COURSE CAPSTONE

SYMPOSIUM: THE CHANGING SHAPE OF HIGHER EDUCATION SINCE THE 1960S

Campus Religious Life in America: Revitalization and Renewal

John Schmalzbauer

Published online: 20 February 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract What role does organized religion play in the life of the American campus? Among both scholarly and popu- lar observers, the university has long been regarded as secular territory. Contrary to the .cphsecularization thesis, the history of campus religion is not a declension narrative. This essay provides an overview of the student religious landscape in America, focusing most of its attention on schools that are not affiliated with a religious tradition. It identifies six signs of religious vitality on campus: 1) the expansion of evangelicalism; 2) the revitalization of Catho- lic student organizations; 3) the reinvention of campus Ju- daism; 4) the growth of new immigrant and alternative religions; 5) the beginnings of renewal in mainline Protes- tant campus ministries; 6) the embrace of spirituality by student affairs professionals. Noting several recent studies on education and religiosity, it concludes that college is not especially damaging to religious commitment.

Keywords Religion . Secularization . Higher education .

Campus ministry . Student spirituality . Colleges and universities

What role does organized religion play in the life of the American campus? 1 Among both scholarly and religious

observers, the university has long been regarded as secular territory. Writing in the Atlantic, a 1928 Harvard graduate described the “wholesale apostasy of the younger genera- tion,” recounting “what college did to my religion.” Recent works have sounded a similar theme. In books like How to Stay Christian in College (2004), evangelicals have por- trayed higher education as a threat to religious faith. In a more academic vein, historians have chronicled the margin- alization of campus religious groups, telling a tale of declension.2

There is a good deal of truth in the secularization narra- tive. At many elite universities the Gothic Revival chapel at the center of campus sits empty except for Sunday morning services that attract a handful of worshippers. Once over- flowing with young Methodists and Presbyterians, Wesley and Westminster Foundations face tighter budgets and lower student participation. The once massive student Christian movement is a shadow of its former self after self- destructing in the late 1960’s.3

At the same time, it is an open question whether campus life has fully secularized. While mainline Protestantism no longer dominates student life, new movements have filled the religious vacuum. Nearly invisible at the end of World War II, evangelical parachurch groups are among the largest religious organizations on campus. Reflecting a renaissance in campus Judaism, Hillel and Chabad are enjoying impressive growth. So are Mormon Institutes of Religion. Likewise, the presence of Hindu Students Councils and Buddhist Student Associations continues

2 For historical treatments of religion on campus see Marsden, (1994); Sloan, (1994). See also Bass, (1989); Wentworth, (1932); Budziszewski, (2004). 3 Portaro and Peluso, (1993).

1A much shorter version of this article appeared on the website of the Social Science Research Council. See John Schmalzbauer, “Campus Ministry: A Statistical Portrait,” SSRC Web Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Undergraduates, 6 February 2007, available at http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Schmalzbauer.pdf. Many of the sta- tistics have been updated.

J. Schmalzbauer (*) Department of Religious Studies, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA e-mail: [email protected]

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 DOI 10.1007/s12115-013-9640-6

to expand. Far from secular, the campus has become a “spiritual marketplace.”4

Contrary to the secularization thesis, the history of campus religion is not a declension narrative. A mixture of cyclical and linear motifs, it resembles the larger fluctuations in American religion. When older denomi- nations lose their followers, they are replaced by reli- gious newcomers. The result, note Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, “is not a decline in religion, but only a decline in the fortunes of specific religious organizations as they give way to new ones.” In a similar way, flag- ging campus ministries are replaced by newer religious groups. Sometimes they recycle elements from the past. Sometimes they introduce religious innovations. As in the wider story of American religion, the result is not decline, but revitalization.5

This essay provides an overview of the student religious landscape in America, focusing most of its attention on schools that are not affiliated with a religious tradition. It identifies six signs of religious vitality on campus: 1) the expansion of evangelicalism; 2) the revitalization of Catho- lic student organizations; 3) the reinvention of campus Judaism; 4) the growth of new immigrant and alternative religions; 5) the beginnings of renewal in mainline Protes- tantism; 6) the embrace of spirituality by student affairs professionals. This chapter concludes by discussing the impact of college on student religiosity and the state of religion on campus.6

The Expansion of Campus Evangelicalism

The decline of mainline Protestant campus ministries after 1970 left a hole in the religious ecology of American higher education. Yet instead of leading to the secularization of student life, the displacement of the mainline made room for a host of religious newcomers. The most successful of these newcomers were the evangelical parachurch groups. In 2012 well over 120,000 students were active in the likes of Inter- Varsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, the

Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Navigators. An additional 130,000 college students were involved in minis- tries sponsored by conservative Protestant denominations.7

It did not start out that way. In 1960 only 60 campus ministers worked for InterVarsity. Slightly larger, Cam- pus Crusade had just 109 staff members. Both were dwarfed by the 1,300 clergy employed in denomination- al and ecumenical campus ministries. Not surprisingly, the landmark studies of campus ministry barely men- tioned either group. Only Harvey Cox was prescient enough to notice the rise of campus evangelicalism. In a forgotten passage of The Secular City (1965), Cox called InterVarsity “a remarkable organization,” notable for its “lay-led, highly visible, and extremely mobile” approach. Criticizing mainline Protestants for erecting denominational foundations “next to the world of the university,” he praised InterVarsity’s decision to “live in the same world with everyone else.”8 In reviving cam- pus evangelicalism, InterVarsity drew on a long tradition of student religious organizing going back to John Wes- ley’s Holy Club, the nineteenth-century college mission- ary societies, and the campus YMCA. This lay-oriented organizational strategy was a recipe for rapid growth. Starting with 22 chapters at the beginning of the 1940’s, InterVarsity had established a presence on 277 campuses by the 1946–1947 academic year. When Cox caught up with the organization in 1964–1965, it had grown to 772 chapters with 9,053 students. Today, 35,000 stu- dents participate in 893 chapters on 576 campuses.9

4 On the religious vacuum left by mainline Protestants see Hageman, (1995). The term “spiritual marketplace” comes from Roof, (2001). 5 Finke and Stark, (2005); Finke, (2004). 6 Throughout this paper I rely on the official statistics of campus ministries. No systematic study of their accuracy has ever been conducted. Like the self-reported statistics of some congregations, they may be inflated. At the same time, many campus ministry organizations make an effort to encourage accurate reporting through special forms and surveys. A more comprehensive study would include ethnographic observations from campus religious groups. Because terms like “involved” and “participated” are am- biguous, it would be good to know what they signify on the ground. Absent such qualitative research, organizational statistics are the best we have to work with.

7 Figures for evangelical parachurch groups are taken from the Campus Crusade for Christ webpage at http://www.cru.org/ministries-and-locations/ ministries/campus-ministry/index.htm, the InterVarsity Christian Fellow- ship webpage at http://www.intervarsity.org/about/our/vital-statistics, the Chi Alpha webpage at http://www.chialpha.com/About-XA/how-we-got- here.html, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes 2009 Ministry Report at http://fca.org/assets/2012/06/2009-Annual-Report-Final.pdf, and the 2001 Ivy Jungle report on “The State of College and University Ministry,” retrieved at http://www.ivyjungle.org. Figures on conservative Protestant denominational ministries are taken from Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, Missouri Synod Lutheran, and Ivy Jungle statistics. On Baptist college groups, see John Hall, “Student Ministries Survive by Coping with Cultur- al, Denominational Changes,” Associated Baptist Press News 9 October 2003, available at http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article- detail.php?id_art=748&pricat_art=5. On Assemblies of God campus min- istries see http://www.chialpha.com/About-XA/how-we-got-here.html. Da- ta on Missouri Synod Lutherans can be found at http://www.in.lcms.org/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34&Itemid=41. 8 Hunt and Hunt, (1991); Quebedeaux, (1979). The figure of 1,300 campus ministers comes Hammond, (1966); Cox, (1965). 9 On InterVarsity’s lineage, see Hunt and Hunt, For Christ and the University, 79–80; Parker, (1998). Figures from Hunt and Hunt, (1991). For current ministry statistics, see the IVCF webpage at http://www.intervarsity.org/about/our/vital-statistics. Despite a slight decline in student participation during a time of organizational restruc- turing in the late 1980s, InterVarsity has enjoyed steady growth since 1990.

116 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

InterVarsity wasn’t the only conservative Protestant group to find success in the vineyards of American higher education. The largest evangelical campus ministry was founded in 1951 by a California businessman named Bill Bright. Beginning with one chapter at UCLA, Campus Crusade (now known as Cru) currently reaches 73,000 students on 1,140 campuses.10 Influenced by the pragmatist and pietist streams of American evangelicalism, Bright was a religious entrepreneur. Once described as the Henry Ford of campus ministry, he presided over an organization that resembled a “well-run company.”11 In its business-like ap- proach, Cru also resembled the YMCA and the Student Vol- unteer Movement. Like the Y, it kept careful track of the statistical bottom line, tallying the number of “decisions,” “exposures,” and “total students involved” each year.12

Much of the growth in parachurch organizations is due to the presence of Asian-American evangelicals. Since the late 1970’s the number of Asian Americans in InterVarsity has risen by over 260 %. Currently, racial and ethnic minorities make up 36 % of InterVar- sity’s students.13 More than any other tradition, evan- gelicalism has pioneered the niche marketing of campus religion. Along with ethnic-specific groups for Blacks, Asians, and Latinos, InterVarsity and Cru have reached out to fraternities and sports teams. Currently, Greek InterVarsity ministers to 2,900 undergraduates, while Cru’s Athletes in Action maintains a network of 15,000 students and alumni. Present in high schools and colleges, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes rea- ches over 340,000 young people. At many universities, evangelicalism is the unofficial religion of intercolle- giate athletics. While aimed at a different audience, evangelical ministries to Ivy League students have a similar goal: “to influence the influencers.” At Princeton University, one-tenth of the student body participates in an evangelical group. Maintaining ministry centers at three Ivy League institutions, Christian Union has a budget of $3.3 million. In 2011 the organization hosted

the Ivy League Congress on Faith and Action, drawing 400 students to a Cambridge, Massachusetts hotel.14

The influence of evangelicalism on campus is not confined to parachurch organizations. Countless Bible studies fly under the radar, unaffiliated with any national group. In addition, several conservative Protestant denominations maintain a strong presence in higher education. Active on 275 campuses, the Assemblies of God ministers to 25,000 college students, up from 13,000 in 2003. Reaching over 10,000 students on 100 campuses, Reformed University Fellowship represents the evangelical Presbyterian Church in America. On any given Sunday, 8,000 students worship in the campus ministry centers run by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Last but not least, 87,000 students are actively involved in Southern Baptist col- legiate ministries. According to a Baptist official, “Campus ministries outside the Bible Belt – such as in New England, California and the Northwest – are multiplying rapidly.”15

Evangelical campus ministries serve a substantial pool of evangelical students. According to UCLA’s landmark study on the spiritual life of college students, one-fourth of fresh- men claim the born again label.16 Far from destructive to evangelical faith, colleges and universities may actually strengthen it. A 2011 study found that evangelicals who attend college have higher rates of church attendance and prayer than those who do not. About 40 % of conservative Protestants with some college have been involved in a

10 For current Campus Crusade ministry statistics, see http://campuscrusade forchrist.com/about-us/facts-and-statistics. 11 On Bright’s pietism and pragmatism, see Quebedeaux, I Found It!, 79–108. Grant Wacker uses the dialectic of pragmatism and primitiv- ism to frame his account of Pentecostalism in Heaven Below: (2001). J.I. Packer compares Bright to Ford in Wendy Zoba, “Bill Bright’s Wonderful Plan for the World,” Christianity Today 14 July 1997. The “well-run company” quotation appears in McMurtrie, (2001a). 12 On the Student Volunteer Movement’s “business-like” approach, see Parker, Kingdom of Character, 33. On the YMCA’s ministry statistics, see Morgan, (1935). On Campus Crusade’s statistics see http:// web.archive.org/web/20110520111450/http://campuscrusadeforchrist. com/about-us/facts-and-statistics. 13 On Asian-American evangelicals, see Kim, (2004). Data on InterVar- sity’s racial/ethnic composition is taken from http://www.intervarsity.org/ about/our/vital-statistics.

