Saving Higher Ed from Middle-Class Tyranny

American higher education suffers as much from inflated costs as from what Tocqueville considered middle-class morality: identifying ultimate freedom and fulfillment with work.

Published on: May 4, 2014
Peter Augustine Lawler is Dana Professor of Government at Berry College.
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Given the news from Harvard, Rutgers, etc., perhaps we should focus on saving higher ed from “progressive” tyranny.

  • Jim__L

    “It goes without saying that much or most of the education in our
    country, full of free beings who must work, should be
    technical/vocational or middle class. My only goal is to keep all of allegedly higher education from being disrupted in that direction.”

    It seems to me that it would be appropriate to look at higher education is a hobby (or perhaps a passion) not an industry.

    • Art

      Higher education is education. Full stop. However, it is not education for everyone. Future politicians need it. Future welders don’t. And in many cases, we need more welders than politicians. But we still need a place to educate the politicians and intellectuals. RAND and Heritage need their employees educated somehow.

  • Boritz

    “The diversity I’m talking about here, of course, is moral and intellectual diversity.”

    The reason the author has to define diversity is because in government and the university this view of diversity is as out of vogue as the word groovy.

  • Anthony

    Essay brings to mind “aristocrats were disdainful of men of business, who believed in turning everything, including all of society, into a profit making scheme – men whose aim is not an increase in possessions do not go into business.” Author intimates such a pervasive attitude (education for freedom) seems to currently dominate higher education at the expense of liberal education. “Defense of education ought to celebrate the educational mission of all our institutions that educate people to be more than middle class, more than workers with interests.” That is, middle class educational acculturation leaves dearth of societal component necessary to surmount intangibles of the cash meritocratic market (perhaps to detriment of civilization’s bigger interests).

    Certainly, one can take away from essay that author thinks inherent social irrationality of middle class driven education (system of education chiefly to enhance production and acquisition) leads to overreaching and idealization of market place in pursuit of capital thereby impoverishing the country of talented leaders; to wit leadership values – generosity, magnanimity, and charity – are no longer foremost in corridors of power and influence. Something to think about.

  • Roland

    You say that according to the bourgeoisie nobody has a right not to work. Don’t think you have that quite right. People have a right not to work, they just don’t have a right to expect tax payer funding to not work. You talk a lot about your version of morality: generosity, magnanimity and charity and those are all well and good, although people tend to like to do that with other peoples’ money. See previous point. But to the prime moral directive, much like the hippocratic oath, is not to be a burden on society. That is much more useful to society than the whimsical types of noblesse oblige that you mention. Also not sure if I’m comfortable with you imposing you moral catechism at the college level. Probably much better left to church and family and much better at earlier ages as the Catholic church knows all too well.

    You call the Puritans countercultural. Is that what you call stringing up, drowning and burning witches? Granted religious ecstasy can turn in good directions like what you mention with Oberlin even though you undercut your point by lauding their physical labor, which you had previously categorically mocked. I recently read a pretty convincing treatment of the leadup to the civil war that the Puritans were the prime instigator in propelling us into a war that cost us 600,000 lives. If the Puritans’ rabid otherworldly ideology hadn’t goaded the paranoid southern slaveholders into war we should have been able to settle it peacefully like England and Brazil and everybody else in the world did. What was unique about us? The Puritans. I’ll take Dutch capitalist New York over Puritan New England any day.

    Which brings us to your disdain for capitalism and how it has invaded universities. It wasn’t capitalism that invaded the humanities–it was all the marxist sophistry. Now that the humanities are virtually worthless, capitalism might be swooping in to pick through the rubble but they didn’t bring down the edifice. If Christensen can somehow resurrect it, good for him.

    Also, strangely, you juxtapose liberal arts and critical thinking and analytical reasoning as being somehow antithetical. What would you recommend, memorizing some sort of catechism? Returning to scholasticism? Indicting the middle class brains of our era would beg the question of which eras had high class brains. The ancient Greeks and the Enlightenment stand out in an otherwise tepid intellectual history. And in those times universities had little to do with this intellectual ferment and these societies were the most middle class and capitalist of their eras. The populace justseemed to be infused with intellectual curiosity and critical thinking and analytical reasoning were useful rather than suppressed. Funny what a little freedom can do. Of course, perhaps you prefer the times when the Catholic Church controlled society and punished new ideas. They used to kill people too, didn’t they?

    • Diws

      I would be interested to know where you read the analysis of the causes of the American Civil War pointing to the Puritan moral crusade-mentality. It rings true to me, but I would like to look at it in-depth.

