with the line, “I’m gonna marry her anyway!”

This is obviously a disturbing thought for any man who has spent a couple of decades nurturing what he considers to be one of his most valuable relationships on the planet. How might a father respond to such a scenario?

Hi Israel! Guess what? I was one of those daughters!

My now-husband Sean asked my father permission to marry me, and was denied that permission. We got married anyway, and we’ve never—ever—regretted that. Believe it or not, I was actually in the best position to decided who I should marry, because I know my strengths, weaknesses, interests, and desires better than anyone else—including my father. I also knew Sean a whole lot better than my father did, or cared to, which meant I was also a better judge of his character, and I knew what I was getting into.

Had my father spent a couple of decades nurturing his relationship with me? Sure! But I had also spent a couple of decades growing, maturing, and transitioning to life as an independent individual. I was—and am—more than my father’s relationship with me. And it’s a good thing too, because my father let my decision to marry against his wishes ruin our relationship, when he didn’t have to. He’s the one who chose to let our relationship die. If he had wanted to keep that “valuable” relationship he could have, but chose not to.

This really isn’t all that complicated. It is completely reasonable for a young couple to choose to marry without parental permission. If that decision destroys a father’s relationship with his daughter, that is generally his doing, not hers.

As I read Wayne’s post, I became curious about the music video he was referring to. So I looked it up. Allow me to share it with you!

I don’t know about you, but I really appreciated this music video. The woman was clearly an adult, as I was when my father denied his permission. Furthermore, while the young man tried three times to get the young woman’s father’s permission, the father made absolutely no attempt to get to know him. It’s very clear that the father was judging based on outward appearances and prejudices rather than any actual specific concerns for his daughter’s happiness or safety.

Indeed, his daughter appeared just as sure and happy in her choice as is her fiancé.

But of course, Wayne has more to say:

I think the popularity of Magic’s hit, “Rude” emphasizes the shift that has occurred culturally in America over the past 60 years, where fathers are no longer considered to be important entities in family life. They are regularly portrayed on television and movies as weak, bumbling idiots, who are constantly rescued from their folly by their wives and children.

I don’t actually think this is the case. I mean yes, it is true that fathers are too often portrayed as “bumbling idiots” when it comes to things like childcare. This is a problem, and is a feminist issue—men are just as capable of being nurturing and devoted to their children as are women, and it is a disservice to so many fathers to suggest otherwise. And you know what else? Diaper changing isn’t done with ladybits. But I’m not so sure that this is what we see reflected in this music video. This father isn’t portrayed as a “bumbling idiot” but rather as a judgmental control freak who doesn’t want to let his adult daughter make her own life decisions. And the reason this portrayal hits home is that it happens. I’ve been there. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

There has always been a tension that has existed between fathers and prospective young men hoping to whisk away their daughters. I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who said that fathers in every generation feel that they taking a priceless vase and handing it to an ape when they give their daughters in marriage. There certainly are scenarios of over-bearing fathers who act in a domineering and abuse manner, but sometimes proper protection can be seen as over-protection.

You know something? I am not happy with being compared to a “priceless vase” to be put on a trophy shelf or handed over to a new owner. Can Wayne not see that this completely robs women of their autonomy?

How exactly can Wayne call out patriarchy in the homeschooling movement and then so clearly endorse it?

He apparently thinks that fathers should exercise some sort of veto power over their adult daughters’ marriage decisions—but this is the very problem we anti-patriarchy bloggers have been talking about!

And another thing—Wayne apparently thinks it’s easy to tell between “over-bearing fathers who act in a domineering and abusive manner” and “proper protection.” What is the distinction, exactly? Where is the line? My father certainly never saw himself as “over-bearing,” “domineering,” or “abusive.” From his perspective, he was simply trying to protect his daughter. Wayne throws in this bit about over-bearing and domineering fathers to try to assert that he is against “that kind of thing”—even as he advocates for it.

I’m not saying that fathers shouldn’t express any concerns they may have about their daughters’ prospective marriage partners. They absolutely should, especially if there are abusive relationship patterns or warning signs. But that doesn’t tend to be what Wayne or others like him are talking about. My own father refused to give his permission in large part because Sean was not “100% pro-life,” for example (yes, my father had a checklist). What Wayne and men like my father are concerned about is not healthy relationship patterns or abuse but rather ideological purity.

Even in cases where there are actual concerns about abuse, all a father (or mother) can do is express their concerns and then be there for their child. Adult women do not in fact need their parents’ permission to marry. Shutting the door in your daughter’s fiancé’s face is more likely to drive your daughter away than it is to make her leave her fiancé.

