This past weekend, I was invited by the National Association of Scholars to speak on a panel at their conference at Grove City College, “Capitol Ideas: Government Overreach and Higher Education.”
As a progressive, I probably agreed with the title about fearing government overreach in higher education more than almost anyone there, and I spoke on the topic “Don’t Trust the Government: Why legislation and litigation won’t achieve free speech on campus, and what are the better alternatives.” (My skepticism about courts and legislators is also reflected in an op-ed I’ve written about the Janus ruling that appears today at Inside Higher Ed.)
Ashley Thorne, NAS executive director, introduced the conference about governmental power by wondering how to “fit this force with bit and bridle.” This idea that government is bad, but now that Republicans run it in America it might be a force for good, was an ongoing theme and source of tension for many at the conference.
Peter Wood, president of the NAS, spoke on “our scrupulous pessimism” about reforming higher education. That pessimism is part of the story. Conservatives are so disgusted with universities that they will turn to anyone, even politicians, as a better alternative.
Paul Kengor of Grove City College argued that “to invoke freedom alone is a mistake,” calling freedom as highest value “basically libertarianism” and not conservativism. Kengor complained, “Everything is up for redefinition” including 71 gender options on Facebook: “We can’t even agree on two anymore….How do you get 71?”
Rachelle Peterson, NAS policy director, praised the House Republican higher education re-authorization PROSPER Act as “a very important step toward real education reform” that would “rein in the cost of college” with Student Aid reform (something I very much doubt, since it would mostly just increase costs for poor students, and deregulate for-profit colleges that exploit them). Peterson also praised the act’s “sense of Congress” statement against speech codes and speech zones “a step in the right direction” although the NAS has called for the law to cut off all federal funds to any college that infringes on free speech. Peterson reported about Virginia Foxx (R-NC), chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, “she’s concerned that any enforcement mechanism would put more power into the administration.”
Speaking of the Trump Administration, Adam Kissel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education, provided the most interesting speech at the conference, both for its content and the position of the person saying it. Kissel argued that his department’s goal is “not just to get government out of the way” but to “rethink higher education” while also “respecting institutional academic freedom.”
Kissel was committed to following “an open process” of notice, comment, and negotiated rulemaking. He expressed the DOE’s support for accreditation reform because “somebody has to be the gatekeeper” if federal funds are used.
Kissel indicated several issues that might be considered:
–state authorization, not federal
–definition of the credit hour
–definition of correspondence courses (need updating)
–“honoring institutional mission” and “academic freedom for the institution”
–single definition for job placement rates (simplying)
–simplifying process for accrediting accreditation agencies (“make it as simple as we can while still maintaining standards”)
–being “just on religious liberty” with “equal treatment” in accreditation, and eligibility for public service loan forgiveness.
Kissel noted, “there’s a lot to do on religious liberty” and “there really is a lot of political will in this area.” On government overreach, he said, “This administration is really trying to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.” He noted, “the deregulatory agenda is real and it’s happening” and cited Betsy DeVos’ ALEC speech and her mandate to “get the federal government out of the way.” Kissel added, “our job is to get out of students’ way.”
Kissel said that “free speech is not going away as an issue” but admitted that in his administrative position, “there’s not a lot of angle on free speech directly.” Instead, he asked a series of questions, encouraging others to “help me think through some of the issues so that we can make some progress”:
–“Institutional academic freedom” and the right “to be left alone by the government, how far does that extend?”
–“Is there any role at all for the government to be telling institutions what to do with free speech?”
–“Which should be addressed through the states, and which through the federal government?”
–For public colleges that “violate rights systematically,” “what is the proper role of the executive branch?”
–“Is there a non-governmental solution that can persuade rather than use force to get colleges to change?”
–Since Title IV requires the DOE to stop civil rights violations by colleges, “should violations of civil rights, and violations of constitutional rights, be treated the same?” “Why do we not also ask them not to violate constitutional rights?” Kissel admitted, “I don’t know if that’s an equivalency or not.”
–Regulating private vs. public institutions.
–Regulating colleges with “government grants” “vs. acting with the government’s money” as an agent of the government, which may require “different analysis about what to do about constitutional rights.”
John Sparks of Grove City College declared, “if we become beholden to the federal government” “we’re afraid that we’ll lose our ability to carry out our mission.” He noted about Grove City’s rejection of all federal funds,“This has cost us something to stand up for principles.”
In my session, Travis Barham, Legal Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that “Government has an inherent responsibility to protect free speech.” He did note some of the drawbacks to litigation, that “judges are often hesitant to rule against university officials.” And Barham asked a key question about government power, that it can be turned against you: “How big of a stick do we want to be hit with?”
Stanley Kurtz, who has written legislation with the Goldwater Institute for state laws on campus free speech, declared that administrators are “virtually incapable of imposing any consequences” on disruptive protesters, leading to “intimidation and self-censorship.” Kurtz argued that “legislators are bound to act.” Kurtz also pointed to an “annual public review” by trustees required in the law, claiming that “administrators will cower in fear.” Kurtz also attacked AAUP talking points against the legislation that accused it of being designed to “protect conservative voices,” and asked about the AAUP, “why don’t they want to address it.” Kurtz noted, “Universities have had 30 years to get this right” and “we’re done waiting for them.” Kurtz invoked one of the great villains often mentioned at this conference: Foucault. He claimed that “the faculty has given up on classic liberalism” and now embraces Foucault and power, not John Stuart Mill.
