A letter I co-wrote to the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
To the Editor,
The Manhattan Institute's Christopher Rufo alleges that the Heterodox Academy, since it was launched ten years ago, has not delivered the major reforms in higher education that most Americans plainly desire.
We are co-leaders of Georgia State University's HxA "Campus Community." We're part of a network of 74 HxA campus chapters across North America and the UK. Speaking only for ourselves, we concede that Rufo has a point. Plenty of evidence suggests that far-left and campus-based extremism contributed to Trump's re-election. If more campus leaders had answered the HxA's calls to promote viewpoint diversity, open inquiry, and constructive disagreement, we might not be faced with Trump's authoritarian tactics today. We have worried about government intrusions into higher education -- and pressed the HxA to worry as well -- since long before the 2024 election.
It would be mistaken, however, to think that HxA hasn't done valuable work. Since we formed our Campus Community two years ago, for instance, we have brought impressive speakers to GSU, including Arthur Brooks, Harvard's happiness guru; Simon Cullen, a brilliant young philosopher who explored how to teach "dangerous ideas"; and Michael Bailey, the courageous Northwestern psychology professor, who discussed the politicization of sex research. Next month, we'll host Nadine Strossen, one of the world's leading authorities on free speech. We held a campus-wide screening of a film based on Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind and we've hosted numerous smaller meetings, including a book club discussion where Yascha Mounk, the Johns Hopkins political scientist, joined us virtually.
Our group's members have consciously modeled HxA values in our teaching and we've encouraged our colleagues to do the same. We've used HxA resources to develop classroom activities that help our students engage contested ideas, think analytically, and argue productively.
Most significantly, when we launched our Campus Community, numerous GSU faculty from various disciplines, who otherwise would not know each other, swiftly formed alliances and built friendships. This is no small thing. Social movements often begin when energetic people bond over their commonalities of outlook and purpose. Something special has been happening at GSU, thanks to the HxA's support. We are proud of our efforts, which are only beginning.
That is an excellent letter making some excellent points. Keep up the good work! For myself, even though I am deeply skeptical about the likelihood of significant internal reform anytime soon, I do think, if its possible, it is the better way to go. AND, I am putting my money, or, at least, my time & effort, where my mouth is. I am actually working with several groups to do so. I remain dubious about the prospects though I have no problem at shooting the moon because ya never know. Bonus: IF a U was to actually make significant internal reforms, they could probably avoid far worse from Trump & Co., though, in my Academic Utopia, they would do so because they realize the reforms improve the U, not because of fear of Trump.
If you want to be really effective, require universities to slash their administrative staff to the ratio to faculty it was fifty years ago. You will not get much public support if you slash funding for basic science research because you have a beef with a minority radical left humanities faculty. The majority, that is moderate faculty interested in doing their scholarship, research, and teaching, is pretty much powerless to straighten the ship at this point. Whatever power they had is in the hands of academic bureaucracy. You need to give them back that power.
Half of those signers, sadly, and Rufo himself just want universities to teach their moral certainties and ideologies and believe in racism hysteria and victimhood identity politics for other groups (their own of course(.
I am in complete agreement with Lee and commend him for signing this important document. It is not perfect but the gist of it is right on the money-- reform is urgently needed. The resistance to reform in universities and other captured institutions (publishing houses, funding agencies, professional societies) is in full display now. Take DEI for example -- instead of getting rid of these wasteful bureaucracies and discriminatory programs, the universities continue the shell game of renaming and rebranding them. And that is despite facing risk of loosing federal funding! They just won't do it. Hence, strong medicine is needed.
Extremely interesting post AND comments. Too much nuance for actual stupid human beings, though. There's nuance in the existence of (a) Muslim populations in Western countries, and (b) the interplay between the history of tolerance and the psychological needs for religious loyalty, and (c) to what extent any distinctions can be made between Islam and Islamism, and to what extent they are significant or useful. None of that will prevent civil uprisings or even civil wars if it blows up because there is insufficient intelligent and reasonable conversation and policy making - and education - first. And if we think there aren't layers of incredible complexity in institutions full of very intelligent people, and some very idealistic, sheltered, and ideologically captured people, we're not "with it" - but being "with it" isn't enough to cure things, where some solid sensible action just has to be taken, even if imperfect.
I appreciate Jussim engaging with my Inside Higher Ed column (and my 30-year-old book, which I would love to defend here but that seems like a distraction).
Jussim calls it “silly” to object to government repression of colleges because “colleges are not required to accept federal money; nor are they entitled to it.” Should the federal government have total control over any company that sells a product to the government? Should the federal government have total control over any individual that accepts Social Security or Medicare or any other federal payment? After all, nobody is required to accept the money.