Wayne also includes (and appears to endorse) this homemade video. In it, the father threatens prospective suiters with assault and proclaims that he’s not afraid to go to jail for it. I had to stop before finishing it.

Look, daughters aren’t property to be bought and sold.

If you’re worried about your daughter’s safety, whatever happened with equipping them to protect themselves rather than trying to “protect” them by controlling their life choices? Because I’ll tell you this right now: controlling their life choices is not going to end well.

Actually, let me amend that—that’s not going to end well for you. Your daughter will probably make it through, with some therapy, and have a wonderful life with her chosen partner. You’re the one who will be left alone in the cold, written out of your daughter’s life—just like the father in the music video.

P.S. A number of people have that the young man in the music video comes across as too possessive, and as having little interest in what the young woman in question wants. I understand those critiques. However, it’s worth noting that the father appears to reject the young man based not on these concerns but on prejudice, and that in reacting as he does the father himself is too possessive of his daughter and shows little interest in what she wants. The result is that, regardless of the quality of her suitor, he drives his daughter away. I also do appreciate that in the music video the young woman appears to have her own agency and be just as into the relationship as the young man, for what it’s worth.

Critics may find the following interpretations interesting. Both are sung by women; the first is a lesbian interpretation and the second is sung from the perspective of the young woman rather than the suitor.

Statement By HARO On WORLD Magazine’s “Homeschool Debate”

August 22, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team20 Comments

August 22, 2014 Statement by the Board of Homeschool Alumni Reaching Out:

We are grateful to both WORLD Magazine and Daniel James Devine for the opportunity to be interviewed for their recent “Homeschool debate” article. Abuse and neglect in homeschooling are serious and pressing issues that need to be addressed for both the sake of children and alumni as well as the health of the homeschooling movement in general. There has been a severe lack of coverage of abuse and neglect in homeschooling by Christian news sources. We commend WORLD and Mr. Devine for shedding some light on these situations.

We do, however, grieve the statements made by HSLDA and their attorneys in the article. Mr. Devine wrote that, “Both Smith and Darren Jones, a staff attorney at [HSLDA], agreed that abuse and neglect cases do exist within some homeschooling families, but argue their number is small. HSLDA staffers call them ‘fake homeschoolers.’” This rhetoric is unacceptable. By calling these homeschoolers “fake,” it allows HSLDA to distance themselves from these uncomfortable situations rather than confront the issue. Additionally, HSLDA’s choice to refer to both current victims and now-survivors of abuse and neglect as “fake homeschoolers” erases the heartbreaking, lived experiences of many children and alumni. Such erasure should not be welcome in the homeschooling movement, and we know that HSLDA is capable of a better response.

Mr. Devine also wrote that, “Jones, the HSLDA attorney, said he recognizes some in the Homeschoolers Anonymous community didn’t have a great experience growing up. ‘I feel terrible for them.’” While we appreciate the offer of sympathy, we must point out that not once has Mr. Jones or anyone at HSLDA even attempted to reach out to any of us on the HARO board or the Homeschoolers Anonymous community at large. Quite the opposite, in fact. Until very recently, HSLDA has either ignored us or blocked us from their social media pages. We would welcome a dialogue with HSLDA, but at this point the ball is firmly in their court.

For example, it has been over a year since we launched our #HSLDAMustAct campaign, asking HSLDA to launch a public awareness campaign to educate their members about recognizing and addressing child abuse. HSLDA has never responded to that campaign nor have they reached out to us concerning it. We are glad that HSLDA has added a page to their website with basic info about child abuse. Yet this action still falls far short of the type of public awareness and community education campaign for which we advocate.

As another example, HSLDA attorney Scott Somerville is still on record referring to a convicted child abuser, Michael Gravelle, as a “hero.” While we want to believe that HSLDA does not condone Mr. Gravelle’s behavior, the lack of a public retraction and apology is glaringly absent and deeply concerning to HARO. Many homeschooling parents and families look to HSLDA for guidance. HSLDA’s silence on this issue is frankly alarming.

Until HSLDA begins to take these issues more seriously, apologizes for Mr. Somerville’s comment and referring to abused and neglected homeschool children and alumni as “fake homeschoolers,” and makes a good-faith effort to reach out to HARO, all we can do is continue to hope. We hope for and welcome a conversation about how we can together make homeschooling better for future generations.

We also hope that more Christians news sources will follow WORLD Magazine’s lead in addressing child abuse and neglect within homeschooling communities. These problems are more than “a few bad apples spoiling the bushel,” and it is paramount that homeschooling communities, religious organizations, and individual Christians invested in the health and safety of all children rise to the occasion and do the hard work of protecting those in harm’s way.

