There’s a revolution taking place in higher education across America. The conservative critique is winning the day in shaping what is included in university curricula. Notable institutions, such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Florida, are implementing courses that emphasize foundational texts and the principles that underpin Western civilization. This change is a response to a new, ideologically motivated imbalance in academia. Make no mistake, conservatives are very much in pursuit of making our educational settings more diverse.
At the University of Texas at Austin, students traverse an engineering education and research center that embodies the institution’s commitment to innovation and inquiry. In conjunction with this shiny new building, the university has, in fact, had a historic appreciation for a liberal arts education. Today, it requires that every student come into contact with “foundational primary texts”— literature that has long informed civic literacy and the architecture of our republic.
In the past, blue-collar workers, like these miners of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, vocally solicited donations. They put this money towards building libraries where they learned, read, and debated literary and political theory. This citizen-led effort created the foundation for a most engaged and active citizenry. Drawing on this legacy, institutions are taking new steps to reengage with classical texts. They’re working to figure out how these works create opportunities for civic discourse and ethical reasoning.
St John’s College is indeed a remarkable place. It provides a well renowned topical Bible course that attracts students from all walks of life. This spirit of inclusivity complements a widespread revival across American universities of the humanities in reading non-Western canonical texts alongside traditional Western ones. So the University of Florida’s decision is a very, very big nudge-not-wink bold move. They hired scholars with a particular focus on the history of conservative critiques of higher education, underlining their dedication to reintroducing conservative thought back into academic discourse.
In recent decades, conservatives have opted to exit academia at alarmingly higher rates. This is a trend that is increasingly being driven by anti-education political incentives and the culture of hostility against conservative thought. In contrast, Charles McNamara, a professor of classics at the University of Minnesota, emphasizes the diversity present in his department:
“We have all types.” – Charles McNamara
Against this backdrop, new centers and institutes devoted to the study of “the great books” of Western civilization have flourished. Columbia University’s Morningside Institute, Harvard’s Abigail Adams Institute, and Stanford’s Zephyr Institute are leading examples of such spaces for students. Here, they can immerse themselves in masterworks by literary titans such as Homer, Shakespeare, and Plato. These centers provide professional development courses on themes like the “Just War” tradition, “Great Books of the Ancient World,” “Liberty and Order,” and “The Rule of Law.” They do work to provide a better-rounded learning environment for everyone involved.
University administrators and state governments alike have started these centers as tactical efforts to increase conservative presence in academia. One example is the state of Utah’s creation of a civic excellence academy through Utah State University. The center plays an active role in overseeing the university’s general education curriculum. It anchors students in truly great and important literature, from Homer to Shakespeare and beyond, making them read these masterpieces as part of their core requirements.
The Morningside Institute at Columbia University is committed to fostering these kinds of constructive conversations. They take on major masterpieces such as Dante’s “Inferno”, and the lessons of St. Francis of Assisi. What is most evident, these discussions jumpstart intellectual engagement. From the need to address the perception of a left-leaning bias in today’s higher education,
Critics of this conservative shift argue that it represents “a kind of hostile takeover of the internal affairs of the university.” These concerns are indicative of the broader panic that the adoption of conservative, right-leaning curricula would raise serious threats to academic freedom and intellectual diversity. Advocates argue that these efforts are long overdue to make sure that a diversity of opinion is included on college campuses.
McNamara notes:
“We have not had a good job market in the humanities since the 2008 financial crisis. And if there happen to be two extra jobs at an institute that’s appeared at one state university somewhere, I don’t think that really quite qualifies as a particularly robust job market.” – Charles McNamara
These recent educational undertakings are a response to a larger national climate. As William Inboden points out, there exists “a sense that American universities as institutions have deviated from, or even turned against, the fundamental values of the nation.” This understanding drives the ideological crusade behind the curricular changes that would better harmonize public education with traditional American values.
Zena Hitz describes these centers as creating “a kind of beachhead within the university where conservative ideas are welcome.” That strategic positioning is meant to create a supportive environment — one in which conservative scholars and students can flourish intellectually without being marginalized. Musa al-Gharbi further elaborates on this sentiment, stating:
“They hope that over time, the pipeline could get a bit wider.” – Musa al-Gharbi
As these initiatives move forward, so too do serious concerns about viewpoint diversity on university campuses. Josiah Ober suggests that legislators are motivated by concerns regarding “viewpoint diversity in university faculties perceived as being overwhelmingly more progressive than conservative.”