North Hall Society

Friday, June 01, 2007

Highland Hall razed


The Lenoir-Rhyne Onion carries an article ("Highland Hall razed," The Lenoir-Rhyne Onion, June 1, 2007) on the demolition of the venerable old Highland Hall, which was carried out last week at Lenoir-Rhyne University at Old Dominion, NC. Read it and weep. (N.B. -- If a pop-up window appears asking for an authentication code, click on 'cancel', and you will be allowed to proceed).

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Introducing the 'Lenoir-Rhyne Onion'

For some laughs and good fun, check out a new blog entitled the Lenoir-Rhyne Onion.

Monday, June 26, 2006

The Great Culture Quiz

Recently the results of a student cultural survey have come in after being tabulated and analyzed here at Lenoir-Rhyne College among a cross section of students. The questionnaire included 20 questions ranging across topics from classical and popular music to film and literature, politics, geography, and current events. Here are a sampling of the questions with some of the tabulated results:


1. J.S. Bach and Ludwig von Beethoven are two great classical composers whose names begin with a "B." Can you name another great classical composer whose name also begins with a "B"? (Answ. Brahms, Berlioz, Bizet, etc. are all correct)

87.2% could not answer this question. Of the 12.8% who succeeded in answering this question, the vast majority (83.3%) could not identify the newest American Idol (Question #20).

2. Who wrote The Great Gatsby? (Answ. F. Scott Fitzgerald)

Only 19.1% answered this question correctly.

5. When asked to match the band or artist with the song, 90.5% of respondents could not every band or artist, including Elvis, Green Day, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, and The Velvet Underground.

8. When asked to correctly match the artist with the work, 19.1% of respondents matched Rodin's sculpture, 'The Thinker,' with Michelangelo, 8.5% with Van Gogh, 6.4% with Breugel, 6.4% with Renoir, 4.3% with Joan Miro, 4.3% with Monet, and 2% with Leonardo da Vinci.

9. "I am a country called Chad. I am located on which continent?" (Answ. Africa)

53.2% answered this question correctly. On the other hand, of the 48.9% who got this question wrong, 26.1% identified Chad as being in South America, 8.7% said it was in Asia, and 4.3% each said it was in Europe and in Asia Minor.

11. "I am Paris Hilton's former best friend, and I have an on-again, off-again relationship with Adam Goldstein (AKA D.J. AM). Who am I?" (Answ. Nicole Ritchie)

68.1% (the highest percentage of correct answers) answered this question correctly.

12. "I am the current Secretary of Defense. Who am I?" (Answ. Donald Rumsfeld)

89.4% did not answer this question correctly. Of those who attempted but did not answer correctly, 11.9% identified the Secretary of Defense as Condoleezza Rice, 7.14% thought it was Colin Powell, and other answers included Tom Daschle, Dick Chaney at 2.4% each.

13. Who wrote The Nutcracker Suite? (Answ. Tchaikovsky)

Only 10.6% answered this question correctly.

14. Name one Right granted by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Answ. Right to remain silent, not to incriminate oneself)

48.9% were able to answer this question correctly.

15. When asked to match the film with its director, 4.3% of respondents matched Frances Ford Coppola's The Godfather with Robert Altman. Other matches included Woody Allen, Ed Wood, and Terry Guilliam (2% each).

19. Name the capital of the state that is directly East of North Carolina. (Answ. No such state exists.)

46.8% were unable to answer this question correctly. Of those who attempted to answer the question but did not do so correctly, 22.7% identified the capital as Nashville, 9.1% identified it as Knoxville, and other answers included Raleigh, Richmond, and Roanoke, VA (4.5% each).

20. Our newest American Idol is ... (Answ. Taylor Hicks)

63.8% answered this question correctly. Of these, only 3.3% were able to identify a classical composer whose name begins with "B" (Question # 1).

Generalizations & Inferences:

a) Students know their rights (#14)
b) Students know current pop culture celebrities very well (##11, 20)
c) Students do not know American geography (#19) (State East of North Carolina)
d) About half of all students do not know world geography well (#9)
e) Students do not know classical music, art, and literature (##1, 2, 8, 13)
f) Students do not know historical popular culture (##5, 15)
g) Most students have little acquaintance with the details of world politics (#12)

Friday, October 14, 2005

A Critical Look at the Proposed New Core Curriculum

Note: The following statement was researched and written by faculty in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion. It was discussed in several drafts and adopted without opposition (with one member abstaining) at a school meeting of Thursday, October 6, 2005, and presented at a special called assembly of the faculty on Wednesday, October 12, 2005.