Finally, it has come to our attention that Heather Doney, whose story was featured prominently in WORLD’s article, believes she was misquoted by Mr. Devine. We respectfully call on WORLD and Mr. Devine to do their due diligence in re-examining the accuracy of her quotations and responding to Ms. Doney’s concerns in a prompt manner.

Answering Some Questions About Our Survey

August 22, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team11 Comments

By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

On Monday we released the first-ever survey created by alumni of Christian homeschooling for alumni of Christian homeschooling. The 2014 Survey of Adult Alumni of the Modern Christian Homeschool Movement, facilitated by HA’s parent non-profit organization Homeschool Alumni Reaching Out (HARO) in consultation with the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE), aims to investigate the life experiences of Christian homeschool alumni by collecting information that past surveys of homeschool alumni have not.

The response thus far has been amazing. In just four days over 2,200 individuals have completed the survey. Individuals from every single one of the United States have taken it, as well as individuals from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. We have also received international responses, including individuals from Australia, Canada, Guatemala, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

The survey remains open until Monday, September 15, 2014 at 11:59 pm Pacific time. To qualify to take it, you must be 18 years or older and have been homeschooled for at least 7 years in an environment classifiable as Christian. If you haven’t taken it yet, please do! And share with anyone you know who qualifies!

As the survey has picked up steam, a number of questions seem to be commonly popping up. So I wanted to answer the most common questions here.

Q: Why are you doing the survey?

The most significant alumni survey was from over a decade ago, commissioned by HSLDA and conducted by Brian Ray in 2003. As CRHE has pointed out, it involved a highly selective sample population and has been repeatedly presented in a disingenuous and inaccurate manner. Our goal is to (hopefully) get a more diverse, nuanced, and current look at the Christian homeschool alumni population. We also are interested in data points that previous surveys have never researched.

Q: Why is the survey limited to Christian homeschool alumni with 7 or more years of homeschooling?

The survey is limited in a number of ways simply because we need some basic parameters. We in no way believe that you must be homeschooled for at least 7 years to be an “alumni,” or to be impacted significantly (whether positively or negatively) by homeschooling. The last large survey of homeschool alumni (the aforementioned 2003 survey) was limited to alumni with at least 7 years’ experiences. Since we want our survey to provide a more up-to-date counter-balance to the 2003 survey, we decided to limit ourselves to the same experiential time length.

Q: Why is the survey limited to alumni of Christian homeschooling?

Only because it’s our area of experiential expertise as individuals and our focus as an organization! As the author of the survey, I was homeschooled K-12 in the Christian homeschool movement and I have limited firsthand knowledge of non-religious homeschool subcultures. I wanted to keep the survey as focused and accurate as possible — and to do that, I had to limit the survey to experiences and groups I know. That said, HARO would be 100% interested in doing a survey for alumni of non-religious homeschooling. So if you are such an alum, and would be interested in consulting with us and sharing your experiential expertise, please feel free to email us at homeschoolersanonymous@gmail.com. We would be happy to pursue the possibility of such a project.

Q: THIS SURVEY IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE.

So this isn’t a question, really. It’s more just a statement that a number of people seem to throw at the survey in an attempt to “discredit” it.

My response is: The very first page of the survey says, “As we are not randomly sampling the population, our results will be descriptive rather than representative.” So we state this fact upfront. For any survey to be representative of any given population, you need to have a random sample of that population. That is nearly impossible to obtain with the homeschooling population. Every survey conducted by Brian Ray’s NHERI and HSLDA are just as non-representative as ours. The difference is that, unlike Ray and HSLDA (usually), we will not pretend our data is representative. Hence our being upfront on the very first page that our survey’s results will be descriptive.

Q: Why do you ask “what gender were you assigned at birth?” rather than “what is your gender?” Or to put this in the remarkable language of one respondent, “F*ckin’ seriously? Why phrase it like that, p*ssies? I’m a male.”

Numerous individuals do not identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. You can take that as some sort of ideology and/or you can take it as the simple recognition that intersex and transgender individuals exist. We are not interested in erasing either of those populations — both because we object to such erasure inherently and because erasure will lead to less accurate data.

Intersex individuals, according to the Intersex Society of North America, are “born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.” Thus some are literally assigned a gender that does not necessarily correlate to stereotypes about physical anatomy. And yes, there are intersex homeschool alumni. Several of them have taken our survey. There might even be intersex students in your homeschool community right now. (Does your community daily erase their existence? Have ever you thought about that?)

