Purpose of Higher Education?
Why Are Universities Sticking with Their Embattled Leaders?
The Shifting Purpose of Higher Education
After the explosive testimony in front of Congress by the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT, a crucial question arises: Why are these esteemed institutions of higher learning standing by their embattled leaders? Couldn’t these leaders have simply condemned the controversial chants that were heard?
To answer this question, we must first address another: What is the true purpose of higher education?
Universities undoubtedly serve a purpose, otherwise, they wouldn’t have endured for so long. However, this purpose has evolved over time. Initially, universities were an extension of church education, where students would study grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, math, geometry, music, and astronomy. As time went on, universities transformed into centers of learning, where scholars would pass down ancient wisdom and seek new knowledge. Attending university meant becoming a leader in one’s field and embracing the values of society.
However, the centralization of an intellectual class led universities down two distinct paths: specialization in industry and social experimentation. The path of professional specialization has yielded positive results, with scientific breakthroughs that have changed the world. Yet, it has also led to a society where a university degree is seen as a prerequisite for entering the workforce.
The second path, social experimentation, has been the hallmark of universities since the mid-19th century. As religion’s influence waned, universities became battlegrounds for new theories and ideas. They became breeding grounds for social change.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
The new purpose of universities, as theorist John Dewey argued, was to create progressive citizens who could rebuild a great state without being bound by history or religion. Dewey believed that education should challenge and dismantle long-standing prejudices, fostering rational conviction and undermining stiff authority. The role of experts in guiding the nation became paramount.
This philosophy was not limited to the United States; it was influenced by German progressivism. German universities, once the best in the world, became Hitler’s think tank, providing intellectual support for his racist ideology.
The intelligentsia has a history of forming coalitions of the dispossessed to advance their ideas. In the 1960s, universities in the West rebelled against nationalism, advocating for a global citizenship that prioritized individualism and loyalty to intellectual leaders.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP
Today, universities champion a new social experiment: diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Unlike previous movements, DEI seeks a more diverse and inclusive body politic, as modeled by universities.
However, the same theoreticians who fueled past revolutions are behind DEI. Critical theory, the foundation of DEI, asserts that all systems of power are exploitative and must be dismantled through group identity and coalition politics. Success is demonized, while victimhood is celebrated. This binary thinking leads to oppression and discrimination, just as German universities’ revolutionary ideology led to discrimination against the Jews.
That’s why university presidents struggle to address anti-Semitism. The oppressor/oppressed binary is the driving force on campuses today, and it cannot be challenged. DEI is the purpose of universities, not just a means. It represents perpetual revolution by the intelligentsia. The media also plays a role in protecting DEI.
Why is it crucial for universities to consider the implications of removing embattled leaders in order to uphold their mission of intellectual freedom and open dialogue?
Ens who would challenge the status quo and push for societal reform. This shift in purpose meant that universities would no longer simply pass down knowledge, but rather actively engage with and shape society.
With this understanding, it becomes clear why universities stand by their embattled leaders. These leaders are not just administrators or figureheads; they are representatives of the institution’s purpose and values. They are responsible for fostering an environment where students can explore new ideas, challenge existing norms, and participate in the ongoing social experimentation that universities have come to symbolize.
When embattled leaders face controversy or criticism, universities must carefully consider the implications of removing them. It is not just a matter of condemning controversial chants or statements; it is a matter of upholding the university’s mission of intellectual freedom and open dialogue.
Furthermore, the decision to stand by embattled leaders is also influenced by the fear of setting a dangerous precedent. If universities were to cave under public pressure and remove leaders every time controversy arises, it could create a chilling effect on intellectual freedom. Students, faculty, and researchers would be hesitant to express their opinions openly, fearing backlash and the potential loss of their positions. This would undermine the very essence of higher education as a place for critical thinking and open debate.
Of course, universities must also carefully balance their support for embattled leaders with a commitment to accountability and ethical conduct. They must address controversies appropriately, conduct thorough investigations, and take appropriate action if wrongdoing is found. But this should not lead to knee-jerk reactions that sacrifice the principles and values that universities hold dear.
In conclusion, the purpose of higher education has shifted from being purely about knowledge transmission to becoming a catalyst for social change. Universities now emphasize the importance of fostering intellectual freedom, open dialogue, and societal reform. In standing by their embattled leaders, universities are defending these ideals and ensuring that students continue to have a space for exploration, critical thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...