*Originally posted on the Wesleyan Forum as Wes Prez Unloads On UATX *
Administrators and faculty need to work much harder at intellectual diversity in the humanities and social sciences, and we need to maintain a commitment to free expression even as we remain wary of those who would use the commitment as a cover for the exercise of power and intimidation. Furthermore, universities must remain places where enduring questions from a variety of traditions are explored. In my experience, the power of this exploration does not lie in showing us that now we know the truth; it lies in creating opportunities to discover that the things we now believe might be wrong. Opinion | Does America Actually Need a New Conservative University? - POLITICO
It doesn’t sound like they’ll be offering degrees or have several majors or have a campus, so perhaps the word “college” is a misnomer.
Does it seem to be in the same niche as Patrick Henry? If so, is there enough marketing space for 2 of them so that UATX has space to grow?
Hillsdale has changed since it incorporated being Christian in its mission. It used to be conservative, with a focus on Western Greats and the Constitution, but a-religious. Many of its students were conservative Christian but a conservative Muslim or conservative without ties to a religion could feel at home there. Nowadays, it’s closer to Grove City College in mission and outlook.
@MYOS1634 , Niall Ferguson said in his piece that this school will definitely have a campus and that instruction will generally take place in small classes in actual classrooms. Personal debate and discussion is to be an important part of its ethos. The founders specifically rejected an internet model.
@circuitrider , the Wesleyan President is making an interesting attempt to chart a middle position on free speech and related matters in the educational culture wars. The book he is publishing on the subject might be well worth reading. However, the danger with “on the one hand - on the other hand” positions is that they often seem more devoted to the concept of being innocuous and non-commital than about actually saying anything. Harry Truman criticized that tendency long ago: “Give me an expert with one arm.”
What Hillsdale appears to be doing is interesting and possibly unique in that it combines different educational ideals previously represented in entirely different kinds of schools - religious instruction and a classical education. Free speech and independent thinking probably comes into it as well. That’s a pretty unique combo. There’s room in my world for such a school. However, judging from the people involved in UATX there is little likelihood that we’ll see the first part of this at the new school.
Do you seriously think anyplace calling themselves an educational destination should be sending out such a biased mailing and calling it a survey? I don’t care what other niche they have in the college world, if they can’t create and send out a decent survey, what else are they teaching?
I know nothing about that survey and not much about Hillsdale, @Creekland . You may very well be right in your condemnation on that point. I wasn’t praising the school across the board but merely indicating that I found “interesting” its particular mash-up of religion and these more secular ideals of classical education associated more with schools like St. John’s.
Specifically, how is the Hillsdale survey so egregiously biased? To me, it is anti-socialist, which is consistent with its historical teachings in the field of economics.
Wesleyan, of course, having its own religious bona fides as its name implies. At one time, it aspired to combine being a flagship institution of the Methodist Church with quite pointed identifications with Amherst, Harvard, Yale and other exemplars of twentieth century academic excellence. It’s apogee, IMO, came in a 1955 pamphlet published as part of the Wesleyan president’s Annual Report. entitled, Faith of a Liberal College. This was two years before the launch of Sputnik in 1957 by which time the cross had already been removed from the chapel steeple, and fraternities discriminating against Jewish students became the target of a decade long crusade.
And, if that were not enough, the establishment of a whole other academic degree, the PhD - awarded for work in STEM - took the wealthy LAC further down the primrose path of secularism. If Wesleyan of the 1950s couldn’t make it work, I doubt very much UATX could either.
I believe you misunderstood me, @circuitrider - UATX will most defintely NOT have a religius orientation. I was referring to Hillsdale, at least as I understand the ethos of that institution. Whether it can in some way “go back” to a day when religious and classical education went hand in hand is an open question. However, I suspect there may be a hunger for that sort of package just as I believe there’s a hunger for the latter half of that combination without the first part of it. No doubt, as the Wesleyan Prez says, many existing institutions put together parts of these things. He doesn’t like the founders of the new school being so critical of the old ones and suggesting that only at UATX will students and profs be able to think and speak freely. He’s no doubt right that some exaggeration is going on (it’s Texas, after all), but my hope would be that the old schools take note of the criticism and render it inaccurate.
Maybe there is an appetite. You never know. My sense is that the type of students they probably want (high stats/high performers with a conservative bent) will hesitate - not because of the educational philosophy, but because so many are seeking prestige & connections. It’s a moot point right now anyway. Who knows when they are going to start conferring undergraduate degrees. The whole exercise seems more like a vanity project than something that is likely to become a significant force in higher education, but I could be totally wrong.