Transgender individuals are, according to GLAAD, “people whose gender identity differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.” Now, we desire to respect individuals’ gender identities. You might not. But the statistical reason why we ask the question the way we do is because simply asking a transgender person, “What is your gender?” (or as one respondent suggested, “the gender God created me as”) will not give us the data we are looking for. A transgender individual will answer that question with the gender they identify with, and not necessarily the gender they were assigned at birth. Our survey has a number of goals, and one of those goals is to analyze homeschool alumni experiences based on gender roles placed on children growing up. So regardless of what gender people now identify with, we need to ask this particular question in a way that (1) respects the existence of intersex and transgender individuals and (2) gives us the specific answers we need to do our analysis accurately.

Q: Aren’t the creators of the survey just angry ex-homeschoolers?

Well, I am the author of the survey. Let me introduce myself: My name is Ryan Stollar. I was homeschooled my entire life. I had a generally positive experience. I was a national award-winning high school debater. I got to tour the United States throughout high school and make friends all over the country. I have a B.A. and an M.A. I love my family. They have shown me that unconditional love is a reality. My family is also very supportive of HA and HARO: my dad is proud of what I do, my mom has contributed a post to HA, my older brother has contributed a post to HA, and my younger sister has promoted this survey. So no, the creator of the survey is not an angry ex-homeschooler. Get your facts right.

Q: What’s with the question about BDSM/kink?

Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but the answer to this question is quite simple: In some of our homeschool alumni communities, numerous conversations about BDSM/kink have arisen. A decent number of people seem attracted to or interested in such lifestyles and activities. I was merely curious to get data about it and see if there are any trends. Plus, it is a question that is never on surveys like these. Questions about frequency of porn use are rather popular on surveys of evangelicals, for example. Those questions have been done so many times and in so many ways. We would not be examining anything new. But I have never seen a survey address BDSM/kink. So that’s what’s up.

Q: What are you going to do with the data?

HARO as an organization is interested in using the data for educational purposes. For example: There are questions about if you struggle with mental health issues. What we are not going to do is make arguments like, “Homeschooling leads to _____.” Rather, we are interested in using the data to help educate and improve homeschooling communities. The data gives us information to say things like, “Out of this group of x many alumni who responded to the survey, z many have dealt with mental illness in their lives. One of the most common mental health conditions was q.” Such statistics can help tailor what sort of resources we focus on for HARO’s website, focus our efforts on educating homeschooling communities about the most common mental illnesses homeschool alumni deal with, etc.

Or take the abuse section, as another example: We’re not trying to — and honestly, we can’t without a representative sample — say how common abuse is in homeschooling. But we can say, “Out of this group, x many people have dealt with abuse in their homes, or even outside their homes, or knew people who were abused.” This data can help us communicate the importance of homeschooling communities creating homeschool co-op child abuse policies, educating people about the fact that abuse happens to homeschoolers (regardless of if it’s related to homeschooling), etc.

Q: Are you going to cast evil spells on the data so that it says things it doesn’t say?

No.

Q: ARE YOU TRYING TO BAN HOMESCHOOLING?

No.

If you have any other questions about the survey, feel free to email us at homeschoolersanonymous@gmail.com! And don’t forget to take and share the survey!

We Wrote Headlines Like We Were Upworthy. You Won’t Believe What Happened Next.

August 21, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team6 Comments

By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

Homeschoolers Anonymous has been accused at various points of using “Slate-esque” titles to grab people’s attention. Honestly, I prefer to select titles that are direct quotations from the individual stories submitted to us. But yes, sometimes when writing about a news item or the latest drama or development in the homeschool world, I will use a hyperbolic title. Sometimes that makes the difference between a story getting a few hundred views or going viral.

But.

But I will promise you that we will do our best to avoid “Upworthy-esque” titles. Because I cannot stand them. I also feel that, when combined with the serious disturbing content we usually feature, using exploitive titles not only can be disrespectful… it also just doesn’t work. To demonstrate why — and hopefully give you something to laugh about after the last few weeks’ worth of intense and dissenting narratives about students experiences at Patrick Henry College (and we’ll get back to that series next Monday, by the way) — I wrote a few (sometimes imaginary) headlines as if they were made by Upworthy.

You might never see the world the same way again.

*****

These Kids Aren’t Lovin’ It, So They’re Speaking Up About It.

*

This Homeschooled Kid Was Never Taught To Read. You Have To See The Results To Believe Them!

*

If Homeschool Families Knew These Historical Tidbits About HSLDA, Would They Still Be Members?

*

Here Are 10 Books About Courtship That Missed The Mark. And Here Are 10 Amazing GIFS That Explain Why They’re Totally Not Worth Sharing.

