Kevin Roose's The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Seminar at America's Holiest University is an example of journalistic excess at its worst.
Recently I came across a rather odd book written by a college student from Brown University. The student, Kevin Roose, took a semester off to infiltrate (his word) Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Roose's book is well written but annoying and its subject matter is poorly considered.
Roose, the author of The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Seminar at America's Holiest University, looks at everything at Liberty with a jaundiced eye. He came to see prejudice and bigotry everywhere and that is indeed what he thinks he found. In a most annoying and patronizing fashion this young college undergraduate admits that many of the people he met at Liberty are sincere even if they do hold fast to strange, unsubstantiated and often bigoted beliefs. If Mr. Roose understood the word irony more fully he would notice the irony of the contrast between himself as a self-appointed saboteur and the sincere students and staff to whom he refers.
Roose is hardly a credible witness to make religious or psycho-social observations in any authoritative way. He came to Liberty to do an expose of Christian fundamentalism. He boasts that his sound-minded family and his friends from Brown University were all of one mind in their worries about the single-minded, perversity of fundamentalists and their beliefs but especially of those Roose might find at Liberty. Again the word irony presses itself upon the reader's mind.
As Roose describes his family and friends there seems to be little tolerance for other views. Certainly as he himself describes his friends and family there is a conspicuous absence of diversity of opinion or anything that would suggest reasonable, open-minded people interested in learning about the truth in anything. They evidently all have the truth and so can only worry about one of their own who might hear something different. So, just who should Mr. Roose be worried about – the folks at Liberty or the myopic vision he brings as a consequence of his own biased and prejudicial social background?
In something of a crescendo displaying Roose's bravado and truest character, he describes taking advantage of the goodwill and faith of Falwell and his staff to write a story on Falwell for the campus paper. Roose completes his story of interviewing Falwell by acknowledging Falwell's charm and sincerity, which Roose says he found all the more remarkable in a man he had already judged to be a prejudicial bigot. Roose admits he often felt bad about his many deceits but none of his bad feelings deterred him from the very activities that he self-reports as prompting his own transient moments of moral distress.
Liberty is no cult haven. It is an entirely open university and is accredited by every appropriate accrediting body of secular higher education. Roose came to an entirely open University as a predator and with parasitic intent.
There can be no doubt about Roose's intent since he himself undermines his own credibility. Roose admits to coming to the campus with a chip on his shoulder. He further admits that he and all his friends and family alike are bigoted toward anyone who might be a fundamentalist. Roose deceives everyone he comes across at Liberty all in a self-serving attempt to advance his career as a journalist. In the process, he nurtures mocking thoughts of many of the innocents who openly welcome him into their personal and collegiate lives.
Finally, in a last display of unbridled hypocrisy, Roose backdoors the Chancellor of the University, Jerry Falwell. Roose writes a campus newspaper article based on an interview the paper arranged for him with Dr. Falwell. In line with Roose's unrelenting record of deceit and hypocrisy, he denounces the favorable ode he wrote of Falwell as something he did just to keep his cover on campus. In his book, Roose reaffirms his continued disgust for all that Falwell stands for and in so doing acknowledges the newspaper article was just one more act of Rooseian deceit and hypocrisy. Clearly the reader has every reason to ask, why should anyone believe anything Roose says now. After all, he openly admits to writing things he doesn't believe just to get by with something. So what in his book is truth or material he might write just to get published?
It is amazing to see how low Mr. Roose stoops just to get a book published. One cannot help but wonder what they teach in terms of journalistic ethics at Brown University. It is not like he infiltrated the Mafia, a gangster motorcycle gang or a cell of terrorists. Roose infiltrated a group of evidently nice, welcoming and well-meaning people. His spying was unnecessary since the university is entirely open. Nonetheless he sneaks in to sabotage the people at Liberty and to write a book that a publisher may favor simply because it catches some of the flavor and presumably financial reward enjoyed recently by the so-called new Atheists namely, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. Roose's gambit to achieve fame and fortune as a journalist has a Judas price. He betrays those who welcomed him as friend and colleague.