Survey titles, questions, and answers should never be biased (leading) if you want to get real answers. Explain to me how this title isn’t biased:
National Opinion Survey of 1,000,000 US Citizens About Socialism and The Left’s Hijacking of American Education
Here’s a Pew Research link to creating a good survey if you’re truly interested in figuring out the difference:
Any high school or college should be promoting good surveys. In the stats class at our school students need to create a survey about an item of their choice. If any student had submitted that one, they’d have gotten an F and the grade doesn’t reflect their views at all - it’s just a really biased (aka bad) survey.
Living in Deep Red territory there could definitely be an appetite, but around here, name of the college isn’t nearly as important as with a lot of folks on CC. Here distance would be the limiting factor. Few want to go more than 2-3 hours from home.
This is a telling observation given that the response itself not only identifies the bias, it confirms that the bias is present in the ethos of the institution.
But of course, Hillsdale and its supporters don’t see this “anti-socialist” propaganda/survey as “bias,” they see it as “truth.” Same applies to the agenda driven advocates/activists behind this new institution. They are seeking to push their biased (and sometimes unpopular) opinion of the “truth,” but are doing so under the false pretense of neutrality and the pursuit of truth.
That’s how you end up with crusaders against teaching accurate history of racial relations in America pushing to create a university ostensibly aimed at preserving academic freedom.
Now the supporters will claim these are “serious people” therefore we apparently don’t need to worry about them teaching “kooky subjects.” But the founders consist mostly of activists who push views ranging from anti-vax nonsense, to banning critical studies, to the defeat not of Islamist extremists, but the defeat of the entirety of Islam itself. Another “serious” founder of the university recently described Pete Buttigieg as a “loser” for taking parental leave in order to take care of his sick child, and told us that the “correct, masculine response” would have been to “just work harder to care for their future.”
But don’t get me wrong, these “serious” people are of course entitled to push their beliefs even though many consider them to be be pretty “kooky.” But they are not entitled to express their beliefs free of consequence, comment, or critique. And when these illiberal, intolerant people pretend to form a university espousing liberalism and tolerance? Hypocrisy abounds, and consequence, comment, and critique are the appropriate response.
To give further indication of the “seriousness” of these founders, here is their reasoning, from their own FAQ, for choosing Austin as their location:
If it is good enough for Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, it is good enough for us.
I saw the survey on their website and the first question is:
“Hillsdale College believes that socialism is incompatible with America’s Constitution and heritage of liberty. What are your chief concerns, if any, about socialism taking root in America? (Please check all that apply.)”
This is not a scientific survey or even a pseudo-scientific one. It does express the philosophical leanings of the college and what prospective students can expect and that’s fine. What’s not fine is suggesting it is a scientific, unbiased survey.
Agreement is a sweet thing, @circuitrider . However, too much of it would spoil the appetite.
You might be missing a sly bit of humor, @mtmind , with your heavy sarcasm (“Serious people, indeed.”) directed at the founders for saying about Austin, “If it is good enough for Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, it is good enough for us.” The real irony here is that Austin is politically much more like San Francisco than any other city in the state of Texas. Texans call it lots of rude names for that reason.
There’s quite a difference between criticizing an idea and cancelling or shouting down the person who expresses that idea. Again, I refer to the long list of such instances compiled by FIRE. That’s a distinction some people find hard to make, hiding behind the weasel-word “consequences,” but it is essential for anyone who cares to examine in good faith what the new university is about.
Several of the people involved in the new school have been the target of cancellations or twitter mobs (Pinker, Abbot, Weiss, Heying) and several others have been involved in the culture wars (Lourie, Mamet), but most of them - at least the ones known to me - while they have pronounced views on the matter of free speech, are both serious and not especially controversial. These include Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Rauch, Leon Kass, Larry Summers, Robert Zimmer, Nadine Strossen, Geoffrey Stone. Indeed many of these and others on the Board of Directors are political liberals - in the sense of that term only a few years ago. To characterize them all as hypocrites, crazies,and “illiberal, intolerant people” just won’t wash. Smearing one’s opponents is a tactic they would deplore, as should we all.
I wouldn’t put too much credence in the presence of media persuaders like Summers. These days, one can be a member of a dozen different boards and never leave the confines of your newly renovated kitchen; it doesn’t reflect the level of commitment that it once did.
MIT is actually going through a lot of soul searching because there was an uproar he was cancelled. President Reif said in his letter many people in the MIT community felt this cancellation meant that MIT no longer had a commitment to free speech. The end of this story is not yet written.
