It s Something I Notice but not Something That Ruins My Day Ever an Examination of Religion Athletics and the Third Least Religious College in America

“It’s something I notice, but not something that ruins my day, ever.” An Examination of Religion, Athletics, and the Third-Least Religious College in America A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Religion 2019 ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Scholarship........................................................................................................... 5 Statistical Works ............................................................................................................. 5 Interview-Based Works .................................................................................................. 9 Design of the Survey Instrument .................................................................................. 14 Findings............................................................................................................................. 20 Interviews...................................................................................................................... 20 Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 25 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A: Works Cited ................................................................................................ 43 Appendix B: Statistical Data ............................................................................................. 46 iii Acknowledgements iv Introduction “Do you feel like Whitman is a welcoming and diverse community with regard to religious beliefs?” This was a question that I asked every person that I interviewed over the course of this project. Overwhelmingly, the responses followed that of the first person whom I interviewed, a sophomore athlete in a team sport: “No. Yeah, short answer. I’m trying to think about it. I think you’re certainly welcome, but you’re not, you would have to certainly carve out, and be very very bold, and strong and secure about what you want your daily life to be like, and to be able to express yourself in the way you want to express yourself.”1 I initially began thinking about religion at Whitman, specifically among athletes, early in my time as a student here. It just seemed, anecdotally, that sports and religion had strong links at almost every level of competition. Less so at Whitman, it seemed, but in the broader world it seems religion and athletics, especially organized sports, are linked just about everywhere one might turn, both in explicitly religious and explicitly secular spaces. Sporting figures have long spoken of how divine inspiration or a divine presence have willed them to victory. Displays of organized, spontaneous, group and individual religious practice can be found at nearly every level of athletics. But how does religion exist among Whitman’s athletes, who have to navigate an environment which places an emphasis on a liberal arts education, and a strong focus on secular and analytical pursuits? In looking at previous scholarship, I found that, in the little work that has been done in the field, there seems to be a fairly strong statistical relationship 1 Interview, 2/10/19 between college athletes and increased religiosity in relation to their non-athlete peers.2 However, I hypothesized that, while I might find a statistically higher level of religiosity among athletes at Whitman, that there would almost certainly be a more complicated relationship between religion, athletics, and Whitman College. In addition to that statistical relationship, there has been ample discussion of the relationship between collegiate athletics and religion at an anecdotal and organizational level. One article, Jay Paredes Scribner and Peter Schroeder’s “‘To Honor and Glorify God’: The Role of Religion in One College Athletics Culture,”3 was particularly eyeopening in thinking about the role of religion in athletic culture at the small-college level (Scribner and Schroeder’s pseudonymous athletic department competes at the NAIA level, where schools often have similarly-sized enrollments to Whitman’s). I began thinking more about religion with Whitman’s athletic department after reading Scribner and Schroeder’s article, and noticed that many of the other athletes around me wore their religion openly while competing, practicing, and interacting with other athletes, but not as openly outside of the Sherwood Center, the athletic building. 2 Bell, N. T., Johnson, S. R., & Petersen, J. C. (2009). Strength of religious faith of athletes and nonathletes at two NCAA Division III institutions. Sport Journal, 12(1), 1. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/ehost/delivery? sid=d0e0e11a-141d-4963-9289-a6ee7209435f%40sessionmgr4&vid=4&hid=101 Storch, Eric A., et al. “Religiosity of Elite College Athletes.” The Sport Psychologist, vol. 15, no. 3, 2001, pp. 346–351., doi:10.1123/tsp.15.3.346. Storch, Eric A., et al. “Strength of Religious Faith: A Comparison of Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes.” Pastoral Psychology, vol. 52, no. 6, July 2004, pp. 485– 489., doi:10.1023/b:pasp.0000031527.02433.5b. 3 Schroeder, Peter J., and Jay Paredes Scribner. “‘To Honor and Glorify God’: the Role of Religion in One Intercollegiate Athletics Culture.” Sport, Education and Society, vol. 11, no. 1, 2006, pp. 39–54., doi:10.1080/13573320500453420. 2 Unlike Scribner and Schroeder’s NAIA school in the west, Whitman is not a religious institution, and the environment is not one which is designed to stimulate religious feeling among the students and student-athletes. The environment is just different, and the difference is one which came up repeatedly in interviews through quotes like the one above. I think that many of us, as people affiliated with Whitman college, are aware that Whitman was recently ranked as the third least-religious school in the nation by the Princeton Review,4 based on a survey of students. It was not necessarily a surprise to see that Whitman is not perceived by students as being particularly religious, but it perhaps was surprising to see how starkly absent students seem to feel religion is from campus. The perception of religiosity at Whitman is an interesting issue, and one that I devoted a significant amount of time and effort to understanding in this work. In addition to the perception of religiosity on Whitman’s campus, I was also interested in how Whitman’s status as a school without a religious affiliation was perceived by current students during the admissions process, and whether that lack of a religious affiliation had a notable impact on students’ decision to attend Whitman. There simply seems, in a wider sense, to be a gap both in the broader scholarship on perception and religiosity of college athletes, as well as in Whitman’s own discourse on the space that religion occupies, or should occupy, in athletics, as well as in the broader campus culture that should be filled with research and facts rather than opinion. The hopeful purpose of this work is, in part, to help to fill both of those gaps. 4 “Least Religious Students.” Student Life Survey Press Release | The Princeton Review, The Princeton Review, www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=leastreligious-students. 3 Overall, I came to a couple of questions that I felt needed to be evaluated in order to better understand how religion, religious practice, a secular liberal arts environment and Whitman College as an institution, and as a community, interact and affect different students and athletes of faith: First, my guiding question initially, which was “Are athletes at Whitman more religious than non-athletes, and if so, what does that mean for the way that they experience Whitman in all facets of their day to day life?”. Second, and something that came along slightly later in the process, the question “Is it possible for a person of faith to be open and public about that faith at Whitman?”, which, like the question that begins this paper, is a question that I posed to all of those I interviewed, with responses, like those to the question I began with, mostly coming in the negative. Third, and last, I wondered “What is the perception of Whitman College from religious athletes, students, and staff, and does it differ from that of students, athletes, and faculty who are not religious?”. In using those three questions to guide my research, I feel that I have been able to get a better picture of how religion, religious people, and Whitman College interact. It is fair to say that the perception and reality of religiosity among athletes at Whitman may not be quite in line, at least in terms of the statistical data. However, I found repeated anecdotal evidence that there was a deeply complicated relationship between Whitman, the student body, and religion as both a concept and day to day practice. 4 Previous Scholarship Statistical Works In order to determine a framework for my study, I turned to previous scholarship in order to better understand the research work that had already been done on the relationship between religiosity and collegiate athletics. I broke that scholarship up into several categories: similar studies, background information, and papers useful for the development of my survey instrument. I further broke those studies down into statistical works and interview-based works, to reflect the dual components of my study. Initially, I hoped to compare the religiosity of two division III schools at a statistical level. That was a concept that is most closely mirrored by Bell, Johnson, and Petersen’s work Strength of Religious Faith at Two NCAA Division III Institutions,5 which compared a school with an explicit religious affiliation (or, in Bell, Johnson, and Petersen’s parlance, a “religiously practicing institution”, abbreviated as RPI), and a secular school, which Bell, Johnson, and Petersen compare using results from an application of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSRFQ of SCSORF for short, but hereafter referred to as SCSRFQ), which is also used in many of the other works that I found in the genre of statistical measurement of religiosity. The study that Bell, Johnson, and Petersen undertook was the only of its kind that I could find interested in a relationship between Division III schools. 