The core proposal follows the premise that core hours should be significantly reduced. This is a flawed concept admittedly originally mandated to the core committee by the administration. The concept mentioned last year of a parallel reduction in the hours of the large majors will never happen because it cannot be done given the constraints of professional licensing organizations. Even if it could be done and the students had 30-40 hours of pure electives, one wonders how these unstructured electives would provide them with a better education than a well-thought-out larger core curriculum? The "small core" mandate is in fact a bankrupt attempt to pander to the perceived wishes of students for less rigorous courses with which to fulfill their graduation requirements. Some may even see it as a marketing tool to attract more students. However, schools of excellence have not chosen to go that route. Note the recent list of top schools in U.S. News and World Report. In the comprehensive college category, which is the category that L-R C is in, the top three choices in the south are Berea College in Kentucky, Berry College in Georgia, and Maryville College in Tennessee. Research shows that these schools of acknowledged excellence have the following ratio of core hours to hours required for graduation:

  • Berea College—core requirement is 15 courses out of 33 courses required for graduation.
  • Berry College—core requirement is 53 hours out of 124 hours required for graduation.
  • Maryville College—core requirement is 60 hours for a B.A. degree and 54 hours for a Bachelors of Music degree out of 128 hours required for graduation.
Clearly, the best schools in our region that are labeled "comprehensive" like us, having professional programs and a liberal arts commitment, have NOT chosen to decimate their core curriculums. They are able to attract well-qualified students in good numbers because of their strong liberal arts commitment, not in spite of it.

Now let us look at a comparison of North Carolina schools, both comprehensive liberal arts schools like Lenoir-Rhyne College and state schools to see which of these models the proposed core curriculum most closely follows:

[Scroll down]
















InstitutionTotal Hours*Core HoursTuition*
UNCC12449

3,473

UNCG125483,435
UNCW124 (138)453,199
ASU127-8383,199
UNCP128442,825
WCP128423,273
Mars Hill144-541815,922
Meredith123-3251-6719,000
Presbyterian122 (149)5019,740
Brevard125 (127)5414,840
Newberry152-635018,101
Wingate1324515,000
Campbell(139)5114,200
Lenoir-Rhyne**128 (142)5617,850


[* the parenthetical figure is selected for, eg, Music Education.
** L-R is the 7th most expensive 4-year undergraduate institution in NC.

Tuition figures are taken from the US Department of Education, NCES (National Center for Education Statistics), Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/ExPT/.]


There are distinctly two types of institutions presented here, marked most dramatically by the difference in cost: the state universities, which charge around 40% of L-R's tuition, and liberal arts colleges, among which L-R is pretty close to average. Liberal Arts colleges tend to have more substantial Core requirements, but those in professional programs (eg Music Education) vary wildly. They offer fewer courses and majors, and have smaller /lesser facilities and services; but they also have smaller class sizes, and, it would seem, an atmosphere and identity that the larger schools lack. Something, this is to argue, justifies their spending an extra $14,000 per year over the likes of UNCG or UNCC. What is it?

The pattern of the larger university-model schools is clearly that which the Core Committee hopes to adopt -- which is to say, they intend that L-R should pretty much copy the Core / Major ratios of UNC institutions. The rub appears urgently and quickly: having thus constricted the liberal arts, and more or less given ourselves over to direct curricular competition with institutions that cost 40% of what we demand, what remains at L-R to justify that extra expense? It is a hefty cost-benefit gap.

We cannot gain in reputation as a "Liberal Arts College" by constricting the Core to make room for other things. So, the cost/benefit gap cannot be made up by the romance and prestige of that idea when there are so many institutions with a more credible claim to it. (To use the language of economics: ceasing, in effect, to specialize in the Liberal Arts, we will cease to be competitive at it). Do we have a clear enough identity, either among ourselves or in the marketplace, to make up the cost/benefit gap? Is L-R an especially social, cosmopolitan, or lively place? Is it in a town that would attract the general run of college students, like, say, Asheville or Chapel Hill? Are we more "caring" than the next place? Even if we are, how long can the College sustain itself on that single leg?