14 Data on InterVarsity’s Greek ministries is taken from http://www. intervarsity.org/about/our/vital-statistics. Data on FCA can be found at http://fca.org/assets/2012/06/FCA-Ministry-Report-Lg-2011-Final.pdf. For more on Athletes in Action, see http://www.athletesinaction.org/ about/. See also DeBerg, (2002) The phrase “influence the influencers” comes from a profile of Christian Union by MacDonald, (2009). The Princeton statistic is from Lindsay, (2007). For more information on Christian Union, see http://involve.christian-union.org/site/PageServer? pagename=homepage. See also Scott, (2011). 15 The Ivy Jungle report on “The State of College and University Ministry” was retrieved from http://www.ivyjungle.org/GenericPage/DisplayPage. aspx?guid=6E181B64-8F79-4CD0-A8E9-AA71B441605C. Ivy Jungle reported that between 10,000 and 12,000 students participating in Re- formed University Fellowship (2001 data). According to the 2011 RUF webpage, the group is active on over 100 campuses, up from 65 in 2001. That information is available at http://www.ruf.org/learn-about-ruf/who- we-are/. Chi Alpha data can be found at http://www.chialpha.com/About- XA/how-we-got-here.html. The 2003 Chi Alpha figure is from the 2003– 2004 Chi Alpha Census Summary, Assemblies of God. Data on student participation in Missouri Synod campus centers is available at http:// www.in.lcms.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 34&Itemid=41. Southern Baptist Convention data and quotation from official can be found in John Hall, “Student Ministries Survive by Coping with Cultural, Denominational Changes,”Associated Baptist Press News 9 October 2003, at http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article- detail.php?id_art=748&pricat_art=5. 16 The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2004), 17. A report on this survey is available at http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/reports/ Spiritual_Life_College_Students_Full_Report.pdf.

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 117

campus religious group.17 Though barely on the radar screen in the 1960’s, evangelicals are an unavoidable part of the campus religious landscape today.

The Revitalization of Catholic Student Organizations

Like evangelicals, Catholics have maintained a large presence in American higher education, employing approximately 2,200 campus ministers. According to a Georgetown Univer- sity study, there are 1,351 Catholic campus ministry organ- izations in the United States, three-fourths of which are found on non-Catholic campuses. At non-sectarian institutions, 22 % of Catholic seniors frequently attend religious services, while 50 % do so occasionally.18

Once regarded as a place for “Catholic ping-pong,” Cath- olic campus ministries were not always embraced by church officials. This changed in the decades following Vatican II.19 By 1981 historian Jay Dolan could call the Newman movement “one of the most popular and creative ministries of the church.”20 In 1985 the U.S. Catholic Bishops issued a landmark pastoral letter, “Empowered by the Spirit: Campus Ministry Faces the Future.”21 As Catholic campus ministries entered the 1990’s, they faced new challenges. On the one hand, many Newman centers reported healthy attendance and “growing interest in religion among college students.”22

On the other hand, budget cuts made it difficult for campus ministries to take advantage of this spiritual curiosity. In 1996 the National Catholic Reporter described “dramatic cutbacks . . . in a number of dioceses.”23

In the face of such adversity, campus ministries have been forced to innovate. Since the 1990’s, Catholic student centers have engaged in serious fundraising efforts, with 15 % employing a development officer. At the University of Kan- sas, the well-funded St. Lawrence Center has received 90 % of its budget from private donations. These funds have subsi- dized a great books symposium, courses on Catholic doctrine, an Institute for Faith and Culture, as well as a full schedule of Masses and service activities. More recently, Yale University’s Catholic campus ministry raised $70 million for a new

Catholic student center. Completed in 2006, it includes space for a lecture hall, music room, volunteer center, dining room, meditation chapel, and library. New projects are also under- way at Duke and Ohio State. While Duke’s Newman Center recently tripled its staff, Ohio State’s Catholics has completed a $1.2 million capital campaign. Across the nation, the Petrus Development firm is helping Catholic campus ministries pro- fessionalize their fundraising. In a similar way, the Catholic Campus Ministry Association has sponsored training sessions on development.24

At most schools, the mainstays of Catholic campus min- istry programs are Sunday and weekday masses, retreats, and service projects. Sixty-four percent of programs at pri- vate non-Catholic institutions and 73% of those at public universities offer lectures on church teachings, while about half of programs at both types of institutions offer the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.25

To be sure, Catholic campus ministries have not been without conflict or controversy. Like Catholic colleges and universities, they have been accused of departing from or- thodox Catholic doctrine. The Newman Center at the Uni- versity of Minnesota was closed after repeated clashes between Archdiocese-appointed Paulist priests and a pro- gressive staff of lay people. The campus ministry has been relocated to a nearby parish. At the University of Toronto, conservative protesters complained about the appearance of theologian Gregory Baum.26

Emphasizing orthodoxy and renewal, some groups have taken a page from the playbook of evangelical parachurch organizations. Established in 1998, the Fellowship of Cath- olic University Students (FOCUS) has embraced Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new evangelization.” Like the evangel- ical ministries it emulates, FOCUS has experienced a dra- matic increase in membership, growing from 24 students in 1998 to 4,000 in 2011. Employing 260 campus missionar- ies, it maintains a presence at 74 institutions. By 2014 FOCUS hopes to have 537 campus missionaries at work in the United States.27 Ministering to a more elite

17 Philip Schwadel, (2011). See also Briggs, (2011). See also Uecker et al., (2007). The statistic on conservative Protestant campus ministry participation can be found in Smith, (2009). 18 The first number is from the Catholic Campus Ministry Association webpage. See http://www.ccmanet.org/index.php?option=com_content& view=article&id=63&Itemid=75. The second is from Gray and Bendyna, (2003). The church attendance statistics were gathered by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute and reported in Reilly, (2003). 19 The ping-pong quote appears in Evans, 1980. 20 Dolan, (1981). 21 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Empowered by the Spirit: Campus Ministry Faces the Future, 15 November 1985, available at http://old.usccb.org/education/highered/empowered.shtml. 22 Rice, (1994). 23 Jones, (1996).

24 Jones, “Campus Ministry Fills Need as Funds Shrink,” 10. The 15 % figure comes from Donovan, (2003). The $70 million figure comes from “New Church Management Group Called Testament to Lay Generosity,” Catholic News Service, 12 July 2005, available at http:// www.catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20050712.htm. For more on the St. Thomas More Catholic Chapel and Center at Yale see http://www.yale. edu/stm/development/. For more on the St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center at the University of Kansas, see http://www.st-lawrence.org/. Infor- mation on Duke, Ohio State, and the Petrus Development firm is available at http://www.petrusdevelopment.com/. 25 Gray and Bendyna, (2003). 26 Berggren, (1998); Malcolm, (1996). 27 FOCUS has referred to Pope John Paul II and the “new evangelization” on its web page. The figure of 24 students is from Jansen, (2002). Current FOCUS figures are available at http://www.focus.org/on-campus/focus- campuses.html. Projected numbers for the period 2011–2014 were re- trieved from an earlier version of the site.

118 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

population, Opus Dei has been active at several Ivy League universities, purchasing a residence near the Princeton cam- pus.28 In The New Faithful, journalist Colleen Carroll notes that Catholic ministries “are realizing that in order to attract —and keep—young Catholics in the church, they must imitate the boldness of evangelical fellowships while em- phasizing what makes Catholicism distinctive.”29

Studies of young adults show that college-educated Cath- olics are more religious than their non-college educated counterparts.30 Campus ministries play a significant role in this outcome. Compared to other Catholics, campus minis- try alumni are more likely to attend Mass, donate money to the church, consider a religious vocation, and participate in other church activities. Of alumni who took part in campus ministries on non-Catholic campuses, 81 % attend Mass at least a few times a month. Almost half of male campus ministry participants on non-Catholic campuses have con- sidered a religious vocation.31 Together, Catholic campus ministries are making a difference.

The Reinvention of Campus Judaism

Like their Catholic counterparts, Jewish campus organizations have experienced revitalization. Between 1963 and 2001, the number of Hillel foundations increased from 77 to 110. Cur- rently, there are 251 affiliated Hillel centers, foundations, and Jewish student organizations serving more than 500 campuses in the U.S. and Canada.32 Joining Hillel on campus is an expanding network of 119 Chabad Houses. Sponsored by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, most were established within the past decade. In 2010 over 23,000 students received Cha- bad’s emails, while 7,000 attended weekly Shabbat dinners.33

Though Jewish groups are thriving, their growth has been uneven. Like mainline Protestant campus ministry, Hillel struggled in the 1970’s and 1980’s, becoming “marginalized, maligned, and factionalized.” Even though Jewish enrollment was at an all-time high, it could not support a presence on many campuses. The problem lay in large measure with B’nai B’rith, Hillel’s parent organization, which experienced

significant financial difficulties. With funding cut in half, Hillel disaffiliated with B’nai B’rith in the early 1990’s.34

In the face of these challenges, Hillel reinvented itself. As in Catholic campus ministry, one of the cornerstones of this transformation was a more professional approach to develop- ment. Enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president Edgar Bronfman, Hillel director Richard Joel attracted new funding from family foundations and local Jewish federations. In just six years, Hillel’s “Campaign for Jewish Renaissance” raised over $200 million.35 Along the way, Hillel transformed its vision of Jewish life, describing its mission as maximizing “the number of Jews doing Jewish with other Jews.” Replac- ing the synagogue model with a religio-cultural community model, it added lay persons to its staff.36 Using undergraduate interns to mentor uninvolved Jewish peers, Hillel engaged over 12,000 students in 2010.37

Hillel has also enjoyed a wave of new construction. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, many chap- ters have upgraded their facilities, replacing “rickety old hous- es” with “ultra-modern student unions complete with pool tables, rooms for meetings and studying, coffeehouses, and computer workstations.” Between 1994 and 2005, Hillel built or renovated buildings on 37 campuses. Since then new Jewish centers have risen at Tulane, Virginia, Emory, Penn State, and Yale. Chronicling the beginning of this period, the Yale Alumni magazine noted that “there’s something of a Jewish revival on campus,” with several hundred students attending Friday night Shabbat dinners.38

Observers of Jewish fraternities and sororities echo this assessment. Heralding a “Jewish-style Greek revival,” Reform Judaism magazine notes the popularity of Shabbat dinners

28 Martin, (1995); Eshel, (2005); Reidy, (2006); Weigel, (2005). 29 Carroll, (2002). 30 Hoge et al., (2001); Christian Smith, Souls in Transition. On the impact of college education on religiosity, see Uecker, Regnerus, and Vaaler, “The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood,” 1667–1692; McFarland et al., (2010). 31 Perl and Froehle, (2002). 32 The figure of 77 Hillel Foundations is taken from Jospe, (1963). The figure of 110 Hillel Foundations is taken from Jacobson, (2001). Hillel numbers from 2010 are available at http://web.archive.org/web/ 20100213162105/http://www.hillel.org/about/facts/who_what/default. 33 The figure of 119 Chabad Houses was reported in Nathan-Kazis, (2010). Other statistics taken from Chabad’s 2010 annual report, avail- able at http://chabad.edu/media/pdf/492/SBVf4921608.pdf.