      • Loader2000

        The churches in New England were probably the main anti-slavery drivers in the North. However, I think the assumption that slavery would have peacefully settled into something else very different from slavery over time is unfounded. The American South was completely different from England (I don’t know about Brazil). More likely that not, slavery would have evolved into a kind of serfdom in the South, and, by the 20 century, supposedly free slaves would be earning pittance wages and bound to their estates. No change that would have given millions of ex-slaves permission to simply leave the plantations and head North would have occurred without war, at least not for 60 or 70 years.

        • Fred

          Farming technology would eventually have put paid to slavery. It’s a helluva lot cheaper to maintain a machine than a human being.

          • Loader2000

            If your friend (or even someone you just know) is being
            chained to the basement of your neighbor’s house, forced to work, occasionally
            beaten and raped, but you know that in 30 years, a machine might come along to
            replace her such that maybe he will let her go, do you just sit back and
            relax. You call the police and they
            storm the house to put an end to the monstrous injustice taking place next
            door, even it means 2 or 3 of them get shot in the process freeing the woman.

            Slavery may not have been the biggest reason the
            war started, but it should have been.
            Some forms of injustice are simply intolerable. When millions of human beings in your own
            country are being chained, whipped and often raped, you do something about
            it. Individual southerners were NOT evil
            and many of them were honorable people.
            However, the institution of slavery was a hideous, inexcusable evil that
            needed to end as soon as possible for the sake of the blacks, not just the whites.

          • Fred

            I wasn’t making an argument about the morality of slavery. You said it was unlikely that the question of slavery could have eventually been settled peacefully (like it was just about everywhere else in the civilized world). I disagreed for the reason I cited. That doesn’t make me pro-slavery.

      • Jim__L

        Ulysses S. Grant talks about it in such terms in his memoirs, I don’t know if he elaborates on the topic enough to tie it to Puritanism, though.

        Anti-slavery was originally more of a Quaker thing, though abolitionists of more crusading sorts showed up later.

    • Art

      I notice you find him to hardcore Catholic elitist. To me, he is not hardcore Catholic elitist enough!

  • rheddles

    Berry is an independent, coeducational college of approximately 2,100
    students that offers exceptional undergraduate degree programs in the
    sciences, humanities, arts and social sciences, as well as undergraduate
    and master’s level opportunities in business and teacher education.
    Students are encouraged to enrich their academic studies through
    participation in one of the nation’s premier on-campus work experience
    program, and more than 90 percent take advantage of this unique
    opportunity to gain valuable real-world experience prior to graduation.

    Time to move on.

  • qet

    “Among eminent persons, those who are most dear to men are not of the class which the economist calls producers.” –Emerson

  • Art

    We are not going to get elite education out of a middle class culture, I am afraid. This is why we need to restore a true elite to power. A world where the Kirk family commands less wealth than the Koch’s and Soros is simply not going to support the liberal arts.

    Also, there is as you suggest, a greater need for vocational and technical education. We need to stop confusing that with education in the Arts and Sciences, and if necessary marginalizing colleges which refuse to give genuine support to the liberal arts. A limited number of good colleges that provide full funding *and* provide a path to better status and better employment is better than a multitude of poverty factories that leave students with debt and no improved job prospects.

  • Fat_Man

    Romantic fantasy. Guess what? The Middle Ages are not about to return.

    If the higher education that the writer is dreaming about ever existed, it was long ago and far away. The only alternative to vocational eduction that the American system offers is political indoctrination and then only of the far left variety.

    The colleges tipped their hand when they discovered they could jack tuitions up to the stratosphere without a major push back. The only trade off they had to make was that they needed to layoff the upper class sprogs they were tending and let the little dears spend their lives in drunken debauchery.

    There is no going back now. Rich kids want to go the Ivies so they can drink and screw and make connections for their real lives. If the middle class could ever afford a luxury education, they can’t anymore. Further, there probably aren’t 50 potential faculty members in the whole country who have the learning to teach the liberal arts and are not retired due to old age and debility.

    “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.”

    • Jim__L

      So which circle of hell do blog commenters end up in, I wonder? 😉

  • Anthony

    Proposition may be all for a naught: “a new OECD report delivers grim news about how poorly Americans score in the skills necessary to a modern economy: larger proportions of adults in the United States than in other advanced countries have poor literacy and numeracy skills, and the proportion of adults with poor skills in problem solving is slightly larger than average, despite the relatively high educational attainment among adults in the United States.”