Why, then, are people willing to pay $14,000 over and beyond the $10,000 per year that is, in effect, the market price of a professional degree? Is our placement rate that much better? Do our graduates in, say, nursing or music education make that much more on average than their colleagues at UNCG? Again, we cannot gain in reputation as a "Liberal Arts College" by constricting the Core to make room for other things.

A considerable number of further questions and criticisms may be raised regarding the proposed core:

In the name of being interdisciplinary, the proposed core has courses that are supposed to integrate knowledge and understanding preceding courses that might give the students a basis for comprehending what is being discussed. For example the 2XX course [the proposed trimmed-down interdisciplinary required liberal arts course] is supposed to integrate "Great Ideas" in four credit hours by bringing together history, philosophy, religion, and literature. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the students should first have taken their "required electives" in religion and history. There will be no systematic arrangement or sequencing of courses to ensure that our graduates will have even the basics of a liberal arts education. Regarding history, the broad cultural and humanizing influence of the present World Civilizations courses is dismissed as either not important or too bothersome to trouble the students with. Under the proposed new core, future students might take no literature course at all (it is an option with music, theatre and art); and they very likely would never take a course in philosophy since it is an option together with physical wellness, fiscal wellness, and psychology. How can students benefit from "interdisciplinary study" when they lack the foundation to understand the basics of what is being discussed?

The present core proposal cuts the religion requirement by half. Lenoir-Rhyne is a Lutheran College characterized by the Lutheran tradition of a forthright commitment to a dialogue between faith and learning which is open to insights from secular learning and persons and ideas from various faith traditions. We are neither fundamentalist nor purely secular. We avoid these two extremes because of commitment to our historic mission. Many students and their parents as well as wealthy donors seek us out and support us for this reason. Furthermore, recent national and world events make it difficult to imagine a time when such dialogue is more needed. Are we breaking faith with the church that gave us birth as an institution of higher education?

The proposed core eviscerates the present strong natural science requirement of one life science and one natural science plus Science 300: Environmental Science. This requirement is to be reduced to only one laboratory science course. And the only successful interdisciplinary course to come out of the CEPAC core reform of 1969-70, Science 300, is to be eliminated. Interestingly, this is being proposed by the same core committee that eliminates the present strong disciplinary requirements in religion, history, literature, and philosophy in favor of one four-hour course—"2XX." If the core committee wishes to mandate interdisciplinary work, why eliminate a successful interdisciplinary course on a subject of such importance? Secondly, why would Lenoir-Rhyne choose to weaken our science requirement in a century so heavily dependent on scientific knowledge?

As the core proposal weakens the natural science requirement, so also the social and behavioral science requirement is cut -- from two courses presently to only one. Thus, the student’s exposure to knowledge of the political, economic, social and psychological dimensions of life is decreased half. As the recent Constitution Day convocation revealed, our students are not very strong in even our own system of government. How can cutting this aspect of the liberal arts curriculum help L-R foster intelligent citizens who can make contributions to local and larger communities?

A cursory look at the proposed core makes it appear that only one liberal arts area has escaped unscathed -- the foreign language requirement, since 6 hours are still required. This may not be true, however, for the core proposal says a second language competency is to "be achieved through 6 hours of course work or satisfactory performance on proficiency examination." Latin is a 12-hour requirement for most students. Is it to be eliminated? This would likely kill the Classics major. What about French and German? As liberal arts majors (such as philosophy, English, history, religion) that provide students for these programs slowly wither from lack of exposure to students who might choose to major in them, will the French and German majors decline or die as well? Will the School of Modern and Classical Languages have become simply the Spanish Department?

Are the professional areas stronger because of a weakened liberal arts core? At least one, our School of Education, might actually be in grave danger from it. Current competency requirements that are met by our current core courses may no longer be met. Education students might actually have to take additional courses to meet these competencies. It is also the case that our school systems and their principals are under increasing pressure to raise scores on EOG exams. This requires teachers who themselves have competency in writing, reading and critical thinking skills as well as a high standard of cultural literacy. Prospective teachers with these skills will be in high demand. Prospective teachers who lack these skills will not.

