Talk:King's College (New York City)

	Christianity Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

While there are a number of colleges whose names include the word, "king," this is the only one whose title explicitly includes the article, "The." It would be appropriate, therefore, to initiate a new entry under the title, The King's College.

Mission accomplished. "The King's College" now redirects to "The King's College, New York." Projection70 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below,

The King's College (New York). Whew, good times. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has casually challenged the article's identification of the house namesakes as leaders. The Wikipedia definition of a leader makes clear the accepted parameters for this term. Following are grounds upon which each of the namesakes is factually established as a leader. Note that each held at least one professional title for an acknowledged leadership position, or was otherwise first in a leadership field or prominent in a historical realm of leadership.

• C. S. Lewis was the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
• Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross. She was the first woman to have a National Historic Site dedicated to her accomplishments.
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a participant in the resistance movement against Nazism. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian.
• Elizabeth I was the Queen of England and Queen of Ireland.
• Margaret Thatcher was the
  Prime Minister
  of the United Kingdom for 11 years. She is the first and only woman to be UK Prime Minister or leader of a major British political party.
• Ronald Reagan was the President of the Screen Actors Guild, the Governor of California, and the President of the United States.
• Sojourner Truth was a
  women’s suffrage
  . She was the first African American to win a slander suit against prominent whites, and the first African American woman to test the legality of segregation of Washington, D.C., streetcars.
• Susan B. Anthony was a founder of the National Woman Suffrage Association, and was honored for her leadership in the women’s suffrage movement by being chosen to become the first female historical figure featured on a circulating United States coin.
• Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister,
  Minister of Defence
  , and Leader of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.

In light of these facts, I am removing the challenger's edit. Any further controversy about the fact that these individuals are known to be leaders should be addressed on this discussion page. Projection70 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few things - the introduction states that the school was founded in 1938, which is misleading, as the entire curiculum, staff, and location were all gone by 1994, and replaced only recently. there wasn't a continuation of any significant part of the school other than its name, so I added clarification of this fact. if there were anything at all other than the name and its status as a christian school that had survived, I wouldn't see a problem with this, but again, the school is in truth extremely young, and I don't have the faintest idea why they didn't start a new school altogether instead of buying a dead one...other than it perhaps being easier to use the old school's accredidation than to get accredited themselves. the school is effectively under 10 years old in every aspect, not over 60. I've also added a section on its identity as a subsidiary of Campus Crusade, and some information on the 'mission' so central to the school, which was entirely left out. I fealt a link to the article on Dominionism was appropriate, as the school revolves completely around christianity as defined by Campus Crusade, and its stated goal is to use this view to influence national and world affairs. If I've misused the term, I apoligize, but as far as I can tell it's accurate. I'm relying on personal memory and the only news mention of the recent accredidation issue (the village voice spring education suppliment) which I could find, and anyone with more information on this, preferably at least from both sides of the issue and not just releases from the college, should include more on it, as my treatment of it was brief and needs more research.

also, the school relies heavily on its associations with older, more established christian organisations, and again no mention was made of this fact. my personal experience is limited, but I included a link to the FEE article, a brief anecdote I which described the FEE's relationship to the school, (and I fealt helped give more of a sense of the general attitude at king's) as well as a very brief mention of Socrates in the City, which seems to be a staple of the King's experience. any other regular events or associations anyone can think of should be included - the school's survival depends largely on it's connections, formal and informal, so I think it's important to mention them.--Feralnostalgia 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The King's College as it exists today, as far as the New York State Board of Regents is concerned, is the same one that was founded in the 1930's by Crawford. The current King's College opperates under the same charter that was given to it in 1955 by the New York State Board of Regents (http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2005Meetings/March2005/0305heppa1.htm), inherited The King's College assets (which included a large estate that recently sold for $10.5 Million in Briarcliffe, NY A little history: http://www.hudsonvalleyruins.org/yasinsac/kingscollege/kingscollege.html), and, with minor changes, maintains a vision and purpose much like the college before bankruptcy. Which is more than a name and a Christian Status. There were also many unfair associations with organizations of which there were no verifiable sources. Aequitas et al 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfair associations? I don't think you would get a negative response from any of the current leadership of the school if you asked them if they wanted to put Crusade-style christians in positions of power and influence. while, forgive me, I do not have transcripts of lectures - it is blatently obvious that the professors and the administration that hired them are not trying to elevate everyone to positions of influence, but only evangelicals and others who sympathise enough with them politically to be functional substitutes. it is impossible to attend a politics class there without being given the directive to combat perceived ideological shifts with 'biblical' (as the modern american evangelical defines the term) ideals. it's not remotely a stretch to say that this is a dominionist organisation. "The King's College enrolls ambitious students who want to participate in the secular marketplace of power and ideas. They will be positioned for positions of leadership, using the Biblical worldview skills and classical education and training that they have received at the College." - taken from tkc.edu