34 On Hillel’s struggles in the 1960’s, see Rosen, (2006). Quotation and other information from Jay L. Rubin, “Re-Engineering the Jewish Organization,” available on Hillel’s webpage at http://www.hillel.org/ NR/rdonlyres/2D8B7513-18F6-45FF-8CB0-8B3DC53B4CF0/0/ HillelReengineering.pdf. It originally appeared in the Summer 2000 issue of the Journal of Jewish Communal Service. This paragraph is also based on Wertheimer, (1999). 35 This paragraph draws heavily on Rosen, “The Remaking of Hillel”; Rubin, “Reengineering the Jewish Organization” and Wertheimer, “Jewish Education in the United States.” The $200 million figure comes from “Hillel Board Elects Columbus’ Neil Moss Chairman,” Hillel Press Release, (2001). See also Jack Wertheimer, “Jewish Edu- cation in the United States: Recent Trends and Issues.” 36 This motto can be found in Rubin, “Reengineering the Jewish Organization.” 37 Statistics on Hillel’s Campus Entrepreneurs Initiative and Peer Net- work Engagement Internship can be found in the organization’s 2010 annual report, available at http://www.hillel.org/NR/rdonlyres/ 4C1AC55D-0D4B-4D5D-BB95-A8F4BD206F1E/0/AR2010 weblowres.pdf. 38 Jacobson, “The New Hillel,” A49. The figure of 37 new buildings is from “Hillel Building Boom Enhances Jewish Life on College Cam- puses,” Hillel, 3 October 2005, available at http://www.hillel.org/ about/news/2005/oct/20051003_building.htm; “Hillel Buildings Sprout All Over,” Hillel, 7 April 2011, available at http://www.hillel. org/about/news/2011/apr/7apr11_Buildings.htm. Fellman, (1995).

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 119

cooked in kosher kitchens and college dances featuring Hava Nagila. Currently, there are over 100 chartered chapters of the sorority Alpha Epsilon Phi. Enjoying similar vitality, the Jewish-oriented fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi boasts over 130 chapters. Though “membership plummeted” during the 1960’s, the fraternity reversed course in the 1970’s and 1980’s, “reidentifying with its Jewish heritage.”39

More traditional Jewish groups are also expanding their reach. Rooted in the eighteenth-century traditions of Hasidic Judaism, Chabad-Lubavitch has been called the “fastest growing Jewish presence on campus.”40 Blending Jewish mysticism with savvy marketing, Chabad has developed a distinctive brand. Under the charismatic leadership of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson (1902–1994), the movement spon- sored urban advertising campaigns aimed at secular Jews. The same approach has informed its campus outreach. Pro- claiming “Shabbat: Just Do It” (complete with the Nike swoosh), Chabad has repackaged Jewish tradition in the language of popular culture.41

The very first Chabad House was established in 1967 on the campus of UCLA. Led by a rabbi who “could talk to the hippies,” it quickly migrated to UC-Berkeley and UC-San Diego. At first Chabad’s campus movement had no formal headquarters, leaving each house to develop its own pro- grams.42 By the end of the 1990’s Chabad had spread to 32 campuses. Ten years later there were 119 Chabad centers in North America.43

Offering Shabbat meals, religious instruction, and special programs during the Jewish holidays, Chabad is known for its haimish feel, serving as a home away from home. Central to this domestic experience is the presence of a rabbi and his spouse. Traditional Jewish foods are also used to attract stu- dents. In 2008 alone, Chabad served 261,240 slices of gefilte fish during campus dinners. By evoking an experience of family and tradition, such events sometimes facilitate a return to religious practice. In the words of a recent study, Chabad responds to a “craving for home and family.”44

By expanding their facilities and offerings, Hillel and Chabad have contributed to a “revival of Jewish campus programs.” Two-thirds of America’s 400,000 Jewish college students attend schools with a Chabad chapter. Even more students have access to Hillel.45 A 2006 study found that 33 % of Jewish students were involved in Hillel or Chabad, with 12 % holding leadership positions. Within some Jewish constituencies, the percentage is even higher. A survey of young adults raised in Conservative synagogues found that 68 % have participated in a Hillel/Jewish Student Union and 8 % have participated in Chabad.46 While both organ- izations face an increasingly non-observant American Jew- ish population, they are enjoying a period of relative vitality.47

New Immigrant and Alternative Religions

Since the 1960’s the Protestant chapel at the center of campus has been overshadowed by evangelical para- church groups, multi-million dollar Catholic centers, and newly-constructed Chabad houses. The American university has truly become a house of prayer for all peoples. Contributing to this new pluralism, a host of new immigrant and alternative religions have established their own campus organizations. Reflecting shifts in American immigration policy, the number of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs has grown by leaps and bounds. As Harvard’s Diana Eck noted in the mid- nineties, colleges “have become microcosms and labo- ratories of a new multicultural and multireligious Amer- ica,” adding that “it is not uncommon to have a Hindu and Jew, Muslim and Christian in a single rooming group.”48

The Education as Transformation project, based at Well- esley College, represents one response to the new diversity. Billed as a “national project on religious pluralism, spiritu- ality, and higher education,” the launch in 1998 drew over 800 representatives (including 28 college presidents) to39 See Birkner, (2006). Figures from Alpha Epsilon Phi are available

on the sorority’s webpage at http://www.aephi.org/aephi_story/aephi_ today/. Information and quotations from Alpha Epsilon Pi can be found at http://www.aepi.org/?page=History. 40 Jewish leader quoted in Rachel Pomerance, “Chabad Expands on Campus,” Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, 3 January 2003, available at http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/030103/chabad.shtml. 41 See Katz, (2010). For Chabad’s use of the Nike swoosh, see http:// www.ulivchabad.org/shabat.html#. 42 Sue Fishkoff. 2009. The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad- Lubavitch. (New York: Random House), 95, 96 43 Figures on Chabad houses are taken from Josh Nathan-Kazis, “Cha- bad Houses Proliferating on Campus,” The Forward, 9 April 2010. 44 Columnist David Brooks discusses Chabad in “The Haimish Line,” New York Times, 29 August 2011. On Chabad’s “home-like atmosphere,” see Rosenfeld, (2010). The gefilte fish statistic was reported in Chabad’s 2008 annual report, available at http://chabad.edu/media/pdf/245/ swbo2459780.pdf .The last quotation is from Chazan and Bryfman, (2006).

45 Quotation from Wertheimer, “Jewish Education in the United States: Recent Trends and Issues.” On Chabad’s access to two-thirds of Jewish college students, see the organization’s 2008 annual report, available at http://www.chabad.edu/media/pdf/245/swbo2459780.pdf. Because Hillel is present on more campuses than Chabad, more students have access to its programs. 46 On participation in Hillel and Chabad, see Amy L. Sales and Leonard Saxe, “Particularism in the University: Realities and Oppor- tunities for Jewish Life on Campus,” Cohen and Cohen (2006). See also Keysar and Kosmin, (2004). 47 Data on the non-observant tendencies of Jewish emerging adults can be found in Smith, Souls in Transition. On the growth of secular Jews, see Kosmin, (2009); Davidman, (2007). 48 Eck, (2001). The Eck quote is from the September-October 1996 issue of Harvard Magazine. The article is quoted at http://www.wellesley.edu/ RelLife/transformation/kit/concept.htm.

120 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

sessions on Tibetan Buddhism, spirituality and jazz, and classical Indian dance.49 It is not surprising that Wellesley came to serve as host for the Education as Transformation project. Its liberal Protestant heritage and more recent de- mographics have created an ethos that valorizes diversity. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, over 20 religious traditions are represented in the student body. In 2008 Wellesley renovated its chapel to make room for these religious newcomers. It has also published a “campus reli- gious diversity kit,” complete with instructions for con- structing multi-faith worship spaces. Similar initiatives can be found at Mount Holyoke, M.I.T., and Duke.50

Of all the new immigrant religions on campus, none has a higher profile than Islam. In 2010 Muslims made up about one percent of American college students, up from .1 % in 1974.51 Founded in 1963, the Muslim Student Association has over 500 chapters in the United States and Canada.52 Like other campus organizations, it has been influenced by American business culture, offering courses on “How to Run a Fortune 500 MSA” and “Media Relations.” Besides meeting the needs of Muslim students, MSA has served as an organizational incubator, spawning the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Book Service, and the first Muslim publishing company in the United States. In 2000 Hartford Seminary created an Islamic Chaplaincy Program, enrolling a dozen future chaplains.53 In 2008 Princeton hired its first full-time Muslim chaplain. At least seventy-five campuses have estab- lished special rooms for Muslim prayer services. Princeton’s Muslim prayer room can be found on the third floor of Murray- Dodge Hall, a building once used by the collegiate YMCA.54

Not surprisingly, campus Islam has faced serious chal- lenges following the events of September 11, 2001. Some groups have come under the suspicion of federal law en- forcement officials. Tighter controls on foreign student visas have reduced the number of Muslim students. A few have

been the victims of hate crimes. Yet on balance, campus Islam has weathered the storms of the post-9/11 era. Elect- ing a female president in 2004, the MSA has appealed to both conservative and moderate Muslims. On many cam- puses, Muslim students have been asked to explain their religious beliefs in interfaith dialogues. Such events have heightened the visibility of Islam in American higher edu- cation.55 To encourage greater inclusiveness, the MSA has recognized “Muslim-friendly” campuses, awarding this des- ignation to Georgetown, Syracuse, and Henry Ford Com- munity College.56

Less numerous than Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are also becoming more visible. Founded by three students in 1990, the Hindu Students Council has established over 55 chapters on college and university campuses, sponsoring campus study groups, classes, camps, and conferences.57 In recent years, schools such as Princeton and Duke have hired full- time Hindu chaplain, reflecting the growth of the commu- nity on campus. In 2010 .8 % of college students identified as Hindu.58 Sikh Student Associations can be found on at least 50 campuses, including the University of California- Riverside and the University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana. With the help of Sikh-American philanthropists, Sikh Stud- ies chairs have been established at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Hofstra University, the University of California-Riverside, and the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor.59