In a panel on civil rights mandates, Edward Bartlett of SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) criticized “believe the victim” campaigns and Victim-Centered Investigations, noting that judges have ruled in favor of accused students in over 100 cases. George Dent argued about sexual assault and campus discipline “This is not the most appropriate venue for an allegation of a felony-level crime.” Dent focused on religious liberty and religious student groups imposing statements of faith. He wondered, “Where are the legislatures on these matters?” arguing that state funds should “conditioned on granting religious freedom.”
Wilfred McClay of the University of Oklahoma declared that “institutional diversity may well be the finest achievement of American higher education” and called for everyone to “shore up that diversity and protect the individuality of places like this one.” McClay also read some interesting thoughts from Eisenhower’s farewell address,
the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity….The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
But McClay noted, “There are not very many ways that the radical left’s agenda conflicts with Big Science.” McClay said, “Nobody really cares about policing the ranks…What’s excellence in an English Department?” McClay added, “Part of what’s uneasy about academic life today is that we’re always looking over our shoulders.”
In a panel on economics, Richard Vedder of Ohio University (and author of the forthcoming 2019 book, Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America) noted, “Almost all of higher education today is dependent on government.” He said high sticker prices “scares away low-income students” and “Rather than helping poor kids, federal programs are scaring them away” (which is a dubious claim, since poor kids are going to the much cheaper public institutions where funding cuts have caused the tuition hikes. There, Vedder declared, “the public is simply fed up with university presidents and other worshipping at the altar of political correctness” along with “mammoth increase in spending on administration.” According to Vedder, “I think we may be overinvested in higher education in the United States.”
Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Open the Books, spoke about his company’s efforts to release salaries at public colleges and post them all online, pointing out corruption and waste and “the power of transparency.”
James Creigh, a Trustee at Hastings College, said, “Don’t let the crisis go to waste. This is an opportunity for policy makers and donors to” make change: ““in times of revenue pressure, this is when people have leverage to institute change.” He added, “As a trustee, the University of Missouri situation is God’s gift. I no longer need to explain the parade of horribles that can exist.”
For a panel on “How Does the Government Fund Progressive Politics on Campus?” David Randall, Director of Research, National Association of Scholars, said: “our colleges get most of their money from the government” and “Federally guaranteed student loans are the real poisoned chalice.” Randall argued that “Federal student loans subsidize all the worst initiatives of progressive academics and bureaucrats.” He claimed “we can begin to rein in the worst excesses of American higher education” by “making them co-responsible for student loans.” (In reality, that would just lead colleges to recruit rich students and avoid poor people.)
Mark Wyland, a former state legislator and trustee at Pomona College, said: “the average legislator….they’re very busy, they tend not to know issues in depth, they tend sometimes to be very ideological or partisan.” He also called for “campus debates and panel discussions on real-world issues.”
Warren Treadgold of Saint Louis University (author of the new book, The University We Need), called the PROSPER Act “definitely a problematic piece of legislation,” and said about threats to withhold funding that “in a better world, using this wouldn’t be wise or necessary,” but it’s “much better than doing nothing.” Treadgold said “the universities have drifted to the left on their own” and “I strongly suspect, even without government involvement, things would have turned out pretty much the same.” But he added, “Only government has the resources to provide an effective check on leftists in education.”
Treadgold has proposed a federal government Research Dissertation Board to rate all new dissertations, imagining (without much evidence), “I suspect this Board would find that most postmodern dissertations are of lower quality.” He has also urged a plagiarism review board for dissertations, removing nonprofit status of any university that spends over 20% of its expenses on administration, and having rich right-wingers create a new conservative university.
Steven Hayward, “currently an inmate at UC-Berkeley,” gave the final speech of the conference, where he dropped “the f-bomb” (Foucault) and blamed English professors who think “we’re smarter than Shakespeare” and regard Shakespeare requirements as “unnecessary and unimportant.” Hayward noted, “it makes you wonder why we should keep English Departments at all.”
Hayward also analyzed the changes in economics departments, which are growing in size and noted the “wish of economics departments to disassociate themselves” from the humanities and social sciences, even reclassifying themselves as a STEM field to attract funders and foreign students.
Hayward is skeptical about requiring humanities classes, “let’s not, because they’re going to be taught badly.” He’s also skeptical about using legislation as a solution: “If we’re at the point where we have to legislate respect for free speech, it’s too late.”
How have conservatives moved from a deep disgust and distrust of government to this leery embrace they have now? The answer is that their disgust and distrust of academia far exceeds that of government. Their sense of victimization and powerlessness within academia has never contrasted more with their political power in the real world of Congress, the Trump Administration, and most state legislatures. The fear of government overreach on the right has turned into the pursuit of government overreach.
