Law

of us. (Even so prudently administeredrnan institution as Rose Hill operates at arncost of $3,000 per day.)rnThe stated mission of the college is tornprovide an alternative to “the secularrnagendas, government intrusion, andrnmulticultural superficiality [that] arernnow the rule…. Classes are always small,rntaking the form of tutorials and seminarsrnrather than lectures, and . . . emphasis isrnplaced upon active inquiry into principles,rnnot the passive collection of facts.rn. . . Rather than studying textbooks andrnother secondary materials, students readrna common curriculum of primary works,rnfrom ancient times to the present.”rnAnyone familiar with the actual staternof American higher education today cannotrnhelp but applaud this effort to returnrnto a classical concept of learning. Broadlyrnspeaking, higher education everywherernhas been reduced to a smorgasbordrnof noncommunicating specialtiesrnand unrelated courses that consist largelyrnof description of empirical phenomena.rn(The subject matter is not really empirical,rnhowever, because it is shot throughrnwith unexamined leftist assumptions.)rnAnd higher education everywhere is underrnthe effective control of a peculiarrncaste of opportunistic and interchangeablernpolitician/bureaucrats whose woddviewrnconsists entirely of trendy secularrnjargon.rnIt is these conditions, and not politicalrncorrectness, multiculturalism, or deconstruction,rnthat are the real problems ofrnhigher education today. They providernthe background on which such abominationsrncan flourish. It should surprise nornone that students emerge from four yearsrnof the kind of college education now offeredrnwith no capacity to understand andrnapply larger principles and perspectives,rnno information but a lot of tendentiousrnprejudices and corrosive cynicism. Thatrnstudents occasionally emerge better thanrnthis is a tribute to the students and to thernintrinsic value of learning itself, even underrnthe worst conditions.rnThe first class at Rose Hill has 17 students,rnwith five faculty. Despite rigorousrnacademic demands and behavioral rulesrnFor Immediate ServicernCHRONICLESrnNEW SUBSCRIBERSrnTOLL FREE NUMBERrn1-800-877-5459rn(or perhaps because of them), studentrnmorale seems high. The entire class proceedsrntogether in the study of languages,rnscience, mathematics, philosophy, andrntheology. Jones envisions in five vears anrnenrollment of 100 in four classes, withrnten faculty.rnOf the first class, many are Orthodoxrncommunicants, though there are alsornseveral Protestants and Catholics. Somernof the students emerged from homeschooling.rnTwo already have bachelor’srndegrees from prestigious institutionsrnbut are beginning over at a place wherernthey believe they will fulfill their desirernfor true intellectual development. (Therncurriculum is more demanding thanrnmost graduate schools.) Some of thernwomen students perhaps reasonablyrnhope that Rose Hill College will be arnplace to find Christian husbands.rnThe college accepts no federal aid ofrnany kind and depends entirely on giftsrnand Jones’s own resources. “The youngrnpeople we have attracted to our programrnso far,” says the founder, “represent arngrowing faction of the youth of our societyrnwho are spiritually sensitive by naturernand who are questioning the veryrnpremises of our secular order. They realizernthat [here] they are led to a process ofrndecision-making that requires them tornstep out of the mainstream before theyrnare huded over the falls” by present-dayrnAmerican society.rnRose Hill seeks to implement its beliefrnin the interconnection of knowledge andrnvirtue and the very Orthodox idea of therninseparability of doctrine and practice. Itrnwants to create a “small, intimate learningrncommunity” where social and religiousrnlife are integrated with education.rnStudents are forbidden drugs, alcohol,rnand inappropriate interaction of thernsexes. As a part of the building of communityrnand the joining of learning andrnpractice, students are given hands-onrnexperience in the cultivation of therncollege’s magnificent gardens.rnAnyone familiar with the lack ofrnintellectual and moral community andrnof educational coherence, so widespreadrntoday, cannot but be impressed with thernthought and planning and well-directedrnenergy that have gone into this hope-inspiringrninstitution—a remarkable examplernof how works seeming to be nearlyrnimpossible can be accomplished by faithrnand vision.rnClyde Wilson is a professor of history atrnthe University of South Carolina.rnFederalizingrnTort Reformrnby David f. OwsianyrnOn May 20, 1996, the United StatesrnSupreme Court engaged in its ownrnversion of tort reform by striking downrnthe punitive damages award of two millionrndollars in the BMW of North AmericarnV. Gore case. Unfortunately, this casernrepresents an example of two of thernworst trends in public policy: expansionrnof the federal government’s intrusion onrnthe states and judicial usurpation of legislativernauthority. While the BMW casernwas proceeding to the Supreme Court,rnthe Ohio legislature was considering arnbroad tort reform proposal that wouldrndramatically alter the state’s personal injuryrnlawsuit system. On October 28, afterrnmore than 20 months of legislativerntinkering, Covernor George Voinovichrnsigned the tort reform bill into law.rnThere is plenty of evidence that ourrnsociety has become too litigious and thatrnlawsuit abuse is extremely costly to consumers,rnbusinesses, and professionals.rnAccording to a recent study, the estimatedrndirect cost to Americans of our civilrnlitigation system is $132 billion per year.rnOver the past two decades, the averagernjury award has more than tripled. Americanrncompanies pay liability insurancernpremiums that are 20 percent to 50 percentrnhigher than those paid by foreignrncompanies. And, of course, incidentsrnlike the one concerning the spilled McDonald’srncoffee are reported regularly inrnthe press.rnPersonal injury lawsuits have historicallyrnbeen regulated at the state level.rnThe result of the BMW case, however,rnwas that punitive damages in personalrninjury lawsuits became an issue to berndealt with at the federal level. To makernmatters worse, it was not the elected representativesrnwho addressed the issue butrnunelected federal judges.rnThe plaintiff in the BMW case purchasedrnwhat he believed to be a newrnBMW automobile. Apparently, the carrnwas repainted when the original paintrnjob was damaged during transportationrnor manufacture. BMW had a policy ofrnselling a car as new if the cost of any suchrn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn