The Character of a Campus

Almost all colleges and universities in this country receive huge sums of federal money annually. For starters, more than half of all college students receive federal loans, and about one in three receive grant aid. In return, the campuses accept politically correct “diversity” requirements about ethnicity, race, and sex without complaint. But one wonders if that commitment is sufficient. Shouldn’t the acceptance of tax dollars require campuses to conform to even higher ethical standards, assuring the public that their considerable investment in higher education is wise, fair, and useful? Isn’t this doubly true given the fact that campuses are dominated by “progressive” professors who eagerly and loudly proclaim themselves intellectuals committed to universal literacy, compassion, peace, and justice?

Three steps come to mind by which college and university faculties and administrators might prove their devotion to the high principles they routinely espouse, endowing each campus with a glow of good character that might win untold public support in the future.

In the first place, taxpayers could be supplied with solid information on academic standards. A great many campuses today boast of their rigor and high reputation for scholarship, denigrating their for-profit competitors on the Internet as soft and undemanding. But virtually all college and university catalogues are jam packed with nonsense and propaganda courses, huge survey sections abound, the use of ill-paid ad hoc professors and graduate students in the classroom is routine, grading is often sky high, and graduation requirements are minimal. How is the public to know if their young people are being truly educated in a demanding environment that requires genuine skills in a variety of solid disciplines? A reasoned explication of an institution’s educational philosophy (as opposed to a pretentious and meaningless mission statement), a full report on the activities and qualifications of its faculty, a survey of grading practices, clear and detailed descriptions of courses, and the installation of graduation examinations would help all of us understand the character of a campus. If little more than drinking, carousing, and football are offered, the taxpayers should know that too, honestly and in detail. Many young people will prefer a campus of that sort, of course, but why leave the decision to word of mouth? One might call this simply truth in packaging.

Secondly, campuses might begin immediately to limit classroom indoctrination, from both the Left and Right, by declaring their full support of some form of the Academic Bill of Rights, a version of which was recently adopted by Colorado’s public institutions of higher education. Intellectual diversity on campus is a good thing, and the public ought to be confident that at least two sides of an issue, along with the best available facts, are being presented consistently, responsibly, and as objectively as possible. To keep federal authorities from being intrusive in academic matters (no one wants government bureaucrats looking over the shoulders of professors or desires “thought police” in any form on campus), colleges and universities could oversee this matter themselves, assuring everyone in periodic public reports that authentic scholarship and fairness were paramount at all times. To begin with, a campus could list the political proclivities of its faculty, assuring all that every effort was being made to secure intellectual diversity. Then the spotlight could be placed on hiring, and with detailed data all could be assured that objectivity dominated the process, and that all forms of discrimination were rejected. Public reports on assigned classroom reading might also be helpful, giving the educated public an opportunity to see just how balanced courses are.

Thirdly, many campuses might show their social compassion and generosity by spending some of their vast endowments to help the poor. This would not only be a good thing in itself but would also show gratitude to the taxpayers, relieving a bit of their financial burden for the unfortunate. There are many extraordinarily opulent campuses still clamoring for federal dollars. In mid-2004, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton had average endowments of $14.9 billion. Grinnell’s endowment amounted to $1.2 million per student. Think how many displaced poor people from New Orleans could be helped out by, say, the spare change from the endowments proudly sported by Amherst and Williams.

Then too, as suggested by Robert M. Dunn, Jr. in the current issue of The American Enterprise, why don’t rich colleges and universities help out poorer campuses? Dunn writes, “Are we to believe that graduates of Yale are so narrow-minded and selfish that they only want to help Yalies? Surely Yale, Princeton, Williams, and Grinnell alums will give just as freely knowing that their gifts are helping students at poorer schools, particularly since they were taught primarily by liberal professors devoted to income redistribution.” Every Harvard dollar sent to, say, California State University at Dominguez Hills, would surely save the taxpayers some money. And what a statement about caring and sharing!

Today, colleges and universities are ranked in a number of ways. How about a category for character, weighing honesty, solid academic standards, and generosity into the mix of donor giving, ratio of students to faculty, and so on? A top ranking school in this measure of achievement would be honored for putting substance into the rhetoric of high ideals and might well win the gratitude of alumni, students, and taxpayers in general.