Both inside and outside the classroom, interest in “East- ern spirituality” has grown in recent decades. While such curiosity also characterized the Harvard transcendentalists and the post-war Beats, the post-1965 surge in Asian immi- gration has fostered a new encounter with non-western

49 Information on the Education as Transformation Project can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20080610090529/http:// www.wellesley.edu/RelLife/transformation/edu-ngoverview.html. 50 McMurtrie, (1999). The Education as Transformation project hand- book, Beyond Tolerance: A Campus Religious Diversity Kit is de- scribed at http://www.naspa.org/kc/srhe/selectedreadings.cfm. 51 Wilgoren, (2001). Data on Muslim students taken from “A Profile of Freshmen at 4-Year Colleges, Fall 2010,” Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion. This data is from UCLA’s American Freshman survey. 52 On the formation and current reach of the Muslim Students Associ- ation, see Husain, (2008); Mendez, (2005). 53 Wilgoren, “Muslims Make Gains at U.S. Universities”; Eckstrom, (2000). See webpage of the MSA at http://www.msanational.org/about. On Ramadan celebrations see Dancy, (2000). On management course- work for Muslim Student Associations, see Omaira Alam, “The Evolu- tion of COMPASS: MSA’s National Training Program,” COMPASS, March 2007, 3–4. For a list of course topics, see http://www.msanational. org/compass/index.php?page=campus. See also Mendez, “The New Role of Muslim Chaplains.” 54 Pease-Kerr, (2008); Wilgoren, “Muslims Make Gains at U.S. Universities.”

55 See “Some Students Groups Under Scrutiny,” Associated Press, 27 December 2001. Retrieved from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/ fyi/teachers.ednews/12/27/attacks.universities.ap/; Barrett, (2003); Bell, (2001); Council on American-Islamic Relations, “Islamic Prayer Area Vandalized at AU in D.C.,” 13 September 2004, retrieved from CAIR’s webpage at http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=article View&id=1211&theType=NR. See also McMurtrie, (2001b); Bahrampour, (2010); MacFarquhar, (2008). 56 On awards for Muslim-friendly colleges, see “HFCC a ‘Muslim Friendly’ Campus,” Arab American News, November 20-November 26, 2004. 57 The figure of 55 HSC groups is from Aditya Kashyap, “Hindu Students Council Celebrates 20th Anniversary at Annual Camp,” Hin- du Students Council, 31 May 2010, available at http://hindustudents council.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271: hindu-students-council-celebrates-20th-anniversary-at-annual-camp& catid=37:press-release&Itemid=98. 58 Pease-Kerr, “U to Hire First Full-Time Hindu, Muslim Chaplains”; Green, (2011). Data on Hindu students taken from “A Profile of Fresh- men at 4-Year Colleges, Fall 2010,” Chronicle of Higher Education. This data is from UCLA’s American Freshman survey. 59 See the list of Sikh student organizations at the webpage of the Sikh Coalition, available at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/stay-informed/ sikh-coalition-advisories/478. See Pais, (1999).

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 121

religions.60 Currently, 1.2 % of American college students identify as Buddhist. According to the Washington Post, Buddhist groups at Yale and other elite universities are predominantly white, while many Asian-Americans flock to evangelical student groups.61 While often detached from their roots, quasi-religious practices such as yoga and med- itation have become a standard part of the wellness pro- grams at North American colleges and universities.62

While not a function of new immigration, a host of neo- pagan groups are also part of the new religious pluralism. Many of these groups date back to the religious experimenta- tion of the 1960’s. At the time, sociologist Andrew Greeley described what he called a “new-time religion on campus,” arguing that “there has been a very notable increase . . . in interest in the sacred and particularly the bizarrely sacred among students on the college and university campuses in the last few years.”63 No longer regarded as bizarre, neo- paganism is now a recognizable part of the campus religious landscape. A comprehensive web site for “Pagans on campus” lists groups at 109 colleges and universities, including the University of Arkansas, St. Olaf College, Iowa State, Smith College, and Montana State University.64

Other religious groups are flourishing on campus. About 100,000 18–30 year-olds participate in the Mormon Institutes of Religion. Often located near colleges and universities, the first Institute was established in 1926 at the University of Idaho. Its goal was to “take care of the L.D.S. students registered at the university.” Forty years later, there were 200 Institutes serving a population of 35,000 Mormons, more than the enrollment of Brigham Young University. Today they can be found in over 2,500 locations worldwide, including 600 in the United States and Canada. Not restricted to undergradu- ates, they provide instruction to other single adults.65

Providing another form of religious diversity, the Ortho- dox Christian Fellowship has established a renewed

presence on campus. Rooted in centuries of Christian tradi- tion, this outreach began in the post-war era. The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas established a national Campus Commission in the mid- 1960’s. After reaching nearly 100 campuses, the Bishops eliminated the commission in 1973, due to a loss of funds from Orthodox archdioceses. During the 1970’s, Eastern Orthodox campus ministry entered a period of decline, restricting its presence to fewer than 50 institutions. In the late 1990’s, a trio of priests worked to revive this neglected area, paving the way for the Orthodox Christian Fellowship. Over the last decade, “the number of OCF chapters has exploded,” rising from 50 to 300.66

Unlike Orthodox believers, Unitarian Universalists have a long history on the American campus, tracing their roots to nineteenth-century Harvard and Tufts. The first Unitarian campus group was established at the University of Wisconsin in 1886 under the banner of the Channing Club. Presently, there is a “concerted campaign” to revitalize Unitarian Universalist campus ministries. Billing themselves as the “liberal evangelists on campus” they are attracting a new generation of students.67 Between 1997 and 2002, the number of UU young adult groups grew from 100 to 250. Such groups focus on 18 to 35 year old individuals. Currently, Unitarian Universalist campus ministries can be found at 113 American colleges and universities.68

If Unitarian Universalists are the liberal evangelists in American higher education, the students affiliated with the Center for Inquiry on Campus are the ambassadors of organized atheism and agnosticism. Formed in 1996 by students from 15 institutions, the network has expanded to include groups at 189 colleges and universities in the United States which sponsor lectures on scientific cri- tiques of religion, atheism, and skepticism. The Center also makes available “campus activism posters” with statements such as, “Privatize Religion,” “Skeptics Do it With Their Eyes Open,” and “extraordinary claims de- mand extraordinary evidence.”69 The network’s original Declaration of Necessity urged atheists, agnostics, and

60 On the nineteenth-century re-discovery of Asian religions see Fuller, (2001). On post-1965 religious pluralism see Diana Eck, A New Reli- gious America. 61 Data on Buddhist students taken from “A Profile of Freshmen at 4- Year Colleges, Fall 2010,” Chronicle of Higher Education. This data is from UCLA’s American Freshman survey. On the interest of white students in Buddhism, see Cho, (2003). 62 Oldenburg, (2004). 63 Greeley, (1969). 64 The Pagans on Campus site can be found at http://www.sunspotdesigns. com/c/collpgn.html. Related webpages include a site on College Pagan Groups, which lists groups on 99 campuses. See http://www.angelfire. com/ia/Geoff/cgroups.html. 65 Figures on Institute of Religion participation calculated by Margue- rite Langille-Hoppe using numbers from the “Institute of Religion Locator” available at http://www.lds.org/institutes. On the Moscow, Idaho Institute, see Arrington, (1967). The quote appears on page 140. Figures for 1967 are found on page 144. The number of Institutes of Religion in 2007 is reported in David E. Edwards, (2007). The Institutes of Religion website reports a worldwide enrollment of 350,000 students at 2,500 locations. See http://institute.lds.org/faq/.

66 Current statistics, the quotation about growth, and a brief history of the OCF are available at http://www.ocf.net/pages/about1.aspx. This paragraph draws heavily on an earlier version of the site, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20101003214800/http://www.ocf.net/ pages/about1.aspx. 67 Shister, (2002). 68 Statistics on young adults groups are taken from Skinner, (2006). A list of campus groups is available at http://connectuu.com/groups.php? action=search&group_name=&group_city=&group_stateprov=&dist_ code=&group_type[]=Campus. Information on UU campus ministry programs can be found at www.uua.org/religiouseducation/campus ministry/index.shtml. 69 Niebuhr, (1996). Information on the number of current campus groups can be found at http://centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/groups. Posters are available at http://centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/posters.

122 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

secularists to organize. Mentioning Campus Crusade, Catholic Newman Centers, Hillel, and Muslim student organizations, it called for a freethinking alternative. The rapid growth of campus free thought is just one more sign of the vitality of the student religious marketplace.70 So is the appointment of humanist chaplains at Harvard, Rutgers, and Adelphi universities. Appropriating the chaplaincy role, such ministries are part of the new pluralism on campus.71

Present on both high school and college campuses, the non- theistic Secular Student Alliance now has nearly 400 groups.72 In an environment where religious and secular groups often coexist, organizational models are freely borrowed.

The Renewal of Mainline Protestant Campus Ministries

Despite declining influence since the 1960’s, mainline Protestantism is still a formidable presence in higher education. Currently, there are 1,300 Presbyterian, 520 United Methodist, 193 Episcopal Church-USA, 580 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 140 Disciples of Christ, 64 American Baptist, and 49 United Church of Christ campus ministries or campus ministry loca- tions in the United States. According a 1999 report from the Presbyterian Church-USA, there are more cam- puses served by Presbyterian ministries and congrega- tions than by InterVarsity or Campus Crusade.73

Though these numbers are impressive, they mask some important realities. First, many mainline Protestant colle- giate ministries are based in nearby congregations where staff only devote part of their time to campus work. Sec- ondly, there is a significant amount of double counting, reflecting the large number of inter-denominational campus ministries. Thirdly, this one-time snapshot of denomination- al campus ministries obscures a very important long-term trend: the number of mainline Protestant campus ministries has declined in some groups. As recently as 2005, the United Methodist Church reported over 700 campus minis- tries. By 2011 that number had fallen to 520. According to the denomination’s news service, “the number of United Methodist campus ministries is gradually shrinking.”74

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, mainline campus ministries are best described as down but not out. Despite severe challenges, they have shown signs of renewal. As in the Catholic Church, tight budgets have inspired innovative development strategies. Episco- palians have been particularly successful in advance- ment efforts, especially in establishing endowments to support specific campus-based ministries. Faced with the possibility of extinction, Cornell launched the first ma- jor endowment campaign in 1979. After two decades of diligent fundraising that produced a $2 million endow- ment, Cornell’s Episcopal Chaplaincy is now “fully endowed and financially self-sustaining.” Seeking to stem Episcopal campus ministry closures, the Episcopal Church Foundation drew on the Cornell example, pro- viding chaplains with small grants to jump start their development efforts as well as training in the basics of fundraising. Over thirty chaplains have benefited, in- cluding those at Boston University, Oklahoma State University, Stanford, and the University of Florida. Looking back on this episode in Episcopal campus ministry, Cornell chaplain Gurdon Brewster called it “a crisis overcome.”75 More recently, the Evangelical Lu- theran Church in America has emphasized fundraising and board development. Disseminating these strategies through a monthly newsletter, it has schooled campus