*

Here Are Some Insults Too Many Gay People Have Heard. Which Homeschool Leaders Said Them Might Not Surprise You.

*

Let’s Talk About Patriarcy In Homeschooling And Why It’s More Common Than Michael Farris Might Think.

*

It Was Her Homeschool Prom. She Was Wearing Something That Made Her Happy. Then It Got Worse From There.

*

We Photoshopped Kevin Swanson’s Head Onto A Shirtless Brian Ray’s Body And The Final Product Will Shock You.

*

This Book By Josh Harris Was Written When He Was Just A Teenager, But The Unrealistic Purity Standards Behind It Are 100% Still With Us.

*

10 Perfect Emojis For The Next Time A Homeschool Leader Uses A Racial Slur.

*

Are These From BDSM Porn Or Christian Music? The Answers Might Rock Your World.

*

She Used To Socialize With Her Own Peer Group. Then She Was Forced To Stop. The Reason Why Could Change Your Life.

*

These Little Red Dots On The Map Show All The Cities Where Homeschooled Kids Have Been Abused. Wow, That’s A Lot Of Little Red Dots.

*

Bill Gothard Didn’t Double Check To See If The “Umbrella Of Protection” Was Actually Mentioned In The Bible — But Maybe He Should’ve

*

What’s Going On With The Old Schoolhouse Is Kinda Weird. Like, Horror Movie Weird.

*

An HSLDA Attorney Called a Child Abuser A “Hero.” Watch What Happens Next.

*

And finally, just for fun, here’s if we wrote titles like Matt Walsh:

CHILD ABUSE-LOVING RELIGIOUS FASCISTS HAVE ONCE AGAIN DEMONSTRATED THEIR “FAMILY VALUES”

…yeah, we’re glad we don’t write titles like Matt Walsh, either.

Michelle Duggar’s Hypocrisy Regarding Sexual Predators

August 20, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team19 Comments

Members of the Duggar family with Bill Gothard at one of Gothard’s IBLP programs, “Journey to the Heart,” where children are taught to “identify blind spots or secret sins that are keeping them from completely surrendering to God.”

By Shaney Lee, HARO Board Member

The Duggars have made the news again—but this time, it’s not because of another pregnancy, engagement, or wedding.

This time, family matriarch Michelle Duggar has made the news for a robocall made to citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas, warning them about a new bill being considered by the city. The bill “protect citizens against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic background, marital status, or veteran status,” according to the website ThinkProgress. Michelle’s concerns (or at least, the concerns of the Arkansas Family Council as expressed by Michelle) have to do with granting trans women access to public accommodations for females, such as restrooms and changing areas.

In the robocall, Michelle Duggar urges Fayetteville citizens to vote against the bill so that “men,” particularly “males with past child predator convictions” would not have a legal right to enter spaces designated for “women and children.” (Despite her effort, the bill passed in the early morning hours on Wednesday, 6-2.)

Much has already been written about the transphobic nature of Michelle’s call. While that in and of itself is concerning (especially since the attitude Michelle is promoting is the exact attitude behind the high rates of violence towards trans* individuals), there’s another aspect to this that major media outlets have failed to pick up.

To put it bluntly, Michelle Duggar is a hypocrite.

She supposedly cares about keeping women and children safe from sexual predators, yet her family continues to be associated with a known sexual predator: Bill Gothard.

Nearly every ad on the right hand side of the Duggar Family's website is to one of Bill Gothard's programs. — Nearly every ad on the right hand side of the Duggar Family’s website is to one of Bill Gothard’s programs.

The Duggars have long been huge supporters of Bill Gothard and his ministry, Institute of Basic Life Principles. They have long used ATI curriculum in their homeschool and promoted it on their website. Their website currently has links to Advanced Training Institute, Oak Brook College of Law (another organization started by Bill Gothard), and has prominent advertisements for the ALERT academy (again, another organization related to IBLP and started by Bill Gothard). Gothard’s Advanced Seminar Textbook was influential in the Duggars’ decision to not use birth control. Photos on the official Duggar family website include an album from an ATI conference in 2010, including a picture of Jim Bob with Bill Gothard himself. Jim Bob and Michelle are listed as IBLP conference speakers for this year.

Bill Gothard resigned from IBLP and all its affiliates back in March of this year when over 30 women accused him of sexual harassment. The stories of some of these women are well-documented on the website Recovering Grace. And yet, in the face of overwhelming evidence showing Gothard to be a sexual predator, the Duggars have said nothing. In fact, they continue to profit from promoting ATI and IBLP.

(The Duggars have also been connected with sexual predator Doug Phillips of Vision Forum. They have similarly been silent about him, though all links to Vision Forum seem to be scrubbed from their website.)

