The Atlantic: The Moral Decline of Elite Universities, by Ben Sasse (President, University of Florida):
In the spring of 1994, the top executives of the seven largest tobacco companies testified under oath before Congress that nicotine is not addictive. Nearly 30 years later, Americans remember their laughable claims, their callous indifference, their lawyerly inability to speak plainly, and the general sense that they did not regard themselves as part of a shared American community. Those pampered executives, behaving with such Olympian detachment, put the pejorative big in Big Tobacco.
Last week, something similar happened. Thirty years from now, Americans will likely recall a witness table of presidents—representing not top corporations in one single sector, but the nation’s most powerful educational institutions—refusing to speak plainly, defiantly rejecting any sense that they are part of a “we,” and exhibiting smug moralistic certainty even as they embraced bizarrely immoral positions about anti-Semitism and genocide.
Despite the stylistic similarity of these two images, they had a substantive distinction. Yes, both sets of presidents sat atop sectors experiencing a collapse of public trust. Higher education commanded the confidence of 57 percent of Americans a mere eight years ago, but only 36 percent of Americans by this summer, and a steeper decline is likely coming as a consequence of the grotesqueries of the past two months. And yes, both sets of testimonies—of the tobacco executives, and the elite-education executives—revealed a deep moral decline inside their respective cultures. But here’s a difference: The tobacco executives were lying, and subsequent legal discovery showed how extensive their understanding of nicotine was. The three university presidents, however—with their moral confusion on naked display—were likely not lying; instead, we saw a set of true believers in a new kind of religion.
It is important to note that the three presidents who testified before Congress—Liz Magill, who subsequently resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania; Sally Kornbluth, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Claudine Gay, of Harvard University—didn’t open themselves up to perjury charges. Instead, they revealed themselves as having drunk the Kool-Aid of a new and cultlike worldview. Along with so much of higher education, especially outside the hardest of sciences, they have become acolytes of a shallow new theology called “intersectionality.” This is neither a passing fad nor something that normies can roll our eyes at and ignore. As Andrew Sullivan presciently predicted a mere six years ago, the tenets of this all-encompassing ideology have quickly spilled beyond trendy humanities departments at top-30 universities, and its self-appointed priestly class tried tirelessly to enforce its ideology. …
We ought to dispense with the laughably absurd notion that these university presidents are somehow steadfast champions of free speech. Where was this commitment when MIT canceled a speech from a climate scientist who voiced opposition to affirmative action? Where was this obligation when a lecturer said she felt pushed out of Harvard for suggesting that sex is a biological fact? Where was this duty when Penn tried to fire a law-school professor who made odious comments about minority groups and immigration policy? These elite institutions make the rules up as they go and stack the deck against disfavored groups. Ask conservative students how many loopholes they have to jump through to reserve spaces or invite speakers. Ask the students who report holding back their views in class or paper-topic selection for fear of facing consequences. For that matter, ask anyone who has been paying attention for the past 20 years. These universities aren’t doggedly committed to free speech; they’re desperately trying to find some cover. The expensive public-relations firms they’ve hired for crisis management are grasping at straws. …
Higher education is facing a crisis of public trust. The simple fact of the matter is, fewer and fewer Americans believe that universities are committed to the pursuit of truth. Understanding why isn’t hard at a time when elite institutions make excuses for illiberal mobs. The perception that ideologues and fanatics are running the show on campus is, sadly, based in reality. The public sees it. Donors see it. Boards see it. Alumni see it. We recognize callousness and indifference—we saw it from Big Tobacco in 1994 and we’re seeing it from the Ivy League now. The public is not about to forget it.
As administrators, donors, faculty, and trustees of institutions around the country, this is our moment. It is up to us to rebuild trust in higher education. It is our responsibility to speak plainly, defend our students, defend pluralism, and tend to the high calling of educating.
The only way forward is for universities to embrace classical liberalism—with its values of freedom, tolerance, and pluralism, all grounded in human dignity. Recasting oppressors and oppressed is a dead end. As the cult of intersectionality implodes before our eyes, it is time for higher education to commit itself to earnestly engaging new ideas and respectfully participating in big debates on a whole host of issues. Universities must reject victimology, celebrate individual agency, and engage the truth with epistemological modesty. Institutions ought to embrace open inquiry. Education done rightly should be defined by big-hearted debates about important issues.
More curiosity, less orthodoxy. Explore everything with humility, including views of sex and gender that were standard until the previous decade, classical traditions, America’s promise and progress, and the concept of universal human dignity—the very thing that Hamas and its apologists reject. Engage the ideas. Pull apart the best arguments with the best questions. Do it again and again and again. Build communities that take ideas seriously, so that scholars and students can grow in both understanding and empathy.