this article origionally read like an advertisement for the school (a 24 hour concierge service gets a mention, while the organisation's stated political goals, and an accredidation controversy that lost a significant portion of the student body, both do not?) - the fact that they do not necessarily wish to describe themselves as dominionists does not change the fact that they ARE. while I don't have a statistical survey of the student body from my time there, it was blatently obvious that at least half the students and staff were some way engaged in, converted by, or related to staff of campus crusade. in any event it's enough for anyone to say a 'significant' and not a 'small' portion are CCC affiliated formally or informally. what, specifically, were the 'unfair' associations?

the current leader of the FEE and his wife both were professors at the school, the campus crusade connection is blatently obvious (they have the campus crusade logo above the door), and the socrates in the city connection is hardly 'unfair', as its participants are from across the political spectrum, even if the majority of them do seem to be wealthy. those were the only associations I mentioned. they are pratically the textbook definition of dominionist, and all the other associations are obvious, the Crusade one being the deepest. short of listing 100 of the 250 or so students and their personal connections to Crusade, which is obviously inappropriate, how does one source it? again, I haven't said anything that is not self-evident to someone who was at the school the same time I was.--Feralnostalgia 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information was biased, or flat out wrong, so I took it out. The school is not "phasing out its minor focus in education," and it does offer art courses. There were no citations or proofs of the claims that some students were enrolled without current Visas or that the faculty observes Xangas and Myspace, nor were there proofs that some students were to be expelled for what was posted on their own Xangas or Myspace. The claims were not backed up by any substantial evidence so they were deleted.

I added the college's addition to the 50 All-American Colleges list, and I also deleted the mention that the PPE was a "glorified liberal arts degree." Many other colleges carry the major and it is an insult to those who claim it as their major to call it, "nothing more than a glorified....etc."

I also eliminated any mention that none of the staff remaining from the King's College located in Briarcliffe manor, followed the school after it relocated in Manhattan. The President of the School retained his position, as well as many of his personal assistants.

Also removed was the mention that the New York State Board of Regents accredits "high schools, bartending schools, and some art colleges." The New York State Board of Regents presides over all the educational activities of schools within New York State. The Board of Regents website makes no mention of its exclusivity to "high schools, bartending schools, and some art colleges," whilst it does mention that it presides of the State University of New York. [1]

I added some content that was largely removed later, largely about the association with campus crusade for christ, and my own objection that the school claims the 1938 founding as its own, which was might be technically correct but is still largely misleading. I haven't come back to this article since it was deleted as I don't care to quibble over it, though I still think this is a sub-par article and reads like an advertisement for the school...but nowhere did I mention anything about the monitoring of xangas and myspaces...incidentally while I was a student I *was* contacted because the administration had been reading my blog, but that's hardly suitable content for an encyclopedia article...it barely warrents mention in said blog.

I just wanted to clarify that while I happen to agree with the more moderate statements in subsequent edits that apperently used some of my origional edit on June 6, the vandalism here is aproductive (not me, I might add) and embarassing. could we perhaps include a section on criticism of the school, and contain it there? I think that the link to Dominionism was a suitable one - the school is unabashedly christian, and while someone edited out that it was people of like mind the school wanted to help into power, I don't see admiting this is slanderous or untrue. the school is not at all shy about its political agenda - its blatently obvious that this is an idealist school. while the school is less insular than most, and certainly not a hateful organisation by any means, it is still very much an evangelical christian one. It is biased (not bigoted, in my experience), and I don't think the school could honestly call itself anything else. it is biased for christ, as they understand his teachings, and to put that in the article is not slander. "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism, primarily, though not exclusively, in the United States, that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs."