In addition to showing a lack of personal integrity, Michelle’s call reinforces that common misconception that sexual predators are strangers. This is simply not the case–particularly when it comes to children. In the majority of sexual assault and abuse cases, the perpetrator was someone the victim knew. While this does not make sexual assault by strangers “rare” by any means, the narrative surrounding who sexual predators are and how they operate allow people respected by the community and in leadership positions to continue to sexually abuse people for years before anyone will speak up.

Jim Bob Duggar and Bill Gothard at an ATI conference. Source: http://www.duggarfamily.com/

It allows people like Bill Gothard to get away with their abuse.

Michelle Duggar is more than willing to throw trans* people, who are no more likely to be sexual predators than anyone else, under the bus, while refusing to do the uncomfortable work of publicly denouncing a known predator whom she has supported and promoted for years.

Furthermore, trans* people are actually more like to be the victims of sexual assault or physical violence:

“Most studies reveal that approximately 50% of transgender people experience sexual violence at some point in their lifetime.” (Source)
“People who identify as transgender were 28% more likely to experience physical violence than those who are gender normative.” (Source)

This is unacceptable. If the Duggars want to have any credibility in speaking out against sexual predators, they must sever all ties with IBLP and publicly speak out against Gothard, as well as apologize for contributing to the bigoted attitudes that put trans* people at risk.

Join the conversation on Twitter: #DuggarHypocrisy.

Calling All Alumni of Christian Homeschooling: We Have A Survey For You!

August 18, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team4 Comments

By R.L. Stollar, HA Community Coordinator

Homeschool Alumni Reaching Out (HARO), HA’s parent non-profit organization, is happy to announce our first-ever comprehensive survey: the 2014 Survey of Adult Alumni of the Modern Christian Homeschool Movement. This survey is open to any adult homeschool alumni (18 years old or older) raised in a Christian homeschool environment.

For the purposes of this survey, “alumni” designates everyone homeschooled for the majority of their K-12 education; in other words, for at least 7 years. The survey is open to anyone in that category, whether your experience was positive or negative and whether you are still a Christian or not. By “Christian,” we are including the broadest possible definition, including Christian-identified new religious movements.

The purpose of the survey is to investigate the life experiences of Christian homeschool alumni by collecting information that past surveys of homeschool alumni have not. We have done our very best to create fair, balanced questions without any leading or attempts to skew results. All results will be anonymous and used for informational purposes only.

If you are an adult alumni of this movement, we would greatly appreciate your involvement. We would also love for you to share the survey with your friends and former homeschool peers through word of mouth and social media. The more responses, the better!

Go to www.HomeschoolAlum.com to learn more and take the survey!

Biblical Erotica

August 15, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team29 Comments

By Nicholas Ducote, HA Community Coordinator

What happens when you give a sexually repressed kid a Bible?

Many of our parents desperately wanted to protect us from what they saw as a culture of decadent sexual immorality. My parents’ generation grew up in the “Free Love Sixties.” While growing up, I often heard cautionary tales about that era.

Yet who would have thought that, if you isolate your children from sex in Hollywood movies, in all those “filthy TV shows,” and you don’t (or barely) teach them about sex, they will desperately seek out any information about it? It seems like a universal experience among homeschool alumni: digging through encyclopedias, dictionaries, and/or anatomy books. There are many stories about inadequate or damaging sexual education from fundamentalist parents.

But here’s the kicker: when a child’s only source of information about sexuality and sexual expression is the Bible, you get some… um… remarkable results.

Many young girls thought they could literally get pregnant by laying next to a man – that’s the King James Version for you.

One area of intense shame and guilt from my childhood is my strange attraction to the sexual stories in the Bible. I always felt guilty because I would be aroused by sections of the Bible regarding violent sexual assaults (Rape of Tamar, dismembering of women in Judges). Upon reflection, I realized that almost all of the graphic sexual stories in the Bible describe a “sinful” encounter, a violent act, or something (like a harem of sex slaves) that modern society tells us is unacceptable. And that’s not even mentioning all the offensive and dehumanizing sexual rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

With the exception of Song of Solomon, if a couple engaged in “edifying sex” there certainly wasn’t graphic detail – it was usually “he knew her” or “they lie together.” In almost every case, the more detail the more depraved the sexual act.

It might seem obvious that restricting your children’s sexual education to 4,000+ year old texts could produce some strange results. I spent a lot of time reading the Bible — indeed, every single page of it. Some of it was really boring, but out of nowhere you’d get a steamy sex story.

The Old Testament, despite its clever metaphors, is full of “adult content.”