Furthermore, the cost/benefit analysis mentioned above cannot work to the advantage of any of the professional programs. Minus the identity of a traditionally strong liberal arts program, what can the Lenoir-Rhyne professional programs offer to justify parents spending the extra $15,000 to send their children here? [Note: We can ask a similar question with regard to Faculty salaries. We charge our students two-and-a-half times what they do at state institutions. We pay our faculty 2/3 as much as they pay at state institutions. We ask them to work harder, give them less resources and less time and encouragement for professional development. If we are just a smaller and poorer version of the state institutions then why come here. Why stay?]

As we consider the proposed new core curriculum in all of its ramifications, we must therefore ask ourselves if this "reform" strengthens our identity as a liberal arts college and makes us more competitive with the best colleges in our category. The answer is clearly a resounding "no." All those top U.S. New and World Report schools have strong liberal arts core programs. Does the proposed core, then, provide benefits to the professional schools sufficiently strong as to justify the college forsaking its liberal arts identity? Will a bonanza of new students be waiting to beat down our doors as soon as the core is reduced? Not when we have the extra $15,000 price differential between us and the state schools. We may find we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage and that the bowl is empty.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

This is academic jihad!

"Stand, therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, with which ye shall be sable to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

No, that was not Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction. That was St. Paul in Ephesians 6:14-17. And what you see pictured here are two snapshots of a great warrior preparing to do battle against the forces of darkness, which threaten the cultural literacy of future graduates of Lenoir-Rhyne by undermining the liberal arts curriculum.

Who is this great warrior? Is he one of the many students you can now see on campus sporting one of these shirts? Is he a faculty member, likewise clad in the armor of this shirt? From his flaring nostrils, the gritted teeth, and the clenched fists, one can see his determination.

Beware, O Enemy, O Dark Lords of Moria. For even as your amass your armies of committee Orcs to the beating of drums, there arises without your walls a mighty sea of warriors -- Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Rangers, Ents, all under the fearless leadership of Gandalf the White -- posed to bring down your walls and liberate these hallowed halls of learning from the tyranny of foreign domination. Freedom for the academy! Freedom for the liberal arts!

Resist the machine!
Free your mind!
Save the Liberal Arts
at Lenoir-Rhyne!

[Tip of the hat to Kirk G. Kanzelberger of Sapor Sapientiae. For shirts and other gear like this, visit The Academy Store]

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Students' right to know

Kurt Schmidt recently responded to my remarks to him, posted under the title of "Kurt Schmidt: Why are liberal arts classes being cut?" on the North Hall Society blog (Sept. 5, 2005). He said that after doing an article for the next issue of the Lenoir-Rhynean on the cancellation of classes, he was planning to talk at length with Dr. Sorenson about how much of the information about core revisions he would like released to the students and when. As you know, he said, this is not a simple issue, requiring a great deal of time and research.

I appreciated what he wrote, but had some misgivings as to the possibility of his having a heavy-handed kibosh put on his investigations for the Lenoir-Rhynean. I replied to his remarks by saying I'd be glad to help in whatever way I can. Then I offered the following comments.

Do keep in mind, I said, that students have a right to information purtaining to their education. Things like honesty in advertising apply to academic institutions too. LR claims to be a "liberal arts" institution. If the proposed curriculum entails cutting a number of majors from the LR program, this information should be openly stated. If current core requirements in the liberal arts are being trashed and replaced by a single 8 hr. smorgasboard puff course so that no student will be required to have more than a superficial dabbling in the liberal arts, this should be openly stated.

If you find yourself being stonewalled, it may be that there are parties who do not wish the facts to get out too early, for fear they could create a groundswell of opposition among students and their parents who could well feel betrayed by such a move. I would not want to see you manipulated. Students have influence, and should have the information needed to form their opinions and make their voices heard. Graduating classes often make a gift to the school -- usually some sort of physical gift. The senior class now has an unprecedented opportunity of making a far more significant gift to the school -- the gift of preserving its bona fide status as a liberal arts institution with liberal arts majors. Think about it.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Kurt Schmidt: Why are liberal arts classes being cut?

