Religious Life: Davidson’s Policies in Context

Jewish Identity in the Reformed Tradition

Brodi Madison ’19

The Christian tradition to which Davidson remains committed recognizes God as the source of all truth, and believes that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that God, a God bound by no church or creed.” [1]

Davidson College Statement of Purpose

“The Christian tradition to which Davidson remains committed”[2] refers to Presbyterianism and the Reformed Tradition. Since 1837, Davidson’s Reformed identity has been in conflict with the religious identity of many of its students, faculty, trustees, and administration, including those who identified as Jewish. This essay will investigate the narrative of Jewish identity within Davidson’s Reformed Tradition. It will seek to provide a greater understanding of the relationship between Jews and the Reformed Tradition at Davidson, and shed light upon the relationship between antisemitism and Davidson’s Reformed Tradition.

Christian education is a central tenet of the Reformed Tradition,[3] so the establishment of a Christian college in a predominantly, if not exclusively, Christian community is par for the course. George Brown reminds us that Calvin was deeply committed to the idea of Christian education, and it subsequently became a central tenet of the Reformed Tradition. The Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities reports that there are currently twenty Presbyterian institutions of higher learning in the Southeast.[4] Fifteen of these institutions were chartered in the 1800s. That being said, Davidson’s establishment in 1837 by southern Presbyterians was not an isolated event. It reflected a broader trend in the South for establishing institutions rooted in the Reformed Tradition.

Although Davidson was established in 1837, it did not enroll its first Jewish student until 1927,[5] and even this student was not openly Jewish; he claimed that he was Episcopalian. This decision begs a number of questions. Why would the student indicate that he belonged to a faith tradition other than that of his own? Was there some form of prejudice, either through a college policy or some kind of social prejudice or discontent, that led him to make this decision? In order to fully understand the student’s choice, one must understand the state of Presbyterianism in the early twentieth century.

The central conflict within Presbyterianism during this time “was characterized by a tug of war between successive conservative and liberal majorities in General Assemblies.”[6] The fundamentalist movement that captivated many religious conservatives in the nation experienced great success with conservative Presbyterians.[7] The Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUSA), the branch of the Presbyterian Church with which Davidson is affiliated, “was the first denomination to articulate key fundamentalist principles.”[8] Although PCUSA had articulated fundamentalist principles, they were not fully committed to the fundamentalist movement. In 1936, the PCUSA suspended eight ministers for their actions within the fundamentalist movement.[9] These eight ministers went on to organize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.[10]

To summarize, Davidson was an exclusively white, male, and Christian institution, and PCUSA—the Presbyterian organization it was and is associated with—had strong ties to the fundamentalism movement, but this essay is not limited to an analysis of the relationship between Davidson and one Jewish student, but the story of the first Jewish student provides a backdrop for investigating the Jewish narrative at Davidson. This story shows that from the outset of Jewish presence on Davidson’s campus there was significant conflict between Davidson’s Reformed Tradition, the fundamentalism of PCUSA, and Jewishness. This conflict continued through the twentieth century and persists to this day. In what follows, this essay will discuss how certain policies and actions on Davidson’s campus reflect Davidson’s Reformed Tradition, how these policies and events relate to the larger context of Presbyterianism, and what that has meant and currently means for Jews at Davidson.

Admissions Policies and Practices

Davidson’s admissions policies have a long history of discrimination. For much of its history, Davidson asked applicants to submit a recommendation from their “church youth advisor.”[11] Although this question does not explicitly ask whether or not someone is Christian, it would be pretty difficult to submit such a recommendation if you had never attended a church. It was not until 1969 that a discussion about the validity of this question began. Eventually, the administration decided that this recommendation was no longer necessary.

Even without knowing specific questions on the application or the necessary recommendations for admissions, one can look to the enrollment numbers and begin to find explanations for low Jewish enrollments. From 1837 to 1950, only five Jewish students were enrolled at Davidson, and no Jews graduated from Davidson until 1954.[12] In 118 years, only six Jews were enrolled at Davidson, and only one of those students ultimately graduated. This underrepresentation of Jews continued for years. For example, Joe Pearlman, class of 1979, noted that there was about one Jewish student per graduating class during his time at Davidson in the 1970s.[13]

The under-representation of Jewish students may have paralleled the lack of Jews in North Carolina, who were and remain a minority in the South. Early and mid-twentieth century, many colleges drew the bulk of their classes from the surrounding areas, and Davidson was no exception. To this day, the Jewish population in North Carolina is strikingly low. In 2017, there were only 35,435 Jews in North Carolina, reflecting the lack of a Jewish student population at Davidson.[14]

Although the practice of picking students from nearly exclusive Christian communities and asking for recommendations favoring Christian students would decrease the likelihood of Jews attending Davidson, it seems unlikely that these wholly account for the underrepresentation of Jews on Davidson’s campus. In order to really understand why so few Jewish students have passed through Davidson’s halls, one must look beyond admissions practices.