With all of Roose's pious reflections about prejudice and hypocrisy, he never once recognizes that it is he more than any other character in his book who is the one most driven by unyielding prejudice and a single-minded drive to "get the goods" on all those who unwittingly welcomed him.
Just to make sure that the reader has a balanced sense of this writer who is so offended by Roose's lack of professionalism, I offer two brief insights. I spent election night with the personal party of Democrat vice presidential nominee Warren Hearns when he ran as Eugene McCarthy's running mate in 1972. I have never been to an evangelical service. I have never even watched one on television. I have never talked the talk about being reborn though I do count myself as a Christian and I do attend church regularly. That being said, let me conclude that there is not much to recommend Roose's book other than perhaps as an example of journalistic excess in an ethics class.
First of all, before I comment on anything, his name is Kevin Roose, not 'Roos'.
I am a practicing Christian, and I have read Mr. Roose's book. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was an honest representation of fundamentalism and of Liberty University. As do many practicing Christians and many of those who have attended or are currently attending Liberty.
This…is pretty disappointing.
First, I would like point out that your use of the word "annoying" in a critique about professionalism is not very professional. Anyhow, there is nothing annoying about Kevin Roose's book, The Unlikely Disciple. Roose remained calm, witty, and more open-minded than most secular college students could ever be throughout his experience.
"He came to see prejudice and bigotry everywhere and that is indeed what he found." Did you even read this book? He
came expecting to be overwhelmed with prejudice and bigotry, some of which he did encounter. But his conclusion was that the students at Liberty are a lot like himself! He
was surprised at all the relationships he built with people of such drastically different backgrounds and religious beliefs- many of which he maintained after the big reveal. But most of all, he kept it polite and respectful even in circumstances where he felt uncomfortable or offended.
If Roose came to Liberty with "parasitic intent", he wouldn't have been voluntarily singing in the choir each Sunday morning. He wouldn't have been quietly taking notes during lectures on young creationism. He wouldn't have had any interest in keeping in touch with people you seem to think were his prey.
This book was on the required reading list for my Sociology of Religion course. I'm pleased to say that it has provoked some of the best class discussions we have had all semester, none of which involved this lack of professionalism of which you speak. Roose's book was funny, fair, and f****** fantastic.
Here's a review from an LU insider that presents a different perspective of the book:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/columns/bookoftheweek/090323.html?start=1
Mr. Wagner,
You're not pointing out anything nefarious about Roose by noting the uniformity of his background; that was the very purpose of his book, and something that he readily acknowledges.
That broad point aside, I'll point out some very specific flaws within your review:
1. Roose's interview with Falwell was distributed by the University at Falwell's funeral as a special-edition to the Champion newspaper. It was hardly the sabotage that you make it out to be. If you read the interview that you write about, you would realize that it was a fascinating and favorable account of Dr. Falwell's personal life. I don't remember him "denouncing" the interview at any point in the book.
2. Roose did not come to Liberty to do an expose of Christian Fundamentalism, as he explains many times in the book, and is evident from all of the positive things he has to say about the University and his experiences.
3. The reactions from Liberty students have been, based on my experiences as an '06 Liberty alum, enormously positive towards Roose and his work. Before you proclaim him to be a Judas, you should get the perspectives of those allegedly betrayed.
Also, I have no idea what the relevance is supposed to be of the fact that you were at an election-night party with Warren Hearns in 1972. Regardless of your personal politics or beliefs (and especially regardless of what they were in 1972), I find this to be an uninformed and, I dare say, even a "Rooseian" review.
I read the book and I loved it. I am a Liberty student and thought he depicted the school fairly accurately. I was skeptical to say the least in the beginning but decided that it would be worth the read to hear what a non-believer thought of the school. The book really moved me. It made me more proud of my school than I was the day Liberty University swung the votes to elect Republican Scott Garrett into the House of Delegates. The people here do amazing things. You will never find another group of people who genuinely care for you the way people do here.
As Dr. Karen Prior states it so eloquently in her review of the book, "It is this sense of love, ultimately, that Roose can't shake, even two years later. He found at Liberty a kind of community, he acknowledges, that has no parallel in the secular world. "I never thought," Roose writes to the school in the book's acknowledgments, "that the world's largest evangelical university would feel like home … . But by experiencing your warmth, your vigorous generosity of spirit, and your deep complexity, I was ultimately convinced—not that you were right, necessarily, but that I was wrong"(2009).
