Bacevich provides another case of the fraught dream of managing history that Reinhold Niebuhr critiqued.
There are some very important national conversations taking place these days. Few people seem to be saying anything grounded in theology.
Anti-feminist sentiment, misbehaving athletes, racist images, and student safety concerns all manifested themselves in one way or another during the 2014–2015 academic year at the University of Mary Washington. Now that the annus horribilis is over, new challenges present themselves. President Rick Hurley recently announced recommendations, including a series of discussions on civility. That’s a good start, but we need to do even more.
There are some advantages to teaching online. Often instructors complain that the online format robs them of give-and-take moments with students. But given the current size of many history survey sections—50, 90, 300, even 500 people—how realistic is it to expect those real-time opportunities for conversation? Online threaded discussions are often more substantive, inclusive, and productive than the traditional classroom format.
Reinhold Niebuhr once broke with the editor of this magazine to argue that moral responsibility requires resisting evil with force. It’s a compelling argument, but it doesn’t justify torture.
Readers may or may not accept Charles Hefling's reconstruction of the doctrine of original sin. But he continues the tradition of rethinking the faith in light of new knowledge, contexts, and concerns.
Obama embraces both the idealistic and realistic poles of Christian action. He recognizes with Niebuhr that politics is inherently tragic.
Two years before he died, Reinhold Niebuhr published one of his best-known articles. But he didn't write "The King's Chapel and the King's Court" alone.