“Should Christians Admire Ronald Reagan?”: A Response to Scrutiny of The King’s College
King’s willingness to admit the faults of one of their house namesakes represented moral courage — a reflection of their deep commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview. I I Photo Contributed by First Things
The opinions reflected in this OpEd are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of staff, faculty and students of The King's College.
The conservative ecumenical journal, First Things, has consistently exhibited a special kind of intellectual tenacity that I’ve always found endearing. However, I was saddened to read a recent article, “Should Christians Admire Ronald Reagan?” targeting King’s for “capitulating to political correctness that divides and destroys.”
The House of Ronald Reagan has been under public scrutiny amid the recent unveiling of an audio recorded conversation between then-Governor Ronald Reagan and President Richard Nixon, in which Reagan refers to Tanzanian delegates to the United Nations as “monkeys” who are “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” Reagan’s blatantly offensive speech against African-Americans is indefensible and no Republican should attempt to justify such language. However, spectators must consider Reagan’s comments within the wider narrative of his life, which tell a different story.
Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College, writes in his article in The American Spectator that to smear a decent man based on one statement — especially a statement inconsistent with his overall character — is unfair.
In response to public scrutiny, some of which came from King’s alumni who were once members of the House of Reagan, House President Fritz Scibbe released the following statement:
“It is the firm conviction of our team that our House deserves a namesake who embodies our values, whose name we can all be proud to bear, and that Ronald Reagan is not that name. The Exec Team has decided to suspend the use of Ronald Reagan as a namesake. Until an official decision is made on a replacement, we will be using our House value of Honor as a stand in. We view this as an aspirational goal; a desired state for which we are constantly striving.”
The point of contention here, however, has not to do with whether or not the House of Reagan (whose exec team temporarily suspended their namesake to the House of Honor) should keep its name, but whether or not the house’s statement addressing the controversy represents all of the college’s student body.
The answer is no.
Senior Zachary Wagner states in his OpEd in the Empire State Tribune,
“At King’s, we know our namesakes were not angels. Though it is necessary to see these men and women in all their triumphs and failures, it would not be fair to reject one for an arguably out-of-character comment.”
Carol Swain’s article in First Things fails to recognize that the decision made by the House of Reagan’s exec team to change their house namesake does not reflect the opinions and sentiments of the entire student body.
Secondly, the author of the First Things article disregards the fourth point of King’s response to Ronald Reagan’s racist comments: “Humans, including those we hail as national heroes, are fallen individuals who inevitably disappoint us in various ways.”
Instead, she magnifies the college’s denigration of Reagan’s “patently racist” comments, without even a hint of recognition for the rest of their response. The college’s statement, which came after the unearthing of the audio recording, recognized Reagan’s comments for what they were: reprehensible. By disavowing such racist sentiments, the college displayed moral courage, not “selective moral perfectionism,” as the author suggests.
Third, Swain’s criticism rests on the false presumption that the Christian liberal arts college is simply succumbing to the demands of identity politics. It suggests that Christian colleges like King’s should disengage from “secular” demands of diversity and inclusion, referencing the college’s Theological Commitment to Diversity.
The college’s commitment to diversity and inclusion is a commendable feat. There is nothing reprehensible about celebrating ethnic and cultural differences. And doing so does not simply make King’s an aggregate of social justice warriors, as the article suggests.
The article published by First Things fails to recognize that the statement released by the House of Reagan’s exec team, addressing the controversy does not represent all of the college’s student body. Therefore, it would be wrong and inaccurate to equate the college to secular institutions and to accuse the college of simply conceding to political correctness.
Swain’s article conspicuously ignores the part of Kings’ statement in which they acknowledge that all national heroes are flawed in some way or another.
Lastly, the most disappointing accusation of them all: that King’s cares more about social justice than the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As an avid reader of First Things and one who reveres most of its publications, I must admit that I was deeply saddened by the author’s mischaracterization of King’s. This debate is not about whether or not King’s should keep the Reagan house namesake; it is about whether or not the college’s response to Reagan’s racist comments were an act of moral courage or simply a surrender to identity politics. In this case, King’s willingness to admit the faults of one of their house namesakes represented moral courage — a reflection of their deep commitment to the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview.
“But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil” (Hebrews 5:14 - NIV)