Noah’s son uncovering his nakedness. Leah tricking Isaac into sleeping with him, then they were married. Angels getting threatened in Sodom. Request to gang-rape in Sodom. Chopping off a whole city’s foreskins. Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him. Onan “spilling his seed” after having sex with his dead brother’s wife (who he just married). Judah’s dead sons’ wife dressed as a prostitute and negotiated pricey sex from Judah. Absalom raping his half-sister. David’s son Ammon raped his half-sister, and David’s daughter, Tamar. Then Absalom, Ammon’s half-brother and Tamar’s full-brother, killed Ammon. Then Absalom slept with all of David’s concubines. David and Bathsheba. The concubine in Judges being gang-raped and dismembered. Shechem raping Dinah, then some mass castration. Zimri was an Israelite having sex with a Midianite woman, Cozbi — which pissed off God to the point of sending a plague amongst Israelite men (many of whom were partying with other Midianite women). Pinchus killed them with his sword, ending the plague.

And they say network television is dirty? This reads like the series overview of Game of Thrones!

Not to mention the same-sex attraction overtones in the David-Jonathan stories. “They were so mega hot,” one woman confessed to me, as she casually remarked on her fantasies that sometimes involved them together. (This isn’t the place to tell me I’m wrong and give me your biblical interpretation. This article is about the minds of children being exposed to sexuality through the Bible)

The passages leave little to the imagination and they include very fleshed out narratives surrounding the assaults. When the Bible is the only erotica you allow your children to read, they can develop fantasies regarding rape, sexual slavery, harems, gang-rape, humiliation and concubinage, bondage, and incest.

Of course, BDSM practices a variety of ways to act out those fantasies safely. But you can sure bet those practices were never taught in Christian homeschooling circles! People who thought about/did those sorts of things were “dirty,” “nasty,” and “freaks”!

Little did our parents know, their repression caused their children’s mind to wander in that direction.

Ironically, many people explained that Song of Solomon (arguably the most sexually explicit book in the Bible) as a metaphor for God and Israel! The only part of the Bible that arguably celebrates seemingly consensual sexuality was desexualized! For others, they were wholly banned from reading Song of Solomon.

How common was this experience of the Bible as erotica?

What were your most embarrassingly erotic Bible verses?

Now to share some of the most “charged” passages:

[Lot’s daughters, Genesis (19) : 33 – 36.] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

[Onan, Genesis (38) : 8 – 9.] And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

[Judah and Tamar, Genesis (38) : 15 – 18.] When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.

[Ammon and Tamar, 2 Samuel 13] And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her… And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick: and when thy father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat, and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand. So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand.

Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon’s house, and dress him meat. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.

And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her… And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house.

[Ezekiel (23) : 5 – 8.] And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours, Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself. Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her… And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms. She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men. Then I saw that she was defiled, that they took both one way, And that she increased her whoredoms: for when she saw men pourtrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed with vermilion, Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity: And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea. And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them. So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister. Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

[Proverbs (7) : 7 – 22] And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house, In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.

Patrick Henry College—God’s Harvard?: Grayson’s Story, Part Two

August 14, 2014May 11, 2020HA Editorial Team10 Comments

HA note: The author’s name has been changed to ensure anonymity. “Grayson” is a pseudonym specifically chosen by the author.

< Part One

Part Two

In retrospect, I wish I could say that PHC’s Western tunnel-vision restricts itself to its reading list. Unfortunately, I’ve sat in too many classes and winced at too many remarks to believe that Western classicism is merely an educational philosophy. I saw the looks of discomfort on classmates’ faces when Dr. Hake referred to the Muslim call to prayer as a “hellish sound,” or when he made a joke about Japanese people’s eyeballs quivering when they get angry, or when he referred to a particular race as the “Jews of Asia.”

“I feel uncomfortable being a woman,” my wife remarked after visiting one of my upper-level English classes.

These types of incidents are by no means isolated occurrences at PHC, and they go largely unremarked and unchallenged out of a sincerely-held desire to demonstrate Christian respect towards one’s teachers. To Dr. Hake’s credit, he apologized for several of his remarks (but only after I’d confronted him and he’d voiced PHC’s usual suspicion of political correctness). When I mentioned Dr. Hake’s comments to the Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Frank Guliuzza, he looked tired, shook his head, and told me wearily that lesser remarks would have been enough to fire a professor at most mainstream universities.

But PHC, of course, prides itself on not being mainstream.