The claim that we should endorse total federal control over everything done by anyone who takes a dime of government money is the silly argument. Like everyone else, colleges should be able to take public money without completely sacrificing their autonomy. This is libertarianism gone mad, to say that the federal government shouldn’t fund anything and anyone who takes government money deserves repression.
Jussim rejects my accusation of tyranny because “SCOTUS has not overturned any of Trump’s actions vis a vis academia.” In Jussim’s view, Trump could violate any law and the Constitution, and it would not be wrong unless the Supreme Court overturned it. I would argue that tyranny can exist (and would be much worse) if the Supreme Court embraces it.
But the biggest mistake Jussim makes is when he claims that the “reforms” proposed in the Manhattan Statement “are sufficiently nonspecific that exactly how they would actually be implemented is wide open.” Let me quote it: “we call on the President of the United States to draft a new contract with the universities, which should be written into every grant, payment, loan, eligibility, and accreditation, and punishable by revocation of all public benefit.” That sounds very specific to me in giving total power to the president. And the only thing “wide open” about it is the total authority it gives Donald Trump to impose complete control into every federal payment to colleges and revoke all funding as punishment.
Jussim quotes this line, but his only answer is “Heh. Tyranny.” But even if you don’t like my use of the word “tyranny” to describe total power by the president over essentially all colleges, tell me what word you prefer for this massive expansion of presidential power that you have embraced, and explain why you supported it.
> Jussim calls it “silly” to object to government repression of colleges because “colleges are not required to accept federal money; nor are they entitled to it.” Should the federal government have total control over any company that sells a product to the government?
Well, it has had near total control for half a century, since LBJ's infamous Affirmative Action executive order. And no, that wasn't a one-off event.
Exactly. The government had no qualms about going after Hillsdale and Grove City on the basis that they accepted dimes of government money, even down to accepting money given to students in the form of loans.
The bigger fact of the matter is that so long as there are government grants given to "research institutions", student loans given to attend "accredited colleges and universities", the government can dictate the behaviors of institutions seeking such funds via how they define what a "research institution" or "accredited college and university" is. That isn't an ought statement, but simply a matter of fact, how things work. As such, whether the power to dictate to those institutions is explicitly stated or not, the government has it so long as it has funding abilities based on use. It has been using that power for decades on a very one sided manner; the first best solution is to get government out of funding higher education entirely, but the second best is strictly and explicitly stating what colleges and universities that accept that money must do so that the rules of behavior can be discussed and openly understood.
So if you were opposed to the very limited government regulation of Hillsdale and Grove City on issues such as Title IX, why would you support a vast expansion in government regulation to dictate an enormous range of "rules of behavior"? Also, the Manhattan Statement includes the president controlling accreditation, which would also apply to colleges like Hillsdale that don't take federal money, so why would you support that expansion of government power? If you think the government has abused its power to fund for decades, why do you think that it's desirable to give the government much more power? And will you change your tune about presidential control of colleges the instant a Democrat becomes president?
A few more points now that I am back at the keyboard:
1: This is not a vast expansion in government regulation; the government already regulates the behavior of universities based on the terms of conditions of grants, just the same way they regulate the behavior of states through the conditions of highway grants or government contractors with the bidding and contracting rules, with the further lever that the government gets to define what a college or university even is when it comes to funding. The answer there is generally "Those things calling themselves universities and colleges that we like". That is the current state of things.
2: The executive branch already controls national accreditation. It is not the most important type, as it is pretty easy to get, and there are dozens of other accrediting groups that matter more. The important part is that being accredited by the federal government is step one in getting federal money. Schools and departments run just fine without accreditation (most students don't know what it even is much less look for it), so long as they don't want federal money. Again, status quo.
3: I don't think it is good to give the government more power. I think the government should get out of funding universities entirely. The Manhattan Statement does not expand government power, however, and if government is going to have power it needs to be clearly and consistently applied.
4: The government already has immense power over colleges and universities. Search up Obama's "Dear Colleagues" letter. Again, best option I think is no funding, no power over universities. If that isn't on the table, then clear and consistent rules and not just "break whatever laws you like so long as it favors our party ideology and we will keep shoveling money to you" is better than the status quo.
The Obama “Dear Colleague” letter was a terrible proposal with terrible methods that I opposed, but it was very narrow in its scope and application. It only applied to sexual violence against women, and it only dealt with a few due process issues. By contrast, the Trump administration and the Manhattan Statement apply to an enormous range of topics, and deal with expression and policies far beyond the threat to due process. And the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter was never used to cut off funds to colleges or even to propose any removal of any funds. By contrast, the Trump administration has already cut off funds to many colleges (in violation of the law by denying the legally required due process), and the Manhattan Statement calls for vastly expanding the reasons and scope of funds to cut off, and to do so at the whim of the president.
