It would be strange if the heavily-Jewish board of advisors were founding this university to deny the Holocaust. But you’re right, if they mean what they say, Holocaust deniers should be able to make their case.
Which brings up a point. Universities shouldn’t be the arbiters of what gets discussed amongst a group of young adults. The students aren’t 1st graders. Using the Holocaust as an example, when presented with all points of view, the tiny percentage of students that even care are probably not going to deny the Holocaust. Judgement, reason. It’s ok to let them exercise their own.
It’s good that, because they didn’t specifically mention it, Holocaust denial won’t be taught the University of Austin. I’m sure that they won’t allow EVERY forbidden topic. Just the ones that aren’t quite as forbidden.
And you’re jumping to the conclusion that they will and that no topics will be off limits.
I think people can have civil conversations and debate about difficult topics and most schools have abandoned encouraging the same. Your opinion may differ.
This issue has been discussed in other threads and it always devolves into politics. I’ve made my point. The immediate jump to shutdown discussion of certain topics underlines why people are starting this university.
The article would have been more compelling if it identified even one specific example of the “woke mob rule” instead of relying on broad assertions and hyperbole (those progressive are out to bring down our society). I’d expect a stronger argument from an academic because there is one to be made. I’m not a fan of shouting down people whose ideas I dislike, and don’t think opposing ideas can actually harm you. I question how pervasive this is, though. Is this lack of freedom of thought really at “most” schools or is the “most” we’re talking about most “prestigious” schools or most east/west coast schools?
The manifesto of the new President, Pano Kanelos, is well worth reading. I summarize as follows:
The pursuit of truth should be unimpaired by political motivations dictating that certain matters simply can’t be investigated or even talked about because they have been either officially or informally declared off-limits. He specifies several of these - the usual suspects. Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers are not on the list.
The true objective of a university is the pursuit of truth. But the incentives are otherwise at present universities: “At our most prestigious schools, the primary incentive is to function as a finishing school for the national and global elite.” Costs have soared to meet warped priorities, bureaucracies have multiplied. “Universities are now driven to attract and retain students through client-driven ‘student experiences’ - from trivial entertainment to emotional support to luxury amenities. In fact universities are doing extremely well at providing students with everything they need. Everything, that is, except intellectual grit.”
This is bad for democracy, and it is bad for the soul. The new university promises to return to the roots: “Our students will be exposed to the deepest wisdom of civilization and learn to encounter works not as dead traditions but as fierce contests of timeless significance that help human beings distinguish between what is true and false, good and bad, beautiful and ugly.” Learning of this sort is not intended to be easy; it requires of its students “a brave, sometimes discomfiting, search for enduring truths.”
This was common wisdom only yesterday. Strange that it has now become red meat and the subject of mirth in the common rooms of the nation’s universities. Kanelos expects that sort of blow-back from the defenders of the status quo: “We welcome their opprobrium and regard it as vindication.”
Interesting WSJ article. Woke universities cause the primitive state this country is in? There are some who would argue that the current state of regression in this country views women as reproductive vessels and wants to restrict voting access. I don’t think that’s coming from universities. So how will this new university handle such topics? Free for all, or will we see a Soka type college?
The position of the new university - or any university - ought to be that it takes no institutional position on that or any issue not directly related to its educational mission. It is for the individual faculty members and students to take positions. I do not see this university as sanctioning the speech of anyone on any side of the issue you refer to. That’s what free speech means.
How much will this new university cost? If it was truly interested in its stated mission, then it should be as affordable as a public u and charge accordingly, but I can’t see anything about fees.
I will be watching this development. If indeed it does what it claims it will do, then great, but right now, I am skeptical.
It is definitely about more than free speech, though that is a core value. Another stated objective is recruiting a faculty and student body better representative of conservative and other heterodox values than can be found at existing universities. This objective is tied to free speech insofar as until very recently the rationale for that value was the pursuit of truth: that all positions ought to be tested in debate with opposing ones in order to best arrive at the truth. Kanelos also cites various studies showing the near uniform political orientation of present universities and the surveys that show that profs and students of opposing views fear making their views known because of the repercussions they will face. One could argue that they ought to have more courage, but that this is necessary is not good either for the truth or democracy.
There is good reason to suspect that this new university can accomplish its objectives, both the fiscal and intellectual ones. Like you, I’ll be watching carefully. Perhaps unlike you and most of the commenters I am sympathetic to the objectives and wish this project well. It may be uncovering a hunger in the nation.
The manifesto that @marlowe1 is referring to is interesting, but it strikes me as elitism fighting elitism.
“Universities are the places where society does its thinking, where the habits and mores of our citizens are shaped.”
Really?
I can understand some of what they say, but sounds like a bunch of disgruntled profs looking for an oasis, and hoping students will follow.
As others have asked in this thread, is there really something that needs to be fixed? As a student, just go through the woke training and seminars, pretend to care, and move on. That’s what they’ll need to do after graduation.