Vespers Policy

Davidson, throughout most of its history, required students to attend religious services.[15] Until the 1965-1966 academic year, this obligatory churchgoing was limited to Protestant services.[16] In 1965, Davidson’s faculty decided to allow Jewish students to fulfill this requirement at synagogues.[17]

Davidson required all students to attend Protestant worship services for the first 130 years of its existence. In this configuration of institutional priority, non-Christian faith identity not only ran contrary to a graduation requirement but Jewish students were also forced to partake in a different faith tradition. Although this seems like a shocking standard, it fits with the Reformed Tradition’s emphasis on Christian education. From his writings, it appears as though Calvin only cared about education insofar as it was a tool for the perpetuation of his theology. Davidson’s vespers policy was a means by which the school could ensure that all students not only came into contact with Presbyterianism but actively partook in its traditions, practices, and possibly even its faith.

Christian Tenure Policy

The mandatory Protestant vespers policy is a textbook example of the Reformed Tradition in practice in higher education. Working in the Reformed Tradition’s idea of Christian education, until 1977, Davidson did not offer permanent positions to non-Christian faculty.[18] Davidson’s Christian Tenure Policy held that:

It is natural and desirable that the educational service of a church-related College should be carried forward from one generation to another by persons committed to the faith of its founders. The Christian commitment of a church-related College is reflected not only in its corporate policies, programs, and stewardship of resources, but especially in the lives of the individuals who make up its community, particularly its officers and tenured Faculty members. For that reason, the President is directed to seek out and secure as officers and Faculty members Christian men and women who are not only highly competent but who understand and respond to the implications of their commitment as Christians. In view of the fact that the Christian community has always had a place for the reverent seeker, the Trustees may in special circumstances grant tenure to a person who respects the Christian tradition without commitment to all its tenets. Within the general policy stated above, such cases will necessarily be rare. The President shall be responsible to the Trustees for being certain that each person employed as a member of the Faculty and staff, at the time of his or her appointment, is fully aware of and supports the purpose of the College as et forth in the Davidson College Constitution, and is prepared conscientiously to uphold and seek to increase its effectiveness as a church-related college.[19]

This tenure policy was in effect from 1973 until 1977. Prior to the formulation of this policy, there were no avenues for non-Christian faculty members to receive tenure at Davidson. In 1973, the faculty made an active push to change the policy to allow for some exceptions, and the “reverent seeker” provision was born.[20]

While the reverent seeker provision created a path—in theory at least—by which non-Christian faculty members could receive tenure at Davidson, it remained an aggressively exclusive tenure policy. This became clear in the spring of 1977, when Dr. Ronald Linden, a Jewish professor of Political Science, applied for a tenure-track position at Davidson, triggering a series of events that latter came to be known in the town and school community as the “Linden Affair.”  

In his interactions with student in the HIS396 course, Dr. Linden says that he knew very little about Davidson, but following the completion of his dissertation, needed a job, so he applied.[21] Only upon his arrival did it become Davidson’s policy on permanent positions for non-Christians become apparent.[22] In his own telling, Dr. Linden sat in his hotel room, alone, the night before his interview, reading the bylaws, bewildered by the policy. During the interview, President Sam Spencer asked Dr. Linden what church he went to. With the knowledge he gained about Davidson’s tenure policy after arriving for his job visit, Dr. Linden knew his answer would disqualify him.[23] To his surprise, he received a letter containing an offer for the position with a caveat. In order to accept this position, Spencer wrote, Linden would not only have to live by all of the bylaws of the college, but actively seek to support them. After weeks of deliberation, still in need of a job, Linden replied that he would still accept the job but could not support college’s tenure policy, which he found to be “morally repugnant.”[24] Spencer was advised by counsel that Linden’s response did not serve as an acceptance of the job offer. Thus, Linden’s job offer was rescinded, and Davidson’s campus was in uproar until October.

In October of 1977, following the “LindenAffair,” active student responses[25] and months of intense faculty pressure, as reflected in the faculty minutes,[26] the Board of Trustees changed the language of the policy to read:

It is the firm intention of the Trustees that Davidson College retain its identity as a Christian community in higher education and that the twin goals of academic excellence and the development of Christian character and humane values be vigorously pursued. The pursuit of academic excellence and the establishment of a Christian commitment depends in the main on the character, commitment and performance of the people who make up the academic community. Therefore, the Trustees believe that a preponderant majority of the teaching faculty and administrative staff should continue to be professing and practicing Christians. In the implementation of this policy it is appropriate to inquire as to the religious faith and practice of those who are to join the faculty or staff of the college. While it is intended that some non-Christian will be appointed to posts at Davidson, it is important that the be sympathetic toward and supportive of Davidson’s self-understanding as set forth in the Purpose of the college.[27]

With this policy change, the Board of Trustees changed the qualification level of a non-Christian candidate for tenure from a “reverent seeker” to one who can “be sympathetic toward and supportive of Davidson’s self-understanding as set forth in the Purpose of the college.”[28] The overwhelming amount of national coverage on the “Linden Affair” and the uproar from campus led to a change that pushed back against the fundamentalist conception of the Reformed Tradition—in which Christian students at a Christian college were meant to learn Christian principles from Christian faculty. After October of 1977, non-Christians had a legitimate chance to receive permanent positions at Davidson.