The fact that a small amount of government control over higher education already exists does not justify a vast expansion in that control. If the Obama administration had proposed anything like the Manhattan Statement to control colleges for progressive goals, all of these conservatives would have screamed in outrage and I would join them. Anyone who opposed the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter as excessive government control over colleges must also oppose the vastly larger Trump efforts and Manhattan Statement proposals or you are a hypocrite.
I am sorry, but “a small amount of government control over higher education already exists does” suggests that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Government control extends to nearly every facet of any university that accepts any form of government money, from NSF grants to students with student loans. Anyone who claims the current amount of control is small is wildly off base.
I feel you might have stopped reading my comment before getting to “the first best solution is to get government out of funding higher education entirely, but the second best is strictly and explicitly stating what colleges and universities that accept that money must do so that the rules of behavior can be discussed and openly understood.”
> So if you were opposed to the very limited government regulation of Hillsdale and Grove City on issues such as Title IX, why would you support a vast expansion in government regulation to dictate an enormous range of "rules of behavior"?
What "vast expansion"? The only difference is that the regulations are now being applied evenly rather than simply against groups you think deserve it.
Last week I applied for an opening at a college. 1/3 of the job description was about the duties of the position and the course content. The other 2/3 was about the department and the college’s commitments to the laundry list of Critical Social Justice ideas. Not a good sign the college has any interest in self-reform. It’s unfortunate HxA hasn’t started a program to help applicants like myself find appointments we are qualified for-then there would be more people in the institutions willing to speak up.
I wasn't asked to sign, and I probably wouldn't have signed, though that's mainly because I'm pretty allergic to signing petitions in general. A friend of mine once said his mantra was "I only sign petitions that I would sign if I were the only signatory." I like that and I've taken that to heart.
That said, I largely agree with your analysis here. The Manhattan preamble is very hyperbolic and somewhat off-putting, opening itself up to criticism by "laying out the facts" and then presenting non-empirical maximalist vagueries. But, Manhattan's specific calls to action are pretty much the Chicago Trifecta, enforced by the government, which I think is reasonable and I have publicly called for before: https://www.konstantinkisin.com/cp/152812681. Like you said, it's notable that HxA pointed out how similar their reform agenda was to the Manhattan statement after criticizing it.
It's also notable that the HxA statement's two main departures from Manhattan are: (i) being against government oversight, and (ii) not even mentioning the flagrant violations of federal laws (civil rights and others) that are a huge part of the problem on campus, and the feds' *pre-Trump statutory requirement* to step in and stop that. You are also right that HxA needs a better answer to the "why has almost no internal reform happened without government pressure?" question, if they're going to oppose all government oversight. It'd even be fine for them to say, "we, HxA, choose to focus on internal reform as our role, and we don't want to get involved in government oversight". But if they're going to say "government oversight is bad", they need a much more credible theory of change to offer as an alternative.
As a former professor, I also signed the Manhattan Institute Statement, even though I do not agree with every sentence in it. Our university system needs a major overhaul, and it is very clear that the initiative to do so will not come from within the university system itself. And particularly for the state university system, state legislators are going to have to play a major role.
Nice work as usual, Lee. Thank you. I do agree that academia is at a crisis point. As I argued in my own post about the future of academia (https://sethjschwartz.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/163350878?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts), we academics have made ourselves increasingly irrelevant by taking passionate stands on issues where 80% of the public disagrees with us. Many of my colleagues like to say that "we can't do DEI, but we'll just call it something else and do it anyway." There is a recent call for papers in the American Psychologist about systemic oppression - suggesting that academics will absolutely fall on their swords on these critical theory issues.
All you need to do is look at how many Bernie Sanders supporters there are in academia - that should tell you all you need to know. Most sensible people know socialism doesn't work, but that will never stop our colleagues from continuing to embrace it.
Academia will have to be forced to change. It will never happen on its own.
I don't think academia can effectively be forced to change. That is why I think they're likely to get Bob Jones'd and quite possibly have their nonprofit statuses revoked. Right now the support for the extreme measures I describe isn't all that high, perhaps just 25% or so, but the more they do the 'we'll just call it something else and do it anyway' against the will of the public on 80% to 20% issues, the bigger that 25% is going to get.
My problem with Rufo and his agenda is that he does not actually believe in free speech, at least not in the sense of "free speech for everyone, including for those who do not agree with me." For him it is more important to take revenge on the Left than to have free speech for both the Left and the Right. This is very clearly documented in his debate with Yasha Mounk (who IMO has a far more sensible position on this): https://www.thefp.com/p/the-right-way-to-fight-illiberalism-62c
> My problem with Rufo and his agenda is that he does not actually believe in free speech, at least not in the sense of "free speech for everyone, including for those who do not agree with me."
