Some years back, conservative columnist George F. Will argued that colleges are too liberal. But if liberalism means the freedom to consider new ideas, what else would we expect?
Liberal Colleges
Over a decade ago, conservative writer George F. Will objected that colleges are too liberal. I generally like to read Will; I don’t typically agree with him, but usually I find his comments to be logical and collegial, and they often give me something to think about.
But this essay about liberal colleges was very concerning. First of all, notice that he only looks at large, highly regarded universities, and except for an example where engineering is grouped with science, he only considers the humanities and sciences.
Conservative Academia
Why doesn’t he include a survey of business colleges? Where are the engineering schools? Is his complaint also true for the highly selective, elite military academies? What about religiously-affiliated universities? Are small public universities in rural and small town settings equally liberal as big, rich, urban universities?
I’m not splitting hairs here. By focusing on rather selective data, Will seems to be teeing up the answer to fit his expectations, and only considering information that makes his argument.
Nonacademic Conservatives
Which brings up my next concern: Why does he ask this question at all? I would guess that most American corporations are overwhelmingly guided by conservatives, as are most Chambers of Commerce. I can’t imagine there are many liberals in the Pentagon, the largest recipient of an enormous US federal budget. I would also guess that the clergy and the management/advisory boards of most houses of worship are strongly conservative.
Then there’s government itself. Currently 31 governors are Republican and only 18 are Democrat, and Republicans control both houses of Congress. When Will wrote this piece, conservative power was even stronger.
Of course we must also consider the ‘mainstream liberal media’ with these considerations: US newspapers are overwhelmingly owned by five profit-driven corporations; the largest television news channel is Fox; and talk radio is dominated by conservatives.
Partisanship vs ‘Not My Brand’ of Partisanship
So if we look at the real juice in everyday US life, it would appear that conservatives dominate the most influential areas. But Will doesn’t discuss any of that, he only looks at a few high-profile universities, and only at certain disciplines within them. Considering the cherry-picked data he uses to start his little jeremiad, and his focus on a tiny slice of American life, we have to wonder about his objectivity here, and his fairness on this topic. Is Will’s complaint that one ideology might be dominating our universities?
Or is the real objection that it isn’t his ideology?
It calls into question George F. Will’s sincerity on this issue. Does he care about fairness and parity, or just winning the game? Does he care about the American dialogue, or does he simply desire partisan dominance? He seems to be concerned that liberal colleges may be muzzling opponents, when this piece ironically suggests the this is exactly what he wants to do… but from his side. If Will fails to place dialogue and debate above political interests, then the assumption becomes that he values conservatism over democracy, and partisan ideology above American ideals.
Functional Considerations
My objections here are not polemic rhetoric; they are central to this blog, and to our way of life. I have argued repeatedly that liberal and conservative have different, critical functions in a changing world, and that the dialogue they create is essential for modern life, and for progress.
The function of liberalism is to attempt new ideas, to be the R&D arm of the democracy. That being so, if we do not foster liberal ideas in the research university…
…where should we foster them?
Essential Liberalism
The modern university has several functions, but the ‘best’ universities are research universities. Some conservatives might argue that we should limit university research to technology, and avoid social issues. Remember however, that at their inception, abolition, women’s suffrage, child protections, public education, and the Pure Food and Drug Act were all ‘liberal’ efforts. And critical to supporting all of them were the liberal faculty, in the more liberal departments, at the most liberal universities.
Oh, and lest we forget: much of the American Revolution was fueled by radical college students in colonial taverns. The point is, technological advances are insufficient for general human progress, and for national competitiveness. Addressing social issues, and implementing those practices that protect and improve the citizen and the worker, are also essential to progress.
Holistic Learning
And without liberals – or at least without the liberal, collegial, inclusive approach that Will’s focus seems to exclude – how are universities supposed to teach our young adults? Should they never study Marx and Sartre and Tennessee Williams and Darwin and the Big Bang? If we do not employ teachers who are truly open to new and different ideas, those ideas will never get a fair hearing, and our students will leave college with exactly the same received knowledge, that they started with. They will never learn to deal with ideas objectively, to think for themselves, and to decide for themselves.