5 Bell, Johnson, and Petersen 5 Bell, Johnson, and Petersen found that, while there was a difference between the religiosity of students at their religiously practicing institution and those at their nonreligiously practicing institution, athletes at both institutions were slightly less religious than their non-athlete counterparts at their respective schools6. This stood in stark contrast to the papers cited above from Eric Storch7, both of which detail studies conducted at large secular schools at the Division I level, and both of which show that, at larger schools, there seems to be an increased religiosity among athletes as compared to their non-athlete counterparts at the same schools. Bell, Johnson, and Petersen’s findings from their survey, specifically at the nonreligiously-practicing institution (hereafter referred to by the acronym NRPI), which is most similar to Whitman, and which used the SCSRFQ as a measuring device, were as follows: NRPI athletes were found not to be significantly more or less religious than their student counterparts. Non-athlete NRPI men were slightly less religious on average than their athlete counterparts (28.49 (a) vs 27.32 (na)), a relationship which also held true for female athletes and non-athletes, to a marginally smaller degree (30.73 (a) vs 29.91 (na)). Overall, however, NRPI athletes and non-athletes held identical average scores on the NRPI, with a significantly smaller standard deviation among athletes (29.08 points). Overall, men at the NRPI scored an average of two points lower than their female counterparts (28.18 (m) vs 30.18 (f)). 6 7 Bell, Johnson, and Petersen, table 4 Storch, et al. 2001 Storch, et al. 2004 6 For the sake of context, and drawing out what those numbers mean, I will explain here the SCSRFQ’s structure and scoring. The SCSRFQ is a ten question evaluative tool, where each question is answered by selecting from four answers: strongly disagree (scored as one), disagree (scored as two), agree (scored as three) and strongly agree (scored as four). Scores therefore range between ten and forty, with forty being the highest possible score, and denoting very strong religiosity, and ten being the lowest, signaling a significant lack of religiosity8. According to a 2010 paper by Thomas Plante, one of the originators of the scale, “In a college sample, mean scores on the ten-item measure are typically about twenty-six to thirty-three, with standard deviations ranging from six to eight among different student populations9” (here he refers to his prior work, citing twice from the 1997 paper cited above (refer to footnote 8), and once each from 200210 and 199911 works on which he is lead author). In addition to the ten item version, there is also an abridged, five question version of the questionnaire, one which was used in Storch, et al, 2004. In light of that information, it is confirmed that the NRPI population that Bell, Johnson, and Petersen studied in their work was within the broader established norms for college populations when measured using the SCSRFQ. It also becomes slightly easier to 8 Plante, Thomas & T. Boccaccini, Marcus. (1997). The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 45. 375-387; 429-437. 10.1007/BF02230993. 9 Plante, T.G. The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire: Assessing Faith Engagement in a Brief and Nondenominational Manner. Religions 2010, 1, 3-8. 10 Plante, T.G.; Vallaeys, C.; Sherman, A.C.; Wallston, K.A. The development of a brief version of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 2002, 50, 359-368. 11 Plante, T.G.; Yancey, S.; Sherman, A.C.; Guertin, M.; Pardini, D. Further validation for the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 1999, 48, 11-21. 7 understand what a two point difference means in the context of the scale, which is .05, or a difference in religiosity of about 5% between the combined female and male NRPI students. Of similar interest is the work of Eric A. Storch, et al., from 2004, and 2001. The 2004 paper, titled “Strength of Religious Faith: A comparison of Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes,”12 is essentially a one-sided version of the Bell, Johnson, and Petersen work. In Storch et al. 2004, the short form of the SCSRFQ was used, while the 2001 paper, titled “Religiosity of Elite College Athletes,”13 made use of an alternate measure, the Duke Religion Index (abbreviated as DRI or, more recently, DUREL, which I will use hereafter), which is a five-item survey which uses a six-point likert scale, allowing for results of between six and thirty, used less often than the SCSRFQ, but measuring religiosity in a similar way. Both studies were conducted at the University of Florida, an NCAA Division 1 institution, and a public, state university, a demographic of school that is not represented in the Bell, Johnson, and Petersen work. The differences that exist between University of Florida, or any other Division I school, and Whitman College, of any other Division III school, are the athletic scholarships are prohibited at Division III level, and that Division I schools are attended by far more students on average. Therefore, I found these two studies to be slightly less applicable to Whitman’s particular situation. Nevertheless, their results are worth mentioning in brief form. In 2001, Storch et al. found that male non-athletes were slightly less religious than male and female athletes, 12 13 Storch, et al., 2004 Storch, et al., 2001 8 and female non-athletes were roughly as religious as their male and female athlete counterparts. The authors mention, or caution, however, that “within these results there it is important to note that athletes were only mildly to moderately religious people.”14 In 2004, Storch et al. found that, using the abbreviated SCSRFQ, athletes were significantly (in the statistical sense) more religious than their non-athlete counterparts, and that there was no difference found with regard to gender within athletes or the combined population. With regard to the statistically significant difference between athletes and non-athletes at two schools (a private NRPI and a public state school) which could both be understood as secular institutions, there is a contradiction between the findings of Storch et al. 2004 and the statistics reported in the Bell, Johnson, and Petersen research, using a version of the same measure. Interview-Based Works In addition to using surveys and statistical analysis to better understand religiosity at Whitman, I also wanted to better understand the culture of religion at Whitman, both in the athletic department as well as in the broader institutional and community sense through interviews with the people who live life as people of faith at Whitman every day. In order to gain background information, and a better understanding of the culture of religion and athletics both at the collegiate level and among young athletes of the type that Whitman might be recruiting, I found several peer-reviewed scholarly sources that I 14 Storch et al., 2001, pg 349 9 felt represented the information that I was looking for to supplement Scribner and Schroeder’s work, which was part of the impetus for this project. I hoped that, as part of my research, I would be able to interview coaches and administrators within the Whitman Athletic department. In order to better understand the religiosity of coaches and athletics administrators, I turned to several sources. First, portions of Scribner and Schroeder’s work apply here, as they did a significant number of interviews, including many with coaches and important figures on both the athletic and academic sides of the school administration. Scribner and Schroeder found that religion and religious practice not only permeated athletics at the institution they studied, but also had a massive effect on the athletic department, athletes, and coaches. Through interviews, they found that not only was religion everywhere at a religious school (not so surprising), but that religious practice and doctrine was used as a guiding influence in every aspect of the athletic department. Religious devotion determined who was hired as a coach, and who was recruited as an athlete. Religious doctrine guided discipline for athletes, coaching philosophy, and even in-game playing time. In addition, I leaned on quite a few other sources. Bennett et al’s “On Being a Living Contradiction: The Struggle of an Elite Intercollegiate Christian Coach,”15 which focuses on a single subject, specifically, a high-level baseball coach at the pseudonymous “Walker State,” an NCAA Division I school in the southeast. The researchers pored over mountains of documents written by the coach, as well as conducting interviews and 15 Gregg Bennett , Michael Sagas , David Fleming & Sean Von Roenn (2005) On being a living contradiction: the struggle of an elite intercollegiate Christian coach, Journal of Beliefs & Values, 26:3, 289-300, DOI: 10.1080/13617670500371974 10 observing the coach during his day-to day work. The researchers found that there the coach had developed, over the years, very specific ways of squaring his religious and athletic lives. Put simply, he chose to prioritize his religion, and allowed it to guide his coaching. To quote the authors, the coach (identified in the article as “Coach Jones”) “apparently resolved these contradictions by (a) disconnecting from sport, (b) utilizing a take-it-or-leave-it mentality, and (c) relying on God’s guidance and blessings.”16 I found similar descriptions in media accounts of outspokenly religious college coaches like Mike Macintyre17 and Hugh Freeze18. In order to better understand the role that religion can have for athletes, I leaned on Matt Hoven and Samantha Kuchera’s 2016 work “Beyond Tebowing and Superstitions: Religious Practices of 15-Year-Old Competitive Athletes,”19 as well as another of Hoven’s 2016 works, “Faith Informing Competitive Youth Athletes in Christian Schooling,”20 Nite and Singer’s 2014 work “Organizational Factors that Contribute to the Spiritual Development of College Athletes: A Case Study of a 16 Bennett et al., 2005, pg 292 Klee, Paul. “Paul Klee: In Pivotal Season at Colorado, Mike MacIntyre Leans on Christian Faith.” Colorado Springs Gazette, The Colorado Springs Gazette, L.L.C., 13 Aug. 2016, gazette.com/sports/paul-klee-in-pivotal-season-at-colorado-mike-macintyreleans/article_96273f3f-ad51-57f8-8ba8-03dcc09cf3c8.html. 18 Meyer, Holly. “Hugh Freeze, Sin and the Scandal's Impact on Evangelical Christians.” The Tennessean, The Tennessean, 4 Aug. 2017, www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/08/04/public-sin-how-evangelical-christiansresponding/520251001/. 