Kurt Schmidt, a campus leader in the Lenoir-Rhyne Student Government Association, emailed me, saying he's been charged with writing an article for the school paper on the administration's decision to cut classes based on enrollment numbers. I replied that it's difficult not to see this issue in the context of the much larger picture of the administration's designs on cutting classes from the liberal arts core of the Lenoir-Rhyne College curriculum. Here's what I wrote Kurt, following a few preliminaries:

What you're asking about concerns a concerted attempt by the administration to reduce the liberal arts core requirements in the LR curriculum under pressure from the growing hegemony of the professional programs. Majoring in a liberal arts program at LR may require as few as 30 credit hours (or ten courses) in the major, leaving lots of room for electives. By contrast, majoring in a professional program -- like Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Education, or Business -- may require a vastly larger number of courses in the major, mandated by these programs' accrediting agencies. Students in these majors have a hard time squeezing everything into four years. In many national universities, for example, nursing students can expect to complete their programs only after five years of study. As a result, the administration is feeling the pinch from a number of directions. First, there's pressure to give the already top-heavy professional programs more elbow room, so their students can finish in four years and have some room in their program for electives. Second, there's pressure to carve out this elbow room from the liberal arts core. Third, since market demand for liberal arts courses is down, there is pressure to reduce the number of core requirements in the liberal arts, perhaps even at the cost of discarding a number of liberal arts majors, thus jeapordizing LR’s status as a bona fine liberal arts college.

About a year ago, the administration formed a carefully selected ad hoc committee to address these concerns of the administration and begin work on revising the core. The committee, convened by Dean John Sorenson and chaired by Dr. David Ratke, floated a number of proposed revisions indicating a reduction in the liberal arts core across the board by a staggering 20%, and by as much as 25% in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion. The effect, quite naturally, was to immediately raise the hackles of the liberal arts faculty. The committee was suspected of being little more than a pretext for rubber stamping and railroading through the administration's predetermined agenda of radical cuts in liberal arts programs. When the constitutional legitimacy of the committee itself came under fire in faculty assembly, a number of more charitable voices intervened to help reconstitute the committee as a legitimate committee of the faculty.

More important than any of these technicalities, however, is the question of how such envisioned changes in the complexion of the LR curriculum can be seen as according with LR's stated mission. LR prides itself in being a “liberal arts” college, which is about the only thing that distinguishes its educational programs from those one finds at significantly less expensive programs of local community colleges, technical colleges, and business schools. At the heart of a liberal arts education are the curricular core requirements in the humanities, math, and the sciences. It is the hallmark of the Western liberal arts tradition that an educated person should know some basics about the world, including the sweep of world history, politics, religion, philosophy, ethics, the social sciences, math, and the natural sciences. The natural question, then, is: How can slashing 20-25% of these programs from the core curriculum be reconciled with the presumption of a liberal arts mission at LR?

The administration's answer is that nothing will be lost, in principle, in the proposed new curriculum. All of the liberal arts will be represented in an 8 hour humanities core course required of all students. But there are several serious problems with this answer.

First, an 8 hour tour through a liberal arts buffet is hardly a substitute for the solid liberal arts core curriculum we now have. In fact, it is hard to avoid viewing such an 8 hour humanities survey as mere "window dressing" in an education one might acquire for a fraction of the cost at a local community college -- either that, or something one might get at a finishing school for young ladies. Dr. Carolyn Huff of our history department administered a beginning-of-semester quiz in two of her history classes this fall and found that 37 of 60 students could not identify Muhammed; 43 students could not identify who Confucius was (answers given included a “Greek god” and “Muslim prophet”); and 16 could not identify Jesus Christ. The question is whether we’re satisfied with this level of “learning” (I use the term loosely). The proposed curriculum would eliminate the currently required courses in history, and the chances of an 8 hour humanities survey correcting such egregious misconceptions, let alone deepening student knowledge, would seem to be next to nil.

