The University of Chicago is a great university, while something called the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (a group of 17 schools) clearly is not. Recent statements from the presidents of both institutions helps us understand why.
Mark E. Ojakian, the head of the Connecticut schools, issued a statement that personifies much that is wrong with American higher education. He said:
“It is incumbent on us…to protect…the safe inclusive learning environment on our campuses….The CSCU community is made up of various races, ages, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, nationalities, physical abilities, and political perspectives. We value our diversity….We are a system that greatly values academic freedom and freedom of expression but this …requires shared responsibility….We do not and will not accept discourse that belittles or demeans those among us.”
Contrast that with Robert Zimmer, president of the University of Chicago, writing in the Wall Street Journal. “Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university….Students grasp the complexity of…deriving meaning from evidence of multiple forms. They learn to imagine alternatives…to question the accepted wisdom…..questioning and challenge must flourish…. Universities cannot be viewed as a sanctuary for comfort but rather as a crucible for confronting ideas…”
Ojakian is of the genre of University president like found recently at Yale and the University Missouri—“we feel your pain, so we will try to suppress ideas that discomfort you.” You can say anything you want—as long as you don’t hurt the feelings or upset the delicate mental psyches of our students. Literally interpreting the incredible statement about not accepting discourse that is demeaning of others would clearly exclude Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both from the CSCU campuses, since their campaigns are largely about belittling and demeaning each other. A truly contemptible approach ultimately that is simultaneously intolerant and, totalitarian, and one that carries with it with potential of destroying the vitality and indeed the whole raison d’etre of universities.
Zimmer, by contrast, is in the tradition of great university leaders who view campuses as places where unfettered and often uncomfortable and disturbing dialogue and discourse ensues in order to help us learn, understand and ultimately improve the human condition. What is impressive about Chicago is that the University community seems to largely buy into Zimmer’s approach (or arguably, the reverse: Zimmer buys into Chicago’s perspective). The school has formally adopted the very fine Chicago Principles (also adopted at other fine schools such as Purdue), and other senior administrators are joining Zimmer in telling students to not look for trigger warnings or safe places on the UC campus. Personally, the most intellectually exhilarating experiences I have ever had was from appearing and making presentations at economics workshops at Chicago—faculty and students were challenging, sometimes marginally insulting, and always quite combative—but all in the quest for understanding and learning.
As an economist, I am always looking for evidence from markets. Relevant here is the labor market for recent graduates of the University of Chicago versus those at one of the Connecticut State system schools. According to the College Scorecard website of the U.S. Department of Education, using IRS provided data, the “salary after attending” at the University of Chicago averages $62,800, almost 50 percent higher than major CSCU system schools like Central, Western, or Southern Connecticut State University (salaries around $42,000 or $43,000, depending on the campus). There is far more than free speech at work here (the Chicago kids are smarter and more prepared academically to begin with), but at the very minimum it does not appear that a diet of lively, free and uncensored inquiry has deterred employers from hiring the graduates at Chicago.
Whole forests have been destroyed providing the paper on which I have written articles and even books decrying the role the government plays in higher education. Universities would be better off, as would America, if the federal system of student financial aid had never existed. But there is a strong case to be made to deny federal aid to any university that does explicitly adopt a statement similar to the Chicago Principles on free speech and inquiry. I usually don’t want ANY federal interference in academic affairs, but a commitment to honor the spirit and letter of the First Amendment to the American Constitution is not an unreasonable expectation of universities seeking to live off government handouts.
Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and teaches at Ohio University.