What to you mean by "free speech"? You can't teach 2+2=5 in math class and call it "free speech".
Haven't listened. Mounk is a scholar; Rufo an activist. Regardless, I do not really care about his other views. I work with all sorts of people on all sorts of cooperative projects even when they hold views I dislike that do not interfere with those projects. Much of the discourse around Trump is not what he has actually done, it is nightmares about what he supposedly will do.
In that context, all the screaming about his supposed "fascism" seems overwrought, even acknowledging that some of the deportations are reminiscent. But I am pretty sure Trump has not taken control of the press, and I am pretty sure we will have democratic elections in 2026. Trump has not actually had the military march on Canada or Greenland.
Easy to see policies I do not like, but its hard to see much fascism there.
In a similar spirit, Rufo can do/advocate for whatever he likes, including lots of stuff I disagree with. But I think the proposed reforms:
1. Hit pretty close to the bullseye
2. Have more potential to improve than harm than status quo.
I could be wrong about 2. Wouldn't be the first time. Most nightmare scenarios are overwrought. But once in a while, they do actually come to pass.
You can choose to ignore Rufo's views on this, because they are not repeated in the Manhattan document (I still recommend listening to that debate at Free Press), but I respectfully disagree with your point that people are 'screaming' only because they have nightmares of what Trump might do. I'm not saying (nor did I say in my comment) that we are at full Fascism already, but Trump is in fact using government power to go after those who say things he doesn't like. Take the Tufts student (here with a valid visa, so not an illegal immigrant) at Tufts that was taken off the street by ICE and locked up for two weeks (released only after court order), because she had written a Pro-Palestinian op-ed in the local Tufts newspaper. To be clear, I really disliked that op-ed, but you can't have a Constitution with a 1st Amendment and then use the power of the executive to go and lock up students just because you don't like what they write. And this is not the only example. See for instance this by FIRE: https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/seven-free-speech-groups-issue-call-oppose-trumps -- This is all real.
OK, so now I've listened to the Weis interview of, and exchanges between, Rufo & Mounk. Here are my takes:
1. The first 60% or so is on their diagnoses of the problem -- they all agree that U's have been massively politically corrupted. I agree.
2. The rest is on Rufo/Desantis's policies involving Florida's Stop Woke Act. This is irrelevant to the Manhattan Statement. FWIW, I agree with the court's striking down of the (small) portion of that Act that targeted leftist speech and have stated so in print.
3. But, towards the end, they discuss the bigger issue of what to do about the political corruption of U's. Mounk advocated for reform from within U's, via faculty, admins, alumni, etc. Rufo for govt action. Rufo also argued that would-be reformers, including Mounk (and by extension, others like Heterodox Academy and myself) have completely failed to institute serious reforms. The interview was 1/24. So Mounk had ANOTHER 1.5 years to demonstrate that reform from within was not merely a "good idea" (I agree it is a "good idea" as I articulated in the post), but actually a serious path to reform. AFAICT, no such reforms have taken place. I now conclude (as I articulated in the post) that efforts to "reform from within" have utterly failed.
Nothing in that exchange changed my view about signing on to the Manhattan Institute Statement.
I understand that you (and I) are mad about the ideological monoculture in many of our universities. I also understand that you are worried that universities will not be be able to fix this themselves. But to replace the "woke" ideology that got so dominant over the last 15 years or so with government oversight, and indiscriminately cutting funding (many of which is not even related to the DEI issue, like NIH -- but of course they can't threaten with cutting funding for Comparative Literature or English, as these already have no funding) to apply pressure is clearly not a good alternative. There are going to be a lot of babies thrown away with the bath water. I can (partly) understand the emotional desire to "get back at the left", which many of the people signing that statement seem to have, but it's just not rational, it's short-sighted, it's unprincipled, and it's going to be counterproductive. As Mona Charen correctly observed, because of the ideological purge by the right that is going on now (and no, as I mentioned and illustrated before, it is not a nightmare, it is happening in actual reality) it has made it even harder for academics to convince universities to change, because (as I found out myself too at my university) if they propose changes in that direction now, it looks as if they are kowtowing to Trump instead of defending academic freedom.
The Manhattan Institute Statement is about how to reform the university system, not about whether you like or agree with Rufo/Trump or immigration policy or Palestine.
A letter I co-wrote to the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
To the Editor,
The Manhattan Institute's Christopher Rufo alleges that the Heterodox Academy, since it was launched ten years ago, has not delivered the major reforms in higher education that most Americans plainly desire.
