The American university evolved from three very different models, all of them threatened by two trends, one often critiqued by the left, the other by the right, but in fact complementary.
It’s interesting that you bring up the consumerist critique. I agree with you about that, but I sometimes get defensive when people raise it, because I see it as an attack on capitalism (which I support and defend). Given that you are on the side of free enterprise, Virginia, how do you square the dangers of consumerism in the higher education market with the belief that less governmental involvement is better than more? I can see a few possible arguments here, but I’m very interested in what you have to say about this.
"While I believe a diverse marketplace for higher education will and should offer different models, my preferred version ... is a secular research university that prioritizes undergraduate teaching, avoids any whiff of in loco parentis, is institutionally restrained on public issues, and takes a laissez-faire approach to speech. In this model, universities are in the business of producing and transmitting knowledge, tolerate a wide variety of views on controversial public issues, and do not expend resources deciding whose discomfort matters and whose doesn’t."
"In the world of campus free-speech issues, certain pronouncements have acquired canonical status. There’s the Kalven Report (1967). The Woodward Report (1974). The Chicago Principles (2014). And now we have a new addition to their august ranks: the Martinez Memo (2023)."
An excerpt from the Kalven Report, which Prof. Sethi then goes on to share, seems a close fit for what you've written above, Virginia!
Yes I agree with this, but also feel that adoption of Kalven and the Chicago Principles will do little to stem the tide of self-censorship, which has more to do with status among peers than institutional directives.
One might think that exposing students to uncomfortable ideas would be a part of character building and that students would expect that as part of what they were paying for.
Great article, but I have to ask how did you get the footnotes to appear on the side when a reader highlights it on the desktop? Is that just a substack configuration option that I'm not seeing?
"...my preferred version—and the model of my own alma mater when I was there—is a secular research university that prioritizes undergraduate teaching, avoids any whiff of in loco parentis, is institutionally restrained on public issues, and takes a laissez-faire approach to speech..."
This is my ideal concept of a university as well. Human progress depends on the transmission of, and battle between, ideas. Often, those ideas are wrong and uncomfortable to hear. But to shut them out, even if they are wrong, suppresses useful data that we use to modify, improve, or highlight those ideas that are correct.
It wasn't a complete handout but neither was it awesome. Given that this was a graduate level class of maybe eight students, it was probably the median. (PhD students rarely get Cs.)
When I ordered a copy of my transcript to complete the paperwork for my Chapman position, I was struck by how many Bs there were--and I graduated Phi Beta Kappa, which means I was in the top 10% of my class. Nowadays my record would look terrible.
It’s interesting that you bring up the consumerist critique. I agree with you about that, but I sometimes get defensive when people raise it, because I see it as an attack on capitalism (which I support and defend). Given that you are on the side of free enterprise, Virginia, how do you square the dangers of consumerism in the higher education market with the belief that less governmental involvement is better than more? I can see a few possible arguments here, but I’m very interested in what you have to say about this.
"While I believe a diverse marketplace for higher education will and should offer different models, my preferred version ... is a secular research university that prioritizes undergraduate teaching, avoids any whiff of in loco parentis, is institutionally restrained on public issues, and takes a laissez-faire approach to speech. In this model, universities are in the business of producing and transmitting knowledge, tolerate a wide variety of views on controversial public issues, and do not expend resources deciding whose discomfort matters and whose doesn’t."
There's a recent post advocating for much this same vision by Rajiv Sethi, https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/free-expression-and-self-censorship. He, in turn, quotes from David Lat:
"In the world of campus free-speech issues, certain pronouncements have acquired canonical status. There’s the Kalven Report (1967). The Woodward Report (1974). The Chicago Principles (2014). And now we have a new addition to their august ranks: the Martinez Memo (2023)."
An excerpt from the Kalven Report, which Prof. Sethi then goes on to share, seems a close fit for what you've written above, Virginia!
Yes I agree with this, but also feel that adoption of Kalven and the Chicago Principles will do little to stem the tide of self-censorship, which has more to do with status among peers than institutional directives.
One might think that exposing students to uncomfortable ideas would be a part of character building and that students would expect that as part of what they were paying for.
Great article, but I have to ask how did you get the footnotes to appear on the side when a reader highlights it on the desktop? Is that just a substack configuration option that I'm not seeing?
No idea. It must be automatic.
"...my preferred version—and the model of my own alma mater when I was there—is a secular research university that prioritizes undergraduate teaching, avoids any whiff of in loco parentis, is institutionally restrained on public issues, and takes a laissez-faire approach to speech..."
This is my ideal concept of a university as well. Human progress depends on the transmission of, and battle between, ideas. Often, those ideas are wrong and uncomfortable to hear. But to shut them out, even if they are wrong, suppresses useful data that we use to modify, improve, or highlight those ideas that are correct.
You need to say when the A- was hand out. Because in the 1950s it would be an awesome grade whereas now it would almost be a flunking grade.
It wasn't a complete handout but neither was it awesome. Given that this was a graduate level class of maybe eight students, it was probably the median. (PhD students rarely get Cs.)
When I ordered a copy of my transcript to complete the paperwork for my Chapman position, I was struck by how many Bs there were--and I graduated Phi Beta Kappa, which means I was in the top 10% of my class. Nowadays my record would look terrible.
1/4 of Harvard gets a 4.0