From what I’m reading the only major posters here think they will offer is Philosophy - or maybe that and Politics.
I’m quite ok if they succeed if they concentrate on academics as there are a few people who want no-frills education - enough to fill a class each year I would think, but my guess is they are just going to be another Hillsdale.
I used to recommend Hillsdale until I received a political “survey” this year from them. I posted it in another thread wondering if it was a scam, but apparently not. If any higher “education” place doesn’t know how to put out a real survey, I question everything else they teach. Students who passed my high school Stats classes would know that was as bad a “real” survey as exists.
But aside from that, my original question still stands. Are they going to allow 100% free speech from anyone or will they have a bar based upon some sort of accepted academics?
A true education I applaud and I think it exists in many/most current colleges.
I find it funny that people are associating the free speech issue with liberal leaning institutions. It is actually a far larger issue at the other side of the spectrum. The difference is that suppressing free speech has always been part of the conservative ones, especially the ones with a strong religious component (pick any of the 18k+ gods). What is going on on the liberal side is growing but was also always there to some extent.
@OhiBro , I agree that the path of least resistance would seem to be to throw in the towel and “go along to get along”. I can’t be too critical of anyone who does this. However, my admiration is for those who fight back.
“Elitism” needn’t be an insult - it all depends on the qualities the word is intended to capture. The founders of our country were elite. Lincoln was elite. Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. DuBois were elite. Many a poor, unknown but honorable person is capable of being elite in my book. Admittedly, the word has other connotations, but an elevation of character and virtuous accomplishment are what it means to me, not wealth, not family, not any particular political stance. These are what Aristotle would call “accidents” - not inherently good or bad, not the substance of the real thing and may or may not accompany it.
Probably not many teachers or students will tie their destinies to this fledgling university. Those who do will not be in it for accolades, connections or advancement in the world but will be drawn to an educational ideal. Even at the reduced salaries this school will pay, profs at other schools are apparently clambering for appointments. I am ready to call these profs and students “elite” without any pejorative connotation.
As for the cost of attendance, one of founders, Niall Ferguson, has indicated a target of $30,000 per year and proposes to get to that target mainly by keeping the cost of administration under control and reducing professorial salaries as aforesaid. Whether this is doable remains to be seen, but the founders are serious about making education accessible to students of modest wealth. Indeed, they see the existing universities as perpetuators of the growing disparity in wealth in the country. Those institutions will continue to have their allure for all kinds of kids, but to say that only the wealthy will want the straight goods without those trappings is to make the assumption that only the wealthy want an education without the necessity of bowing to orthodoxy and repression. Isn’t it the contrary? An education free of constraints against speech and the politicization of thought could appeal to any sort of kid who has the right stuff for it - who is elite in the true sense of the word.
@Eeyore123 , it is not really the case that most violations against free speech in modern universities come from the Right. That was once so, but no more. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Freedoms (FIRE) keeps track of the worst incidents. In recent years the impetus usually, though not always, comes from the Left. For example, of the ten worst offenders in 2020, nine were against either conservative political groups as such or against actions deemed inappropriate in a leftist ethos. Reading the description of these incidents is instructive. I am ready to deplore repression coming from any source whatever, but let’s not kid ourselves about where the danger lies at the present moment of our history.
“When I moved from teaching at Oxford to Harvard, I was puzzled. Based on my reading of midterm exam papers, a substantial proportion of my new students wouldn’t have got an interview at Oxford, never mind a place. It was explained to me that a substantial chunk of undergraduates were “legacies” — there because their parents were alumni, especially generous alumni — and another chunk were the beneficiaries of affirmative action or athletics programs. The admissions system was managed by professional administrators, not professors.
I soon learned how to deter the academically weaker brethren. By assigning a lot of reading and awarding some C grades, I was soon rid of them.”
Of course it remains to be seen if this university can attract the caliber of students that he has in mind.
I’m guessing you’re right about that, @Twoin18 . Thanks for coming up with that piece. It tells you what at least one prominent backer of the new university has in mind for it. In another piece Ferguson asks the interesting question, why have no new universities of significance been founded in recent years by the gazillionaires of our own time - unlike the many founded in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Whether the University of Austin can be this is an open question, as many have said. It will probably be necessary for our version of a 19th century tycoon to step forward. John D. Rockefeller, call your office.
If the University is charging $30,000 tuition and not accepting federal funds (meaning no pell grants, federal loans etc. . .) it is aimed at the elite. No federal protections for the usual protected classes. (and its in Texas, so no state protection.) Something else I read somewhere said they will not be taking into account race or gender quotas. I am interested to see if it takes off. I am not sure this will be attractive to the type of students they want.
It’s obvious why it is in Austin: Elon Musk will clearly be a key target for funding (I’d guess by trying to leverage the one-upmanship between him and Jeff Bezos).
Wasn’t this similar to what Patrick Henry (in VA) wanted to do when they opened not terribly long ago? Whatever happened to that place? (I’m too busy to Google right now.)