19 Hoven, Matt & Kuchera, Samantha (2016) Beyond Tebowing and superstitions: religious practices of 15-year-old competitive athletes, International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 21:1, 52-65, DOI: 10.1080/1364436X.2016.1150814 20 Matt Hoven (2016) Faith Informing Competitive Youth Athletes in Christian Schooling, Journal of Research on Christian Education, 25:3, 273-289, DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2016.1237909 17 11 Religious University,”21 Czech et al.’s “The Experience of Christian Prayer in Sport: An Existential Phenomenological Investigation,”22 Gloria J. Fischer’s “Abstention From Sex and Other Pre-Game Rituals Used by College Male Varsity Athletes,”23 and Dzikus, Harden and Waller’s “Case Studies of Collegiate Sports Chaplains.”24 Each of those works filled different areas of knowledge useful for my work. Almost all of them are small-scale case studies which cover groups of religious athletes. The two works on which Matt Hoven is an author or co-author deal with christian athletes in explicitly christian academic contexts, something I felt would be good to view as a contrast to my interest in Whitman specifically, where the context is explicitly secular, as well as informing my understanding of christian athletes more generally. In a similar vein, Czech et al and Fischer allowed me to strengthen my understanding of the way that prayer is an important activity for many christian athletes, and that often the athletic contexts become intimately spiritual for athletes who believe in a higher power’s influence on their own success. Nite and Singer’s work focused on the spiritual development of athletes at a Division I institution through a sociological lens, investigating through archival sources 21 Nite, Calvin & Singer, John N. (2014) Organizational Factors that Contribute to the Spiritual Development of College Athletes: A Case Study of a Religious University, Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 8:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1179/1935739714Z.00000000015 22 Czech, Daniel & Wrisberg, Craig & Fisher, Leslee & L. Thompson, Charles & Hayes, Gene. (2004). “The Experience of Christian Prayer in Sport: An Existential Phenomenological Investigation” Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 3-11. 23 Fischer, G. J. (1997). Abstention from sex and other pre-game rituals used by college male varsity athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(2), 176-184. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.whitman.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/215872066?a ccountid=1208 24 Dzikus, Lars ; Hardin, Robin ; Waller, Steven N. “Case Studies of Collegiate Sports Chaplains” Journal of Sport & Social Issues, August 2012, Vol.36(3), pp.268-294 12 and through interviews with athletes, coaches, and administrators, providing me with a similar framework to that of Scribner and Schroeder’s work, but with a slightly different aim. Dzikus, Harden, and Waller investigated college sports chaplains using a similar method. Overall, I was frustrated by the seemingly confessional lens of many of the works that were available regarding the intersection of religion and athletics. Several, Bennett et al. most prominently, seemed to exist as religious works first, with scholarly analysis as a secondary purpose. This was disappointing in that, in an already fairly shallow field, this meant that I had to find ways to translate and connect many of the works that did exist into my own understanding of the academic study of religion, which has been formulated in a non-confessional setting. In addition, there seems to be very little information or research available on religion and athletics at the Division III level, and where there is information and research available, it seems to be primarily focused on the way that religious Division III schools use that religion to reinforce religion through athletics. 13 Design of the Survey Instrument As mentioned and discussed earlier in the work, there are a couple of surveys which are generally considered to be the recognized standard in the field. The SCSRFQ (both the ten-item and five item versions) and DUREL are the measures that are used in the vast majority of scholarly works that involve the measurement or quantification of religiosity, which, initially, led me to focus on those two measures as potentially being applicable to my work. After noticing this, I sought out sources which better explained the background and exact contents of the SCSRFQ and DUREL, specifically several of Thomas Plante’s works, mentioned and cited earlier, for information on the SCSRFQ’s reliability, development, and purpose. I also looked at other sources which investigated the reliability of the SCSRFQ, and found that, when tested, the results tend to be reliable.25 There was somewhat less information on the DUREL, but I did consult a paper which explained the creation and design of the survey, Koenig and Bussing’s “The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for use in Epidemiological Studies,”26 which provided the full text of all survey questions, and the statistical background for each. 25 Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M., Mcguckin, C., & Navrátil, M. (2001). “The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire: Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Pastoral Psychology, 49(5), 379-384. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.whitman.edu/10.1023/A:1010370728546 26 Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). “The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for use in Epidemological Studies”. Religions, 1(1), 78-85. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.whitman.edu/10.3390/rel1010078 14 After researching these surveys, however, I was frustrated by the way that they were written for a couple of reasons. Primarily, because I would certainly have to add to the questions in order to tailor them to athletes specifically, but also because, despite the fact that both surveys are referred to as “nondenominational,” they both assume that a person is religious, not including phrasing that would allow for a lack of religious beliefs on the part of the respondent. Because of this, I felt that I would be better served by a survey that I created on my own, which would primarily be directed towards better understanding the beliefs, or lack thereof of athletes at Whitman, by contrasting them with non-athlete students. In order to do so, I researched several other, lesser used survey instruments in order to better understand the thinking behind their creation as well. Specifically, I leaned on King et al’s 2006 work “Measuring Spiritual Belief: Development and Standardization of a Beliefs and Values Scale,”27 which details the creation of a survey for use in quantifying religiosity, and Czech and Bullet’s 2007 work “An Exploratory Description of Christian Athletes’ Perceptions of Prayer in Sport: A Mixed Methodological Pilot Study,”28 which leaned more heavily on two different surveys in attempting to figure out how to better understand prayer and “prayer effectiveness” in relation to athletes. However, the latter utilized a group of just 19 subjects, which was a red flag to a certain extent regarding the efficacy of the conclusions that Czech and Bullet could look to draw. 27 King, M., Jones, L., Barnes, K., Low, J., Walker, C., Wilkinson, S., . . . Tookman, A. (2006). “Measuring Spiritual Belief: Development and Standardization of a Beliefs and Values Scale.” Psychological Medicine, 36(3), 417-425. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.whitman.edu/10.1017/S003329170500629X 28 Czech, D.R., and E. Bullet. 2007. “An Exploratory Description of Christian Athletes’ Perceptions of Prayer in Sport: A Mixed Methodological Pilot Study.” International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 2 (1): 49-56 15 In addition, I hoped to better understand the reasons that the Princeton Review had deemed Whitman College the third-least-religious school in the nation, so I did a bit of digging, and found that, in the case of that particular ranking, the only contributing factor was a single question on the annual Princeton Review Student Life Survey. The question that made up the entirety of the ranking for most and least religious schools in the Princeton Review was an evaluation of the statement “Students are very religious” in relation to their respective school, on a five-point likert scale.29 I was unable to find information on how many students from Whitman had answered the question, or what the average reported score was. Therefore, I decided to include that question, edited as “Students at Whitman are very religious”, and an athletics-focused counterpart, “Athletes at Whitman are very religious” in my survey, with both remaining on a five-point likert scale, in order to hopefully approximate the response that the Princeton Review received. In addition to that question, the survey used a seven point likert scale, chosen because, in part, seven point scales offer more variability in answers, and I assumed that variability in possible answers would allow for more nuanced results. In addition, a brief investigation of the difference between the results produced by five and seven point scales, I found the following quote: “mean differences for 7‐ point scales correlate more strongly with observed significance levels than those for 5‐ point scales,”30 which, in 29 “The Princeton Review's College Ranking Methodology.” Student Life Survey Press Release | The Princeton Review, Princeton Review, www.princetonreview.com/collegerankings/ranking-methodology. 30 Lewis, James R. “Multipoint Scales: Mean and Median Differences and Observed Significance Levels.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. 4, 1993, pp. 383–392., doi:10.1080/10447319309526075. 16 essence, suggests that seven point scales provide more reliable results when distinguishing difference. Therefore, I chose to apply a seven point likert scale for all but those two questions. I began my survey with demographic questions aimed to allow for correlational analysis of a number of factors. Specifically, my demographics section required respondents to provide their age, race/ethnicity, gender, academic class, the state where they graduated from high school, their major, whether they were a varsity athlete (and if so, which sport they participated in), and whether Whitman’s lack of a religious affiliation played a role in their choice of college. I elected to include the question regarding the influence that Whitman’s lack of a religious affiliation had on their college choice for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I wondered about whether there was a self-selection that would become evident based on Whitman’s lack of a religious affiliation, in which students would identify the lack of a religious affiliation as having had a positive effect on their decision as to whether to attend Whitman. I also wondered whether, if that effect had shown to be, in fact, a real effect in the general student population, whether varsity athletes would respond in a different way, given that many variety athletes are recruited to colleges and universities (specifically Whitman in this case) for athletics, that they might not have otherwise chosen to attend if the ability to pursue athletics at the collegiate level were not an influencing factor. Following the demographics section, the survey varied which questions were asked based on the answer to the question regarding whether the respondent was a varsity athlete. Varsity athletes were asked fifteen questions in the second section of the survey, 17 which dealt with religious attitudes and belief, and students were asked just eight of those fifteen. The questions that were not posed to students were mostly centered around athletics, team culture, and the interactions between faith and athletics. In designing these questions, I was careful to avoid assuming belief, phrasing statements carefully, so as to leave open the possibility of a lack of faith or participation in organized religion, something that I was critical of in regard to the SCSRFQ and DUREL. The third and final section of the survey dealt with the perception that respondents had of the environment around them, both social and institutional. In this section, varsity athletes were asked twelve questions, while students were asked six. The questions that were posed only to athletes revolved primarily around their perception of the religiosity, and acceptance of religiosity, or their teams, as well as the athletic community at Whitman more generally. Included in both groups’ question sets were the two questions which were derived from the Princeton Review’s survey question. I felt it important to measure respondents’ perception of religion in addition to their religious attitudes for a couple of reasons: firstly, one of the things that had repeatedly been raised in informal conversations with athletes at Whitman prior to my decision to investigate this question was that there was a difference at Whitman between the culture within the athletic department and that of the school at large, a statement that, at least anecdotally, I have found to be true. Secondly, I felt it important, in investigating religion at Whitman College, to include questions that directly questioned how others perceived the religious environment at Whitman in order to provide a counterbalance to the interview portion of my study. 18 Overall, the survey included thirty-six questions for athletes, and twenty-two for non-athletes, as well as an informed consent document and an end slide which prompted those who took the survey to reach out to me should they have interest in further discussion of religion and athletics, or religion at Whitman. In the end, several did. 19 Findings Interviews In investigating the culture of religiosity within the athletic department at Whitman College, as well as within Whitman College more generally, I felt that it was important to include personal and anecdotal information in addition to the quantitative data that I would glean from the survey. In order to do so, I developed a list of questions which I posed to a broad range of interview subjects over the course of the month of February. My interview subjects included two coaches (one of whom was also an administrator), one person working in the area of student life, two students, and five athletes. Six other people expressed interest, but for one reason or another were unable to participate in interviews. In this section, I will discuss some of the commonalities that emerged during the interviews that I conducted, and quote from the interview subjects themselves. All quotes have been transcribed from recorded interviews that were conducted in February of 2019, and are transcribed exactly. Each interview contained the same, fairly basic questions, beginning with “Overall, how has your experience at Whitman been?” All but one of the ten people that I interviewed answered that their experiences at Whitman had been great, and that they had made friends, felt support from the Whitman community, and wouldn’t trade their Whitman experience for anything. The sole outlier reflected a trend that I saw later in interviews with many of those I talked to, emphasizing that, while this person (a Whitman employee) felt that, while he 20 generally thought that he was supported by Whitman as an institution, and that Whitman generally does a good job of supporting staff (something I heard from all three Whitman employees I spoke to), there was a disconnect between how he felt as an employee of Whitman College and how he felt as an individual of faith at Whitman, saying: “I have found, in terms of employee stuff, in terms of the college accommodating me as a religious person, or basically supporting staff in general to be quite good. You know, there’s always politics and scarcity of resources that makes navigating working at any institution, and I think the academy can be particularly difficult around that, so I’d say I’ve felt supported as an employee. As an individual, you know, I’ve been here now for a long time, I would definitely say that my religious identity on multiple times has been a liability multiple times for my role at the college, and how I’m kind of perceived by my colleagues and peers. Not, I wouldn’t say it’s been traumatic or debilitating, but it’s been present, in a number of instances where people have either said insensitive things about religion or religious people, or have even questioned even the very fact that my position exists, that somehow there is an institution dedicated to higher learning ought not be accommodating to religious identity because it’s somehow aligned with lack of critical thinking.”31 That quote is mirrored by others from several of the others that I spoke to, who responded to several of my other questions by talking about the fact that they have found Whitman to be a place where people feel free to talk negatively about religion, and several of those I spoke to pinpointed this a problem that largely applies to christians more so than others. One of the students I spoke to expressed this perhaps best of all: 31 Interview, conducted 2/16/19 21 “People don’t feel bad about making fun of Christians, ever. And it’s not as if I don’t know that there is a lot of latent cultural power that is associated with being a Christian in the United States, but people are far more willing to make derogatory jokes about Christians and not feel bad about it.”32 That sentiment was echoed and expanded upon by the Whitman employee quoted above, in response to the question “Do you feel that a person of faith can be open and public about that faith at Whitman:” “I don’t think they can be without running the risk of some sort of pushback. And I want to be more clear, and I think that risk is particularly christian. I think a person of faith who is not a christian has difficulties, but they’re not related necessarily to being ostracized by the community. If you’re a Muslim at Whitman, it’s such an underrepresented identity, it’s got to be very hard to live out that identity here. If you’re a Jewish person at Whitman, I think that the political feelings around Israel are gonna influence at times the way people feel about Jewish identity here, even though that shouldn’t happen. So I think that people of faith across the board have a hard time, I think in my mind that’s nuanced as to why that is for each group.”33. Generally, it seemed as if many of those I interviewed, especially those who identify as Christian, found that there was a sort of particular ire aimed at Christianity at Whitman. Most of those I interviewed from outside the athletic department mentioned feeling isolated as Christians at Whitman, and, while recognizing that Christianity in America holds something of a privileged role in many ways, expressed the feeling that the kinds of jokes and comments that are made about Christianity and Christians in 32 33 Interview, conducted 2/11/19 Interview, conducted 2/16/19 22 general would receive significant pushback if they were made about other religious groups. In particular, one of the athletes I interviewed, when talking about Whitman as a whole, said the following about Christianity and feeling welcome in the Whitman community, in response to the question “Do you think that Whitman is a welcoming and diverse community for people of faith?”: “Well that’s the thing, I think welcoming is for sure, I think if someone was talking about their religion, and you had a group of Whitman students, they’d be like yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s so interesting and cool, blah blah blah, but I think the second, but I think the thing that’s hard about that is the questions of diversity is that, when you think of diversity at Whitman, you wouldn’t think of Christianity, then the second you throw in christianity, I think that people at Whitman would be more welcoming of someone who practiced a non-Christian faith than someone who practiced a Christian faith because of the connotations and its connections to white supremacy, and to the Republican Party, and, honestly Trump these days are so upsetting to people, and I don’t think a lot of students at Whitman have experienced what a positive christian community can look like that aligns with their values, necessarily, So they associate it with people they hate.”34 Among the athletes that I interviewed, there was, unanimously, praise for the athletic department, their teammates, and their coaches, and from the coaches, for their players and colleague both generally, and with regard to religion. It seems that athletes and coaches both feel that it is incumbent on them to create a positive, accepting environment for others. One athlete expressed this very well, while discussing his team’s 34 Interview, conducted 2/27/19 23 culture, and the difference between being an athlete of faith versus a student of faith: “definitely the leadership we have on the —— team, we have really really good coaching, and they’ve worked hard to make sure that’s happened for us. And that trickles down to the culture of the team, and they work really hard to recruit so that, that just makes for a strong team atmosphere that I didn’t really have at the school I transferred from…Yeah, in a positive way. I find that the general community of athletes has more people of faith, just because I think that people in that group have mostly chosen Whitman for the combination of athletics and what Whitman offers as a school, whereas people coming strictly for academics and the campus environment are possibly seeking out a