So, some of you may have seen the kerfuffle about the creation of a new university “dedicated to the truth” (see the NYT article here).  This initiative, unconventionally announced to the world via a Medium blogpost, is to be led by the former President of St. John’s College (Annapolis) Pano Kanelos, but he has accumulated a very large number of backers, both in terms of finances and “people who matter”.  This latter group includes a wide variety of people, some of whom have had impressive careers at the boundary of academia and popular publishing (Steven Pinker, Niall Ferguson, Tyler Cowen) and some of whom might more accurately be called professional attention-seekers (Peter Boghossian, Bari Weiss). 

This group’s introductory pitch to the world claimed that “higher education might be the most fractured institution” in America, that legacy higher education institutions are incapable of self-reform, and therefore a new institution was needed.  Cue a truly enormous amount of online eye-rolling and piss-taking on the internet.  Probably overdone, to be honest: quite a bit of it had a “doth protest too much” quality. 

But still, let’s try to sift through what’s at play.  It seems to me that there are three conceptually quite different issues here.  They are:

i)        Has “wokeness” created free speech chills on campus?  If so, is this chill widespread?

ii)       Have things got to the point that a new university is necessary?

iii)     Is this a particular initiative a serious venture or is it just a grift?

To jump to the end, my answers are i) in places, perhaps, but it’s to a significant extent a media creation, ii) who cares, people should start universities whenever they want and iii) despite the long list of prominent names, there’s a strong whiff of grift here. 

Let me explain.

There is, certainly, a fight going on within universities about discourse – what should and should not be taught, methods of teaching, etc.  This is not new.  Indeed, I would say that this argument has been going on in one form or another, at varying degrees of intensity, since Mario Savio and the free speech movement at Berkeley.  In the US, you might characterize these two points of view as “the Establishment” vs. “the left”, or “conservatives” vs. “the politically correct, or – in more Canadian terms – “les Duplessistes” and “les wokes”.  To a large extent it’s an argument about race, history, and how we should act today to deal with the injustices of the past. 

It shouldn’t really be a surprise that people of differing political alignments try to capture institutions.  Universities are political and there are rewards for controlling them – that’s just the way things are.  Now in the US, we see two opposing movements trying in various way to exercise control over institutions: in red states, we see attempts to try to control speech and thought from above, with state governments trying to ban certain forms of teaching on race, restricting the ability of professors to testify against state on issues relating to voting rights, etc.  Elsewhere, you get alliances fighting to keep academics with “incorrect” views on the definition and use of merit in hiring processes being blocked from giving talks in their areas of scientific expertise.  Both are power plays to restrict opponents’ speech; neither is defensible.

It’s not just that there are two sides in these speech fights; more importantly, the nature and extent of these battles is vastly overstated.  Media hype over one or two cases can make it seem like such battles are happening everywhere, but they are pretty rare.  They tend to be much more intense at “prestige” institutions – the ones that get outsized press attention – than they do in the workhorse institutions that educate the majority students.  On aggregate, few places in our society practice free speech and free debate more actively than universities.  Which kind of undercuts the whole notion that universities are irreparably fractured. 

In other words, the argument that “wokeness” – or whatever you want to call it – is ruining universities seems a little overwrought.  You have to stare really hard at the outliers and ignore some obvious contrary cases in order to believe this is true.

Now, the second issue: which seems to be in play is whether, given the state of higher education, it is reasonable for a group of folks to create a new institution.  To which, I think the correct answer is: who cares?  You want to start a university? Knock yourself out.  If there is a market for this kind of thing, great.  If not, not.  The market is a great imposer of accountability.   

Personally, I have my doubts about the staying power of an institution like this.  All those high-power academics signing a letter of support?  None of them are signing up to teach there.  It’s possible to imagine there are loads of people who will sign up to pay big dollars for a secular conservative undergraduate experience in the absence of any star power on the faculty.  It is interesting that hidden away among the aims of the organization is a desire to create a less expensive educational experience, which, you know, great, but not a) that ain’t conducive to attracting star faculty, and b) if your goal is to attract rich conservatives, let me tell you, cutting back on amenities is seriously counter-productive.

Which leads us to a third issue: is this a serious project, or is it, like so much of American Conservatism, a grift?  Well, put it this way: does a serious enterprise announce its existence on Bari Weiss’ substack?  Does it announce that it intends to establish itself in Texas while at the same time saying it will seek accreditation from an agency (the Higher Learning Commission) that does not actually operate in that state?  Does it have such a conflicting set of priorities (educate students in a classic liberal arts setting while at the same time stripping education to the basics and offering education more cheaply)?  In many ways, this feels like the kind of institution that is only likely to survive on the charity of various right-wing foundations.

That said, the institution does have a unique value proposition which might attract students willing to shell out serious money.  Its strategy of starting out by offering several professional graduate degrees before later turning to build an undergraduate program may seem a little bit backwards academically, but financially seems shrewd. 

In other words: whatever you think of the founders’ motivations for starting a new university, the ability to start new institutions to meet a variety of new objectives is a great strength of American higher education.  Experimentation should be encouraged, and a new university is no bad thing.  Salud, Vaya con Dios, etc. 

It’s just that people should understand that if this crew comes around asking for money, well, you know…hold on to your wallet.