Your Cart is Empty
By Leslie Spencer '79
Princetonians for Free Speech
There is a growth sector in American higher education. The number of “Civics Centers” has exploded in the last decade, and especially since 2021.
Graph provided by Heterodox Academy
What are these civics centers, and what explains their proliferation now?
Heterodox Academy (HxA), the leading non-partisan higher education reform organization in the US for faculty, staff and students, championing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement, has decided to provide some answers. This month HxA released a first-of-its-kind list, accompanied by a report entitled, The New Landscape of Civics Centers in Higher Education.
What’s driving this surge in civic centers? What does it say about changing priorities in higher education? Is it driven by a concern about ideological imbalance on campuses and the deterioration of a culture that promotes open discourse? Or perhaps by the growing evidence that college students lack basic knowledge of American constitutionalism and its history, and the institutions governing a free society?
The HxA study divides the centers into three categories: Autonomous centers, which operate like academic departments, with dedicated faculty, a full-time staff, and the ability to offer courses and majors. Semi-autonomous centers, like Princeton’s James Madison Program, have a “track” and offer certificates for students, but all courses are hosted by academic departments. The third category is off-campus affiliated centers, such as Stanford University’s Zephyr Institute, an independent non-profit organization that serves students, faculty and area professionals.
Broadly speaking, HxA’s research has found two categories of focus at these centers: “civic thought” and “civic discourse.” Centers of “civic thought” tend to emphasize the history of the American founding and Western civilization and the classical liberal tradition. These are likely to be autonomous departments at public universities, and about half in this category have been created in the last few years by legislative mandate. Those with a “civic discourse” focus tend to cultivate the art of rhetoric and foster the idea of viewpoint diversity as integral to the quality of teaching and scholarship, with a view to counter the political polarization on college campuses that undermines constructive dialogue. These tend to be at private universities. The report makes clear that these two categories are not mutually exclusive, some centers focus on both.
Senior researcher and the report’s co-author Shiri Spitz Siddiqi summarizes HxA’s findings about this burgeoning of civics centers across the country.
It’s important to emphasize that HxA’s report is more than a simple list identifying these centers and describing their provenance. The list and accompanying report point to important questions about the future of American universities and the public’s confidence in them:
More broadly, do these centers encourage true viewpoint diversity by breaking down a dominant culture that encourages viewpoint conformity? Do they find concrete ways to build a culture in which quality of argument from the widest possible perspective is prized in the pursuit of knowledge?
For more on the challenge of viewpoint diversity on college campuses, see Campus Leaders Can’t Avoid Viewpoint Diversity in Pursuit of Open Inquiry: How recent pronouncements of reform could result in a divide across the academy, by HxA’s President John Tomasi.
Princeton’s James Madison Program (JMP), by dint of longevity and impact, is in many ways the crown jewel in this expanding firmament. On HxA’s list, JMP is an example of a semi-autonomous center. It is not its own unit, but rather it is housed within the department of Politics. It exists to “promote teaching and scholarship in constitutional law and political thought.” It has full-time staff and has attracted over 250 undergraduate fellows. It engages numerous faculty through several departments and has a program that includes specialized initiatives, student and faculty fellowships, and many lectures and events. Professor Robert P. George, who founded JMP in 2000 has deftly guided its growth and its impact nationwide. He has also had a quiet but significant influence on several of the new civic centers. He is serving as advisor to some of them at both private and public institutions, and former JMP fellows have gone on to lead a number of them.
This is a dynamic moment. HxA’s list and the accompanying study are both works in progress. Of the 45 listed, 13 centers that made the list are not yet fully up and running, so only 32 are operational enough for analysis. Of these, 16 are autonomous, 14 semi-autonomous, two are off-campus affiliates. The centers themselves, particularly those created through state mandate, have sparked controversy over questions of political interference, legislative overreach and a perceived threat to academic freedom.
Despite the moving parts and ongoing controversies, starting this month, HxA’s list and report can help not only faculty, researchers, administrators and trustees, but also alumni, parents and the general public, to understand what these centers are and what they endeavor to accomplish. The report will help to clarify and perhaps influence the roles civics centers play in these unprecedentedly tumultuous and unpredictable times for higher education reform.
Here is a link to the report: The New Landscape of Civics Centers in Higher Education. And for those interested in a deep dive, here is a direct link to the full dataset of civics schools and centers on HxA’s list.
While acknowledging the controversies and possible pitfalls, this article by the report’s co-author and HxA executive director Michael Regnier takes an optimistic view of what appears to be a new national movement: A Chance to Build Rather than Ban – the new civics schools are disruptive, scholarly misfits. We need more of that.
Leslie Spencer ‘79 is vice-chair of Princetonians for Free Speech.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Last week, a committee of scholars convened by Vanderbilt University released a report on the state of humanities and social sciences scholarship across the United States.
As one of the signers of the report, I am all too familiar with the fact that activist scholars sometimes play fast and loose with logic and evidence to justify conclusions dictated in advance by a political program. Those who dissent can risk serious damage to their careers. Journals have been forced to apologize for research they have published — not because of poor logic or manufactured evidence, but because the results were politically unacceptable.
You’ve heard the critique.
The humanities and social sciences have been corrupted by political aims, and their disciplines have tossed out rigorous research standards in favor of advancing social-justice causes favored by the political left. This has made for an impoverished scholarly landscape, filled with laughable claims and obscure jargon.
Over the past several months, a group of high-profile scholars convened privately to study whether this criticism holds water across several fields within the humanities and social sciences. “The first thing to say,” they concluded in a report published Friday, “is that we reject the complaint in this bald form.”
A new report on the state of humanities scholarship made waves in higher ed circles when it was released Friday, and has since drawn criticism from professors across the humanities.
Commissioned by Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier and Washington University in St. Louis chancellor Andrew Martin, the “State of Scholarship” report finds fault with disciplines including anthropology, philosophy and history—not for their content but for the quality of their scholarship, which the report’s authors argue is too often driven by political ideology rather than the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Critiques of the report are broad and varied.