  • johnwerneken

    The tyranny of the boss or the mob (what’s the difference? Sometimes the boss considers consequences) is never far away, people being people. In prior eras education was also about admittance to and perpetuation of status. Michelangelo worked decorating St Peters and Da Vinci on war machines. If there’s a new spin, it’s maybe a combination of so many being indoctrinated in ‘power to the people’ and in being thrown together, we are working on doing it globally. So DIFFERENT ideas about what has and should have status may have a harder slog. Not as when a college was the same as today but the local ruler or sect differed…

  • Interesting points but go back to college, man. I’m a student at USC and I have a profound love and reverence for what you call ‘the liberal education’ as well as my area of expertise and my major, international relations. Guess what? The general education program here, our version of liberal education, is just about the most despised institution among students on campus, precisely because it doesn’t actually do much to expand anyone’s minds- it’s rather a crushing requirement that everyone’s required to go through before they can actually start studying WHAT THEY CAME HERE TO STUDY.

    Beyond that, you simply can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t force a liberal education onto an assembly line format the way you can do so with STEM subjects. The very basis of the liberal education is that it must be a self-driven education embarked on by choice, preferably from the youngest age possible, and done with the help of mentors who actually care about what they’re teaching, not poorly-paid grad students just trying to make a buck. I’d consider myself fairly well-read, but probably 85% of my liberal education came from my own desire to connect with the most important works of human civilization, not from some educrat checking off my performance on a numerical chart. I feel you, man, that our society is suffering from a lack of the fascination with great literature and great histories that generations past gloried in; but forcing great literature down people’s throats and making it something they hate just really isn’t working. If the culture isn’t already inclining towards appreciation of great works and is pushing instead towards consumerism and pop culture, well, it seems that there really isn’t that much that education policy can do to fix that.

    Forgive my callousness but your article seeps upper-class elitism. I appreciate your points and I think you have some good arguments, but generally, Americans appreciate people who work for a living because it is by the sweat of our brow that we eat, and the good we can do for our fellow men that makes us valuable to society; if we cannot do good for ourselves, though, we cannot be expected to be useful to others. America is an egalitarian nation premised against class hierarchy simply because the excesses of decadent upper class elites have proved, time and time again, to be disgusting, disgraceful, and downright dangerous to the social order. Ever read The Great Gatsby? That’s what elites are in the American imagination, and I would argue the American reality. It would sure be damn nice if we could have elites of the Founding Fathers’ ilk, and I sense that’s what you’re arguing for, but that’s just not going to happen just by having college kids read a few more books between beers.

  • Curious Mayhem

    Nice essay. The liberal arts approach to higher ed, and the related pure sciences options, were never intended for a mass audience. There is payoff from both, but the payoff is diffused over time and society. It cannot be quantified in terms of skills. It was once fine for a smaller band of students to learn this approach, even if it did not become their life’s vocation, because once upon a time, college was not so expensive that students couldn’t take a few years to find themselves and even make fruitful mistakes, before getting into groove of their lives. With absurd costs, we’ve made college an absurdly high-stakes game where anxious parents and taxpayers need constant reassurance of immediate and large payoff — which payoff is generally not there.

    The explosion in academic costs impacts different flavors of higher education in different ways. For those expecting immediate payoff, it’s unlikely a 22-year-old could earn enough in, say, 10 years to justify the debt needed. For those looking for payoff over a lifetime, or over multiple generations, exploding costs obscure and negate the more distant but still real benefits.

    The libertarian critics of higher ed, like Reynolds, don’t generally hold *professors* to be the aristocrats of higher ed. Rather, they correctly hold *administrators and professional staff* as the aristocrats. That is where the explosion of costs and functions unrelated to knowledge largely originates: the offices of “diversity,” “student services,” “sustainability,” and so on, and the explosion in the number of “deanlets.” There are “star” faculty who don’t teach (or don’t teach much). But they’re tiny in number, and much teaching these days is done by poorly-paid, part-time adjuncts and graduate students.

  • Fred

    I wonder how long it’s been since Lawler had a humanities class. I can speak from experience about the field of literature (PhD 1995). Unless the field has changed dramatically since I was in it, love of literature, deeper understanding of humanity, and plain old logic are all considered tools of white male oppression. The object of a literature course now is not to impart any knowledge or appreciation of a great work but to “interrogate” a “text” for its complicity in oppressive power relations. Sad to say, the last place in the world someone who genuinely loves language and literature should be is in a university English department.

  • bruce

    If academics weren’t so placidly and vehemently conformist…never mind.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.