Your Cart is Empty
Annabel Green '26
Philosophy Professor Jennifer A. Frey of the University of Tulsa delivered a lecture on October 21, 2025 titled “What is a University and How Can We Recover It?” as part of the James Madison Program’s Stuart Lecture Series on Institutional Corruption in America. Professor Frey explored the historical vocation of the university and the crisis facing the contemporary academy.
The Traditional Understanding of the University
Professor Frey began with a brief account of the philosophical tradition concerning the vocation of the scholar, which she humbly described as “old-fashioned,” but a tradition she favors. Frey concluded her talk with a remark from a Harvard committee report that described the task of modern democracy as “preserving the ancient ideal.”
The traditional view sees the university as an institution devoted to wisdom, which helps formulate one’s understanding of the universe, unlike mere specialized knowledge. For John Henry Newman, a university ought to be dedicated to universal knowledge which involves the integration of all forms of understanding within a department, into a larger cohesive whole. Max Weber puts forth that scholarship itself does not determine the ends but rather the means for the pursuit of knowledge. Stanley Fish argues that a professor should confine himself to introducing students to expert bodies of knowledge. He must be detached from “soulcraft” or any personal search for truth or moral formation. With the introduction of elements such as the elective system into higher education, education has become increasingly driven by student interest rather than a universalized intellectual culture.
Recovering the Liberal Ideal
As Frey argues, Universities are becoming indistinguishable from trade schools, training specialists without cultivating self-governing citizens. If we want a self-governing political structure, Frey noted, we need citizens who are self-governing and therefore liberally educated.
As a remedy, Frey advocated for a core curriculum, one that reestablishes shared intellectual foundations across disciplines. Frey expressed appreciation for the core curriculum model at Columbia University but suggested that any such program must be institution-specific, faculty-supported, and must begin small and expand sustainably. Following her talk, she took audience questions. One audience member brought to light the challenge of establishing the core of the proposed core curriculum. Even those in education who explicitly reject objective truth, base their scholarship in a series of implicit truth claims. Who has the authority to establish the core? Which bodies of knowledge ought to constitute the core? How are those bodies of knowledge presented to students?
Recovering the ideal of the university requires a return to the method by which students used to learn: being introduced to bodies of knowledge which ultimately work towards constituting a universal whole, and a rejection of the assumption that professors are responsible for and possess the authority over the crafting of the soul.
Annabel Green '26, is a senior from Boulder, CO majoring in Public and International Affairs and minoring in Global Health & Health Policy. She is a PFS student writing fellow.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Prestigious universities and leading state schools across the nation have embraced viewpoint diversity by building new institutions—civic education centers and the like—which are simultaneously on yet apart from the campus. Harvard has quietly taken a different tack. Over the past several months, the university’s top brass have been asking major donors for $10 million gifts to endow new professorships under the banner of “viewpoint diversity.” Provost John Manning, a scholar often associated with the conservative legal movement, has led the effort, aiming to place between 20 and 30 new faculty across schools and departments rather than siloed in a standalone institute.
Why Harvard would need additional funding for this is an open question, but putting that partly aside, we ought to ask what to make of this unique initiative. It stands a chance of being either the most consequential reform attempt in elite higher education this decade, or a sophisticated piece of reputation management serving double duty as a clever fundraiser. Which one it turns out to be depends on whether Harvard has thought carefully about what viewpoint diversity means, and whether it intends to execute in line with a considered answer.
Are some schools better at fostering intellectual diversity than others? The study clearly reveals that the most elite universities are among those with the least ideological diversity. Princeton is ranked 13 out of the 55 in the study, with its faculty slightly more ideologically diverse than, for instance, UC Berkeley, Brown, Dartmouth and Harvard, and slightly less diverse than Stanford, Cornell, UCLA or Georgetown.
There is little doubt that this study provides another opening for politicians and critics to attack higher education, perhaps in unfair ways. Princeton could help neutralize this by joining those reform-minded university leaders in the now burgeoning effort to regain the public’s trust in higher education.
A federal judge ruled last month that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ (NEH) termination of more than 1,400 grants in April 2025 had violated the Constitution on several counts. Princeton researchers await the effects of the verdict, which ordered that the NEH must rescind its termination notices.