Self-government makes high demands of its citizens. Today’s students will be called to lead in a complicated world where not everyone will agree, where trade-offs will be necessary, where basic values inform the work of navigating complex realities. The current illiberal climate on campuses is the kind of tragedy that could doom a republic. We cannot let that happen.
To keep America’s universities the envy of the world, we need to make our institutions welcoming homes for those who are passionate about the glorious mission of education and the communities of free thought it requires. If you entered academia because you share that joy, find institutions that are serious about renewing higher education and are serious about stewarding this incredible calling. Those of us—left, right, or center—who value human dignity, pluralism, and genuine progress and who want to make sure that we pass these blessings to the next generation cannot abandon institutions to post-liberals on the left who would destroy them from within or post-liberals on the right who would tear them to the ground. At our best, the academy promotes human flourishing in ways that no other sector can. If we commit ourselves to the work of creating, discovering, and serving—not enforcing impersonal hierarchies of power or stifling inquiry—we’ll rebuild public trust.
Those of us called to higher education—members of boards, presidents, administrators, professors, and donors—owe it to future generations to build something better.
Washington Post, Criticism of Harvard’s President Is Growing. Some See Race as a Factor.:
Gay’s experience is achingly familiar to Black alumni, [Monica Clark, President, Harvard Black Alumni Society] said: “We have to deal with things that other alums just don’t have to deal with — even the president of Harvard has to deal with — constantly proving you’re qualified … just because you’re Black.”
What began as a discussion of antisemitism has morphed into a debate over Gay’s race, gender, qualifications and track record on diversity-related issues — an intense scrutiny faced by neither of the two university presidents who testified alongside Gay, both of whom are White women. Soon, conservative pundits were arguing that Gay — who received a BA from Stanford and a PhD from Harvard, and taught at the schools for almost 20 years before becoming a dean at Harvard — was selected in part because she symbolized Harvard’s efforts to boost diversity, equity and inclusion. Those critics included right-wing commentator Dinesh D’Souza, who labeled her a “DEI hire.” Allegations also arose that Gay plagiarized academic papers.
The blowup comes amid a bigger battle over whether colleges can consider race in admissions, administrative appointments and general efforts to diversify their campuses. This summer, the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in cases involving two colleges, including Harvard.
Gay later said calls for genocide are “vile,” and apologized in an interview with the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper. But her stumbles during her congressional testimony marked an opportunity that critics of affirmative action and diversity initiatives could not ignore, said Keith Boykin, a Black Harvard Law alum and author of “Why Does Everything Have to Be About Race?” The past two weeks, he said, have seen volatile debates about antisemitism, college free speech and the role race plays in American society collide and come to hang on the fate of one Black woman.
“Gay became the perfect target,” Boykin said. “But it’s bigger than Harvard, it’s bigger than her: It’s about this whole effort to dismantle our liberal arts education on college campuses, to attack professors and scholars and college presidents and university officials who dare to reach out to make those campuses inclusive.”
Those interrogating Gay’s credentials say they are raising good-faith questions and being painted as racist in response. They call Gay a limited scholar who does not deserve her job and showed a lack of moral clarity in failing to speak against antisemitic harassment, at a moment when incidents of bias are spiking on college campuses.
Ackman, who declined an interview request, wrote on X Thursday that he is being unfairly labeled a white supremacist. “Why must one be deemed a racist or white supremacist,” he wrote, “when one raises legitimate criticisms about a leader who comes from a minority community?” …
Makau Mutua, a Harvard Law alum and University at Buffalo professor of law, noted the contrast in the discourse about the three presidents, all of whom said almost exactly the same thing at the Dec. 5 congressional hearing. He said no one seems to be questioning Magill’s or Kornbluth’s academic credentials. …
The plagiarism charges, published Dec. 10 and 11 in the Washington Free Beacon and by right-wing activist Christopher Rufo, who drove a recent national furor over the teaching of race in K-12 schools, added fuel to assertions Gay was unqualified for her job. The National Association of Scholars, a conservative education advocacy group, issued a statement that Gay must resign over the plagiarism allegations and, separately, for general “shoddy professional work.” …
Rufo, who has been hammering Gay over the plagiarism charges, questioned Gay’s credentials, telling The Post on Thursday that “it’s clear to everyone she was selected in large part for her identity.” He rejected claims that criticisms of Gay are racially motivated.
“This is not only a lie, it is also incredibly demeaning to racial minorities to suggest that upholding basic standards of academic integrity is some sort of white supremacist plot,” said Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Some scholars whom Gay is alleged to have plagiarized told The Post or Harvard’s student newspaper they had no concerns about Gay’s work.
