Content uploaded by Kathleen M Goodman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathleen M Goodman on Sep 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
This chapter describes atheism in higher education and
provides suggestions for student affairs practitioners
interested in understanding and responding to the needs
of atheist students.
Invisible, Marginalized, and
Stigmatized: Understanding and
Addressing the Needs of Atheist
Students
Kathleen M. Goodman, John A. Mueller
Atheist students, like atheists in the broader society, are often stigmatized
as immoral, evil, or god hating. Because of this stigmatization, it is common
for atheists to hide that aspect of their identity, rendering them invisible.
Educators contribute to that invisibility when they fail to include non-
believing perspectives in religious and spiritual development work with
students, thus marginalizing atheist students further. We encourage educa-
tors to learn about atheism and make efforts to normalize it, while seeking
ways to provide developmental opportunities for atheist students.
Historically, the student affairs profession has been dedicated to the
holistic development of all students (American Council on Education, 2004;
NASPA, n.d.). Student affairs practitioners create developmental spaces for
all types of students while educating the “majority” about multiculturalism,
sexual orientation, nontraditional students, and students of diverse religious
backgrounds. These practitioners are guided by a dedication to the whole
student, to serving every student, and to “education for a fuller realization
of democracy” (NASPA, n.d.). Yet as this chapter demonstrates, the needs of
atheist students have generally been ignored by the profession.
In this chapter, we introduce the topic of atheist students to the field
of student affairs. We provide definitions of relevant terms related to the
55
7
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES, no. 125, Spring 2009 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ss.308
56 INTERSECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
perspectives and principles of atheists. Then we briefly address the demo-
graphics of atheism and focus on atheist student experiences on college cam-
puses. We conclude with recommendations for student affairs practitioners.
Defining and Understanding Atheism
Smith (1979) offers a cogent examination of the terms theism, atheism, and
agnosticism. Smith defines theism as “belief in a god or gods” (p. 9). Since
the prefix “a” means “without,” atheism then means “without a belief in a
god or gods.” Baggini (2003) and Converse (2003) argue that atheism is
not only the absence of belief in god’s existence, but a complete denial of
anything supernatural. Whereas theism and atheism are concerned with dif-
ferent aspects of religious belief, agnosticism, according to Smith (1979),
refers to “the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god” (p. 10).
Atheist students come to campus informed by these definitions and others.
How they define atheism and identify themselves inevitably affects how
they live.
Converse (2003) differentiates among three types of atheists based on
how they express their nonbelief in their lives. The first type, and arguably
the most common, accepts that god does not exist, but does not give much
thought to that position and has difficulty justifying it. They simply, from
Dawkins’s perspective (2006), live their lives on the assumption that god
is not there. The second type accepts the position that god does not exist
and can offer an articulate statement on that position, incorporating
knowledge from religion, science, and technology. The third type differs
from the second in a willingness to both publicly take a stance on and
structure life around atheism. Atheist students hold these varying perspec-
tives as well, and many need help sorting out their beliefs and articulating
their identity.
A number of other terms identify people who are atheists, such as non-
believer, secular humanist, naturalist, and freethinker. It is beyond the scope
of this chapter to examine each of these terms and the many reasons that
people adopt them. However, one possible explanation may lie in the
stigma associated with the term atheism, which is often characterized as a
dark force that rejects the values of goodness, ethics, morality, and purpose.
Atheist scholars point out that nonbelievers can live a moral life indepen-
dent of a god in large part because the atheist is less likely than the believer
to confuse divine law and selected scriptural text with what is fundamen-
tally right, just, and good for the sake of humankind (Baggini, 2003;
Comte-Sponville, 2007; Paulos, 2008; Stenger, 2007). Likewise, these
scholars assert that atheists can live with meaning and direction, not for
the purpose of a creator, but for themselves, humanity, and the earth.
Indeed, many nonbelieving students view their atheism as more than a
rejection of religion; it is their life philosophy that provides moral direc-
tion (Nussbaum, 1999).
57
INVISIBLE, MARGINALIZED, AND STIGMATIZED
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
Demographics
It is difficult to obtain an accurate set of demographics on atheists for two rea-
sons. First, a single definition and identity of an atheist is not universally
accepted or understood and is often not distinguished from agnostic, nonreli-
gious, or secularist. Second, and related to terminology, the social stigma
attached with the term atheist results in many not reporting themselves as athe-
ist on surveys. Still, some data provide an idea of the demographics of atheists.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (2004) reported that 12.5 percent of the
world’s population is nonreligious, and 2.4 percent are atheist. This is sub-
stantiated by estimates from a 2002 survey by Adherents.com (n.d.) that
reported 14 percent of the world’s population as secular, nonreligious,
agnostic, or atheist. U.S. News and World Report cites a Harris Poll that found
an increase in the number of adult Americans who were not “absolutely cer-
tain” about the existence of God from 34 percent to 43 percent over three
years (Tolson, 2006). Still, a study by the University of Minnesota sociology
department (Edgell, Gerteis and Hartmann, 2006) reports that self-reported
atheists account for only about 1 to 3 percent of the U.S. population.
This same study found that atheists are the least trusted segment of the
population, ranking below Muslims, recent immigrants, and gays and les-
bians (Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann, 2006). The authors suggest that not
sharing in the American core value of religion is what marginalizes atheists
so dramatically. The study also reports that in addition to personal religios-
ity, exposure to diversity, education, and political orientation influences atti-
tudes toward atheists.
Atheism in Higher Education
According to the 2003 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study,
The Spiritual Life of College Students (2004–2005), 17 percent of students
surveyed picked “none” as their stated religious preference, and 15 percent
stated that they were not interested in “spiritual/religious matters” (p. 6).
However, practically no research exists to shed light on the experience of
atheist college students (Nash, 2003). This gap suggests that, like atheists
in the general population, atheists on campus are invisible, stigmatized, and
marginalized. Anecdotal evidence supports this claim.
Reflecting on his experience teaching religious studies classes on religion,
Nash (2003) states that many atheist students feel stigmatized and demonized.
He provides evidence from one graduate student who asked, “Where is the
acceptance of non-believers? When will atheists like myself feel that it is safe
to state our ideas ...?”(p.1).Nashattributes stigmatization to atheophobia,
which he defines as “the fear and loathing of atheists that permeate American
culture” (p. 4). This is also expressed by a Harvard undergraduate and athe-
ist student leader who states that even on a tolerant campus like Harvard, he
meets people who “despise” him for his beliefs (Reisberg, 1998, para. 29).
58 INTERSECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
Atheophobia leads to invisibility for many atheists, who find it is best
to keep their nonbelief hidden for their own good. In one telling example,
Pollit (2005) describes the case of Tim Shortell, a professor being consid-
ered for a department chair position at Brooklyn College of the City Univer-
sity of New York until the local newspapers identified him as an atheist. The
college president instituted an investigation, and Shortell ultimately with-
drew his candidacy, forgoing a professional opportunity because his non-
belief was made visible. Likewise, Nash (2003) reflects that it is unlikely
that an individual who is open about being an atheist would be hired as a
president of a prestigious college or university.
Contributing to the invisibility and marginalization of atheist students
is the current focus on religious pluralism and spirituality on campus (Nuss-
baum, 1999; Nash, 2003; Goodman and Teraguchi, 2008). Rarely do edu-
cators include nonbelieving worldviews when addressing religious diversity.
While spirituality is considered an inclusive term, it has different meanings
to different people and is not a relevant concept for all students, as the HERI
data indicate (2004–2005). As long as student affairs educators continue to
use spiritual (Love and Talbot, 2000) and faith development models (Parks,
2000) that assume students believe in a higher power of some sort, the athe-
ist perspective will continue to be marginalized. As long as student affairs
educators continue to ignore nonbelieving perspectives, atheist students will
remain invisible. And as long student affairs educators allow the persistence
of myths and misconceptions about atheists living amoral and meaningless
lives, atheist students will continue to be stigmatized.