We are co-leaders of Georgia State University's HxA "Campus Community." We're part of a network of 74 HxA campus chapters across North America and the UK. Speaking only for ourselves, we concede that Rufo has a point. Plenty of evidence suggests that far-left and campus-based extremism contributed to Trump's re-election. If more campus leaders had answered the HxA's calls to promote viewpoint diversity, open inquiry, and constructive disagreement, we might not be faced with Trump's authoritarian tactics today. We have worried about government intrusions into higher education -- and pressed the HxA to worry as well -- since long before the 2024 election.
It would be mistaken, however, to think that HxA hasn't done valuable work. Since we formed our Campus Community two years ago, for instance, we have brought impressive speakers to GSU, including Arthur Brooks, Harvard's happiness guru; Simon Cullen, a brilliant young philosopher who explored how to teach "dangerous ideas"; and Michael Bailey, the courageous Northwestern psychology professor, who discussed the politicization of sex research. Next month, we'll host Nadine Strossen, one of the world's leading authorities on free speech. We held a campus-wide screening of a film based on Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind and we've hosted numerous smaller meetings, including a book club discussion where Yascha Mounk, the Johns Hopkins political scientist, joined us virtually.
Our group's members have consciously modeled HxA values in our teaching and we've encouraged our colleagues to do the same. We've used HxA resources to develop classroom activities that help our students engage contested ideas, think analytically, and argue productively.
Most significantly, when we launched our Campus Community, numerous GSU faculty from various disciplines, who otherwise would not know each other, swiftly formed alliances and built friendships. This is no small thing. Social movements often begin when energetic people bond over their commonalities of outlook and purpose. Something special has been happening at GSU, thanks to the HxA's support. We are proud of our efforts, which are only beginning.
John McMillian, History
Andrew J. Cohen, Philosophy
That is an excellent letter making some excellent points. Keep up the good work! For myself, even though I am deeply skeptical about the likelihood of significant internal reform anytime soon, I do think, if its possible, it is the better way to go. AND, I am putting my money, or, at least, my time & effort, where my mouth is. I am actually working with several groups to do so. I remain dubious about the prospects though I have no problem at shooting the moon because ya never know. Bonus: IF a U was to actually make significant internal reforms, they could probably avoid far worse from Trump & Co., though, in my Academic Utopia, they would do so because they realize the reforms improve the U, not because of fear of Trump.
If you want to be really effective, require universities to slash their administrative staff to the ratio to faculty it was fifty years ago. You will not get much public support if you slash funding for basic science research because you have a beef with a minority radical left humanities faculty. The majority, that is moderate faculty interested in doing their scholarship, research, and teaching, is pretty much powerless to straighten the ship at this point. Whatever power they had is in the hands of academic bureaucracy. You need to give them back that power.
Half of those signers, sadly, and Rufo himself just want universities to teach their moral certainties and ideologies and believe in racism hysteria and victimhood identity politics for other groups (their own of course(.
I am in complete agreement with Lee and commend him for signing this important document. It is not perfect but the gist of it is right on the money-- reform is urgently needed. The resistance to reform in universities and other captured institutions (publishing houses, funding agencies, professional societies) is in full display now. Take DEI for example -- instead of getting rid of these wasteful bureaucracies and discriminatory programs, the universities continue the shell game of renaming and rebranding them. And that is despite facing risk of loosing federal funding! They just won't do it. Hence, strong medicine is needed.
Extremely interesting post AND comments. Too much nuance for actual stupid human beings, though. There's nuance in the existence of (a) Muslim populations in Western countries, and (b) the interplay between the history of tolerance and the psychological needs for religious loyalty, and (c) to what extent any distinctions can be made between Islam and Islamism, and to what extent they are significant or useful. None of that will prevent civil uprisings or even civil wars if it blows up because there is insufficient intelligent and reasonable conversation and policy making - and education - first. And if we think there aren't layers of incredible complexity in institutions full of very intelligent people, and some very idealistic, sheltered, and ideologically captured people, we're not "with it" - but being "with it" isn't enough to cure things, where some solid sensible action just has to be taken, even if imperfect.
I appreciate Jussim engaging with my Inside Higher Ed column (and my 30-year-old book, which I would love to defend here but that seems like a distraction).
Jussim calls it “silly” to object to government repression of colleges because “colleges are not required to accept federal money; nor are they entitled to it.” Should the federal government have total control over any company that sells a product to the government? Should the federal government have total control over any individual that accepts Social Security or Medicare or any other federal payment? After all, nobody is required to accept the money.
The claim that we should endorse total federal control over everything done by anyone who takes a dime of government money is the silly argument. Like everyone else, colleges should be able to take public money without completely sacrificing their autonomy. This is libertarianism gone mad, to say that the federal government shouldn’t fund anything and anyone who takes government money deserves repression.
