Manifesto for a new university in Austin

[Ruralguy]

If they want any kind of physical plant, then this is the stupidest idea ever. Without that, it might barely work. Might. This is a very very bad time to start a university.

[jimbogumbo]

I read WWU's post as suggesting the concept of this U isn't a real draw to the college age audience.

It would just have to be a draw to a tiny fraction to make it viable. Unless they plan to franchise it like McDonald's.

I understand-I just don't think the fraction is big enough. Evangelicals who might be interested already have plenty of choices where the perception of cancel culture threat isn't really a factor. Lots of privates (Liberty, Hope, Patrick Henry, Baylor, Bob Jones etc), and it really isn't an issue at all for those who go to regional campuses and their counterparts, particularly in the Bible Belt.

[marshwiggle]

I read WWU's post as suggesting the concept of this U isn't a real draw to the college age audience.

It would just have to be a draw to a tiny fraction to make it viable. Unless they plan to franchise it like McDonald's.

I understand-I just don't think the fraction is big enough. Evangelicals who might be interested already have plenty of choices where the perception of cancel culture threat isn't really a factor. Lots of privates (Liberty, Hope, Patrick Henry, Baylor, Bob Jones etc), and it really isn't an issue at all for those who go to regional campuses and their counterparts, particularly in the Bible Belt.

I don't really think places like Liberty and Bob Jones will be competition. (I don't really know about the others.) The most conservative Christians tend to be pretty much like the hardcore progressives in that the only speech they want to hear is from their own "side". There are lots of non-religious and just more middle-of-the-road Christians who value real free exchange of ideas that would be interested in principle.

And if the new university isn't in fact really about "free" speech, but only about "conservative" speech, then it's a total waste of effort.

[Ruralguy]

I would think Hillsdale is about the closest thing to what they are doing.

[dismalist]

And if the new university isn't in fact really about "free" speech, but only about "conservative" speech, then it's a total waste of effort.

What I find so attractive about the idea is that it's not about an ideological specialization. This was "liberal" a couple of decades ago.

All that's going on is that a variety other than Coke and Pepsi are planned to be offered. Look down the drinks aisle of any larger supermarket. Why should or would higher ed be any different?

It's just another flavor! :-)

[WWUpdate]

Sure, they can start a college if they want. I suspect they are misreading the market, however. The vast majority of students aren't concerned about cancel culture (whatever the hell that means) at their university, or any of this ideological stuff. That leaves the rest and I doubt they can really deliver on any of that.

Precisely. The real divide on this issue isn't based on race, but on age. Young people are far less upset about "wokeism," "cancel culture," and CRT than their elders. Their life experiences are different and so is their value system.

Young people also have higher incidence of suicide, crime, and substance abuse.

Just because something is more popular among a particular age group, (such as young people), doesn't make it a good thing. It also doesn't mean they won't have different attitudes as they grow older.

I read WWU's post as suggesting the concept of this U isn't a real draw to the college age audience.

That's correct. Whether the changing social attitudes of young people are a good thing is, of course, a matter for another thread. But among the issues young people face these days, both in school and elsewhere, "cancel culture" doesn't seem to be near the top of their concerns and is probably not a major factor in their choice of college. Then again, as marshwiggle pointed out above, a small fraction of students may be enough to make this project viable. I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see.

[Hibush]

Ross Douthat ...talks about how it has been a very long time since anybody has tried to establish an innovative new institution of higher education of any sort anywhere in the U.S.  Whether one likes or dislikes what U of Austin's would-be founders are trying to do, couldn't we use some fresh institutions of higher learning? 

Douthat must not have been paying attention to the higher-ed marketplace. People come up with innovative new institutions of higher ed on a regular basis. Most fail, but some get pretty big before they go (e.g. Corinthinan, Phoenix).

[mleok]

I understand-I just don't think the fraction is big enough. Evangelicals who might be interested already have plenty of choices where the perception of cancel culture threat isn't really a factor. Lots of privates (Liberty, Hope, Patrick Henry, Baylor, Bob Jones etc), and it really isn't an issue at all for those who go to regional campuses and their counterparts, particularly in the Bible Belt.

The reality is that very few parents actually care about cancel culture or indoctrination per se, at best they might care about their child attending a university that is aligned with their value system and beliefs.

[mahagonny]

I understand-I just don't think the fraction is big enough. Evangelicals who might be interested already have plenty of choices where the perception of cancel culture threat isn't really a factor. Lots of privates (Liberty, Hope, Patrick Henry, Baylor, Bob Jones etc), and it really isn't an issue at all for those who go to regional campuses and their counterparts, particularly in the Bible Belt.

The reality is that very few parents actually care about cancel culture or indoctrination per se, at best they might care about their child attending a university that is aligned with their value system and beliefs.

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

But it is common to find a university today whose mission statement and other communications would give no indication that the more conservative student will likely feel pressured to conform to the new 'liberal'* orthodoxy. Despite the fact that they have to be aware that this is a lot of concern about it. This university (if it happens)  at least seems to notice the elephant in the room.

* in quotations, in recognition of the irony, i.e. liberal meaning tolerant

[jimbogumbo]

A darn good analysis by Derek Robertson:https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/17/university-austin-bari-weiss-pinker-culture-politics-522800

[WWUpdate]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003. They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time. In addition, they found that students were no more likely to move left at schools with more liberal faculties.