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/columns/bookoftheweek/090323.html?start=2
Dr. Wagner,
You will be hard pressed to find anyone here at Liberty University who does think Roose’s book a fair assessment by an outsider. I’m afraid it is you who doesn’t get it. I think what you really do not understand is that this book is not about “conservative vs liberal” as you seem to want it to be. This book is an exploration of the evangelical world by a secularist, and a fair and honest one at that. Roose avoids the “us vs them” polarization you seem to hold so dear, and we who love Liberty University are better for it. As evangelicals, we seek to avoid this polarization as well, which I’m sure as a “conservative” you do not understand. Your review here is extremely unhelpful; please do not write on matters of which you are unqualified to do so.
Dr. Wagner,
As parents of a daughter who enrolled in Liberty this fall, we were quite interested to hear about this book and checked out a copy shortly after we returned from visiting the campus in August. All I can say is that you must have read a different book than we did – and it was obviously written by a different author!
There are some obvious problems, of course, one of which is the deceit which Mr. Roose practiced – but from a purely pragmatic viewpoint it is clearly the only way he could have obtained the insights he did – to have declared himelf openly would never have given him the uncensored view of Liberty Life that he received. I will in no way attempt to justify this deceit – but I will point out that it is hardly unique in the world of journalism. (And frankly, your attempt to contast this with infiltrating the Mafia is absurd – the "infilration" wasn't for fear of his life, it was so that he could see people "being themselves" in their own environment.)
A second problem (in my mind probably the biggest criticism of all) is that too much of his anecdotal experience is reported as being representative of Liberty. A related issue are a few (likely less than a half dozen) instances in which some pronouncements by Jerry Falwell or other Liberty spokespeople are reported somewhat out of context (and which Liberty U has responded to while allowing the book to be sold on campus). In this area he does, IMHO, fall somewhat short of the best of journalistic standards.
However, the above reservations are minor compared to the lessons to be learned from this book. It is a gift to see ourselves as other see us, and Mr. Roose has given those who are involved with Liberty U (leadership, faculty, students, parents, supporters, etc.) the gift of seeing how someone from a completely non-evangelical / non-fundamentalist background sees us. The picture is not always pretty (and not always completely fair) but it includes much from which we can learn and grow. In some areas the picture is not very pleasant (which is probably an understatement) – and those may well be the areas in which the most growth and improvement can occur. There is not a doubt in my mind that as Liberty students and leadership see themselves portrayed in these pages the result will be growth and improvement in personal lives and in the life of Liberty U itself – and you can find any number of students and faculty who agree with this.
Finally, I believe you have provided an extremely unfair portrayal of Mr. Roose's character in your review. The arrogant, close-minded, pre-judging young man you portray was not present in the book that I read. May I simply quote Mr. Roose himself and say that you would do well to consider his words "..but by experiencing your warmth, your vigorous generosity of spirit, and your deep complexity, I was ultimately convinced—not that you were right, necessarily, but that I was wrong.."
For those who may be interested, may I suggest checking out the review at christianitytoday.com written by a Liberty U faculty member as a far more balanced and perceptive overview of this book.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/columns/bookoftheweek/090323.html?start=1
The intellectual conservative website is a new one to me – for the moment I will choose to consider this review as anecdotal and not representative regarding the "intellectual" part of this website.
Here is a review from an actual Liberty student that read the book and did not like it: http://www.cmscott.com/the-unlikely-disciple-book-review-from-a-liberty-student/
@ robrichards — I think that contradicts with your assertion that "you will be hard pressed to find anyone here at Liberty University who does think Roose's book a fair assessment by an outsider."
Well, I'm not quite sure who this Mr. Wagner is, but I do know for a fact that he has taken Roose's work FAR TOO SERIOUSLY. I currently attend Liberty University, and even I have found this article as annoying as he found Roose's book. Wagner seems deeply offended by Roose, judging by the tone of this article. Yet, Roose's intention was not to offend but to explore and to entertain. He did a much better job than most students in America could have done, perhaps than even the vast majority of seasoned journalists in the biased media today. He could have done much more to tarnish or "bash" everything for Liberty University stands. But he was honest–strikingly candid!–and, for that, he has my respect as a student and professional journalist.