70 The 1996 Declaration of Necessity is available on the webpage of Utah Humanist at http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1996/ artdec96.html. 71 Kolowich, (2009). 72 Zara, (2012). 73 Presbyterian Church (USA) Collegiate Ministries webpage, available at http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/collegiate/about-pcusa-collegiateyoung- adult-ministries/; “By the Numbers,” NMD Committee Report, 24 April 2006, retrieved from http://www.pachem.org/Portals/1292/Resources/ collegiate%20statistics%202006%20NMD.pdf; “Renewing the Commit- ment: A Church-Wide Mission Strategy for Ministry in Higher Education by the Presbyterian Church (USA),” Submitted to the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) 2001, available at http:// www.ukirk.org/files/Renewing_the_Commitment.pdf; United Methodist Church, Greater Board of Higher Education and Ministry webpage, avail- able at http://public.gbhem.org/findyourplace; Episcopal Church USA campus ministry webpage, available at http://web.archive.org/web/ 20110107151432/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/109466_118178_ ENG_HTM.htm; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America campus min- istry webpage, available at http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/ Ministry/Campus-Ministry.aspx; Disciples of Christ campus ministry webpage, available at http://www.helmdisciples.org/student/DOCcampus ministries.htm; American Baptist Churches (USA) campus ministry web- page, available at http://www.nationalministries.org/education/campus_ ministers.cfm; United Church of Christ campus ministry webpage, avail- able at http://www.ucc.org/higher-education/campus-ministry.html.Some of these campus ministries are at church-related colleges and universities. Others are housed in congregations or Ecumenical Campus Ministry Team sites.

74 In 2011 the Ecumenical Campus Ministry Team (ECMT) of the Na- tional Council of Churches listed 800 campus ministries affiliated with seven mainline denominations. See the ECMT web page at http:// www.higheredmin.org/. The 2005 list of United-Methodist-Related Chap- lains and Campus Ministers can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/ 20050217045707/http://www.gbhem.org/asp/campusMin.asp. The 2012 list is available at http://public.gbhem.org/findyourplace/. The quotation is from Green, (2007). 75 On Episcopal development efforts, see Gurdon Brewster, “Ministry on the Frontier: The Contribution of Episcopal Campus Ministry to the Present and Future Church,” July 2000, available at http://web.archive. org/web/20030305031227/http://www.esmhe.org/ministry onthefrontier.htm.

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 123

ministers in online giving and “making the ask.” Pro- viding such training to six other denominations, a vet- eran ELCA staff member led a series of fundraising workshops sponsored by the Ecumenical Campus Min- istry Teams.76

Mainline Protestants are also experimenting with con- gregational approaches to campus ministry. Not surpris- ingly, many of these congregations come from the evangelical wing of the mainline. One of the leaders of this movement is University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, which attracts a thousand students to Tuesday night services in its fellowship hall. Through spirited worship, retreats, service projects, and small groups, the Seattle church is revitalizing congregation-based campus ministry. In recent years, University Presbyterian has promoted its model through a handbook on “Church- based campus ministry” and the Ascent Network, an inter-denominational association of campus ministries. In the Presbyterian Church-USA about 700 churches are engaged in collegiate ministry.77 Lutherans are also experimenting with congregation-based approaches. According to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Amer- ica, 400 congregations have committed themselves to some form of campus ministry.78

In another sign of revitalization, campus ministers in several denominations have revived the model of the reli- gious dormitory. Led by a former InterVarsity staffer, Ber- keley’s Westminster House opened in 2003, providing a home to 125 students from the University of California. Though it closed in 2011, residential ministries have flour- ished at the University of Wisconsin, Kansas State Univer- sity, and the University of Illinois. While Presby Hall offers suite-style residences to Presbyterian Illini, Kansas State’s Wesley Foundation functions as a “residential Christian community.” By charging students for room and board, such residences generate additional income for campus

ministries. They also provide a ready-made community for religious groups.79

Though most innovations bubble up from the grassroots, national denominations are also giving renewed attention to campus ministry. Over the decades, the Methodists, Luther- ans, and Presbyterians have produced dozens of reports and resolutions on campus ministry. The most recent wave of these self-studies and statements has called for a greater presence in campus life. Released in 2001, “Renewing the Commitment” urged the church to “affirm, pray for, and financially support the restoration and renewal of our denomination’s commitment to the oldest continuing mis- sion of the Presbyterian Church (USA) beyond the congre- gation.”80 Framed as an effort to “begin reversing the decline,” this plan encountered significant obstacles in 2009. Facing budgetary pressures, the PCUSA’s General Assembly eliminated its Office of Collegiate Ministries.81

Responding to a groundswell of criticism, the denomination reestablished the office in 2010, creating a task force on Presbyterian collegiate ministries.82

In a similar way, United Methodists have revitalized campus ministry, albeit from different ends of the church. On the evangelical side of the denomination, the Foundation for Evangelism has created College Union, an online com- munity focused on rebuilding the Methodist campus net- work. In 2005 College Union hosted a campus ministry summit. Since then it has sponsored five Refresh confer- ences, featuring evangelicals like Andy Crouch, a former staff member with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.83

Emphasizing a more progressive vision, the denomina- tion’s General Board of Higher Education and Ministry

76 “Receiving Gifts Online,” Ask & Receive, March 2011, 2, available at http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/Growing%20in%20Faith/Ministry/ Campus%20Ministry/FundraiseBoardDev/Ask11%2003.pdf; Koerner, (2010); Higher Education & Leadership Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), September 2010, available at http:// www.helmdisciples.org/helm/10/CampMinFundRaising.htm. 77 On the role of evangelicals in renewing the mainline, see Finke, (2004); Hamilton and McKinney, (2003); “A Model for Church-Based Campus Ministry: Real Life in Jesus Christ,” University Presbyterian Church, Seattle, Washington, available at www.upc.org/Portals/0/UMin %20Images/Model%20for%20Campus%20Ministry.pdf. For more infor- mation on the Ascent Network, see http://www.upc.org/umin/ Ascent.aspx. The Presbyterian statistic comes from “By the Numbers,” National Ministries Division Committee Report, 24 April 2006, retrieved from http://www.pachem.org/Portals/1292/Resources/collegiate%20 statistics%202006%20NMD.pdf 78 The Lutheran statistic comes from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America campus ministry webpage at http://www.elca.org/Growing- In-Faith/Ministry/Campus-Ministry.aspx.

79 “A New Theme for Dorms: God,” New York Times, 30 July 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/education/edlife/ dorms_spiritual.html?ref=edlife; “Ohio Church Builds College Dorm,” Presbyterian Outlook, 21 March 2010. See also Trotti, (2007); Schevitz, (2006). For more information on Presby Hall at the University of Illinois, see http://www.presbyhall.com/. See Kansas State’s Wesley Foundation for information on its residential Christian community, available at http:// kstatewesley.com/the-dorm/. 80 “Renewing the Commitment,” 1, available at http://www.ukirk.org/ files/Renewing_the_Commitment.pdf. 81 Van Marter, (2001). On the elimination of the Collegiate Ministries office, see Luhr, (2009). 82 Hargrove, (2010). The 2010 Presbyterian Church-USA General Assembly’s overture on collegiate ministries is available at http:// www.pc-biz.org/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=3203. See also “Collegiate Ministries Task Force Named, Will Meet this Fall,” (2011). 83 On the task of rebuilding and the 2005 campus ministry summit, see “Interview with Bishop Scott Jones,” College Union, 29 November 2005, available at http://collegeunion.org/2005/11/interview-with- bishop-scott-jones/. For more on Refresh, see http://collegeunion.org/ refresh/. For a discussion of the networks behind evangelical and liberal approaches to Methodist campus ministry, see Russell Richey, “‘For the Good of the World,’ Methodism’s Ministry to the Campus,” Occasional Papers, General Board of Higher Education and Ministry, April 2010, available at http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0bcef929- bdba-4aa0-968f-d1986a8eef80%7D/occ_RicheyForGood2010.pdf.

124 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

(GBHEM) has stressed social justice and interfaith dia- logue. Fostering close ties with the United Methodist Campus Ministry Association, it has promoted virtual communities through social networking and blogs. In 2009 the GBHEM held a conference on “The Promise of United Methodist Campus Ministry.” Describing these competing networks, denominational historian Russell Richey notes that campus ministers should “welcome all the help they can get and from wherever.”84

Like the Presbyterian Church-USA and the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has tried to strengthen its presence on campus. As recently as 1997, the denomination claimed to pos- sess “the strongest campus ministry of any mainline denomination.” Since then the ELCA’s organizational chart has gone through several changes. Despite these shifts, the ELCA has reaffirmed its commitment to campus ministry, most recently in a churchwide social statement on education. In “Our Calling in Education,” the denomination acknowledged the financial pressures on campus clergy, calling for “new models of ministry, of partnership, and of staffing and support.”85

Taken together, these efforts have revitalized campus ministry in the mainline. At the same time, they may not be enough to counteract the effects of steep budget cuts. Recently, the ELCA reduced its campus ministry funding by 38 %.86 Other denominations face similar pressures. Wheth- er mainline Protestantism continues to maintain its presence in higher education remains to be seen. That it is still a major player in the campus religious marketplace is undeniable.

Student Affairs Rediscovers Spirituality

Early works in the field of student affairs proclaimed the importance of holistic student development and, by extension, spiritual growth. According to a 1949 publication from the American Council on Education, student affairs must “include

attention to the student’s well-rounded development—physi- cally, socially, emotionally and spiritually, as well as intellectu- ally.”87 Despite this initial focus on spirituality, the religious lives of undergraduates became increasingly peripheral to stu- dent development work.88 Though post-war public universities sometimes employed administrators to coordinate the array of collegiate religious organizations, religious and spiritual devel- opment was not seen as a central aim of student affairs staff.89

Serious interest in this area reemerged in the late 1980’s when an article in the Journal of College Student Personnel called attention to the “blind spot” of spirituality” in student affairs work.90 In the 1990’s religion and spirituality became a regular topic at the national meetings of the two major student develop- ment professional associations, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Paper titles from this peri- od included “Spirituality in the Counseling Process” (ACPA 1990), “Spiritual Development Theory and Practice” (NASPA 1991), “Have You Spoken to a Buddhist Lately?” (ACPA 1992), “Taking Responsibility for Student Spiritual Develop- ment” (NASPA 1993), and “A Spiritual Awakening: Giving Students Permission to Explore their Spiritual Wellness” (ACPA 1994).91 Along the same lines, a 1998 article in NASPA’s flagship journal argued that “spiritual development is an integral part of students’ overall development.”92 In The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice (2001), New York University administrator Patrick Love noted “a surge of interest in the spiritual development of college students.”93

Building on this interest, NASPA has sponsored a national network on spirituality and religion in higher education, one of nineteen knowledge communities in the organization.94

Complementing the efforts of NASPA, UCLA researchers Alexander and Helen Astin have worked to put religion and spirituality back on the student affairs agenda. In 2011 the Astins published Cultivating the Spirit: How Colleges Can Enhance Students’ Inner Lives, the culmination of a seven-

84 The campus ministry portion of the “General Board of Higher Educa- tion and Ministry, Strategic Plan for 2009-2012” is available at http:// www.gbhem.org/site/c.lsKSL3POLvF/b.3554127/k.35FD/Strategic_ Priority_3.htm. The proceedings of the 2009 conference are published in Young and Pieterse, (2010). The quotation is from Richey, “‘For the Good of the World,’” 14. This paragraph draws heavily on the Richey paper. 85 ELCA Division for Higher Education and Schools director Robert Sorensen quoted in Greene, (1997); “A Social Statement on: Our Calling in Education,” Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 10 August 2007, 51, available at http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/ Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Education.aspx. 86 “ELCA Council Recommends Budget Proposals Through 2013,” ELCA News Service, 10 April 2011, available at http://www.elca.org/ Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/ Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4739.

87 American Council for Education, The Student Personnel Point of View (Washington, D.C.: American Council for Education, 1949), 1 as cited in Leah Temkin and Nancy J. Evans, “Religion on Campus: Suggestions for Cooperation between Student Affairs and Campus- Based Religious Organizations,” NASPA Journal 36 (1): 61 (1998). See also David A. Hoffman, “Reflections on the 2000 ACPA Spiritual Maturation Institute,” Character Clearinghouse, 11 February 2001, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080530155332/http:// www.collegevalues.org/Spirit.cfm?id=435&a=1. 88 Collins et al. (1987); Love and Talbot, (1999). 89 Jones, (1973); Smith, (1957). 90 Collins, Hurst, and Jacobson, “The Blind Spot Extended: Spiritual- ity,” 274–276. 91 Greer and Lot, (1990); Cureton et al. (1991); Spees, (1992); Hoffman and DeNicola, (1993); Kopchick and Kirkpatrick, (1994). 92 Temkin and Evans, “Religion on Campus,” 61. 93 Love, (2001). 94 For more on NASPA’s spirituality and religion network, see http:// www.naspa.org/kc/srhe/default.cfm.

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 125

year study. Funded by the John Templeton Foundation, it carried endorsements from former Harvard president Derek Bok and Lee Shulman of the Carnegie Endowment for the Advancement of Teaching. Based on a national survey of 112,000 undergraduates, the book documented strong interest in spirituality and religion. Reflecting Alexander Astin’s status as the most cited researcher in the field of higher education, it has helped legitimate the integration of spirituality and student affairs. Consistent with this goal, UCLA held a National Institute on Spirituality in Higher Education in the fall of 2007 that included a session on ways to “incorporate spiritual perspectives into the curriculum and co-curriculum.”95

By talking about spirituality and student development, student affairs professionals have come full circle. One hundred years ago, the overtly Christian YMCA took re- sponsibility for functions now performed by student affairs offices, including new student orientation, student hand- books, and extra-curricular activities. Like the turn-of-the- century Y, today’s student life workers are paying more attention to religion. Hearkening back to an earlier era, colleges and universities are recycling older models, includ- ing the use of dedicated religious buildings. At Penn State University, the Division of Student Affairs manages the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center. Completed in 2003, it houses the Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs, home to 57 religious groups, including the Catholic Campus Ministry, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Vedic Society, the Muslim Student Association, the Korean Bud- dhism Organization, the Assembly of God’s Chi Alpha, and Chabad.96

Unlike their predecessors, today’s student affairs specialists make a clear distinction between religion and spirituality. While one scholar warns against treating them as “synony- mous terms,” another writes that “[i]ssues of spirituality and spiritual growth are distinct, but not separate from, religious beliefs and practices.”97 Such definitions resonate with a growing segment of American college students. According to the 2008 General Social Surveys, 14 % of Americans describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, up from

9 % ten years earlier. This figure is even higher among emerging adults. Though it is important not to overstate this trend, many college students are spiritual seekers. The same is true of many faculty and administrators.98

This emphasis on spirituality has its roots in the Ameri- can metaphysical tradition, a family of movements consti- tuting “the missing third” of U.S. religious history.99

Metaphysical organizations have helped shape discussions of spirituality in higher education. In 2007 the California Institute of Integral Studies sponsored a conference on “in- tegrative learning for compassionate action in an interconnected world,” attended by 600 faculty and admin- istrators, including Alexander and Helen Astin.100 The in- fluence of the metaphysical tradition can also be seen in the philanthropy of Sir John Templeton. A lifelong Presbyteri- an, Templeton was influenced by “the New Thought move- ments of Christian Science, Unity and Religious Science.” Even after his death, the John Templeton Foundation reflects these commitments.101

Some have criticized the embrace of all things spiritual. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, United Church of Christ minister Donna Schaper notes that “[s] ome of us don’t want to replace religion with spirituality.” According to Schaper, “What we need right now is not more calls for spirituality, but more money for chapels and chap- lains.”102 If spirituality-in-general was the only religious option on campus, it might threaten traditional chaplains and campus ministers. Yet student affair personnel are ex- ploring spirituality at a time when evangelical parachurch groups, Muslim Student Associations, and Jewish religious organizations are enjoying steady growth. Rather than see- ing spirituality as a threat to campus religion, it would be more accurate to see it as one more addition to the campus religious marketplace.

Still in its infancy, the campaign for spirituality has a long way to go. A recent survey of student affairs professionals

95 Astin et al. (2011); Lindholm et al. (2011). For more on the “Spiritu- ality in Higher Education” study at the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles, see http://www. spirituality.ucla.edu/. The site notes a study establishing Alexander Astin’s status as the most cited researcher in the field. On the National Institute on Spirituality in Higher Education see http://spirituality. ucla.edu/background/national-institute/. 96 On the collegiate Y’s many functions, see Setran, (2007); Reuben, (1996); Butler, (1989). For more information on Penn State Univer- sity’s Pasquerilla Spiritual Center and the Center for Ethics and Reli- gious Affairs, see http://www.studentaffairs.psu.edu/spiritual/. Sadly, the Pasquerilla Center was also the site of Joe Paterno’s funeral, as well as discussions of the sexual abuse that took place under his watch. See Jacobsen and Jacobsen, (2012). 97 Love, (2000); Strange, (2005).

98 General Social Survey data reported in Chaves, (2011). On the propensity of emerging adults to embrace the “spiritual, but not reli- gious” designation, see Penny Edgell, “Faith and Spirituality Among Emerging Adults,” Essay Forum on Emerging Adults, Institute for Policy Research and Catholics Studies, Catholic University of Amer- ica, available at http://www.changingsea.net/papersyn.htm. A survey of elite scientists found that over 20 % identified as spiritual but not religious. See Ecklund, (2010). 99 This tri-partite division of American religion can be found in Alba- nese, (2007). 100 The webpage of the California Institute of Integral Studies is available at http://www.ciis.edu/. For more on the conference, see http://www.conferencerecording.com/aaaListTapes.asp?CID= HHE27. 101 “Biography: Sir John Templeton,” originally retrieved from the webpage of the Templeton Press at http://www.templetonpress.org/ SirJohn/biography.asp. This paragraph’s discussion of Templeton is taken from Schmalzbauer and Mahoney, (2012). 102 Schaper, (2000).

126 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

found that most do not integrate religion and spirituality into their work. The same is true of graduate courses in the field. Despite an emphasis on holistic student devel- opment, most neglect this dimension of campus life. Like the comeback of religion in the professoriate, the heightened focus on spirituality in student affairs is confined to a vocal minority.103

Beyond the Secularization of Campus Life

What is the state of organized campus religion in America? This brief overview has explored the size and scope of student religious organizations, as well as the field of stu- dent affairs. While membership statistics cannot tell us anything about the spiritual and religious quality of campus groups, they can debunk some common myths about reli- gion on campus.

First, the decline of one kind of student religious organi- zation should not be interpreted as the secularization of campus life. Over the course of American history, the for- tunes of specific groups have waxed and waned. The dom- inant student religious organizations in America, the YMCA and the YWCA, almost disappeared in the decades follow- ing World War II. Inevitably, new religious groups arose to take their place. Often these newcomers recycled cultural forms from the distant past, combining them with novel approaches. A similar dynamic is going on today as main- line Protestant denominational ministries yield some of their territory to other forms of campus ministry. Such change is an example of what Conrad Cherry, Betty DeBerg, and Amanda Porterfield call the “protean flexibility” of Ameri- can religion, a flexibility that has led campus religion to “as- sume new shapes as social and cultural conditions change.” The same is true in student affairs.104

Rather than declining precipitously, student participa- tion in campus religion has remained remarkably stable over the course of the last century. The proliferation of evangelical parachurch groups, Hillel Foundations, and Mormon Institutes of Religion suggests that the campus is abuzz with organized religion. Surveys of college students bear this out. In a 2001 survey administered at 50 colleges and universities, 30% of freshmen were involved in a campus religious group. A similar survey conducted in 2003 found that 19% of juniors had par- ticipated in a campus ministry. Likewise, the National Study of Youth and Religion found that one-fourth of 18–23 year olds with some college had been involved

in a campus-based religious group.105 This rate of reli- gious involvement compares quite favorably to figures from the 1920’s when one out of seven students took part in the YMCA/YWCA and a smaller number of students were involved in denominational campus ministries.106

Far from secular, the campus may actually intensify reli- gious and spiritual seeking, a trait already associated with today’s emerging adults. The UCLA study of spirituality and higher education found growing interest in “integrating spir- ituality in my life” between the freshman and the junior year. In another survey, 38 % of college juniors reported stronger religious faith. Only 14 % said their faith had weakened.107 To be sure, college may foster religious liberalism. According to a 2011 study, college-educated Americans tend to hold less literal views of the Bible and prefer mainline denomina- tions.108 Yet liberalization is not the same as secularization.109

In the final analysis, contemporary higher education is not especially damaging to religious commitment. Given the wealth of religious options available on campus, it is not surprising that undergraduates are less likely than other young adults to lose their religion. Though religious participation tends to wane in the young adult years, a University of Texas study found that going to college significantly decreases the

103 Kiessling, (2010); Rogers and Love, (2007). For a discussion of the progress and the limits of the return of religion in higher education, see Schmalzbauer and Mahoney, (2012). 104 Setran, The College “Y”; Cherry et al. (2001).