Offering a positive counter to the invisibility and stigmatization of athe-
ist college students is the Campus Freethought Alliance (CFA), a national
organization that supports individual student organizations of nonbelievers
(Nussbaum, 1999; Reisberg, 1998). The goal of the campus organizations
is to create a sense of community among nonbelievers. They serve a func-
tion similar to Hillel, Campus Crusade for Christ, and other religious
groups, providing students the opportunity to develop community, host lec-
tures, and become activists on their own behalf (Nussbaum, 1999). CFA
also provides students with an opportunity to develop their moral beliefs
and discuss how they make meaning in their lives (Nussbaum, 1999). Many
of the students, like other atheists and secular humanists, “find meaning
and moral guidance through scientific reasoning, the lessons of history, and
personal experiences” (Reisberg, 1998, para. 9).
Suggestions for Student Affairs Practice
Atheist students are often marginalized by higher education professionals,
knowingly or unknowingly, to the point of being made to feel invisible on
college campuses. This condition creates a unique challenge to student
affairs practitioners who may genuinely want to respond to the needs of this
59
INVISIBLE, MARGINALIZED, AND STIGMATIZED
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
population. We propose the following recommendations to assist practition-
ers in understanding and responding to the needs of atheist students:
•Learn about and understand atheism. “Atheophobia, like all other phobias,
thrives in a state of ignorance” (Nash, 2003, p. 7), and higher education
professionals know as well as anyone else that knowledge and educa-
tion can go a long way in combating fear, dismantling stereotypes, and
replacing misinformation with accurate information. Therefore, profession-
als need to take time to learn more about atheism, including its history and
principles, as well as related myths and misconceptions. This knowledge
can undergird and advance the other recommendations in this section. The
references in this chapter, along with the Web site www.atheists.org, pro-
vide a useful starting point for increasing one’s knowledge about atheism.
•Assess your campus climate for atheist students. Conduct a formal or infor-
mal assessment of your campus climate for nonbelievers. The following
questions can guide such assessments:
• Does your campus provide sufficient opportunities for inner develop-
ment independent of religion?
• Do forums for religious inquiry value the many differences within and
between religious traditions and include nonreligious and nonbeliev-
ing perspectives?
• Have the faculty and administrators on your campus grappled with the
definitions of spirituality and religion and the ways that their diverse
meanings may affect students?
• Have you analyzed the impact of Christian and religious privilege on
your campus?
• Are there sufficient opportunities for nonbelievers to come together for
community and support?
Formal assessments can include specific campus surveys on tolerance of
religious belief and nonbelief, or these types of items can be added to exist-
ing campus climate surveys.
•Normalize the atheist perspective. Student affairs practitioners can help
reduce the invisibility and stigmatization of atheist students by openly talk-
ing about atheism and providing information to the campus. The presence
of programming opportunities about atheism or targeted for atheist students
can make the topic visible and valid. Many of the other recommendations
in this section can also contribute to normalizing atheism on campus.
•Challenge the tacit definition of and ways of thinking about spirituality. Chal-
lenge the idea that spirituality is a one-size-fits-all concept by acknowledg-
ing atheist perspectives in all campus efforts on spirituality. This may mean
being very intentional about expanding the concept of spirituality to
60 INTERSECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
include atheism. Or it may mean letting go of the word spirituality in favor
of inner development, existential well-being, or life purpose and meaning.
•Include atheist students in programming. In efforts to promote spirituality
(or inner development) of students, be inclusive of atheist students. Offer
opportunities for personal development that ring true for atheist students;
they are as eager as other students to explore what they believe and how
their beliefs influence their identity, purpose, morality, and ethics. Consider
providing opportunities for discussion in a safe setting of atheists only.
Also, consider how inner development, belief, and nonbelief can be incor-
porated into other program topics, such as leadership development. Just
as educators encourage students to learn about, respect, and appreciate dif-
ferent religious (theist and polytheist) perspectives, so too can they encour-
age students to understand and not feel threatened by the nonreligious
or atheist perspectives. Finally, invite atheist speakers to campus, using
the speakers’ bureau maintained by the American Atheists (http://www.
atheists.org/visitors.center/speakers.html). All of these programming
opportunities allow atheist and theist students to discuss how they develop
values, how they find meaning in life, and how to build community.
