Campus life by a young Christian woman

A previous article featured an essay from a conservative male college student entitled Gen Z,
Social Media, and Envy
. This month we present an essay on campus life from a female Christian
perspective.

I am a young, conservative, Christian woman attending a large state university. I chose to attend state university because I wanted a good education in Economics and I thought it would give me valuable opportunities and cost less than attending a solid liberal arts college. While my time spent at the university has been fruitful and I have learned a great deal, it has also opened my eyes to many cultural problems with Gen Z in particular, as well as with our public higher education system.

I desire to pursue knowledge, while simultaneously pursuing the good, the true and the beautiful. I find that at state university, school is often drudgery instead of enjoyment in the challenge of pursuing truth and knowledge. Many students dread showing up to class, skip when they can and eagerly anticipate the end of the semester. When I hear from other students at smaller liberal arts colleges, many of them have their ups and downs, but overall they enjoy their education and the challenges that come with learning and mastering difficult subjects and ways of thinking.

What is different about the state university world? First of all, I have noticed my generation’s chronic
reliance on technology on my campus. It’s practically revolutionary to have a class that’s “tech free”
(including tests)—I have one of those, and it’s refreshing. In between class periods, the majority of
students walk to their next class with eyes glued to their phones or impenetrable headphones covering their ears. Students rarely make eye contact when walking, and when they do, they quickly avert their eyes.

Starting a conversation with a stranger—even to ask for directions—is one of the most intimidating things you can do. Discussion does happen in class, but it usually takes a while to get going. When students refuse to engage verbally, our professors are noticeably disheartened, but there’s not much they can do.

More tech, less reading

As technology use increases, it seems that reading is decreasing. Just last week, when I walked into class with a three-volume set of Civil War history that I was taking home, my classmate looked shocked.

I showed him what I had, and he told me that he had a couple of boxes of Encyclopedia Britannica books from his grandmother, boxed up in his basement. He said he was going to put them up on shelves by his TV. “Not to read,” he explained—“just for show.”

“Are you not much of a reader?” I asked.

“Why would I read?” he replied.

“To learn?”

He shook his head. “I haven’t read a book since probably sophomore year.” He is a senior in college.

As someone who was raised to love knowledge and reading, I found his statements discouraging. On a broader note, this makes me more concerned for my generation. Covid-19, with its lockdowns and cancelled school, forced students my age online. Now, tech use is through the roof, and hobbies and necessities that used to be common, like reading, are in steep decline.

In terms of the university’s approach to reading, we do not read economic theory in my economics classes. We discuss policy ideas, and we briefly mention famous economists, but all we know about these economists is roughly when they lived, and what equation or concept they popularised. We do not read Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or even Karl Marx. The most economic theory reading I have done thus far in my time at college is in my technology-free class on the history of Western political thought.

Campus Professor: ‘Friedman was wrong’

As an example of the economic theory teaching we get, my professor in my (required) environmental economics class began the semester by telling us that “Friedman was wrong.” He proceeded with a less than adequate two-minute summary of who Friedman was and why he was wrong, and then moved on. He ended that inaugural lecture by stating that “binary thinking is born from simplification” and encouraging us to be openminded, always looking for things to change our minds about.

I was shocked by his obvious lack of belief in objective truth and saddened that a public university was promoting—and even requiring—a class that encouraged this. We reduce problems to policy and an equation. Instead of looking to history to formulate solutions for present problems, we blindly plow full speed ahead, ignoring the wisdom from those who came before us.

This is not a problem that is unique to the economics department. A couple of my friends have expressed their annoyance with classes and professors that are not challenging them. It seems to be a common pattern throughout the humanities to offer a relatively small number of in-person courses, require few if any tests, provide open-note quizzes and short-answer questions, mandate online discussion boards (as opposed to in-person dialogue) and require minimal reading of primary sources and the classics. As students, we often pay hefty sums of money for our education. If we are not learning useful, challenging material, what is the point?

