First, colleges and universities have subordinated their historic mission of free inquiry to a new pursuit of social justice. Consider the remarkable evolution of Yale’s mission statement. For decades the university said its purpose was “to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge.” The language was banal enough, but nevertheless on the money. In 2016, however, Yale’s president announced a new mission statement, which no longer mentions knowledge. Instead, Yale is now officially “committed to improving the world” and educating “aspiring leaders”—not only through research, but also through “practice.”
Second, American colleges and universities have been overwhelmed by a dangerous alliance of academic bureaucrats and student activists committed to imposing the latest social-justice diktats. This alliance has displaced the traditional governors of the university—the faculty. Indeed, nonfaculty administrators and activists are driving some of the most dangerous developments in university life, including the erosion of the due-process rights of faculty and students, efforts to regulate the “permissible limits” of classroom discussion, and the condemnation of unwelcome ideas as “hate speech.”
This is true. But this has been true for over a generation. An advocacy group created to defend free expression on campus has been around since 1999, and the problems with campus speech have been well documented for years before. Probably dozens of books have been written on the topic.
So what to do? The author of the linked WSJ op-ed, a sitting judge, writes:
Alumni must also become wiser in their philanthropy. At big-name institutions, bureaucratic bloat is made possible by immense endowments and endless fundraising campaigns. For too long, the exchange has been simple: Donors provide funds and, in return, they receive recognition—but little influence.
Because Judge Cabranes is a currently serving Article III judge, he is diplomatic in his recommendations. But his “alumni should be wiser” advice could have been written in 1989, 1999, and 2009. It is obvious. If obvious measures would have worked, we would not have been having this discussion today.
In private I suspect Judge Cabranes might deliver less guarded advice. For instance, free expression is a civil right. The Justice Department has a civil rights division. It does not need to be limited to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Department could be directed to investigate First Amendment violations at public universities. Also why should billions in federal funds every year flow to universities that violate the civil rights of students and faculty? Etc.
Excerpt:
This is true. But this has been true for over a generation. An advocacy group created to defend free expression on campus has been around since 1999, and the problems with campus speech have been well documented for years before. Probably dozens of books have been written on the topic.
So what to do? The author of the linked WSJ op-ed, a sitting judge, writes:
Because Judge Cabranes is a currently serving Article III judge, he is diplomatic in his recommendations. But his “alumni should be wiser” advice could have been written in 1989, 1999, and 2009. It is obvious. If obvious measures would have worked, we would not have been having this discussion today.
In private I suspect Judge Cabranes might deliver less guarded advice. For instance, free expression is a civil right. The Justice Department has a civil rights division. It does not need to be limited to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Department could be directed to investigate First Amendment violations at public universities. Also why should billions in federal funds every year flow to universities that violate the civil rights of students and faculty? Etc.