•Be aware of sources of marginalization. Many times, atheists feel marginal-
ized by traditions and practices that other people take for granted. One
way to address this is to be conscious of the presence of atheist students
on campuses and to examine practices that assume students’ comfort with
religious-based practices. For example, many formal activities on cam-
puses, such as commencements, use invocations or benedictions that con-
note religion (typically Christian), even when attempts are made to be
secular. This marginalization can even find its way into our casual lan-
guage. Paulos (2008) notes that many common sayings can be rephrased
without references to god. For example, “God only knows” essentially
means, “No one really knows,” and “God willing” implies “If things work
out ok” (p. 136).
•Include the atheist perspective in campus interfaith efforts. Cawthon and
Jones (2004) observed that in the past two decades, and in response to
students’ increasing search for spiritual growth, there has been a resur-
gence of campus exploration on church and institutional relations. This
is particularly evident in campus ministry programs and interfaith coun-
cils. We urge student affairs divisions to collaborate to find ways to make
nonbelief more visible within faith communities, campus ministries, and
interfaith councils. This may even include the bold step of creating a
chaplaincy for nonbelievers, such as Harvard University’s humanist chap-
laincy, which is “dedicated to building, educating, and nurturing a diverse
community of humanists, agnostics, atheists, and the non-religious at
Harvard and beyond” (http://www.harvardhumanist.org/).
•Build a visible network of atheist allies among faculty and staff. Given the
demographics of atheists and agnostics, it is reasonable to assume there
are higher education professionals who are nonbelievers or are question-
61
INVISIBLE, MARGINALIZED, AND STIGMATIZED
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
ing the existence of god. Similarly, there are likely to be theists whose
knowledge about and openness to atheism qualifies them as allies. We
suggest that student affairs practitioners identify and build this network
of allies to provide support for programs, campus assessments, and
formal ally groups for students. To take this further, perhaps initiate a
program similar to Safe Zone programs for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender students.
•Disseminate information about scholarships for atheist students. Campuses
often make available to students a wide range of scholarships (usually
through announcements or institutional websites dedicated to that topic).
Educators are encouraged to provide information about atheist scholarships
directly to atheist students and to include it with other scholarship notices.
American Atheists provides scholarships of up to two thousand dollars for
atheist activism (http://www.atheists.org/family/html/scholarship.html).
•Help students connect to a broader atheist community using technology. The
Internet has become an important source of information and social net-
working for students in general, and in particular for students who feel
stigmatized or desire to maintain anonymity. We urge practitioners to use
the Internet and other forms of technology to help connect atheist stu-
dents to one another and the larger atheist community. Information for
using Facebook in this way can be found at http://friendlyatheist.com/
2007/08/22/how-to-use-facebook-to-your-advantage/. In addition, the
Atheist Blogroll (http://friendlyatheist.com/blogroll/) provides links to
multiple online groups.
•Encourage the formation of an atheist student organization. If your campus
has a group for atheist students, get involved or at least become aware of
its presence, leadership, mission, and meeting times. If no such group
exists, encourage its formation or help to found one by using information
from the Campus Freethought Alliance (http://www.campusfreethought.
org/) or the Secular Student Alliance (www.secularstudents.org).
•Conduct research. The previous recommendations for practice have the
potential to significantly minimize the invisibility and stigmatization of athe-
ist students. Likewise, research on the lives, experiences, and development
of this population can facilitate this objective. As noted earlier, very little is
known or understood about atheist students. Still, as many are aware from
theories of faith development (Fowler, 1981; Parks, 2000), the college-age
years are a significant time for testing and questioning one’s faith. Arguably,
then, the college years might become a starting point for some young adults
who, in their search for meaning, purpose, beliefs, and attitudes, develop an
atheist perspective. There is much to learn about atheist students in pursuit
of making the campus more open and hospitable for them.
