Religion and Class: From Harvard to the Quick Stop

Religion and Class: From Harvard to the Quick Stop March 29, 2012

by John Schmalzbauer, Missouri State University

Conservatives have long extolled the virtues of the American working class. In an oft-repeated statement, William F. Buckley said he would rather “entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” The author of God and Man at Yale, Buckley saw higher education as a threat to religious faith. Forced to choose between Harvard Yard and South Boston, he chose Southie.

Had Buckley lived long enough to read Charles Murray’s Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, he might have reconsidered his choice.  More than any other conservative tome, it challenges the myth of proletarian piety. Chronicling the decline of marriage, work, and church attendance among blue collar whites, it presents an American working class that looks more like Jay and Silent Bob than Ralph Kramden (Jay and Silent Bob are recurring characters in the films of director Kevin Smith, including a 1994 feature set in a New Jersey convenience store. Despite Buckley’s support for drug legalization, it’s hard to imagine him patronizing the Quick Stop).

Throughout the book, Murray compares fictional lower class neighborhoods (what he calls “Fishtown”) with their upper class counterparts (“Belmont” in Murray’s lexicon) using real datasets (including the General Social Survey). Tracking “disengagement from religion,” he finds that “the drift from religiosity was far greater in Fishtown than in Belmont.”

Murray is not the first to report such news. Recent studies of religion and higher education have found that college-educated Americans are less likely to drop out of church. In a 2007 article for Social Forces, Patheos Blogger Mark Regnerus and his colleagues reported that “emerging adults that avoid college exhibit the most extensive patterns of religious decline, undermining conventional wisdom about the secularizing effect of higher education.”

Other Patheos contributors have commented on the secularization of the American working class. In a review of Murray’s book, historian Thomas Kidd notes that blue collar Americans are “not clinging to religion.” Along the same lines, Black, White, & Gray blogger Jerry Park sees “a growing drift away from the institutions of marriage and religion.”

Life is different on campus. Challenging the stereotype of the secular university, many college students cling to their study Bibles and iPhone religion apps.

At William F. Buckley’s alma mater, a $70 million Catholic campus center sponsors a full program of liturgies, lectures, and social events. Comprising 28 percent of the student body, Catholics are now the largest single religious group at Yale.

Across the United States, evangelical parachurch groups have enjoyed steady growth. According to sociologist Michael Lindsay, about one-tenth of the Princeton student body belongs to an evangelical campus ministry. Nationally, the number of students involved in Campus Crusade has tripled, rising from 20,000 in 1995-1996 to 63,000 in 2008-09. According to a recent survey, one-fifth of college students identify as born again Christians.

In an era when the first 400 names in the Ohio State University phone book are more religious than the residents of Murray’s Fishtown, what is to be done?

For starters, religious leaders should focus more on the plight of the American working class. From Murray’s perspective, this means analyzing changing lifestyles. Though this is a valuable exercise, they should not stop there.

Those who take the time to read Coming Apart should also pick up William Julius Wilson’s When Work Disappears (1996), a study of the “new urban poor.” While Murray places the blame squarely on changing mores, Wilson traces the shifts in inner city family life to the loss of working class jobs and the disintegration of neighborhood social organization. In a review of Coming Apart, economist Paul Krugman echoes Wilson’s argument, noting a precipitous drop in the wages of male high school graduates after 1973. In the absence of good jobs, blue collar men have been less likely to marry. Other sociologists have pursued a similar line of inquiry, exploring the cultural side of poverty without blaming the victim.

Last but not least, church officials should make an effort to understand the religious struggles of the white working class. This is especially important for American Catholics. In Boston (Buckley’s holy city), only one out of five Catholics goes to church.

In the judgment of Fordham University’s James T. Fisher, the characters in Kevin Smith’s movies are part of a “Catholic lost generation” that bears the wounds of the church’s past (including the recent sex abuse crisis). Currently immersed in a project that explores “historic Catholic violence—especially in families,” Fisher is acutely aware of the struggles of fallen away Catholics.  If the church wants them back, it will have to spend some time down at the Quick Stop.


"George is right, Sam. Republicans and others only ask for the right to practice their ..."

Why I am Supporting the American ..."
"If the "right to worship as you wish" means following scripture like Genesis 2:24, they ..."

Why I am Supporting the American ..."
"I'm curious...did you ever read the book and review it?"

What I like About the Benedict ..."
""Science" guy, Bill Nye - R-rated:"

Bill Nye, the “not-so-science” Guy

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ken Smith

    Interesting review, but a bit of clarification might be helpful.

    It’s been almost 20 years since I read _God & Man at Yale_, but as I recall Buckley’s argument was a bit different than intimated in this essay. Buckley’s critique was not based on the idea that higher education was a threat to faith, but that the rise of certain intellectual currents had led to an atmosphere hostile to reason and to its twin, faith. Buckley never bought the odd modern notion that faith was separate from religion or indeed that it could be separated from reason. In this regard, he was standing athwart both the tide of populist piety and the secular intelligentsia.

    The famous comment about placing more trust in the 400 names from the phone book was not specifically referring to the fact that these people would be more likely to hold to religious faith than their Harvard counterparts, but that they would be more likely to exercise common sense.

    George Marsden’s landmark book _The Soul of the American University_, whose theme is the process that led to the separation of faith and intellect, leads off with a lengthy essay based explicitly on Buckley’s _God and Man at Yale_ thesis. The rest of the book is a set of case studies examining what Marsden sees as the unfortunate split between faith and reason, not the split between _piety_ and reason. Indeed, in Marsden’s telling, a subjective piety is described as one of the main solvents that facilitated this separation.

    Christians who tend to identify with Marsden’s holistic Calvinistic worldview, or who hold to an integrated Catholic worldview, are likely to be sympathetic with Buckley’s critique of Yale. Which, to recap, is a critique of certain perceived degenerate trends in higher education, and is in no sense a fear of higher education _per se_.

  • John Schmalzbauer

    You’re right to point out that Buckley wasn’t talking about generic secularization, but the loss of a certain kind of religious education. Indeed, it could be argued that the Yale of the 1950s was more dominated by the Protestant establishment (of a liberal Protestant variety) than anything in the Ivy League since.

    Buckley’s comment about the phone book could also be applied to other areas besides religion. When I was in graduate school, I often wondered what my grandfather (who had an eighth grade education) would think of the pretentious way that many upper middle class students talked about the American working class. My guess is he would have given them a broom.