105 Results from the 2001 Your First College Year survey are reported in Alyssa Bryant, “Campus Religious Communities and the College Student Experience,” Doctoral Dissertation, Higher Education and Organizational Change Program, University of California-Los Angeles, 2004, 92. Results from the 2003 pilot survey of the Spirituality and Higher Education Project are reported in Emily Winslett, “‘Twentysomethings’ and the Episcopal Church,” 20 April 2004. Winslett’s story is available at Covering Religion: The Soul of the South at http://web.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/religion/ 2004/archives/000529.asp. The National Study of Youth and Religion data are reported in Smith, Souls in Transition, 131. 106 Figures from the 1921 YMCA/YWCA are from Marsden, The Soul of the American University, 343, but were originally reported in Hopkins, (1951). According to Marsden, 90,000 out of the 600,000 college students in 1921 were enrolled in the YMCA/YWCA. There were about 300 Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish denominational groups on campus in the 1920’s. Assuming each of these attracted an average of 100 students, that would mean an additional 30,000 students involved in campus religious groups. For figures for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, see Shedd, (1938); John Whitney Evans, The Newman Movement, 55. Jospe, (1976). Shedd states that were 128 Protestant University Pastors in 1920. Evans lists 134 Newman Clubs in 1926. Jospe writes that there were 50 chapters of the Menorah Society in 1930. Shedd notes the existence of at least eight Hillel Foundations prior to 1929. By arguing that involvement in campus reli- gious groups has not dramatically declined, I do not mean to suggest that student religiosity has always remained the same. In Commitment on Campus: Changes in Religion and Values Over Five Decades (Philadel- phia: Westminster Press, 1974), Dean Hoge found a decrease in student religiosity in the wake of the 1960’s. In a later study, Hoge and his colleagues found that students in the 1980’s were more sympathetic to traditional religion and more religiously involved. See Hoge et al. (1987). 107 Astin, Astin, and Lindholm, Cultivating the Spirit, 31; Lee, (2002). 108 Schwadel, (2011). 109 Definitions vary, but most do not equate secularization with theo- logical liberalism. An exception is Chaves (1994).

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 127

risk of religious decline.110 Another study confirmed this relationship, noting a positive correlation between higher ed- ucation and attendance at religious services. For each year of college and graduate school, attendance increases by 15 %. So does Bible reading.111 Consistent with these findings, white working-class Americans report lower levels of religious par- ticipation than college-educated professionals. Such findings suggest the need for a new evangelical book: How to Stay Christian Outside of College.112

Further Reading

Albanese, C. L. 2007. A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion (p. 4). Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.

Arrington, L. J. Summer 1967. “The Founding of the L.D.S. Institutes of Religion,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 137–147.

Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., & Lindholm, J. 2011. Cultivating the Spirit: How College Students Can Enhance Students’ Inner Lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bahrampour, T. 27 August 2010. “Hostility Across U.S. Jars Muslim College Students,” Washington Post, B1.

Barrett, P.M. 28 May 2003. “Idaho Arrest Puts Muslim Students Under Scrutiny,” Wall Street Journal.

Bass, D. 1989. Ministry on the Margins: Protestants and Education. In W. Hutchison (Ed.), Between the Times: The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America, 1900–1960, ed (pp. 48– 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bell E. 30 December 2001. “On the College Front; Muslim Student Organizations Say They’re Misunderstood,” San Francisco Chronicle, A6.

Berggren K. 3 July 1998. “Minnesota Newman Center Shut Down,” National Catholic Reporter.

Birkner, G. Fall 2006. “Trends 101: The New Jewish Life on Campus,” Reform Judaism, available http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/ index.cfm?id=1167.

Briggs, D. 12 August 2011. “Religion and Higher Education: The Effect of Being Smarter than a Fifth Grader,” ARDA Working Paper Series, available at http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/religion- and-higher-education-the-effect-on-faith-of-being-smarter-than-a- fifth-grader/.

Budziszewski, J. 2004. How to Stay Christian in College. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Butler, J. 1989. An Overview of Religion on Campus. In J. Butler (Ed.), Religion on Campus (pp. 3–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll, C. 2002. The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy (p. 181). Chicago: Loyola Press.

Chaves, M. 1994. Secularization as Declining Religious Authority. Social Forces, 72(3), 749–774.

Chaves, M. 2011. American Religion: Contemporary Trends (p. 40). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chazan, B. & David B. August 2006. “Home Away from Home: A Research Study of the Shabbos Experience on Five University Campuses,” 4, available at http://www.chabad.edu/media/pdf/ 125/bByP1251438.pdf.

Cherry, C., DeBerg, B., & Porterfield, A. 2001. Religion on Campus (p. 5). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Cho, D. 4 May 2003. “Finding Each Other’s Religions; As Asian Students Try Christianity, White Students Meditate,” Washington Post, A1.

Cohen M. & Cohen M. January 2006. Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, available at http://avichai.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Jewish-Life-on-Campus.pdf.

Collegiate Ministries Task Force Named 16 March 2011. Will Meet this Fall, Presbyterian News Service, available at http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/3/16/collegiate-ministries- task-force-named-will-meet-f/.

Collins, J. R., Hurst, J. C., & Jacobson, J. K. 1987. The Blind Spot Extended: Spirituality. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28 (3), 274–276.

Conrad, C., DeBerg, B., & Porterfield, A. 2001. Religion on Campus. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Cox, H. 1965. The Secular City (pp. 223–224). New York: Macmillan. Cureton, A., Ebbers L., and Bole J. “Spiritual Development Theory and

Practice: Emerging Models and Research,” paper presented at the 1991 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators conference.

Dancy S. 21 November 2000. “Ramadan on College Campuses,” Beliefnet.com, retrieved on December 17, 2004.

Davidman, L. 2007. The New Voluntarism and the Case of Unsynagogued Jews,” in Everyday Religion: Observing Modern Religious Lives (pp. 51–67). New York: Oxford University Press.

DeBerg B. Summer 2002. “Athletes and Religion on Campus,” PeerReview, 10–12, available at http://www.aacu.org/peer review/documents/PR-SU02.pdf.

Dolan, J. 1981. Review of John Whitney Evans, The Newman Movement: Roman Catholics in American Higher Education, 1883-1971. American Historical Review, 86(2), 479.

Donovan G. 2 May 2003. “Catholic Campus Ministers Urged to Step Up Staffing,” National Catholic Reporter.

Eck, D. 2001. A New Religious America: How a “Christian” Country Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. New York: Harper SanFrancisco.

Ecklund, E. H. 2010. Science versus Religion: What Do Scientists Really Believe? (p. 51). New York: Oxford University Press.

Eckstrom K. 16 March 2000. “Colleges Adapting to Increased Muslim Student Presence,” Beliefnet.com, , available at http://www. beliefnet.com/story/15/story_1553_1.html.

Edwards, D.E. September 2007. “The Future is Now,” New Era, available at http://lds.org/new-era/2007/09/the-future-is-now? lang=eng.

Eshel N. 22 March 2005. “Spotted History Aside, Opus Dei Forges Close Links to Princeton,” The Daily Princetonian.

Evans, J. W. 1980. The Newman Movement: Roman Catholics in American Higher Education, 1883-1971 (p. 100). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Fellman, B. November 1995. “A Home of One’s Own,” Yale Alumni Magazine, available at http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/ issues/95_11/slifka.html.

Finke, R. 2004. Innovative Returns to Tradition: Using Core Teachings as the Foundation for Innovative Accommodation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 19–34.

Finke, R., & Stark, R. 2005. The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (p. 46). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fuller, R. 2001. Spiritual, but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gray, M. M. and Bendyna M. September 2003. “Catholic Campus Ministry: A Report of Findings from CARA’s Catholic Campus Ministry Inventory” (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate), 4, available at http://web.archive.

110 Uecker, Regnerus, and Vaaler, “The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood,” 1667–1692. 111 Schwadel, (2011). Study reported in Kavanagh, (2011); Briggs, (2011). 112 See Wilcox et al. (2012).

128 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

org/web/20061009160002/http://cara.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ Campus_Ministry_Report.pdf.

Greeley, A. 1 June 1969. “There’s a New-Time Religion on Campus,” New York Times, retrieved from New York Times Historical.

Green, L. 30 August 2007. “Campus Ministry Offers Church Presence at College,” United Methodist News Service, avail- able at http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c= lwL4KnN1LtH&b=1752971&ct=4339047.

Green, M. A. 27 June 2011. “Abdullah Antelpi, Duke’s First Muslim Chaplain,” Duke Today, available at http://today.duke.edu/2011/ 06/bluedevilantepli.

Greene, D. I. July 1997. “Changing with the Times,” The Lutheran, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20041013221922/http:// www.thelutheran.org/9707/page44.html.

Greer and Lot, “Spirituality in the Counseling Process: An Ethical Issue,” paper presented at the 1990 American College Personnel Association national conference.

Hageman, A. 1995. Reflections on the Student Christian Movement of the 1960’s and Its Effect on My Life. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 32(3), 379.

Hamilton, M.S. and McKinney J. 1 August 2003. “Turning the Mainline Around,” Christianity Today , available at http:// www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/august/1.34.html.

Hammond, P. 1966. The Campus Clergyman (p. 5). New York: Basic Books.

Hargrove, L. 10 July 2010 “GA 2010: GA Affirms the Work of PHEWA, Re-Establishes Collegiate Ministries,” The Presbyterian Outlook, available at http://www.pres-outlook.com/ news-and-analysis/52-ga-2010/10216-ga-2010-ga-affirms-work- of-phewa-re-establishes-collegiate-ministries.html.

Hillel Board Elects Columbus’ Neil Moss Chairman 8 November 2001. ” Hillel Press Release. Available at http://www.hillel.org/ about/news/2001/20011108_board.htm.

Hoffman, D. and DeNicola KB. “Taking Responsibility for Student Spiritual Development” paper presented at the 1993 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators conference.

Hoge, D., Hoge, J. L., & Wittenberg, J. 1987. The Return of the Fifties: Trends in College Students' Values between 1952 and 1984. Sociological Forum, 2(3), 500–519.

Hoge, D. R., Dinges, W. D., Johnson, M., & Gonzalez, J. L. 2001. Young Adult Catholics: Religion in the Culture of Choice. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Hopkins, C. H. 1951. History of the YMCA in North America (pp. 645– 646). New York: Association Press.

Hunt, K., & Hunt, G. 1991. For Christ and the University: The Story of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A./1940-1990 (pp. 387–399). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Husain, A. Fall/Winter 2008. “Envisioning a Continent Wide Student Organization,” MSA Link, 8–9.

Jacobsen, D., & Jacobsen, R. H. 2012. No Longer Invisible: Religion in University Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jacobson, J. 2001. The New Hillel: It’s Not Just About Praying Anymore. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2(7), A49.

Jansen K. 3 February 2002. “Catholic College Students ‘Focus’ on the Faith,” National Catholic Register, available at http:// www.ncregister.com/site/article/catholic_college_students_ focus_on_the_faith/.

Jones, G. W. 1973. The Public University and Religious Practice: An Inquiry into University Provision for Campus Religious Life. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Jones, A. 15 March 1996. “Campus Ministry Fills Need as Funds Shrink,” National Catholic Reporter, 10.

Jospe, A. 1963. Jewish Students and Services at American Universities (p. 29). Washington, D.C: B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation.

Jospe, A. 1976. The Jew on the College Campus. Judaism, 25(3), 275– 276.

Katz, M. B. 2010. The Visual Culture of Chabad. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kavanagh, J. “Study: More Educated Tend to Be More Religious, By Some Measures,” CNN Belief Blog, entry posted on 11 August 2011, available at religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/study- more-educated-tend-to-be-more-religious-by-some-measures/.

