I am not sure taking a position makes one a partisan. The neutrality of the academic should lead to truth and a defense of it, no?

But, I wonder if your use of liberal is accurate. Certainly the Covenanters were ‘progressives’ in the late 1800s and through to Prohibition. They were for the female vote and against slavery. But, the earlier covenanters were not so sold on all this progressivism. Some were critcial of the unitarian style progressivism, and none were - of course - unitarians.
And, “Liberal” has changed its meaning over the years.
At one point some of us NRA guys were contemplating a history book of reprinted essays which we wanted to title “Right from the Beginning,” but the factors you mention scuttled this. So, I’m not saying you are wrong - but the NRA and modern American RP Church until the 1940s or so, was pretty ‘liberal.’ But, there were RP voices that were not part of that mix. And, there were conservative elements as well in the stuff published by the NRA. It just seems that few of them questioned the legitimacy of the public schooling movement. And, so, while some (I think of Delbert Elliot, Paul Martin’s grandfather in Law) were conservatives in many ways, this was within certain set of assumptions which many of us today would question. Just a heads up as to the semantic range of meaning of “liberal” and even “Progressive.” Today Progressive is pretty much Marxist, eh?

I wouldn’t say that Geneva is overwhelmingly politically conservative or liberal as an institution. I would say somewhat liberal in terms of the average RPCNA congregation, but that’s significantly conservative in terms of today’s political thought. I would say that more to the point, Geneva is not a politically outspoken institution, so even if it does have conservative leanings, those are not communicated to the outside. The word that gets out in the RP circles is the political views of certain professors, which are definitely liberal, but don’t represent the other professors who are not so outspoken. If you have anything specific, I’d appreciate e-mail - maybe there are things that can be done to help.

Geneva College, an institution that is not even mentioned in ISI’s Finding the Right College and is never included in lists of top 10 Conservative colleges, remains a bastion of politically liberal and socially progressive evangelical thought.

Not so un-covenanter when you think about it.

So, within those bounds, Geneva has found its niche as one of the few institutions that even teaches that all areas of life (even science) are to submit to the Lordship of Christ, and the college has been pulled away from its distinctively Covenanter history by professors who are escaping the evanjellyfish institutions (for all the right reasons) but are not necessarily committed to the political views of the Covenanters.

This goes all the way back to the RPCNA synod, which, in my opinion has had too much of a hands-off approach to how Geneva is run. We can talk about this in private if you have any specific recommendations. The college president is expected to be the vision-bearer for the institution, and I think that’s a mistake. The Corporators should be directing the College rather than waiting for the college to step out of bounds so that they can rat them out to synod. As a graduate, I felt I got a good education, but not one that was really distinctively covenanter (even with the required core courses in Bible, Political Science and Humanities)

Dropping out is just another expression of activist assumptions that over-load the function of politics and place stakes on it that over-realize its nature in the first place. Granted, it seems on the lesser-end-of-the-spectrum, but dropping out is certainly within the purview of what it means to be in a liberal democracy: you are free to not participate. It is just that I’d prefer the reason to be apathy rather than an adolescent over-realization in the first place that ends up taking its ball and going home simply because one lost his argument in the common sphere.

So while I agree with voices that are ostensibly critical of the “drop out” syndrome, I think I am for different reasons: I am because that is what one does as a member of this small quarter of the KoM called America. But voices like Smith’s seem to go on to try to rally the troops once again to reverse the (perceived) evil and good realities and repeat th eover-realization when he says, “Refusing to participate in determining our nation’s priorities, shaping its policies, and directing its expenditures robs Christians of a great opportunity (and obligation) to advance Christ’s true kingdom on earth… Through doing so we can help, as Christians have done for centuries, make our nation and our world more righteous, just and peaceable.” I am not sure how this squares with better, former statements like, “We need, therefore, to have modest expectations about what can be accomplished through government.” I think Smith shows just as much confusion as those he means to chastise. What he gives with one hand is roundly taken away with the other.

I will argue that present day Covenanters can participate in politics without compromising their allegiance to Jesus Christ. Voting and holding political office are not necessary for political participation. Voting is actually one of the least influential ways to participate in politics. Writing letters to office holders is much more influential and gives every citizen a voice to honor Jesus Christ explicitly before the magistrate.