Similarly, the political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker analyzed data from a survey that tracked the political attitudes of about 1,000 high school students through their college years and into middle age. Their research found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal reflects to a large extent the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place.

The rest of the article

****

One study is by a husband and wife team of political scientists, Matthew Woessner, a prominent conservative and registered Republican, and April Kelly-Woessner, a liberal and registered Democrat.

"There is no evidence that a professor or lecturer's views instigate political change among students," Woessner says.

[...]

The authors do not deny that the majority of academics are left of center, and that many of them reveal their politics to students.

"But that is different from indoctrinating them with it," says Kelly-Woessner, who works at nearby Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

Their survey showed that students' politics did shift at university, mostly toward the center or slightly left. But those who shifted left did not necessarily have left-leaning professors, they claim. The change was more connected to their peers and what was going on outside the classroom. Three earlier studies by the couple have produced similar conclusions.

[...]

And Mack Mariani at Xavier University, Ohio, and Gordon Hewitt at Hamilton College, New York, write in PS of their latest research at US colleges, which found that: "Student political orientation does not change for a majority of students while in college, and for those that do change there is evidence that other factors have an effect on that change, such as gender and socio-economic status."

The rest of the article

[marshwiggle]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003.

This is ridiculously outdated for the present time. Given the huge changes that have happened socially since the advent of smartphones and social media in the last decade or so, it's hard to compare to an era where even Google was just getting started.

[Caracal]

Sure, they can start a college if they want. I suspect they are misreading the market, however. The vast majority of students aren't concerned about cancel culture (whatever the hell that means) at their university, or any of this ideological stuff. That leaves the rest and I doubt they can really deliver on any of that.

Precisely. The real divide on this issue isn't based on race, but on age. Young people are far less upset about "wokeism," "cancel culture," and CRT than their elders. Their life experiences are different and so is their value system.

Young people also have higher incidence of suicide, crime, and substance abuse.

Just because something is more popular among a particular age group, (such as young people), doesn't make it a good thing. It also doesn't mean they won't have different attitudes as they grow older.

I read WWU's post as suggesting the concept of this U isn't a real draw to the college age audience.

That's correct. Whether the changing social attitudes of young people are a good thing is, of course, a matter for another thread. But among the issues young people face these days, both in school and elsewhere, "cancel culture" doesn't seem to be near the top of their concerns and is probably not a major factor in their choice of college. Then again, as marshwiggle pointed out above, a small fraction of students may be enough to make this project viable. I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see.

Yeah, I mean anything is viable if you have people willing to throw enough money at it. Apparently it's viable for Jeff Bezos to send himself into space.  , so why can't some other ultra rich people start their own boutique university? That said, I imagine the biggest challenges would be actually building up the institutional apparatus to a point where you can convince students and their parents this is a real university. That involves a lot of really mundane stuff. Its all well and good to say that cancel culture isn't going to exist here, but I'd be more worried that a functional registrar and a real chemistry department also won't exist.

The list of names involved in the project is a bad sign in that regard. It's a lot of "big names," but many of those people have long ago stopped actually publishing academic work in their fields. I doubt Stephen Pinker is going to be teaching intro psych classes. Perhaps if you're lucky he will show up and teach some seminar, give a few large lectures and wander off. I don't know all the names on that list, but the ones I do know seem to mostly be people who style themselves as public intellectuals and who have courted controversy. That profile doesn't usually go along with the temperament and skills needed to build an institution from the ground up.

Maybe the people involved know this. The big names might just be there for publicity and the plan is to bring in engaged scholars who are capable of building consensus and making this more than a vanity project. However, those people might be hard to recruit. There are people who might be sympathetic to the intellectual mission who meet those requirements, but you'd have to persuade them that this whole thing isn't going to fold in two years when the rich guys backing it get bored. They'd probably also want reassurances about the role of faculty governance, possible outside interference, and exactly what the role of some of these big names might be.

So, sure, I guess it could work, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there's some long story in three years detailing how the whole project fell apart because of massive unchecked egos, mismanagement and ideological fights.

[WWUpdate]

Great, let's go ahead with the indoctrination then.

There's a great deal of evidence that this concern is grossly overblown:

But contrary to conservative rhetoric, studies show that going to college does not make students substantially more liberal. The political scientist Mack Mariani and the higher education researcher Gordon Hewitt analyzed changes in student political attitudes between their freshman and senior years at 38 colleges and universities from 1999 to 2003.

This is ridiculously outdated for the present time. Given the huge changes that have happened socially since the advent of smartphones and social media in the last decade or so, it's hard to compare to an era where even Google was just getting started.

We're talking about the alleged indoctrination of students by professors, so I fail to see how the advent of smartphones and social media affects the findings. Besides, "political indoctrination" was already a major talking point by conservatives 20 years ago. Are we to assume that these critics were wrong then--as the studies quotes above suggest--but the reality changed in the meantime?

[WWUpdate]

Well said, Caracal.

I doubt Stephen Pinker is going to be teaching intro psych classes. Perhaps if you're lucky he will show up and teach some seminar, give a few large lectures and wander off.

And given this week's developments, I'm not holding my breath for him to even do that.