TKC is dominionist. they are not liberal christians, they are overwhelmingly protestant, they are evangelical (they have potential students handing out conversion tracts on Airlift...if that's not evangelical we need to redefine the term), they are american, and certainly have a strong political agenda. I'm not saying the school is brainwashing people or the school has a *platform* or anything, but compared to other institutions there is a strong and clear tendency towards certain political ideologies. when the professor reads a daily bible passage before the start of every politics class, I think we can safely say this school has strong dominionist tendencies. were you to ask the administration "would you like to see your students influence U.S. politics with biblical values as their guide?" I hardly think anyone with even a passing aquiantance with Stan Oakes and the rest could expect anything but a resounding "yes". by the definition given of Dominionism, that qualifies, and I don't think this would be considered a perjorative label. that said, I think there should be a substantial mention of the political agenda there - King's markets itself as the school to go to if you want to make a difference, and they have in mind more than a vague idea of what kind of difference one should be making. --Feralnostalgia 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While looking back through previous versions of the wiki, I noticed that the history section is now better organized but missing key infomation. I was searching for information regarding the College, and that previously deleted history was valuable to me. Specifically important were the portions of the text that mentioned the College's affiliation with Campus Crusade and the accredation battle between King's and the NY Board of Regents.

Is their any reason this was removed?

Iowacrusader 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As King's presents itself as an evangelical Christian college, I thought it was appropriate to add more information about the school's religious affiliation. The information I added can be found on here and in (PDF) the school's handbook. I did not know how to link to those specific references from within the article, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.145.86 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the drastic differences between The King's College established by Percy Crawford in 1938 and that (re-)established by Stan Oakes in 1998, I think it makes more sense for these institutions to be represented in two separate articles. The article about the present TKC should still refer to its progenitor, but it is unnecessary to spend so much time on the history of what is essentially, from all but a legal standpoint, a different school.

Furthermore, I'd like to do quite a bit of general editing to make this less like an admissions brochure and more like an encyclopedia article. I'll do my best to leave the substantive content alone, and I invite discussion on all my changes. I'll wait a couple of days before I start editing so that those watching this page can chime in.

Evaus (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As drastic as the changes may seem, it is the same school, and I'd oppose an article split. It would also be fair to say that Harvard University today is very different from what it once was, as is the case with a good many schools, and that should just make for a very interesting history section. Perhaps you could focus your attention there? As long as it's well-cited and sourced, it could be great to read. Creating a separate article, however, seems a bit over the top and maybe even a little non-NPOV (you want different articles because they seem like different schools to you). Furthermore, what would naming conventions look like for that? The King's College (1938) vs. The King's College (1998)? It was clearly a re-organization, and info. on Campus Crusade &c. should play a role, but it is the same school. On another note, how were you familiar with the College when it was in Briarcliffe? I'd love to hear more about what it was like (and your perception of the differences), just out of sheer curiosity. -- Aepoutre (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Aepoutre that this should be one article. Many colleges, like the University of Southern California, were started by religious organizations and then abandoned their religious roots to become secular. If we are going to be consistent with what Evaus proposes, then there should be a separate entry for each of those universities as well. That doesn't make sense. If I understand correctly, The Kings College is still the same legal entity. Why should we make the entry convoluted with multiple articles? I do want to applaud Evaus for taking the time to start a discussion here first rather than just hacking things up. Wikipedia needs more like you! Anyway, let's keep this open for awhile and see what others have to say. --Sixtrojans (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that after doing some reading of what has been written about the Kings College in neutral news sources (Washington Post, American Spectator, etc), almost all of those articles talk about the history of the Kings College. It seems to be relevant because of the reaccreditation battle a few years ago where the history of the school was the central argument. --Sixtrojans (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can be content with one article; I'll just focus my effort on improving it. In any case, I want to eventually provide more on the institution's history, but that's going to require more investigation and time on my part. Thanks, guys. Please let me know if I go too far with any of my edits (i.e., if I change the article too drastically or overstep my bounds.) —Evaus (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at your edits and it looks like you're doing a fair & balanced job so far. Thanks especially for cleaning up the sources I added yesterday. --Sixtrojans (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]