secular environment, more so than athletes.”35 Despite their misgivings, everyone I spoke to, in response to my final question, “Do you feel your experience at Whitman has been a positive one”, answered in the affirmative. One athlete, who identifies as Christian, explained why, for him, at least, his experience at Whitman with religion in particular was positive, despite discussing how he felt he couldn’t be open about his faith at Whitman: “As a person of faith, it’s the same thing. I think it’s a lot of, I think each time you hear someone like curse “Jesus Christ,” or just kind of make a knock against Christianity it kind of just wears and wears and wears at you and makes you feel like you can be less open and less authentic, kind of…. It’s something that I think about a lot, but there’s no real solution to it, or anything. Like, you can’t make it, and in a way, I think I should add, it’s very freeing as a person of faith to be able to deconstruct your faith background and say “What do I really want going forward”, because there’s no mold at Whitman, it’s not like it’s a Baptist school or 35 Interview, conducted 2/10/19 24 something where these beliefs are forced upon you. You kind of get to explore that for yourself, so I’d say that’s certainly a positive.”36 Survey Results In addition to conducting interviews, I hoped to gain a better understanding of the religious landscape in the athletic department at Whitman, as well as the school more generally, through statistical data. In order to find that data, I used a new, unique survey tool, the development of which was discussed above, to survey as many athletes and students as I could. In surveying the Whitman population, I hoped to better understand the answers to two questions: first, how religious are athletes and students at Whitman? The answer to this question should be, on the surface, at least, fairly straightforward. In practice, however, it is more complicated, and in order to find a satisfying answer I ended up searching for, and finding, a secondary data set to help me draw conclusions. Secondly, I wanted to know how people felt about religion at Whitman. That question encompassed a number of sub-questions, such as “how religious do people think those around them are,” “do people think of religion as a factor in everyday life at Whitman,”and “do people think of Whitman as a welcoming place for religious people, or people of faith.” All of those questions are fairly complex, and in attempting to answer them, I found myself consistently surprised by the results, as well as the connections that I found between the answers to those questions. 36 Interview, conducted 2/10/19 25 I came into the survey portion of the project with a couple of hypotheses (more like assumptions, to be brutally honest) about the kinds of information I would get, and the kinds of answers I would come to in response to the survey. First and foremost, I was nearly certain that I would find that athletes were, on average, more religious than other students at Whitman. I made that prediction based on anecdotal information gleaned from discussions with others, as well my own experiences at Whitman as both an athlete and student. Second, I thought that I would find that both students and athletes would perceive Whitman as being less religious than it would turn out to be, that is, that people would underestimate both the number of religious people as a percentage as well as the level of religious belief of those same religious people. Third, I hypothesized that, while both students and athletes would find Whitman to be at least a little bit unwelcoming to religious people, that athletes would find Whitman to be more unwelcoming than students would for people of faith. In order to distribute my survey, I did a couple of things. First, I contacted a number of varsity athletes in an attempt to have them send out the survey to their own teams, a strategy that proved successful in some instances, and unsuccessful in others, I think mostly based on who I was sending it to. Second, in order to recruit both athletes and students to take the survey, I sent it out via the student listserv repeatedly over the course of February, the period that I had been approved to do my research. I found that approach to be the most successful, but with diminishing results as the month wore on. I also mentioned the survey in as many classes and personal conversations as I could over the course of the month, in an attempt to pitch the project to others. 26 The response that I found, at least in terms of pure numbers, was encouraging, and reached roughly the levels that I was hoping for. I had hoped (optimistically, I think) for roughly 125 total responses, and at least 35 from varsity athletes. I ended up coming in just under both of those goals, but not enough to be really disappointed. A total of 123 people began my survey, and 33 of those 123 who took the survey were varsity athletes. Of the 123 who began the survey, two declined the informed consent slide at the beginning of the survey, and thus did not answer any questions beyond the initial affirmative consent slide. In addition, twelve more subjects did not complete the survey, and Qualtrics, the online program that I used for the creation and distribution of my survey, discarded the incomplete results before I was able to save them. So, with the two who declined the informed consent and the twelve blank surveys, I ended up with a total of 107 responses, comprised of 31 varsity athletes and 76 students. With regard to the group of athletes who responded to the survey, there were a couple of abnormalities in the group that makes their contribution somewhat skewed. First, there were a couple of instances where, despite being asked repeatedly, athletes from particular teams simply forgot to send the survey out, so none of their teammates took the survey. This led to a lack of any data whatsoever from five entire varsity teams, specifically baseball, men’s basketball, both men’s and women’s golf, and volleyball. In addition, in the case of three other teams, only one member of the team, I would assume the member I sent the survey to, took the survey, specifically women’s basketball, men’s cross country, and men’s tennis. For a couple of reasons that I will go into later on, I think that the lack of representation from several of those teams had a fairly large impact on the final survey results. 27 Demographically, the differences between students and athletes were not particularly pronounced. The average age of all participants was 19.945, with athletes averaging an age of 19.968, and students an age of 19.96. The gender of the participants, overall, skewed heavily female, with a total of 76 (.697, 69.7%) women, 31 (.284, 28.4%) men, 2 (.018, 1.8%) non-binary persons. Among athletes, however, there was a less pronounced skew, with 11 (.355, 35.5%) men and 20 (.645, 64.5%) women taking the survey. The survey population was not particularly racially diverse either, with 86 of 109 (.789, 78.9%) respondents identifying as White, with 8 (.073, 7.3%) identifying as Hispanic, 9 (.083, 8.3%) as Asian, 2 (.018, 1.8%) as Native American, and three (.028, 2.8%) as mixed race, with one respondent declining to answer. Among athletes, the group contained 23 (.742, 74.2%) people identifying as White, 3 (.097, 9.7%) as Hispanic, 2 (.065, 6.5%) as Asian, 2 (.065, 6.5%) as mixed race, and one declining to identify. In total, 29 (.266, 26.6%) of those surveyed were first-years, 24 (.220, 22%) were sophomores, 22 (.202, 20.2%) were juniors, and 34 (.312, 31.2%) were seniors. Among athletes, 8 (.258, 25.8%) were first years, 7 (.226, 22.6%) were sophomores, 5 (.161, 16.1%) were juniors, and 11 (.355, 35.5%) were seniors. 55 (.504, 50.4%) were humanities or social sciences majors, 33 (.303, 30.3%) were “hard” science majors, and 21 (.193, 19.3%) were undeclared, with athletes accounting for 16 (.516, 51.6%) of the humanities/social sciences, 10 (.323, 32.3%) of the “hard” sciences, and 5 (.161, 16.1%) of the undeclared majors. Following the demographics section of the survey, athletes and students answered a series of questions, with athletes answering more questions than did, most of the extra questions being specifically related to the athletic department and their experiences as 28 athletes specifically. Non-athlete students answered questions primarily to provide a comparison group for the surveyed athletes, as well as to provide a broader base of opinion on issues such as religious tolerance on campus, overall religiosity, and other more general questions surrounding religiosity on campus. My findings from the survey were fairly varied, and several were interesting in relation to my broader questions about religion on campus. The survey found that, as mentioned above, there were no statistically significant differences in the demographics of the student body and the narrower athletic department community, which, as mentioned earlier, is something that could potentially be problematized by lack of representation from several teams. It is worth mentioning here that statistical significance is found when the p-value is found to be below p = 0.05, with anything above 0.05 being statistically insignificant. I found through my survey that there was not a significant difference in the way that athletes and non-athletes perceive Whitman’s attitude towards religion, something I measured through a combination of four questions. The first was “Organized religion and/or religious faith is an important part of the student experience for most students at my institution,” which by itself did not show a significant difference (18.0, -0.152, p = .881) between students (avg. of 2.173) and athletes (2.387). The second question that was included as part of the combined score was “My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally,” with students seeing only “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally”. Perhaps because the difference in syntax was slightly too 29 large, athletes (5.387) and students (4.16), this question did produce a statistically significant difference between students and athletes, which suggested that athletes found Whitman to be more accepting of religious beliefs generally than students did. I would hypothesize that this is a statistically significant result, primarily because of the different phrasing of the question, which included the athletic department, teammates, and coaches as people who are involved in creating a positive, open, and accepting environment for religious beliefs. The third question that was included as part of the combined religious atmosphere and perception score was “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof” for students and “My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof” for athletes. This question was insignificant statistically (18.0, 1.80, p = 0.088) as a standalone question. Of the two groups, ordinary students had a mean answer of just below “somewhat agree” (4.74), whereas athletes were closer to “agree” (5.58). Finally, both groups were asked the question “The athletes at my institution are more religious than the student body,” which showed another statistically insignificant result (18.0, -2.05, p = 0.055), with a mean difference of -0.632. This means that, on average, athletes viewed themselves as being significantly less religious than the general student body viewed them as being. Overall, the combined 4-item measure was, similarly to three of the four questions that made up the measure, found to show statistically insignificant differences (90.0, 1.235, p = .220). This can and should be interpreted to show that, while there are 30 differences between students and athletes in the way that they perceive religious life at Whitman, those differences are not significant on a statistical level. There were three other combined measures which I used in attempting to better understand religion, perception of religion, and the relation of the two at Whitman. In addition to those, however, I also had a couple of questions that were interesting more from a conceptual level. First, I asked everyone, students and athletes, whether the fact that Whitman does not have a religious affiliation had an impact on their choice to attend, with the three options being “wanted to come to Whitman more,” “did not have an impact,” and “wanted to come to Whitman less.” What I found is that, on average, there was an impact, with both groups (students:1.44, athletes: 1.48) averaging closer to “wanted to come to Whitman more” than “did not have an impact,” and only three subjects saying they wanted to come to Whitman less because of the lack of a religious affiliation (all three were students). However, there was no statistically significant difference between athletes and students (105, -0.388, p = .699). Another of the one-off questions that I asked was whether people thought that a higher power played a role in the outcome of sporting events. Nationally, a survey37 found that 22% of Americans think that God plays a role in the outcome of sporting events, and I wondered how that number differed at Whitman. I decided to ask the question “A higher power directly or indirectly influences the outcome of sporting events” to both athletes and students. I found that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of whether they thought that there was a higher power 37 Cox, Daniel, et al. “Half of American Fans See Supernatural Forces at Play in Sports.” PRRI, 16 Jan. 2014, www.prri.org/research/jan-2014-sports-poll/. 31 influencing sporting events (19, -1.29, p = .212). I did find, however, that only six subjects indicated any kind of agreement with the idea that a higher power directly or indirectly influences sporting events, (four answers of somewhat agree, and two of strongly agree), good for 5.6% of those surveyed (.056). Similarly, there were two questions designed to ask athletes about the source of their athletic ability and talent. The first “I am primarily responsible for my own athletic ability and talent” garnered a strongly positive response, eliciting a mean score of 6.484, which falls between “agree” and “strongly agree.” Additionally, every athlete surveyed chose an option of “somewhat agree” or greater, with nearly every athlete choosing an answer of “agree” or “strongly agree.” As a counter to that question, I also asked “A higher power is primarily responsible for my athletic ability and talent,” which produced a mean answer of 1.613, between “strongly disagree” and “disagree,” and only two responses which expressed agreement (one “somewhat agree” and one “agree”). Similarly several other questions posed only to athletes, “I feel the presence of a higher power during competition” (also an average of 1.613), “I pray before and/or during competition specifically” (1.581), “Faith is more important to me than athletics” (1.774), “My team's success or failure is in the hands of a higher power” (1.290), “I feel the presence of a higher power during competition” (1.613), and “Faith in a higher power drives me to be successful in athletics” (1.871), failed to gain any serious support among the Whitman athletes who took the survey. The second of the four combined measures was designed to measure religiosity among students and athletes. It consisted of three questions, “I believe in God or a higher power”(103, .517, p = .606), “I consider myself to be religious”(103, -0.375, p = .708), 32 and “I regularly practice a religion”(103, 1.092, p = .278). The questions produced combined mean responses (the responses of both students and athletes) of 3.467, 2.822, and 2.327, respectively. Among athletes, the mean responses were 3.226, 2.871, and 1.968, while among students they were 3.6, 2.827, and 2.493. While there are differences in the mean responses to each of the questions, none of the three provided a statistically significant difference between athletes and students. A total of 38 respondents (.355, 35.5%) stated that they believed in God or a higher power to some degree (meaning a response of “slightly agree” or higher), 27 stated that they considered themselves to be religious (.252, 25.2%), and 20 identified themselves as practicing a religion regularly (.187, 18.7%). It was interesting to compare these specific survey questions with the data from the CIRP survey that is administered to first year students, and which asks about religious practice among many other things. Data that I was provided by Neal Christopherson, Whitman’s Director of Institutional Research, showed that, for the years 2015-2018 (the years encompassing the current student body of Whitman College, incoming first year students identified as religious at a rate of between 30 and 35% on average (2015: 38.1%, 2016: 36.8%, 2017: 31%, 2018: 33.4%, avg: 34.825%). Because we have the proportions of that survey, in addition to the sample sizes, we can find that there, though there is a difference in the percentages, there is no abnormality in my data, as the % difference falls within the 95% confidence interval of .3134%-17.3170%. The third combined measure was the first to show a statistically significant difference between athletes and students. It was made up of four questions, “Organized religion and/or religious faith is an important part of the student experience for most 33 students at my institution” (mean for non-athlete students: 2.17, mean for athletes: 2.387), “My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally” for athletes, which was presented as “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally” for students (4.16, 5.387), “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof,” which was presented as “My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof” to athletes (5.24, 5.419), and “The athletes at my institution are more religious than the student body” (3.96, 3.87). Overall, the four put together were found to be statistically significant (19.0, 2.48, p = 0.022). What that measure being found statistically significant means, essentially, is that there is a difference in the way that athletes and students perceive Whitman’s acceptance of religious belief. Athletes were statistically more likely to find Whitman more accepting of both religious belief generally, and their own religious beliefs. I think, however, that the syntax of the questions threw off the answers that I got, something that I will go into in more detail later. The fourth combined measure was the one related to the Princeton Review finding. There were two questions involved, one the original used to name Whitman the third least religious school in the nation, “Students at Whitman are very religious,” and the second a companion question designed to better understand the perception of athletes, “Athletes at Whitman are very religious.” What I found was this: there is a statistically significant difference between the way that people think about the religiosity of athletes 34 and the way that they think of students’ religiosity (103, -7.48, p = < .001). That p-value of <.001 is evidence that there is a real statistical difference between the way that athletes’ and students’ religiosity is thought of. That is not to say that either group is thought to be particularly religious, as the combined mean for the first question (students are very religious), was only 2.29, between disagree and slightly disagree, and 3.22, between slightly disagree and disagree for the second question (athletes are very religious). That is also not to say that there is a significant difference in the way that athletes perceive their religiosity and the way that students do, as they do not, with both the mean differences (-.222 for student religiosity and -0.171 for athlete religiosity, meaning that athletes also thought that both groups were slightly more religious than students did.) and the statistical significance (102, -0.870, p = .386; 102, -0.662, p = 0.510) both bearing out insignificant difference between the views of student and athlete religiosity held by the two groups. What this means is, in essence, that everyone thinks that athletes are significantly more religious than students, even if neither group is particularly religious. But, according to my survey of the religious beliefs of athletes and students, there is no difference between the two groups in terms of actual religiosity. 