This new resolution was put to the test in 1979, when Davidson hired its first Jewish professor for a long-term, permanent position: Ruth Ault. Dr. Ault, in a recent oral history, emphasized the collegiality of President Spencer and the welcoming atmosphere at Davidson. Beyond asking whether or not she could live with respect for Davidson’s history as a Christian college, her status as a Jew was not a topic of discussion until Dr. Ault was up for tenure.[29] Moreover, Ault emphasized that she in no way felt that her hiring was a response to the “Linden Affair.”[30]

Currently, Davidson has no policy regarding faith-based restrictions on permanent positions beyond having to live with respect for the Statement of Purpose and its religious undertones. Although Davidson has moved away from its more fundamentalist past, it is still firmly rooted in the Reformed Tradition. This commitment to the Reformed Tradition is clear in some of the policies that were only recently changed and some that persist to this day.

Trustee By-Law

Currently, Davidson College continues to impose a Christian quota on its Board of Trustees. This quota is negatively expressed through a number of bylaws. The first bylaw holds that, “as part of continuing the historic commitment of Davidson to the Reformed Tradition of the Christian faith, the Governance and Nominating Committee shall insure that at least 80% of all elected Trustees are active members of a Christian church.”[31] Additionally, “At least 25 percent of the Board members will be a member or affiliate of a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation.”[32] Although these two bylaws do not explicitly state that only a certain percentage of Jews may sit on the Board of Trustees, by creating a minimum Christian quota, these bylaws create maximum non-Christian quotas. These bylaws have been quite effective in preventing non-Christians from attaining board seats. Additionally, these bylaws uphold the common practice in higher education institutions during the twentieth century by establishing a Jew quota at Davidson..

Again, Presbyterian fundamentalism’s emphasis on Christian education resurfaces. The active exclusion of non-Christians—in practice: Jews, given the relative numbers of other kinds of non-Christians at the time, as well as the norm already in place by the mid-twentieth century among the Ivy League and other highly selective private universities and colleges to limit the numbers of Jews enrolled—from the Board of Trustees prevented the presence and thus influence of non-Christians on the board. Although one cannot say for certain that these bylaws were in place to prevent non-Christians from influencing major policy changes, some discourse from a recent symposium on the Reformed Tradition at Davidson gives credence to this claim.[33]

During one of the events at this symposium, panelists were asked to respond to how Davidson can claim to be accepting of non-Christians with bylaws that are so strongly grounded in the Reformed Tradition. The most notable responses indicated that these policies at Davidson serve to prevent a cessation of the Reformed Tradition’s ground.[34] Basically, this answer means that the bylaws are designed to ensure that Davidson will always have a preponderant majority of its leadership positions filled by Christians. The hegemony of this bylaw is clear after one examines the bylaw that relates to the appointment of college presidents.

Presidential Bylaw

Davidson also has a restrictive Presidential appointment bylaw. This bylaw often comes under campus-wide criticism and holds that:

The Trustees shall elect a President of the College who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the College.  They shall elect only a person who is a loyal and active church member, whose life provides evidence of strong Christian faith and commitment.  Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of Davidson College Presbyterian Church.[35]

This bylaw makes it impossible for any non-Christian to become the president of Davidson College. Rob Spach, the Davidson College chaplain, at the 2019 Reformed Tradition symposium, emphasized that the bylaw did not require that the president of the college had to be Presbyterian. The bylaw merely says that affiliation with PCUSA and active participation in the Davidson College Presbyterian Church are sufficient for showing commitment to the college’s mission and Statement of Purpose. This leaves an avenue whereby a non-Protestant[36] could potentially become the president of Davidson, but there are no circumstances under which a Jew could become the president of Davidson College. The candidate would have to actively support and participate in a faith tradition which they, in theory, have no desire to support. Moreover, it’s clear that a Presbyterian Church would not allow an openly Jewish person to affiliate.

Conclusion

This brief overview of some of the college policies helps to explain the relationship between the Reformed Tradition and Jewishness at Davidson. These are by no means the only policies that matter in this relationship. Future work should look further into Davidson’s history of exclusionary faculty policies in the Religious Studies Department and other instances of antisemitism. Additionally, a complete review of the relationship between Davidson’s Christian commitment and Jewishness demands an analysis of the development of Jewish student life and instances of antisemitism on Davidson’s campus. In short, Davidson’s relationship to Jewishness is greatly informed by Davidson’s identity as a college rooted in the Reformed Tradition, Presbyterian fundamentalism, and the role of Jews in those two contexts.

---

---

Bibliography