As noted above, until students reach the university, the institutional factors in their lives are overwhelmingly conservative. College is the young adult’s first taste of freedom, and it is a time for trying all sorts of new things, even dangerous things. College students take risks with money, alcohol, drugs, romance, sex, even their own lives. Every good parent accepts these risks with white-knuckled fear, understanding they are essential to normal learning and development. Learning to fly requires the risk of falling. Will’s objections suggest that we should send our young adults off to college with the freedom to experiment with their own lives and their own bodies, but not with their own minds.
Educating Citizens
Much of the power of society is held by conservatives, and Will seems to suggest that conservatives should increase that power within our universities. How would a society so partisan ever produce intelligent, analytical thinkers for the democracy?
Should we not be teaching our newest citizens to be fully informed, critical, and independent thinkers? And how are we to do that if they never hear new ideas?
It is the responsibility, even the purpose, of the modern university to teach and attempt risky, liberal, and even radical ideas. That Will, a man who is so broadly educated and well-read, questions this fundamental university mission is concerning.
Conservatives vs Liberals vs Authoritarians
There are many important, and even critical concepts in conservatism. Both liberals and conservatives, however, are prone to ugly, intolerant, and authoritarian streaks. At times, partisans on both sides have worked to deny people their own thoughts, their own opinions, and their own ideas, in favor of conformity to dogma and inflexible doctrine. Demagogues on all sides repeatedly attempt to deny us our freedom, and our individuality.
Will, willy-nilly, seems to be attempting that here. When he suggests that our universities are too liberal, he is also quietly expressing the desire that the rest of us conform to his ideology. He seems to want to deny us our God-given, and Constitutionally-guaranteed, right to hear new ideas, and to decide for ourselves.
I will argue in the next few weeks that this intolerant approach to authoritarian partisanship is not simply a polite difference of opinion. This sort of dogmatism is hewing away at progress, at freedom, and at our way of life.
And although I cannot prove it, I have come to suspect that much of the current, growing problem of attacks on our universities began with Will’s essay.
ADDENDUM: In finishing up my last book, I came across Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains. She documents exactly what I have suspected here: there is, indeed, a national conspiracy to undermine higher education. In fact, the former governor of Louisiana is mentioned in the book. That is interesting, because after finishing this post, a friend who spent many years in state government told me that the governor informed a small group that he intended to defund higher education, because it produces too many liberals. The previous governor had left higher education fully funded for the first time in two decades, but the new governor intentionally engineered a budget shortfall, which allow him to slash higher education, and forced tuitions to rise to levels that excluded many students.
Students Protesting at Tufts University courtesy of Wikimedia. Disclaimer: I performed my medical internship in a Tufts-affiliated program.
Kelley
When I was an undergraduate student at USL many years ago, the university brought to campus a great many speakers from the right, the left and the center … and no one protested what they had to say. Speakers were not shouted down. There was often vigorous debate in hallways and at receptions following their presentations, but I do not recall crowds of students losing their minds because a speak said something at some time or another that someone somewhere deemed unacceptable.
The Union ballroom was usually packed with students, faculty, and many others who were interested to hear them. We did not have trigger warnings attached to books or essays or lectures. We did not have speech codes. No one had heard of political correctness, and I think that most would have objected to the strictures that such nonsense would have placed on instruction and discourse at that time. And unlike the pampered snowflakes at Oberlin, we all recognized that grades were justly earned and were indicators of the effort that we put into mastering our respective major fields.
But this is a different time. Feeling has taken the place of thinking; and minds are now closed to anything that has been labeled “politically incorrect.” Outside of schools of engineering and physical science and business, universities function as centers of indoctrination, not education.
The question, I think, is not whether universities are “too liberal.” It is, instead: How do universities today stack up against those of earlier decades? Are they teaching students to think for themselves or to be lemming-like adherents of a political agenda?
From my perspective, it looks far more like the latter than the former.