Roose did what journalists do–journal; and he did it well. He even succeeded in having his book published! He, in the spirit of the late Dr. Falwell, accomplished his very own BHAG. Roose had a vision, and he made it a reality; he COMPLETED his assignment.
Futhermore, Roose's self-serving attempt to advance his career as a journalist was a pretty darn good one, if you ask me. In fact, regardless of how Wagner feels about him, he's been experiencing a fair amount of publicity as a result of his endeavors, and, THAT, my friends, IS HOW IT'S DONE. The most risky, but at the same time, surefire way to make a name for oneself as a journalist is to write on something strikingly controversial on which no one has ere shed light. But to write on something so controversial is a monumental task that requires tact, discretion and skillful moderation. It creates greater demand for one's work, time, energy, ideas, etc.
Yes, Mr. Wagner; perhaps his work has offended you because of his "unprofessionalism" or his crafty and deceptive tactics, but Roose effectively has done what very, very few students have ever done. He has written something definitively controversial; he gave people what they love to read! Oh, and, by the way…
…it's sold right in our own campus bookstore (right up front, too!). How's THAT for irony?!
After reading this and another book "review" (Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America) on this page, I've got to say I've never learned less about 2 books while reading a review in all my life. In neither case do the authors talk about any actual events in the books at all, merely spout on about how great/offensive the books are and how revealing/damming the books are of their purported subjects.
Just as the MM review pumped up the danger of a Muslim advocacy group (GASP!) advocating for Muslims into a crisis (OMG! We're all going to have to adhere to Sharia if this goes on), this reviewer decides that simply calling the author bad names and slighting his journalistic integrity is a 'review.'
Clearly, this author thought he had a slam dunk – judging from the response of former Liberty students, this review is just a dunk.
Re my post (#7) above – my last paragraph was inappropriate, uncalled for, and could even be fairly characterized as "simply juvenile". I sincerely apologize to Dr. Wagner. (I would remove it if I knew how to edit a post!)
Canadian: you are apologizing for making a juvenile remark about someone's calling someone "juvenile?"
Your comments about the article are open to challenge, just like the article is. No harm done, in my opinion.
Sir, You are the reason the divide is so great. You seem very angry and judgmental. The way this review is written is conveys the stereotype Roose had of evangelicals.
Have you ever been to Liberty? As a student I found his book refreshing and a incredibly accurate representation of the school. Liberty University is not perfect! We have out flaws like any other school but like he said there is something special here. He said it himself that even after leaving Liberty, the school still affects him. Please try and get past your judgment and give Roose a second chance. I recommend the book to everyone including people who are considering enrolling in LU.
The subtitle of the book in your review is wrong: it's a sinner's SEMESTER, not seminar.
I'm a senior at Liberty, and I have to say, that book is almost spot on. Yes, there's some idiosyncrasies at Liberty, and yes, it's its own culture in many ways. A lot of those things are absolutely fine, and some of those I do think we should fix. As someone who personally knows a lot of the people he refers to in the book (such as some of the people on his mission trip to the beach, and the GNED prof who looks like an insurance agent, I can validate a lot of his claims.
As for his "bias"… you can't tell me that you would walk into any situation completely neutral and unbiased. I'm sure as the author of such a piece that defends Liberty, you can't tell me that you wouldn't go to the Berkeley campus in California completely unbiased. Of course you would be looking for ultra-liberal ideas to be pouring out of it. The same goes for Liberty. People come to Liberty looking for the ultra-conservative ideas to present themselves. If they didn't, I would be afraid Liberty wasn't doing what it does best, and that is standing up for what it believes. You know when people visit because they want to see what all the talk is about that you must be doing something right.
In his book, Roose doesn't even really rip on LU that much. He really does show very even-handedly how it really is. He presents some things in a much better light than I would expect for someone coming from a school like Brown. Every LU student I know says the exact same thing.