Your Cart is Empty
Sitting in my office, I began searching for some cause for hope, some reason to believe that higher ed could stanch the damage for the next generation of students. It occurred to me that I’d been hearing less despair from colleagues at certain smaller schools that offer undergraduate study in the “liberal-arts tradition,” a broad and flexible approach to education that values developing the person over professional training. I wondered if these schools—especially the wealthy ones that cluster near the top of national rankings—might enjoy some natural insulation from the fires raging through the nation’s research universities.
Current and former heads of both research universities and liberal-arts colleges confirmed my intuition: Well-resourced and prestigious small colleges are less exposed in almost every way to the crises that higher ed faces.
Former University President Lee Bollinger, Law ’71, called on universities to take “collective action” against President Donald Trump’s administration amid its “authoritarian assault” on higher education in his first interview with Spectator since stepping down from the presidency in May 2023.
Since leaving his post after more than two decades as Columbia’s 19th president, the University has cycled through three presidents—Minouche Shafik, Katrina Armstrong, and Claire Shipman, CC ’86, SIPA ’94—as it experienced intense national scrutiny for its response to campus protests over the war in Gaza.
ACE, joined by 22 other national higher education associations, filed an amicus brief yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting Harvard University in its lawsuit challenging a Trump administration effort to bar international students from attending.
The brief urges the appeals court to affirm a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs last June that blocked enforcement of a presidential proclamation that would have suspended the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study at Harvard.
If ever a case made plain the clash of values between freedom of speech and the desire of college administrators to compel everyone to support their “progressive” beliefs, Reges v. Cauce is it. This is an important First Amendment case, one in which the Martin Center joined in an amicus brief in support of a professor who was targeted with official retaliation because he spoke out against his university’s “land acknowledgement” policy and substituted his own views for the school’s.
What nerve!
When the College announced its policy of institutional restraint in December 2024, it entered uncharted territory. There was no precedent for such a policy in Dartmouth’s history, which left room for much debate over its implications. Now, however, the policy has found its analogue in a surprising place — not at another university, but at the CBS headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.
And yet, rather than reassuring us about Dartmouth’s policy, the case at CBS News is quickly becoming an omen about what exactly could go wrong with institutional neutrality at Dartmouth, and how a policy designed to promote free speech could be co-opted just as quickly to restrict it.
On paper, freshly hired University of Virginia president Scott C. Beardsley appears to have all the bona fides of a qualified higher ed leader: multiple advanced degrees and more than a decade of experience leading a top business school. But that has not stymied outrage about his selection.
Last month the Virginia Board of Visitors voted to elevate him from business school dean to the top job, filling a vacancy left by former president James Ryan, who resigned under pressure as board leadership negotiated an agreement with the Department of Justice to close investigations into alleged civil rights infractions. Ryan has since accused the board of being complicit in his ouster.
