Universities as Political Action Committees
By Howard Sierer
For centuries, universities have had three fundamental purposes: research, teaching, and public service. The goal of University Education is producing graduates who are capable of critical thinking, who have been exposed to a wide variety of ideas and have learned to challenge those ideas and debate their merits, pro, and con.
Two Ivy-League schools are adding a fourth purpose: direct political action. In the process, they are undermining both research and teaching while making a dubious attempt at what their leaders see as a move beyond traditional public service.
The direct political action of the kind proposed is what political action committees are all about: advocating unashamedly for their preferred government policies and for politicians who they expect to advance those policies. A university taking on this role by definition compromises the education of its graduates.
Columbia and Brown Universities plan to institutionalize radical leftwing politics, limiting their students’ education to a single-minded, far-left perspective. Expect others to fall in behind them.
Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger announced the university’s new “Climate School.” He claims that the school will “bridge the world of scholarly endeavor with that of action and implementation,” thanks to “components of what we are calling the University’s Fourth Purpose—our mission of being more present at the intersection of knowledge and change.”
It would be easy to dismiss this as nothing more than Columbia’s science departments hoping to appear relevant and attract funding by focusing on the left’s cause du jour, climate change. But Bollinger went on to make it clear that the university’s plans are far broader than climate science.
He grandiosely proclaimed, “We recognize, of course, that climate change is not simply a physical problem but rather one raising a host of societal issues, most notably those encompassed by the principles of social justice.”
When initiating a university-wide task force last year, Bollinger made it clear that all university departments were to salute the climate change colors:
“We all understand that global warming poses enormous, perhaps even existential, challenges; that the issues it presents are confounding, complex and multidimensional, call on every area of human knowledge, and are enduring… one thing is certain: The sheer magnitude of the problems now facing humanity as a result of climate change has never been greater…”
A rough translation: If you are Columbia professor of linguistics or English or nursing or you name it and if you want to stay relevant – and on the tenure track – you had better bend your teaching and research toward advocating social justice for the downtrodden masses menaced by climate change.
So much for academic freedom.
Every Columbia professor will be expected to find ways to “be present at the intersection of knowledge and change.” That is, participate in rallies and marches, berate elected representatives to legislate climate-friendly policies and programs, and generally become a university-sponsored advocate for the university’s chosen policies, even if they’re not necessarily their own.
It’s one thing for individual professors to take activist roles consistent with their ideals. It’s quite another for a university to mobilize itself as a whole. Columbia’s Business School Professor Charles Calomiris points out that Bollinger’s proposal for institutional activism is contrary to the purposes of the university and threatens its tax-exempt status.
Brown University’s president issued a letter in June asserting that “oppression, as well as prejudice, outright bigotry, and hate, directly and personally affect the lives of millions of people in this nation every minute and every hour.” The letter committed the university to “programming, courses, and research opportunities” that promote “equity and justice.”
Once again, faculty was put on notice as to how their research, publications, and activism should align itself, in this case with the Black Lives Matter narrative. Academic freedom is dead at Brown University as well.
Over the last fifty years, university faculties have drifted left politically to the point where conservative faculty have been increasingly unwelcome and marginalized. As conservatives retire or move elsewhere, left-wingers have replaced them.
Today’s students at many universities are exposed only to one side of many of the complex issues facing society. Hard to believe but even so-called “hard science” subjects like mathematics, biology, and physics are being laced with the political overtones of social and gender equity.
I’m with African-American Professor Glenn Loury on Brown’s faculty who calls the Brown announcement “the Black Lives Matter view of the world reflected from the…college president’s office.” He goes on to say, “If we foreclose debate over contentious issues by declaring that there’s only one way for a decent person at this university to think about them, how can we fulfill our mission of teaching our students to think critically?”
Amen, Professor Loury.
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