Second, the assumption that students would thereby be freed up to choose from a much larger selection of electives, while attractive in theory, raises the question of the integrity of the envisioned educational curriculum. A proposal floated by the core committee in August, 2005, bundled together courses in psychology, book keeping, and philosophy as “electives” alongside courses in "physical wellness." This would mean that students could opt between a course in philosophy or psychology and, say, bowling or badminton! One wonders at the intelligibility of making such curricular alternatives a matter of student discretion at an institution that claims to be a liberal arts college. Yet the fact that the committee was willing to float this as a serious proposal suggests the degree to which the administration appears to be willing to allow "market pressures" to determine its offerings. This might seem fiscally prudent on the face of it. But ask yourself this: How can LR with its stratospheric tuition costs ever dream of competing with the professional programs offered by state-subsidized public universities and community colleges? There is simply no comparison. Furthermore, it raises the "wag the dog" question -- whether the college is allowing the "tail" of whatever happens to be in vogue among students to "wag the dog" of its academic offerings. One wonders at the prudence of allowing the siren song of "market forces" to erode the traditional strong suit of a private church-related college like LR, which is its strong liberal arts program within the context of a small, religiously affiliated community. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how slashing religion core requirements by 25% and eliminating the religion capstone course (REL 400) can be reconciled with the stated religious mission of this "college of the ELCA," which “seeks … to clarify personal faith,” and holds that “wholeness of personality, true vocation, and the most useful service to God and the world are best discerned from the perspective of the Christian faith” (see the LRC Mission Statement).

Third, one wonders how long LR will be able to sustain her image as a bona fide liberal arts college when the proposed changes would very likely eliminate the possibility of sustaining majors in subjects like physics, math, history, English, art, philosophy, religion, and French. In a development that is hard to see as unrelated, a significant number of liberal arts classes with less than seven students in them were summarily canceled at the beginning of this Fall, 2005 semester. The rationale offered was financial -- that we had to cut small classes to save money. But the savings from slashing small courses is negligible, while the hardship this inflicts on our liberal arts majors in the final two years of their course work is significant.

The larger question at issue is what kind of an institution LR wants to be. Does she want to trade in her liberal arts core for a vocational school curriculum? Does she want to acquire the reputation of being an overpriced community college or trade school? Or does she want to stand by her mission and justly pride herself on being a church-related liberal arts college? If so, she cannot yield to utilitarian pressures and allow the tail to wag the dog. Yet if we follow the money trail in our recent campus building projects, it's not hard to see this is where we're headed. The new McCrorie Center for Allied Health Science and Athletics and the Mauney-Schaeffer building renovation (housing the Charles M. Snipes School of Business, Computer Science, etc.) represent major capital investments. Yet neither program represented by these building projects is related essentially to the historical liberal arts mission of the college. Liberal arts education, as traditionally conceived, is not primarily a matter of skills acquisition. Such practical know-how has its place in life -- certainly in the market place -- but is not what a liberal arts education is essentially about. Let me illustrate. In a recent Billy Bob Thornton film, Friday Night Lights, a high school football star faces a confident future. Football scholarships pour in from prospective universities across the land. Ironically, the young man has so neglected his academic education that he cannot read his own acceptance letters. Suddenly, his future hopes are dashed by a serious knee injury, and all the practical football skills he invested his whole high school career in learning are for naught. All he learned how to do, all he knew how to do, was to play football. And now that football is gone, he’s left with nothing. The moral? Skills come and go. But your mind lasts forever. And if you've starved your mind in school, what are you left with? Nothing. The technical skills you learn in a professional or athletic program may be obsolete within a few years. But liberal arts learning lasts for ever. Skills may make you useful. But the liberal arts feed your mind.

LR students have a right to a solid liberal arts education. They shouldn't settle for anything less. LR students have the right to major in whatever they want. If they want to major in business or nursing or exercise science, good for them. But they should also have the right to major in physics, math, English, history, art, philosophy, religion, or French if they want. And that right should not be taken away from them because of market trends extraneous to the rationale of a liberal arts education. LR students have the right to know that their LR diplomas will count for more than a diploma from a local community college or business school. They have a right to believe that the education paid for by their parents’ hard-earned money is the liberal arts education LR claims it is. They have a right to believe that LR stands by its mission statement and means what it says. These rights are now on the line.

Resist the machine.
Feed your mind.
Save the liberal arts
at Lenoir-Rhyne!


T-shirts, buttons, magnets, and tote bags with related slogans may be found online at: http://www.cafepress.com/academystore Support the liberal arts!