•Resist the temptation to wait for a critical mass. We suggest that given stu-
dent affairs professional philosophy and goals, it is imprudent (and per-
haps unethical) to fail to respond to the existence and the needs of this
student population. Like other invisible or underrepresented minorities,
62 INTERSECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
it may be difficult to assess their presence on campus, but that does not
mean they do not exist. Just as we have not waited for other religious
minorities, such as Buddhists and Muslims, or gender minorities, such as
transgender people, to reach a critical mass before acknowledging and
responding to their presence on campus, we should not wait for atheist
students.
Conclusion
The information in this chapter is a starting point for student affairs prac-
titioners to understand atheism and begin to create the safe, affirming cam-
pus climates that they profess to desire. The tips for practice should help
practitioners reduce the invisibility, marginalization, and stigmatization of
atheist students. Student affairs practitioners can normalize atheism and
begin to address the needs of atheist students by creating inclusive dia-
logues about religion, spirituality, belief, and nonbelief. As Nash (2003)
reminds us, this type of dialogue “requires direct, give-and-take participa-
tion with all types of religious otherness, including non-religious other-
ness. It insists that we allow the ‘other’ to get under our skins, to engage
with us, to disturb us, and even, if the circumstances warrant, to change
us” (p. 19).
References
Adherents.com. “Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents.” N.d.
Retrieved Jan. 2, 2008, from http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
American Council on Education. “The Student Personnel Point of View (1937).” In
E. J. Whitt (ed.), ASHE Reader on College Student Affairs Administration. Boston: Pear-
son Custom, 2004.
Baggini, J. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Cawthon, T. W., and Jones, C. “A Description of Traditional and Contemporary Cam-
pus Ministries.” College Student Affairs Journal, 2004, 23, 158–172.
Comte-Sponville, A. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. (N. Huston, Trans.). New
York: Viking/Penguin Group, 2007. (Original work published in 2006)
Converse, R. W. Atheism as a Positive Social Force. New York: Algora, 2003.
Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., and Hartmann, D. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cul-
tural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review, 2006, 71, 211–234.
Encyclopedia Britannica. “Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental
Areas.” 2004. Retrieved Jan. 2, 2008, from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article
9396555/Religion.
Fowler, J. W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for
Meaning. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1981.
Goodman, K. M., and Teraguchi, D. H. “Beyond Spirituality: A New Framework for Edu-
cators.” Diversity and Democracy, 2008, 11(1), 10–11.
Higher Education Research Institute. “The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National
Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose.” 2004–2005. Retrieved
Oct. 17, 2007, from http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/reports/index.html
63
INVISIBLE, MARGINALIZED, AND STIGMATIZED
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT SERVICES • DOI: 10.1002/ss
Love, P., and Talbot, D. “Defining Spiritual Development: A Missing Consideration for
Student Affairs.” NASPA Journal, 2000, 37(1), 361–375.
Nash, R. J. Religious Pluralism in the Academy: Opening the Dialogue. New York: Peter
Lang, 2001.
Nash, R. J. “Inviting Atheists to the Table: A Modest Proposal for Higher Education.”
Religion and Education, 2003, 30(1), 1–23.
NASPA. “The Student Personnel Point of View, 1949.” N.d. Retrieved Apr. 2, 2007, from
http://www.naspa.org/pubs/StudAff_1949.pdf.
Nussbaum, E. “Faith No More: The Campus Crusade for Secular Humanism.” Lingua
Franca, 1999, 9(7), 30–37.
Parks, S. D. Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for
Meaning, Purpose, and Faith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Paulos, J. A. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t
Add Up. New York: Hill and Wang, 2008.
Pollit, K. “Brooklyn Prof in Godless Shocker.” Nation, June 27, 2005, p. 11.
Reisberg, L. “New Groups Unite in Belief That One Needn’t Believe in God.” Chronicle
of Higher Education, 1998, 44(32), pp. A43–44.
Smith, G. H. Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1979.
Stenger, V. J. God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
New York: Prometheus Books, 2007.
Tolson, J. “The New Unbelievers.” U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 13, 2006, p. 40.
KATHLEEN M. GOODMAN is a doctoral student and research assistant at the Cen-
ter for Research on Undergraduate Education at the University of Iowa.
JOHN A. MUELLER is an associate professor of student affairs in higher education
at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