In the realm of civil discourse, it’s even more difficult—particularly for me as a conservative. Not all of my professors are liberal, but I can usually tell which ones are, aren’t or don’t care. It’s hard to challenge a professor when he is an “expert” in a topic and in charge of a class, and you are neither. It’s even harder when your fellow classmates don’t say anything.

It’s also difficult to bring up questions about politics, policy or religion with my classmates. Growing up, my generation was taught never to discuss politics, religion or money—yet those are the very things we should be talking about, especially as young people! We are all in school, wrestling with what we’ll do with the rest of our lives. Universities used to be great forums for debate. Now we’re afraid we’ll offend someone by asking a genuine question.

Dating by phone apps, hookups

Another problem is the dating aspect. I didn’t attend college with the belief that I would find my husband here, but of course there’s always that hope. Yet my generation was raised with a dependence on phones, video games and dating apps. Don’t want to leave the comfort of your home to meet someone? No problem. There are countless apps you can get that enable you to “meet” someone in every way possible except for the one that truly matters—face to face.

Walking around my campus, I’ve been disheartened to see that many of my schoolmates find greater enjoyment in the party and hookup culture than they do in searching out a spouse with whom they can faithfully spend the remainder of their lives. No wonder it’s hard to find a good man here.


Radical feminism doesn’t help

Add to that the problem of radical feminism. The men in my generation have been taught since birth that women are entitled to exactly the same treatment as men. Women can work all the same jobs as men, women can and should provide for their families, women are just as strong as men, etc. Gone is the chivalrous protector role that men used to strive to fill.

I’ve been shocked recently at how rare it is for my fellow male students to hold doors for the female
students. Since there is no longer a difference between the sexes, there is no longer a need—or even a desire—for men to step into a provider role. In my experience, this has led to young men who are afraid
to ask young women out, unsure of their place in their girlfriend’s life, and afraid of committing to long term relationships.

They also struggle with their role as a natural-born leader. I only know a few openly conservative men on campus—most of my conservative friends are female. I have more male friends who are deeply religious, but they tend not to speak publicly about their political beliefs.

Conservative women exist on campus

And yet, there is hope. In a culture where we’re told that Gen Z women are the most liberal demographic, most of my conservative friends at the university are women. They are women who want to do something to save America and her people. My best friend wants to be a lawyer, another good friend wants to teach history to kids, another wants to work in state and local government, and another wants to work in international politics.

All of these women are strong, godly and driven to make changes. We are equipped to make these changes and find community through a few clubs on campus, internships, and fellowship and seminar opportunities.

I have had incredible opportunities to network and build relationships with likeminded conservative students through a political dialogue club on campus and through the campus College Republicans club. I have the privilege of serving both as an officer. I met my best friend through the political dialogue club, and I was able to join up with some of my conservative friends to restart our defunct College Republicans chapter.

Clubs and internships

In the College Republicans chapter, we are continuing to recruit new members and planning events where conservatives can meet one another and find friendly community in the face of opposition.

Our goal is to develop responsible, conservative citizens, change the minds of others through respectful debates and dialogues, and protect conservatism on our campus. Through working with fellow students to advance conservative values, we have built a community of intelligent and driven young people who I am confident will continue the fight for truth at our university long after I graduate.

My conservative professors have helped me with internship and networking opportunities as well, including an internship at the Heritage Foundation this past summer. At Heritage I was blessed to work in the DeVos Center for Human Flourishing (formerly the DeVos Center for Life, Family, and Religion), where I did focused research on issues such as abortion, transgender hormone “therapy” and vaccines.

Through our weekly lecture series, I learned about domestic and foreign policy issues, the natural law, and the definition and application of conservatism, among other things.’

All the interns were given copies of Russell Kirk’s The Roots of American Order and Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions. One of the policy directors, who had majored in economics, gave me Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and encouraged me to read it.

The goal of the internship directors, and I believe everyone at Heritage, was to equip us as young conservatives to go out on the offensive for conservative values—not just defending them but promoting them.