As an incoming freshman, I found PHC’s sense of intellectual aloofness from mainstream intellectual culture confirming and comforting. After four years, the sense of heroism and “us vs. them” mentality merely looked childish. There is nothing inherently glorious about separating oneself from the mainstream. My wife’s experience as an English major even at a relatively small, unknown liberal arts college was not inferior to mine because she did not talk about Milton at the dining hall tables. It was far richer and deeper than mine, as I have (grudgingly) come to admit. Her professors were relevant intellectuals who published regularly in prestigious academic arenas. With their oversight, she had to opportunity to write a senior thesis publishable in mainstream literary circles. She read an array of literature that included the great classics of Western civilization, along with exciting voices (old and new) from around the globe.

I can say with confidence that her undergraduate education was superior to mine because I have since had the opportunity to take several classes with her former professors as part of my master’s program.

Last year, I wrote a paper about the influence of Japanese art on the feminism of the modern poet H.D., and I understood what I had been missing all those years. Writing that paper, the constant stream of reassuring rhetoric at every PHC chapel and every commencement (“You are receiving a world class education. You are the best of the best.”) suddenly seemed very empty. When my professor (a former chair of the William Carlos Williams Society not known for giving compliments) told me that my essay was good, it meant more to me than any praise I ever received in one of PHC’s intellectual echo chambers.

Lest someone should dismiss my account of being a Literature major at PHC on the grounds that “Literature is easy,” or that PHC’s literature classes are not representative of the school’s academics as a whole, I should mention that each of PHC’s degrees requires students to participate in two full years of core instruction, as well as several upper-level classes outside of their major. I think I am as qualified to comment on the strength of the core curriculum as anyone, since every student takes the same classes for two years. As for the upper-level classes, I was privileged to learn from professors outside my major like Dr. David Aikman. I never felt, however, that the caliber of the non-Literature upper-level classes varied greatly from what I experienced in the English department. As in every Literature class, a surefire way to get an “A” on a paper was simply to provide a well-written, biblical evaluation of a given historical, political, or philosophical concept. Very little original thought or soul-searching was ever required.

Of course, I cannot speak for every class offered at PHC—but then again, neither can anyone else.

As I have previously stated, I do not wish to imply that PHC has no competent faculty members. That would be a gross exaggeration. The kindness of professors like Dr. Gene Veith or the late Dr. Bonnie Libby managed to make my undergraduate experience not wholly unenjoyable. Dr. Veith was sympathetic to my criticisms of the English program, and Dr. Libby was probably the closest the Literature department came to a mainstream English professor (I hear her upper-level Novel class read Zora Neale Hurston). But the caliber of PHC’s faculty, with a few notable exceptions, simply cannot compete with the broader intellectual world it tries so hard to ignore.

In one of my final conversations with Dr. Hake before graduation, I told him bluntly that the way PHC had presented its academic opportunities was a misrepresentation of what it actually had to offer. When I asked him why he seemed to put so little effort into preparing for his English classes, he told me that PHC’s staffing shortages made it difficult for him and everyone else to find the time. I told him that I understood, but that I was disappointed at the experience all the admissions counselors had characterized as “God’s Harvard.”

He grew silent for a moment, and then told me quietly that perhaps PHC should have scaled back on some of the marketing rhetoric.

Rhetoric can be used to promote truth and beauty, as all PHC students learn. But when it plays off of ideological fears and cultural insecurities in order to reassure students that mainstream intellectualism is broken and that they are the last beacon of light in a darkening Western world, it creates an insulated atmosphere in which incompetence goes unrecognized, racism goes unchallenged, and snobbery goes unchecked. In one sense, I do not regret my years at PHC. They were full of learning experiences (although not in the way I expected), and remarkable friendships that I hope never to lose.

But for the most part, I look back at those four years with a sense of wistfulness at the opportunities I never had, and the education I never received.

As I stood in line with all the other graduates in my class, replete with all of our graduation regalia, I felt a tap on my back. “Congratulations,” said the fellow Literature major standing behind me, as he eyed the cords around my neck. “That’s pretty impressive, considering this is the hardest school in the country.” With a mixture of sadness and astonishment, I hesitated before saying anything. Clearly, he had heard the rhetoric and reassurances so many times over the last few years that he eventually believed they were true. Should I burst his bubble, just minutes before graduation? I wondered.

“Well,” I think I stammered, “I’m not sure that’s completely true, but thank you.”

For him and me, it was too late—but for hundreds of homeschooled young people around the country, it’s not. To any homeschooler or young person who may happen to read this, I simply say: You can never fully comprehend what you’re missing until you’ve missed it. If you’re bright and eager to learn, don’t limit yourself to an echo chamber. The mainstream academic world you hear so much (and yet so little) about is a big, beautiful place full of a deeper richness than you can imagine.

End of series.