Bookscrounger
Are you aware of anything at UL that is different today? I think that one of the University’s strengths is the same as the local culture: tolerance. It seems to still be true today.
Some years ago one of the white fraternities did a black-face skit for ‘Yell Like Hell.’ People were screaming for them to be thrown off campus. The Dean of Fraternities — now the Louisiana Secretary of Transportation — said, “No. This is an opportunity for conversation.” And that’s what happened, and the problem was resolved with a lot of (drum roll, please) learning on all sides.
Kelley
You cite one example from one university. There are probably countless thousands of examples from universities around the US to counter that. Kudos to the UL Dean of Fraternities for his response. I also commend the President of Ohio State for telling students who wanted to occupy the administration building that they would hand-cuffed and hauled off to jail if they did not leave. Now, I wish that the Dean of Students at Dartmouth would have had the common sense to tell hypersensitive students protesting a sorority for their annual Kentucky Derby party to grow up. It seems that the snowflakes think the sorority sisters were celebrating racism. Or the President of Emory University, who rolled over when “students” complained that they felt unsafe on the Emory campus after someone used chalk to write “Trump 2016” on sidewalks and walls. Just two of a great many examples of universities caving into the demands of left-of-center lunatics.
M
“For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.”
Blaise Pascal, Pensées No. 72
Which is to say, Will is no Pascal.
In other words, he get’s on my nerves with his bow ties. As it just so happens I happen to love bow ties when they’re worn by extremely masculine men who can not only pull the look off but elevate it to something beyond the sum of its parts — a role he is ill suited for. His sartorial faux pas, carried forward proudly in ignorance, is really all I need to know about his deeper intellectual qualities.
I’m guessing this is too “ad hominem” — except that it isn’t by Pascal’s standards.
Bookscrounger
This is a grave concern of mine. I get angry with Fox, not because they’re conservative, but because they suffer from hypersplenism; there’s so much anger, so much smug, self-satisfied self-righteousness, that I can’t follow the reasoning. I am sincerely interested in different points of view. My conclusion is that Fox is only mildly conservative, because most of it is anger-mongering.
Come to think of it, that might make a good post.
Kelley
I guess the smug self-righteousness of CNN and MSNBC and now Katie Couric’s new masters is not a problem?
m
Yes, the latest is the “apology” tour they’re accusing Obama of taking. It’s been seventy years. The Japanese are top level friends, indispensable to our own security. I read the full text of Obama’s speech in the NYT and didn’t see anything but a genuinely heartfelt speech delivered to our closest allies with zero mention of an apology — it’s always something with FOX. Some true, some made up, some insinuated.
Prince’s manager once had to explain to a noted filmmaker that Prince lived in “Prince world” and that he’d have to work around that. Will strikes me as someone who’d like to live in “Will world” but isn’t nearly as talented as he thinks he is.
I’d be failing if I didn’t mention how much, for it all, that I’ve enjoyed some of Megyn Kelly’s discipline, the way she shut down a blabbering Karl Rove on election night 2012 and the way she’s stood up to Trump. I tuned the rest of them out fifteen years ago.
Bookscrounger
I suspect Kelly is the future of Fox. She is more objective, aided I would guess, by her law school background. But Murdoch’s sons have taken over Fox. They would be crazy to leave conservative views, but one of them is an ecologist. I would guess they will try to steer toward rational, thoughtful conservatism.
Durl
I strongly disagree with your focus, and strongly agree with Kelley’s first comment. Universities today are MUCH different. They have welcomed the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad), a leader who denied that the Holocaust existed. But, they have caused schools to cancel speeches by conservatives.
They need “safe spaces” to avoid hearing ideas that scare them. Students demanded that their university president investigate hate speech, which turned out to be “Trump 2016” written in chalk in various locations around the campus.
You stated: “They will never learn to deal with ideas objectively, to think for themselves, and to decide for themselves.” They certainly won’t, if they are not allowed to hear all sides objectively.
Bookscrounger
Liberalism is not the same thing as intolerance.