At Heritage, I made friendships that will last my whole life, learned what it means to be a “happy warrior” and emerged equipped to further the conservative movement wherever I find myself in the future.

In addition to my time spent at Heritage, I had the privilege of interning for the Acton Institute and twice for the Center for Arizona Policy. Through these wonderful experiences, I learned the process of lawmaking, took notes on numerous legislative floor sessions, committee and caucus meetings, performed topical research, catalogued books, learned hospitality and reception work, and so much more. My time spent at the Center for Arizona Policy is even more applicable now, after my summer at Heritage.

At Heritage, I was more focused on learning conservative policy and values and implementing those in a focused area. At the Center for Arizona Policy, those values connected directly with lawmaking of all shapes and sizes. These experiences have shaped my understanding of America and her political system, and I am excited to apply what I have learned wherever I may go.

While sometimes I regret not attending a conservative liberal arts school, when I reflect on the experiences and opportunities I have had at state university, I repeatedly conclude that I would not be where I am today if I had not chosen to attend state university. And, despite its shortcomings, I do believe there is hope for the state university world—but it is not found in more federal funding or in forcing students to write more papers.

How to improve classes on campus

Instead, it will be found in

  • teaching good, comprehensive, challenging history and humanities courses,
  • supporting students in pursuing knowledge with excellence,
  • fostering a more Socratic method of teaching and interacting with teachers and fellow students in the classroom, and
  • encouraging students to respectfully debate and challenge one another’s ideas of religion, policy and more.

The young conservatives I have met at my state university are intelligent, motivated and dedicated individuals who are committed to working together to defend and promote conservative values. There may not be many of us at our university now, but our hope is that our actions now will change the future.


This article is published by the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation in St Louis, Missouri, USA. The original article is available from the foundation’s website:  www.mindszenty.org. The Mindszenty Report is not copyrighted, and readers are invited to forward copies to their local bishops, priests and pastors.


New pro-life film by Denise Mountenay

Endeavour Forum’s Canadian associate, Denise Mountenay, is currently working on a new pro-life film, “Truth Matters: The Impact of Abortion”. This comes ten years after Denise co-produced the award-winning documentary, “Hush”, which exposed the links between abortion and breast cancer, premature birth and mental health issues.

A new pro-life film

Dear Friend in Christ:

This documentary exposes the falsehoods many pregnant women are told. It shines a light on the miracle of life before birth through ultrasound technology and features medical experts who reveal the truth about it. Specialists report on the increased breast cancer risk, preterm birth link, and the devastating mental health consequences.

You’ll hear from a medical researcher reporting on dozens of peer-reviewed studies proving legal abortion is not “safe” for women. And you’ll witness powerful testimonies from women who have been physically, emotionally, and spiritually harmed by legal abortion—women who now speak out to warn others and bring hope.

Please watch the trailer to gain an idea of what we have in mind for this film:

This film is more than information. It’s a mission. A warning. A lifeline.

It will speak to the body, soul, and spirit—and ultimately save countless precious lives created in the image of God.

A call to action

Become our partner for such a time as this!

We are coming against the spirits of death and murder. We urgently ask for your prayers and, if possible, your fasting.

But prayer alone is not enough—this professionally produced film needs your financial support to be completed. We are raising funds for:

  • Editing and soundtrack-$30,000.
  • Subtitles in multiple languages (abortion is a global epidemic)
  • Marketing and distribution to reach hearts worldwide $100,000.

Good news

Everyone who donates $1,000 or more will receive a complimentary copy of the documentary upon release. And yes—your gift is tax-deductible if you give online to

U.S. Partners: www.advancingtruthalliance.com (501c3)

Canadians: www.togetherforlife.net Thank you so much! We hate to ask, but must.

For information about Denise Mountenay’s work on behalf of Endeavour Forum, please click here:

Solzhenitsyn, Lysenkoism and the lies of the revolution

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008) was the most important Soviet dissident, but his message was accessible to all. On the day before he was sent into exile in 1974, he published a short essay entitled “Live Not By Lies”. It only takes him a few pages to lay out the most effective strategy for resisting totalitarianism.