35 Conclusion So what does that survey result mean? And why, if athletes and students aren’t significantly more or less religious than one another, is there a perception that athletes are more religious? I have a couple of theories in answer to both of those questions. First, I think that there is a stigma surrounding athletes at Whitman, mostly a negative one, which aligns athletes with a number of things that are considered by a large portion of the student body to be antithetical to the Whitman culture. Allow me to justify this statement: Athletes, especially recruited athletes, are brought to Whitman to get an education and play their sport, usually in that order. They do not necessarily come to Whitman for the particular culture of the school, as many students do, rather, they come because they want to continue to play their particular sport while receiving a high-quality education, often with the thought that most of their time will be spent alongside their teammates. I would argue that the process by which athletes arrive at Whitman includes a personal ranking of importance of the following factors: quality of academics (Whitman’s is excellent), ability to participate in competitive college athletics (In most cases, Whitman is very competitive, either from a national or conference standpoint), team culture (does the player fit the culture of the team that he or she is being recruited to be a member of), and school culture fit (does the player fit the dominant culture of Whitman, and how that is to be identified is perhaps up for debate). Often, the hierarchy of importance places overall school fit at the bottom of the list, as the academics are excellent, the team is good, and the players on each team tend to fit their own particular 36 culture. Because of this, there is an increased insularity once athletes get on campus, as most sports begin practicing, working out, and bonding as a team as soon as new recruits arrive on campus, if not before, thus athletes start out with an established group of friends with whom they share the particular culture of their team. This thought is borne out, I think, by part of a quote that is used earlier in this work, from an athlete on his experience of Whitman’s athletics culture: “I find that the general community of athletes has more people of faith, just because I think that people in that group have mostly chosen Whitman for the combination of athletics and what Whitman offers as a school, whereas people coming strictly for academics and the campus environment are possibly seeking out a secular environment, more so than athletes.”38 For many athletic programs at Whitman, the outside perception of athletes reflects that insularity. Here I would reference back to a quote from one of the athletes that I interviewed about religion, in response to a question about whether it is possible to be open and honest about religious faith at Whitman: “Probably not (laughs). I think it’s pretty, I think there’s not any explicit judgement in terms of, like, there’s a lot of really liberal people who like, really want to value a lot of people of all different sorts and different faiths, but I think religion is this kind of different one where it’s not necessarily tied to, like, a racial identity all the time, and I think that people point to it in a really generalized form, and like, in a form where like, you see a lot of kids who have come from like a really, like Catholic kind of Christian high schools, where they had a pretty theological, proper forced education, and you have a lot of people who just did not do well in that environment, and therefore are pushing away from it, and then you have a lot 38 Interview, conducted 2/10/19 37 of people who never really had a lot of, there are a lot of people who are just like, oh my parents are hippies, and like they were just like “fuck religion”, and I’m just like that too.”39 The suggestion of that quote is, essentially, that many people at Whitman reject religion because they come from a background where religion was a large facet of the dominant culture, and so they choose to find a community (Whitman) where that dominant culture is not present, or from a background where religion was already being rejected. I would argue that the same could be said for athletics. I would guess that many Whitman students come from backgrounds where athletics was a large part of a dominant culture which they did not necessarily fit into, and in fact many of the same students who reject religion for that reason may have had the same experience with athletics, and treat it with the same disdain they do because of that experience. I would argue that the perception of athletes at Whitman being more religious than the general student body might not even be incorrect. Anecdotally at least, many athletes and coaches, both those who I formally interviewed and those I spoke with informally about my project, made the observation that they thought that athletes at Whitman were almost certainly more likely to be religious than students. Many of them were themselves religious, and were part of thriving communities of various levels of religiosity within their teams. Many of them also felt that other athletes were more tolerant than the rest of the student body. To back that particular claim up, when asked the question “The athletic community at my institution is more accepting of religious people than the general student body,” only five of the 31 athletes surveyed responded in 39 Interview, conducted 2/27/19 38 the negative, while eleven responded in the positive (the rest responded “neither agree nor disagree) and the mean response was 4.3, indicating that, on average, there was agreement with that statement. And despite the fact that only two of those things were borne out by the statistical results from my survey, I still believe those athletes to be correct. Allow me, once again, to explain. Several of the programs which do the most serious recruiting, and which are the most nationally competitive, were absent or largely absent from the survey: Men’s and Women’s basketball, Men’s Tennis, and Women’s Golf all made their respective NCAA tournaments last year, and only two members of all of those teams combined took the survey. Baseball, Volleyball, and Men’s Cross-Country also had no representation in the survey. Had those teams, especially the four nationally competitive teams, taken the survey in larger numbers, I think that the differences in both perception and religiosity would have been more pronounced between athletes and students. In addition, I think that the differences in syntax of the questions posed to athletes and students made a notable difference in the way that the two groups responded. If I had the survey to do over again, I would make sure that the two groups received identical questions, with athletes being asked multiple questions to differentiate between their feelings on the broader Whitman community and the narrower athletic community, their teams, and their coaches. In hindsight, I should have seen that those would elicit two very different thought processes. I think that there are several lessons to be taken from this work, and several future works that would make sense as follow-ups on the back of the survey portion specifically: 39 First, I think that, based on the things that I heard throughout the interview portion of my study, there is a serious discussion to be had regarding the way religion and religious people are treated within Whitman as a community, and by Whitman as an institution. Every person I interviewed, religious or not, had at least one story of discrimination or repeated micro-aggressions based on religious belief, in fact, after reviewing my notes, just three of the ten people I interviewed did not have a story of micro-aggressions or discrimination, and two of those three were not religious. I think that in the survey portion of this study, I made a mistake in the perception measures by lumping together athletes’ perception of the way that the institution acts towards religion and the way that the athletic community, their coaches, and their teammates act towards religious beliefs. I will hypothesize that, had they been two separate questions there would have been very different answers to the two questions. I arrive at this because of the interview portion of my survey, where I found repeatedly that athletes found their teams to be very different experiences from Whitman at large, something that I would have factored in to my survey had I better understood this prior to conducting it. The syntax of those questions is one of a couple of missteps that I made that created limitations for the study, the others being the lack of representation from several teams, and the limited number of interviews I was able to conduct. Ideally I would have been able to conduct between 15 and 20 interviews, rather then the more limited 11 that I was able to conduct. Second, I would suggest that the office of institutional research should look seriously into a couple of things: first, the treatment of religious people on campus as a 40 group. I think that, if a survey of this kind were conducted, there would be a distinct difference between the way that the broader campus community thinks that they treat religious people and the way that those people feel about their treatment. I go back to several of the quotes that appeared in the interviews section of this work, and once again note that nearly every person mentioned that it seems as if most Whitman students consider themselves to be religiously tolerant, but, in practice, are less tolerant than they think themselves to be. A follow up survey not only covering the relationship between athletes and religion at Whitman, but also the relationships between athletics and issues such as race, class, and gender might be in order. That survey should also make sure to do a better job than mine did with regard to engaging more teams and athletes. Perhaps using the beginning-of-year NCAA compliance meetings to conduct the survey would ensure a more complete sample. When I consider what conclusions can be drawn from this work, I often find myself drawn back to two quotes from interviews that are included in the piece. First, the quote that I used in the title, from a non-athlete student at Whitman, talking about the comments he hears, and the assumptions that he faces as a Christian student at Whitman: “It’s something I notice, but not something that ruins my day, ever.”. Second, I think about the quote from an athlete about his feelings on choosing Whitman as an athlete and a person of faith: “As a person of faith, it’s the same thing. I think it’s a lot of, I think each time you hear someone like curse “Jesus Christ”, or just kind of make a knock against Christianity it kind of just wears and wears and wears at you and makes you feel like you can be less open and less authentic, kind of…. It’s something that I think about a 41 lot, but there’s no real solution to it, or anything. Like, you can’t make it, and in a way, I think I should add, it’s very freeing as a person of faith to be able to deconstruct your faith background and say “What do I really want going forward”, because there’s no mold at Whitman, it’s not like it’s a Baptist school or something where these beliefs are forced upon you. You kind of get to explore that for yourself, so I’d say that’s certainly a positive.”40 Those two quotes are emblematic for me of the attitude that I feel permeates the religious community at Whitman, at least those that I spoke to. Being religious at Whitman is a challenge, many people feel that they cannot be authentic about their beliefs in a public setting. But at the same time, Whitman as an academic institution has strong appeal to people across the religiosity spectrum. In addition, not every religious person wants to attend a religious school, and as my survey showed, Whitman’s lack of a religious affiliation was almost always identified as either a positive component of Whitman’s appeal, or not a factor in students’ decision to come to Whitman. There is an opportunity for Whitman to put more emphasis on the benefit that the athlete points to: Whitman is an excellent school, and the fact that there is not a confessional religious affiliation that asserts that there is a particular religious interpretation that is the only correct interpretation allows for real contemplation of an individual’s spiritual or religious beliefs through a strong liberal arts education. There is a place for religion at Whitman, and an important one at that. 40 Interview, conducted 2/10/19 42 Appendix A: Works Cited Bell, N. T., Johnson, S. R., & Petersen, J. C. (2009). Strength of religious faith of athletes and nonathletes at two NCAA Division III institutions. Sport Journal, 12(1), 1. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/ehost/delivery? sid=d0e0e11a-141d4963-9289-a6ee7209435f%40sessionmgr4&vid=4&hid=101 Storch, Eric A., et al. “Religiosity of Elite College Athletes.” The Sport Psychologist, vol. 15, no. 3, 2001, pp. 346–351., doi:10.1123/tsp.15.3.346. Storch, Eric A., et al. “Strength of Religious Faith: A Comparison of Intercollegiate Athletes and Non-Athletes.” Pastoral Psychology, vol. 52, no. 6, July 2004, pp. 485– 489., doi:10.1023/b:pasp.0000031527.02433.5b. Schroeder, Peter J., and Jay Paredes Scribner. “‘To Honor and Glorify God’: the Role of Religion in One Intercollegiate Athletics Culture.” Sport, Education and Society, vol. 11, no. 1, 2006, pp. 39–54., doi:10.1080/13573320500453420. “Least Religious Students.” Student Life Survey Press Release | The Princeton Review, The Princeton Review, Plante, Thomas & T. Boccaccini, Marcus. (1997). The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 45. 375-387; 429-437. 10.1007/BF02230993. Plante, T.G. The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire: Assessing Faith Engagement in a Brief and Nondenominational Manner. Religions 2010, 1, 3-8. Plante, T.G.; Vallaeys, C.; Sherman, A.C.; Wallston, K.A. The development of a brief version of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 2002, 50, 359-368. Plante, T.G.; Yancey, S.; Sherman, A.C.; Guertin, M.; Pardini, D. Further validation for the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology. 1999, 48, 11-21. Gregg Bennett , Michael Sagas , David Fleming & Sean Von Roenn (2005) On being a living contradiction: the struggle of an elite intercollegiate Christian coach, Journal of Beliefs & Values, 26:3, 289-300, DOI: 10.1080/13617670500371974 Klee, Paul. “Paul Klee: In Pivotal Season at Colorado, Mike MacIntyre Leans on Christian Faith.” Colorado Springs Gazette, The Colorado Springs Gazette, L.L.C., 13 Aug. 2016, 43 Meyer, Holly. “Hugh Freeze, Sin and the Scandal's Impact on Evangelical Christians.” The Tennessean, The Tennessean, 4 Aug. 2017, Hoven, Matt & Kuchera, Samantha (2016) Beyond Tebowing and superstitions: religious practices of 15-year-old competitive athletes, International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 21:1, 52-65, DOI: 10.1080/1364436X.2016.1150814 Hoven, Matt (2016) Faith Informing Competitive Youth Athletes in Christian Schooling, Journal of Research on Christian Education, 25:3, 273-289, DOI: 10.1080/10656219.2016.1237909 Nite, Calvin & Singer, John N. (2014) Organizational Factors that Contribute to the Spiritual Development of College Athletes: A Case Study of a Religious University, Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 8:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1179/1935739714Z.00000000015 Czech, Daniel & Wrisberg, Craig & Fisher, Leslee & L. Thompson, Charles & Hayes, Gene. (2004). “The Experience of Christian Prayer in Sport: An Existential Phenomenological Investigation” Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 3-11. Fischer, G. J. (1997). Abstention from sex and other pre-game rituals used by college male varsity athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(2), 176-184. Retrieved from Dzikus, Lars ; Hardin, Robin ; Waller, Steven N. “Case Studies of Collegiate Sports Chaplains” Journal of Sport & Social Issues, August 2012, Vol.36(3), pp.268-294 Lewis, C. A., Shevlin, M., Mcguckin, C., & Navrátil, M. (2001). “The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire: Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Pastoral Psychology, 49(5), 379-384. doi: Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). “The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for use in Epidemological Studies”. Religions, 1(1), 78-85. doi:King, M., Jones, L., Barnes, K., Low, J., Walker, C., Wilkinson, S., . . . Tookman, A. (2006). “Measuring Spiritual Belief: Development and Standardization of a Beliefs and Values Scale.” Psychological Medicine, 36(3), 417-425. doi: 44 “The Princeton Review's College Ranking Methodology.” Student Life Survey Press Release | The Princeton Review, Princeton Review, Lewis, James R. “Multipoint Scales: Mean and Median Differences and Observed Significance Levels.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. 4, 1993, pp. 383–392., doi:10.1080/10447319309526075. Cox, Daniel, et al. “Half of American Fans See Supernatural Forces at Play in Sports.” PRRI, 16 Jan. 2014, 45 Appendix B: Statistical Data Age Athletes Students Total 18 5 11 16 19 10 20 30 20 3 20 23 21 8 17 25 22 4 10 14 23 1 0 1 19.968 19.96 19.945 Average Gender Identity Athletes Students Total Male 11 19 30 Female 20 56 76 0 2 2 Non-Binary Racial/Ethnic Identity Athletes Students White Total 23 63 86 Hispanic 3 5 8 Asian 2 7 9 Native American 0 2 2 Mixed-Race 2 1 3 Declined to Identify 1 0 1 Graduation Year Athletes Students Total 2019 8 21 29 2020 7 17 24 46 Graduation Year Athletes Students Total 2021 5 17 22 2022 11 23 34 Major (Categorized) Athletes Students Total Humanities/Social Sciences 16 39 55 “Hard” Sciences 10 23 33 5 16 21 Undeclared Survey Question Athletes Students Total Mean = 1.48, N = 29, SD = In making your 0.509 college choice, how did Whitman's lack of a religious affiliation impact your choice? (scale of 1-3, 1 being positive, 3 being negative) Mean = 1.44, N = 78, SD = 0.572 Mean = 1.45, N = 107, SD = .553 I believe in God or a higher power (1-7, 1 being strongly disagree, 7 being strongly agree) Mean = 3.34, N = 29, SD = 1.86 Mean = 3.57, N = 76, SD = 2.00 Mean = 3.50, N = 105, SD = 1.95 I consider myself to be religious Mean = 2.97, N = 29, SD = 1.80 Mean = 2.80, N = 76, SD = 2.05 Mean = 2.85, N = 105, SD = 1.98 I regularly practice a religion Mean = 2.03, N = 29, SD = 1.24 Mean = 2.47, N = 76, SD = 2.02 Mean = 2.35, N = 105, SD = 1.84 Average of Religious Practice (total of 21 possible points) Mean = 8.34, N = 29, SD = 3.89 Mean = 8.84, N = 76, SD = 5.46 Mean = 8.70, N = 105, SD = 5.06 47 Survey Question Athletes Students Total Mean = 1.87, N = 31, SD = Faith in a higher power drives me to be 1.18 successful in athletics Mean = 2.70, N = 76, SD = 1.97 (Question minus “in athletics) N/A I am primarily responsible for my own athletic ability and talent Mean = 6.48, N = 31, SD = 0.626 N/A N/A A higher power is primarily responsible for my athletic ability and talent Mean = 1.61, N = 31, SD = 1.20 N/A N/A Faith is more important to me than athletics Mean = 1.77, N = 31, SD = 1.12 N/A N/A My team's success or failure is in the hands of a higher power Mean = 1.29, N = 31, SD = 0.643 N/A N/A I pray regularly Mean = 1.71, N = 31, SD = 1.16 Mean = 2.16, N = 76, SD = 1.77 Mean = 1.953, N = 107, SD = 1.46 I pray before and/or during competition specifically Mean = 1.58, N = 31, SD = 1.23 N/A N/A I feel the presence of Mean = 1.61, N = 31, SD = a higher power during 1.17 competition N/A N/A A higher power directly or indirectly influences the outcome of sporting events Mean = 1.52, N = 31, SD = 0.962 Mean = 1.67, N = 76, SD = 1.39 Mean = 1.626, N = 107, SD = 1.28 My personal success or failure is in the hands of a higher power N/A Mean = 2.04, N = 76, SD = 1.57 N/A 48 Survey Question Athletes Students Total Students at Whitman are very religious (5 point scale) Mean = 2.45, N = 29, SD = 1.15 Mean = 2.23, N = 75, SD = 1.17 Mean = 2.29, N = 104, SD = 1.16 Athletes at Whitman are very religious (5 point scale) Mean = 3.34, N = 29, SD = 1.42 Mean = 3.17, N = 75, SD = 1.08 Mean = 3.22, N = 104, SD = 1.18 I am comfortable practicing my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, openly within the athletic community at my institution Mean = 5.59, N = 29, SD = 1.30 N/A N/A Mean = 2.45, N = 29, SD = Mean = 2.17, N = 75, SD = Organized religion 1.11 and/or religious faith 1.12 is an important part of the student experience for most students at my institution Mean = 2.236, N = 104, SD = 1.11 Mean = 2.38, N = 29, SD = Organized religion and/or religious faith 1.18 is an important part of the athletic experience for most studentathletes at my institution N/A N/A I am able to practice or express my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, openly within my team Mean = 5.38, N = 29, SD = 1.37 N/A N/A A majority of my teammates share my religious beliefs, or lack thereof Mean = 4.55, N = 29, SD = 1.43 N/A N/A 49 Survey Question Athletes Students Total Mean = 3.77, N = 31, SD = My coach/coaches 1.28 share my religious beliefs, or lack thereof N/A N/A My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally Mean = 5.42, N = 29, SD = 1.38 Mean = 4.16, N = 75, SD = Mean = 4.519, N = 104, SD 1.59 = 1.63 (as “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with religious beliefs generally”) My institution, athletic community, teammates, and coaches create a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof Mean = 5.45, N = 29, SD = 1.30 Mean = 5.24, N = 75, SD = Mean = 5.292, N = 104, SD 1.51 = 1.47 (as “My institution creates a positive, open, and accepting environment for people with my religious beliefs, or lack thereof”) The athletes at my institution are more religious than the student body Mean = 3.79, N = 29, SD = 1.32 Mean = 3.96, N = 75, SD = 1.02 Mean = 3.934, N = 104, SD = 1.11 The athletic community at my institution is more accepting of religious people than the general student body Mean = 4.29, N = 31, SD = 1.27 N/A N/A Questions not included: “What state did you graduate high school in?”; “Are you a varsity athlete at Whitman College?”, “What varsity sport do you participate in?”, “If you practice a religion, what religion do you practice? Be as specific as you feel is necessary. 50