Jussim rejects my accusation of tyranny because “SCOTUS has not overturned any of Trump’s actions vis a vis academia.” In Jussim’s view, Trump could violate any law and the Constitution, and it would not be wrong unless the Supreme Court overturned it. I would argue that tyranny can exist (and would be much worse) if the Supreme Court embraces it.
But the biggest mistake Jussim makes is when he claims that the “reforms” proposed in the Manhattan Statement “are sufficiently nonspecific that exactly how they would actually be implemented is wide open.” Let me quote it: “we call on the President of the United States to draft a new contract with the universities, which should be written into every grant, payment, loan, eligibility, and accreditation, and punishable by revocation of all public benefit.” That sounds very specific to me in giving total power to the president. And the only thing “wide open” about it is the total authority it gives Donald Trump to impose complete control into every federal payment to colleges and revoke all funding as punishment.
Jussim quotes this line, but his only answer is “Heh. Tyranny.” But even if you don’t like my use of the word “tyranny” to describe total power by the president over essentially all colleges, tell me what word you prefer for this massive expansion of presidential power that you have embraced, and explain why you supported it.
> Jussim calls it “silly” to object to government repression of colleges because “colleges are not required to accept federal money; nor are they entitled to it.” Should the federal government have total control over any company that sells a product to the government?
Well, it has had near total control for half a century, since LBJ's infamous Affirmative Action executive order. And no, that wasn't a one-off event.
Exactly. The government had no qualms about going after Hillsdale and Grove City on the basis that they accepted dimes of government money, even down to accepting money given to students in the form of loans.
The bigger fact of the matter is that so long as there are government grants given to "research institutions", student loans given to attend "accredited colleges and universities", the government can dictate the behaviors of institutions seeking such funds via how they define what a "research institution" or "accredited college and university" is. That isn't an ought statement, but simply a matter of fact, how things work. As such, whether the power to dictate to those institutions is explicitly stated or not, the government has it so long as it has funding abilities based on use. It has been using that power for decades on a very one sided manner; the first best solution is to get government out of funding higher education entirely, but the second best is strictly and explicitly stating what colleges and universities that accept that money must do so that the rules of behavior can be discussed and openly understood.
So if you were opposed to the very limited government regulation of Hillsdale and Grove City on issues such as Title IX, why would you support a vast expansion in government regulation to dictate an enormous range of "rules of behavior"? Also, the Manhattan Statement includes the president controlling accreditation, which would also apply to colleges like Hillsdale that don't take federal money, so why would you support that expansion of government power? If you think the government has abused its power to fund for decades, why do you think that it's desirable to give the government much more power? And will you change your tune about presidential control of colleges the instant a Democrat becomes president?
A few more points now that I am back at the keyboard:
1: This is not a vast expansion in government regulation; the government already regulates the behavior of universities based on the terms of conditions of grants, just the same way they regulate the behavior of states through the conditions of highway grants or government contractors with the bidding and contracting rules, with the further lever that the government gets to define what a college or university even is when it comes to funding. The answer there is generally "Those things calling themselves universities and colleges that we like". That is the current state of things.
2: The executive branch already controls national accreditation. It is not the most important type, as it is pretty easy to get, and there are dozens of other accrediting groups that matter more. The important part is that being accredited by the federal government is step one in getting federal money. Schools and departments run just fine without accreditation (most students don't know what it even is much less look for it), so long as they don't want federal money. Again, status quo.
3: I don't think it is good to give the government more power. I think the government should get out of funding universities entirely. The Manhattan Statement does not expand government power, however, and if government is going to have power it needs to be clearly and consistently applied.
4: The government already has immense power over colleges and universities. Search up Obama's "Dear Colleagues" letter. Again, best option I think is no funding, no power over universities. If that isn't on the table, then clear and consistent rules and not just "break whatever laws you like so long as it favors our party ideology and we will keep shoveling money to you" is better than the status quo.
The Obama “Dear Colleague” letter was a terrible proposal with terrible methods that I opposed, but it was very narrow in its scope and application. It only applied to sexual violence against women, and it only dealt with a few due process issues. By contrast, the Trump administration and the Manhattan Statement apply to an enormous range of topics, and deal with expression and policies far beyond the threat to due process. And the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter was never used to cut off funds to colleges or even to propose any removal of any funds. By contrast, the Trump administration has already cut off funds to many colleges (in violation of the law by denying the legally required due process), and the Manhattan Statement calls for vastly expanding the reasons and scope of funds to cut off, and to do so at the whim of the president.