As Solzhenitsyn well knew, ordinary people often feel that they are too weak to make any difference in a corrupt world. When all the powers of government are arrayed in the service of oppression, the lone citizen truly seems powerless. If they speak up, they might miss out on a job, an education or social acceptance. So they remain silent — after all, what difference does a single voice make?

More than you might think, said Solzhenitsyn. For though the regime is powerful, its power does not rest on military might. Instead, it comes from lies.

Solzhenitsyn saw that though a revolution might rely on physical force, violence is not enough to maintain its power. As he put it:

“Violence ages swiftly, a few years pass — and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally — Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit — and this suffices as our fealty.”

The Revolution can only be continued if everyone lies. In the Soviet Union, lies often came in the form of Marxist slogans: Workers of the World, Unite! Even though common people had no interest in uniting with the workers of Algeria, the United States or Brazil, they shouted the slogans in order to stay safe. And when everyone moved in lockstep, the system seemed impenetrable. So much so that the Soviet authorities were able to force compliance with truly bizarre doctrines like Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism was the political/scientific project of Trofim Lysenko, who probably killed more people than any scientist in human history. He did so by rejecting any scientific theories that conflicted with Marxist doctrine.

Lysenko was a biologist who denied the existence Trofim Lysenko probably killed more people than any scientist in human history. of genes. He did so because genes encode stable characteristics that are passed down from one generation of living things to the next. In his view, this contradicted the Marxist ideal of Revolution.

Marx believed that when capitalism died, socialism would produce a “new man”, ushering in a new age. Lysenko translated this idea into the field of biology, arguing that organisms are only shaped by their environment. For example, he thought that by manipulating the environmental conditions that seeds are exposed to, you could even grow orange trees in Siberia.

His ideas were so popular that Stalin empowered him to lead the “modernisation” of agriculture in the Ukraine, where forced collectivisation had already murdered millions of people. On Lysenko’s decree, farmers were ordered to plant seeds very close together. As he saw it, seeds from the same species wouldn’t compete against one another. Much like the proletariat, they were destined for cooperation. He also prohibited fertiliser and pesticides.

The results were predictable: mass starvation. Even after the Soviets grew farm acreage 163 times, food production hadn’t reached pre-collectivisation levels.

Yet that wasn’t the end of Lysenko’s career. Because his ideas aligned with party orthodoxy, they weren’t criticised. In fact, hundreds of scientists were sent to prisons, asylums and firing squads for defending genetics. The country’s genetics researchers were once among the world’s finest, but no matter: The Revolution required a full commitment.

By the 1950s, communist China adopted Lysenkoism as its official agricultural doctrine. Thirty million people starved to death as a result. But that wasn’t enough to stop Soviet satellites like Poland, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic from having to accept Lysenkoism as the “new biology”.

Soviet lies like Lysenkoism give Solzhenitsyn’s program of resistance its special edge. If the regime rules through falsehood, then there is no end to the damage it can do. Yet by the same token, totalitarian dictatorships cannot survive if people stop lying. As Solzhenitsyn said: “When people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.”

Of course, it’s impossible to read about the Soviets’ sacrificing biology to political ideology without thinking of the experts who claim to follow the science but can’t tell us what a woman is. People who undergo gender transition surgery are 12 times as likely to attempt suicide as those who do not (see Cureus, Vol. 16, No. 4, April 2, 2024), but this fact is inconvenient for the Revolution.

Much as in Solzhenitsyn’s day, powerful institutions — both nominally public and nominally private — are arrayed against the truth. We face the challenge he posed in 1974: “Let each man choose: Will he remain a witting servant of the lies (needless to say, not due to natural predisposition, but in order to provide a living for the family, to rear the children in the spirit of lies!), or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”

Adam De Gree is an American classical educator and freelance writer. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), November 5, 2024, and is reproduced by permission.