Keysar, A., & Kosmin, B. A. 2004. Eight Up”: The College Years, The Jewish Engagement of Young Adults Raised in Conservative Synagogues, 1995-2003. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary. http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm? PublicationID=3120.

Kiessling, M. K. 2010. “Spirituality as a Component of Holistic Student Development: Perspectives and Practices of Student Affairs Professionals,” Journal of College and Character 11 (3).

Kim, R. Y. 2004. Second-Generation Korean American Evangelicals: Ethnic, Multiethnic, or White Campus Ministries. Sociology of Religion, 65(1), 21.

Koerner, L. “A Perspective on Making the Ask,” Ask & Receive, October 2010, 3, available at www.elca.org/~/media/Files/ Growing%20in%20Faith/Ministry/Campus%20Ministry/ FundraiseBoardDev/Ask10%2010.pdf.

Kolowich, S. 12 November 2009. “Humanist Chaplains,” InsideHigherEd, available at www.insidehighered.com/news/ 2009/11/12/chaplain.

Kopchick, C. and Kirkpatrick L. “A Spiritual Awakening: Giving Students Permission to Explore their Spiritual Wellness” paper presented at the 1994 American College Personnel Association national conference.

Kosmin, B.A. August 2009. “The Changing Population Profile of American Jews, 1990–2008,” unpublished paper presented at the fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel, available at http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/ the-changing-population-profile-of-american-jews-1990–2008/.

Lee, J. J. 2002. Lee, “Religion and College Attendance: Change Among Students, The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 377.

Lindholm, J. A., Millora, M. L., Schwartz, L. M., & Spinosa, H. S. 2011. A Guidebook of Promising Practices: Facilitating College Students’ Spiritual Development. Los Angeles, CA: Regents of the University of California.

Lindsay, M. 2007. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite (p. 91). New York: Oxford University Press.

Love, P. 2001. Spirituality and Student Development: Spiritual Connections. In M. A. Jablonski (Ed.), The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice (p. 7). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Love, P. 12 December 2000. “Differentiating Spirituality from Religion,” Character Clearinghouse, retrieved at http://www.col- legevalues.org under “Spirituality on Campus”.

Love, P., & Talbot, D. 1999. Defining Spiritual Development: A Missing Consideration for Student Affairs. NASPA Journal, 37 (1), 361–375.

Luhr, G. 28 June 2009. “Keeping College Students Connected,” The Presbyterian Outlook, available at http://www.pres-outlook.com/ home/2-presbyterian-heritage-articles/8932-keeping-college- students-connected.pdf.

MacDonald, G.J. 8 July 2009. Learning to Discuss Faith at Harvard. The Layman, , available at http://www.layman.org/ news.aspx?article=26123.

MacFarquhar, N. 21 February 2008. “For Muslim Students, a Debate on Inclusion,” New York Times.

Malcolm T. 14 June 1996. “Protesters Attack Newman Center,” National Catholic Reporter.

Marsden, G. 1994. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin J. 25 February 1995. “Opus Dei in the United States,” America.

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 129

McFarland, M. J., Wright, B. R. E., & Weakliem, D. L. 2010. Educational Attainment and Religiosity: Exploring Variations by Religious Tradition. Sociology of Religion, 72(2), 166–188.

McMurtrie B. 18 May 2001a. “Crusading for Christ, Amid Keg Parties and Secularism,” Chronicle of Higher Education, A42.

McMurtrie B. 9 November 2001b. “For Many Muslims, College is a Balancing Act,” Chronicle of Higher Education, A55.

McMurtrie, B. 3 December 1999. “Pluralism and Prayer Under One Roof,” Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.

Mendez, T. 18 January 2005. “The New Role of Muslim Chaplains,” Christian Science Monitor.

Morgan, W. H. 1935. Student Religion During Fifty Years: Programs and Policies of the Intercollegiate YMCA. New York: Association Press.

Nathan-Kazis, J. 9 April 2010. “Chabad Houses Proliferating on Campus,” The Forward.

Niebuhr G. 28 September 1996. “Religion Journal: Campus Skeptics Unite Against Aggressive Faith,” New York Times, 12.

Oldenburg, D. 29 August, 2004. “Beyond the Mat: Yoga Stretches Out,” Washington Post, A1.

Pais, A.J. June 1999. “Ann Arbor Gets a Sikh Chair,” Rediff on the Net, available at http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/12us2.htm.

Parker, M. 1998. The Kingdom of Character: The Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (1886–1926). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Pease-Kerr, S. 1 April 2008. “U to Hire First Full-Time Hindu, Muslim Chaplains,” The Daily Princetonian, available at http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/04/01/20644/.

Perl, P. & Froehle B. 2002. “Exploring the Impact of Campus Ministry on Catholics in the United States” (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate), 1, 14, 18, available at http:// web.archive.org/web/20040601031120/http://cara.georgetown.edu/ pdfs/CampusMinistryWorkingPaper.pdf.

Portaro, S., & Peluso, G. 1993. Inquiring and Discerning Hearts: Vocation and Ministry with Young Adults on Campus. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Quebedeaux, R. 1979. I Found It! The Story of Bill Bright and Campus Crusade (p. 21). New York: Harper & Row.

Reidy M.T. 5 April 2006. “Catholicism on Campus: How Faith is Presented at Secular Universities,” Commonweal.

Reilly, P.J. March 2003. “Are Catholic Colleges Leading Students Astray?” Catholic World Report, 42, available at http://cns.winx- web.com/Portals/0/docs/UCLAStudy.pdf.

Reuben, J. 1996. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (pp. 129– 130). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rice P. 9 October 1994. “University’s Catholic Center is Flourishing; Popularity Here Reflects Growing Interest in Religion Among Students Nationwide,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1D.

Rogers, J. L., & Love, P. 2007. Graduate Student Constructions of Spirituality in Preparation Programs, Journal of College and Character, 48(6), 689–705.

Roof, W. C. 2001. Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosen, M.I. January 2006. “The Remaking of Hillel: A Case Study on Leadership and Organizational Transformation,”, available at http://bir.brandeis.edu/handle/10192/22948?show=full.

Rosenfeld, E. 15 October 2010. “Table Tent Talmud,” Yale Daily News, available at http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/ oct/15/table-tent-talmud/.

Rubin, J.L. “Re-Engineering the Jewish Organization,” available on Hillel’s webpage at http://www.hillel.org/NR/rdonlyres/2D8B7513-18F6- 45FF-8CB0-8B3DC53B4CF0/0/HillelReengineering.pdf.

Schaper, D. 18 August 2000. “Me-First ‘Spirituality’ Is a Sorry Substitute for Organized Religion on Campuses,” Chronicle of Higher Education, A56.

Schevitz, T. 24 August 2006. “Dorm with a Spiritual Dimension,” San Francisco Gate, available at http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08- 24/bay-area/17306236_1_student-housing-dorms-college- students.

Schmalzbauer, J., & Mahoney, K. 2012. Religion and Knowledge in the Post-Secular Academy. In P. Gorski, D. K. Kim, & J. VanAntwerpen (Eds.), The Post-Secular in Question (pp. 215– 248). New York: New York University Press.

Schwadel, P. 2011. The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations. Review of Religious Research, 53(2), 161–182.

Scott E. 18 February 2011. “The Ivy League Congress on Faith and Action,” The Ivy League Christian Observer, available at http:// involve.christian-union.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id= 7981&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1.

Setran, D. P. 2007. The College “Y”: Student Religion in the Era of Secularization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shedd C. 1938. The Church Follows Its Students (New Haven: CT: Yale University Press), 63, 109

Shister, N. September/October 2002. “Liberal Evangelists on Campus,” UUWorld, available at http://www.uua.org/world/ 2002/05/feature1.html.

Skinner, D. June 2006. “UU Young Adult Population Grows in Number and Voice,” UU World, available at http://www.uuworld. org/2003/06/news3.html.

Sloan, D. 1994. Faith and Knowledge: Mainline Protestant and Higher Education. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Smith, S. A. 1957. Religious Cooperation in State Universities: A Historic Sketch. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Smith, C. 2009. Souls in Transition: The Religious & Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults (p. 131). New York: Oxford University Press.

Spees, “Have You Spoken to a Buddhist Lately?” paper presented at the 1992 American College Personnel Association national conference.

Strange, C. 2005. “Spirituality at State: Private Journeys and Public Visions,” Journal of College and Character 2:, retrieved at http:// www.collegevalues.org/articles.cfm?a=1&id=134.

Sue Fishkoff. 2009. The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad- Lubavitch. (New York: Random House), 95, 96

Trotti L. September 2007. “A Spiritual Oasis at the University,” Presbyterians Today, 10, available at http://preshouse.org/sitecontent/ wp-content/uploads/2007-A-Spiritual-Oasis.pdf.

Turner, J. G. 2008. Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Uecker, J. E., Regnerus, M. D., & Vaaler, M. L. 2007. The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood. Social Forces, 85(4), 1667–1692.

Van Marter, J. 8 May 2001. “General Assembly Backgrounder: Campus Ministry,”pcUSANews, , available at http:// www.wfn.org/2001/05/msg00033.html.

Wacker, G. 2001. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weigel G. 9 November 2005 “A Catholic Renaissance at Princteon,” The Catholic Difference, available at http://www.catholiceducation.org/ articles/education/ed0277.html.

Wentworth P.E. June 1932. “What College Did to My Religion,” Atlantic Monthly, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/past/ docs/issues/95nov/warring/whatcoll.htm.

Wertheimer, J. 1999. Jewish Education in the United States: Recent Trends and Issues. In D. Singer (Ed.), American Jewish Year Book. New York: American Jewish Committee. http://www.hillel. org/about/facts/renaissance/default.htm.

Wilcox, W. B., Cherlin, A. J., Uecker, J. E., & Messel, M. 2012. No Money, No Honey, No Church: The Deinstitutionalization of

130 Soc (2013) 50:115–131

Religious Life Among the White Working Class. Research in the Sociology of Work, 23, 229–252.

Wilgoren, J. 13 February 2001. “Muslims Make Gains at U.S. Universities,” New York Times.

Young, B. D., & Pieterse, H. R. 2010. The Promise of United Methodist Campus Ministry: Theological Explorations. Nashville, TN: General Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

Zara, C. 1 December 2012. “Atheism on the Rise, And It’s Finally Paying Off,” International Business Times, available at http:// www.ibtimes.com/atheism-rise-its-finally-paying-913226.

John Schmalzbauer is associate professor and Blanche Gorman Strong Chair in Protestant Studies in the Department of Religious Studies at Missouri State University. A much shorter version of this article appeared on the website of the Social Science Research Council. See John Schmalzbauer, “Campus Ministry: A Statistical Portrait,” SSRC Web Forum on the Religious Engagements of American Under- graduates, 6 February 2007, available at http://religion.ssrc.org/ ?reforum/Schmalzbauer.pdf. Many of the statistics have been updated. This article was written for a conference co-sponsored by the Manhat- tan Institute and Society in October 2012.

Soc (2013) 50:115–131 131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.