The fact that a small amount of government control over higher education already exists does not justify a vast expansion in that control. If the Obama administration had proposed anything like the Manhattan Statement to control colleges for progressive goals, all of these conservatives would have screamed in outrage and I would join them. Anyone who opposed the Obama “Dear Colleague” letter as excessive government control over colleges must also oppose the vastly larger Trump efforts and Manhattan Statement proposals or you are a hypocrite.
I am sorry, but “a small amount of government control over higher education already exists does” suggests that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Government control extends to nearly every facet of any university that accepts any form of government money, from NSF grants to students with student loans. Anyone who claims the current amount of control is small is wildly off base.
I feel you might have stopped reading my comment before getting to “the first best solution is to get government out of funding higher education entirely, but the second best is strictly and explicitly stating what colleges and universities that accept that money must do so that the rules of behavior can be discussed and openly understood.”
Mr. Wilson is just a partisan hack. He doesn't read anything.
Eugine, this violates two of my commenting guidelines: 1. Don't insult commenters; 2. Don't mindread.
I will leave this comment up, but you only get one warning. I do recommend you delete it on your own.
> So if you were opposed to the very limited government regulation of Hillsdale and Grove City on issues such as Title IX, why would you support a vast expansion in government regulation to dictate an enormous range of "rules of behavior"?
What "vast expansion"? The only difference is that the regulations are now being applied evenly rather than simply against groups you think deserve it.
Indeed. Best to get government funding out all together, but if they are going to be involved the rules need to be consistently applied.
Last week I applied for an opening at a college. 1/3 of the job description was about the duties of the position and the course content. The other 2/3 was about the department and the college’s commitments to the laundry list of Critical Social Justice ideas. Not a good sign the college has any interest in self-reform. It’s unfortunate HxA hasn’t started a program to help applicants like myself find appointments we are qualified for-then there would be more people in the institutions willing to speak up.
I wasn't asked to sign, and I probably wouldn't have signed, though that's mainly because I'm pretty allergic to signing petitions in general. A friend of mine once said his mantra was "I only sign petitions that I would sign if I were the only signatory." I like that and I've taken that to heart.
That said, I largely agree with your analysis here. The Manhattan preamble is very hyperbolic and somewhat off-putting, opening itself up to criticism by "laying out the facts" and then presenting non-empirical maximalist vagueries. But, Manhattan's specific calls to action are pretty much the Chicago Trifecta, enforced by the government, which I think is reasonable and I have publicly called for before: https://www.konstantinkisin.com/cp/152812681. Like you said, it's notable that HxA pointed out how similar their reform agenda was to the Manhattan statement after criticizing it.
It's also notable that the HxA statement's two main departures from Manhattan are: (i) being against government oversight, and (ii) not even mentioning the flagrant violations of federal laws (civil rights and others) that are a huge part of the problem on campus, and the feds' *pre-Trump statutory requirement* to step in and stop that. You are also right that HxA needs a better answer to the "why has almost no internal reform happened without government pressure?" question, if they're going to oppose all government oversight. It'd even be fine for them to say, "we, HxA, choose to focus on internal reform as our role, and we don't want to get involved in government oversight". But if they're going to say "government oversight is bad", they need a much more credible theory of change to offer as an alternative.
As a former professor, I also signed the Manhattan Institute Statement, even though I do not agree with every sentence in it. Our university system needs a major overhaul, and it is very clear that the initiative to do so will not come from within the university system itself. And particularly for the state university system, state legislators are going to have to play a major role.
Nice work as usual, Lee. Thank you. I do agree that academia is at a crisis point. As I argued in my own post about the future of academia (https://sethjschwartz.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/163350878?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts), we academics have made ourselves increasingly irrelevant by taking passionate stands on issues where 80% of the public disagrees with us. Many of my colleagues like to say that "we can't do DEI, but we'll just call it something else and do it anyway." There is a recent call for papers in the American Psychologist about systemic oppression - suggesting that academics will absolutely fall on their swords on these critical theory issues.
All you need to do is look at how many Bernie Sanders supporters there are in academia - that should tell you all you need to know. Most sensible people know socialism doesn't work, but that will never stop our colleagues from continuing to embrace it.
Academia will have to be forced to change. It will never happen on its own.
I don't think academia can effectively be forced to change. That is why I think they're likely to get Bob Jones'd and quite possibly have their nonprofit statuses revoked. Right now the support for the extreme measures I describe isn't all that high, perhaps just 25% or so, but the more they do the 'we'll just call it something else and do it anyway' against the will of the public on 80% to 20% issues, the bigger that 25% is going to get.
My problem with Rufo and his agenda is that he does not actually believe in free speech, at least not in the sense of "free speech for everyone, including for those who do not agree with me." For him it is more important to take revenge on the Left than to have free speech for both the Left and the Right. This is very clearly documented in his debate with Yasha Mounk (who IMO has a far more sensible position on this): https://www.thefp.com/p/the-right-way-to-fight-illiberalism-62c
> My problem with Rufo and his agenda is that he does not actually believe in free speech, at least not in the sense of "free speech for everyone, including for those who do not agree with me."
What to you mean by "free speech"? You can't teach 2+2=5 in math class and call it "free speech".
Haven't listened. Mounk is a scholar; Rufo an activist. Regardless, I do not really care about his other views. I work with all sorts of people on all sorts of cooperative projects even when they hold views I dislike that do not interfere with those projects. Much of the discourse around Trump is not what he has actually done, it is nightmares about what he supposedly will do.
In that context, all the screaming about his supposed "fascism" seems overwrought, even acknowledging that some of the deportations are reminiscent. But I am pretty sure Trump has not taken control of the press, and I am pretty sure we will have democratic elections in 2026. Trump has not actually had the military march on Canada or Greenland.
Easy to see policies I do not like, but its hard to see much fascism there.
In a similar spirit, Rufo can do/advocate for whatever he likes, including lots of stuff I disagree with. But I think the proposed reforms:
1. Hit pretty close to the bullseye
2. Have more potential to improve than harm than status quo.
I could be wrong about 2. Wouldn't be the first time. Most nightmare scenarios are overwrought. But once in a while, they do actually come to pass.
You can choose to ignore Rufo's views on this, because they are not repeated in the Manhattan document (I still recommend listening to that debate at Free Press), but I respectfully disagree with your point that people are 'screaming' only because they have nightmares of what Trump might do. I'm not saying (nor did I say in my comment) that we are at full Fascism already, but Trump is in fact using government power to go after those who say things he doesn't like. Take the Tufts student (here with a valid visa, so not an illegal immigrant) at Tufts that was taken off the street by ICE and locked up for two weeks (released only after court order), because she had written a Pro-Palestinian op-ed in the local Tufts newspaper. To be clear, I really disliked that op-ed, but you can't have a Constitution with a 1st Amendment and then use the power of the executive to go and lock up students just because you don't like what they write. And this is not the only example. See for instance this by FIRE: https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/seven-free-speech-groups-issue-call-oppose-trumps -- This is all real.
OK, so now I've listened to the Weis interview of, and exchanges between, Rufo & Mounk. Here are my takes:
1. The first 60% or so is on their diagnoses of the problem -- they all agree that U's have been massively politically corrupted. I agree.
2. The rest is on Rufo/Desantis's policies involving Florida's Stop Woke Act. This is irrelevant to the Manhattan Statement. FWIW, I agree with the court's striking down of the (small) portion of that Act that targeted leftist speech and have stated so in print.
3. But, towards the end, they discuss the bigger issue of what to do about the political corruption of U's. Mounk advocated for reform from within U's, via faculty, admins, alumni, etc. Rufo for govt action. Rufo also argued that would-be reformers, including Mounk (and by extension, others like Heterodox Academy and myself) have completely failed to institute serious reforms. The interview was 1/24. So Mounk had ANOTHER 1.5 years to demonstrate that reform from within was not merely a "good idea" (I agree it is a "good idea" as I articulated in the post), but actually a serious path to reform. AFAICT, no such reforms have taken place. I now conclude (as I articulated in the post) that efforts to "reform from within" have utterly failed.
Nothing in that exchange changed my view about signing on to the Manhattan Institute Statement.
I understand that you (and I) are mad about the ideological monoculture in many of our universities. I also understand that you are worried that universities will not be be able to fix this themselves. But to replace the "woke" ideology that got so dominant over the last 15 years or so with government oversight, and indiscriminately cutting funding (many of which is not even related to the DEI issue, like NIH -- but of course they can't threaten with cutting funding for Comparative Literature or English, as these already have no funding) to apply pressure is clearly not a good alternative. There are going to be a lot of babies thrown away with the bath water. I can (partly) understand the emotional desire to "get back at the left", which many of the people signing that statement seem to have, but it's just not rational, it's short-sighted, it's unprincipled, and it's going to be counterproductive. As Mona Charen correctly observed, because of the ideological purge by the right that is going on now (and no, as I mentioned and illustrated before, it is not a nightmare, it is happening in actual reality) it has made it even harder for academics to convince universities to change, because (as I found out myself too at my university) if they propose changes in that direction now, it looks as if they are kowtowing to Trump instead of defending academic freedom.
https://x.com/LHSummers/status/1948336830937501817
The Manhattan Institute Statement is about how to reform the university system, not about whether you like or agree with Rufo/Trump or immigration policy or Palestine.