Schools for Slavery

Looming over politics in 2012 was Franklin Roosevelt’s admonition in his Second Bill of Rights speech (his 1944 State of the Union Address) for the creation of security. To revive its founding, the government must guarantee various now-fundamental rights including the “right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;” the right to “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;” and “the right to a good education.” Together, “All of these rights spell security.”

In this view, security is the highest aim of American politics: “Necessitous men are not free,” FDR insisted. He wanted to replace the Declaration’s pursuit of happiness with security. And the rights involving employment and other forms of security are to be realized, he implies, through the final right he lists, the “right to a good education.”  This right of all rights is the key to all freedoms.

But what is this “good education”? How does higher education promote liberty?  In fact, universities have become schools for slavery, not of freedom—both in the content of their teaching and now in the practical lessons they teach. The college debt issue illustrates this bondage beautifully. Debtors are of course not free men and women (even if their debts are huge enough to sink the lender). Not to mention that what colleges have been teaching is not conducive to liberty either.

College debt, with its burdens on graduates, epitomizes how colleges have shrunk their freedom. Their four plus years have freed them neither for work nor for a life beyond work, neither for the necessities of life nor for its purposes. In fact, their debt may leave them in a worse position to pursue either than before they began their costly studies.

Enlightened by Christopher DeMuth, I find two types of debt—one narcissistic and morally blameworthy, the other shrewd and at the heart of a modern commercial republic. Debt for the sake of personal consumption (an exotic vacation, for example) signifies a lack of republican or self-governing virtue. But borrowing for the sake of investment is prudence and essential for personal well-being and a flourishing modern economy. Jefferson and Hamilton belong together. Frugality and the Franklin virtues should shape sensible purchases of modest homes or useful cars. Until recently, going into debt to attend college seemed an act of prudence, a sensible investment toward a better job and classier friends.  And clever parents might convert the low-interest student loan into subsidies for their own expenses.

But with diminished job prospects in a grim economy what seemed like a good investment appears more like self-indulgent consumption debt, a four-year splurge of languor, parties, study abroad, and the enjoyments of youth. The dramatically escalating costs of higher education have made this debt a risky bet, a careless gamble. For not even bankruptcy can free the student loan defrauder.

And why should universities reduce expenses? The ready availability of loans reduces the incentive for them to scrutinize their budgets.

Besides, the government can make loan-forgiveness offers to the advantage of the administrative state.  In a recent policy shift government forgiveness programs target employment in government (of course) and in the non-profit sector (though not in religious institutions, as with the HHS mandate).  Thus the bureaucracy subsidizes at public expense the poor or frivolous education choices, who can be redeemed by this and other liberal policies.

Tragedy follows on this Rube Goldberg absurdity. Minority students, who have at least as much or even more faith in the power of education to transform their lives, are often the most cruelly exploited victims of increasing tuition. The mismatch of relatively less qualified minority students with highly selective university reduces their chance of success at such a school. They might well have succeeded and graduated at a school for which they were more appropriately matched. Race-based scholarships further distort minority enrollment.   Most questionable of all, the Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger would allow admission of minority students to a state institution because they help form part of a minority “critical mass”—an utterly dehumanizing rationale for a student’s admission. And the minority student enrollment justifies a huge diversity industry in higher education, featuring a lavishly funded minority bureaucracy supporting ethnic studies and multiculturalism. Yet all this might disappear, but the fundamental problem of the liberal arts college would remain.

For college debt cannot be separated from college education and its purposes, high as well as utilitarian. The goal of college or advanced education is liberal education, the art of being free in mind and in soul, mentally and politically. But we cannot be free and enslaved by debt. Thus, the theory and practice of the academy is the opposite of instruction in liberty—and the enslavement to debt is the practical expression of their lost academic mission.

And what do students learn in school? They want careers, not wisdom, and first they need to have knowledge of their ignorance.  They are not ready for a Socratic turn. The rare situation where an instructor can liberate their minds is by chance on both sides, with chance being reduced with the selectivity of the school.  Can most students imagine their lives might be transformed by the books they read? As ridiculous as Doonesbury’s classics professor who would protest his low salary by putting himself on the open market.

(Everyone has their own favorite examples of the Orwell saying about an idea being so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it. Here’s mine: According to more than one first-hand report, students at highly selective universities were stockpiling contraceptives for fear that a President Romney would have them banned.  One side had its low-brow birthers, the other its sophisticated birthcontrollers.)

Until fairly recently Americans have based their lives on embracing independence. In Democracy in America Tocqueville describes the American as having learned “from birth that he must rely on himself to struggle against the evils and obstacles of life; he has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its power only when he cannot do without” (italics added).  Independence and self-government were ingrained in Americans. But when will the realm of assistance expand, making it easier for the individual to call upon the state? Tocqueville’s fears have come to pass, as more Americans call upon a central government with centralized administrative power to relieve them of their self-imposed burdens.

In both its content as well as its cost, higher education has too often had the opposite result of its original intention. It has produced absorption in mass life, where it should have brought forth distinction; dependency, instead of freedom. Liberal education, to recall Leo Strauss’s penetrating essays, would make its students free in mind and in action, lovers of wisdom and guardians of freedom, “the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness,” in James Madison’s words.

Is this too lofty a view of liberal education? Did not the sober Tocqueville urge that the teaching of Greek and Roman classics be confined to a few institutions, to give balance to the money-making focus of most Americans? But his admonition here should be qualified by the changes in our mores. Tocqueville points out that he first read Shakespeare’s Henry V in a frontier cabin. Today we need colleges to teach the Shakespeare (and other works) that were part of the earlier common culture. Certainly the academy has discovered infinite ways to assail greatness, but ingenuity can find ways of cherishing it as well.

Is college worth it? Only the liberal arts justify the original mission of the university.  And in a free society only a flourishing economy makes such institutions possible (and even remotely affordable). Only the liberal arts can transform debt for personal consumption into debt as investment in incorruptible riches. And only through such efforts will there be free men and women—the best public security of happiness.

Ken Masugi is a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. He teaches in graduate programs in political science for Johns Hopkins University and for the Ashbrook Center of Ashland University. He has edited Interpreting Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, co-edited The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, and co-authored and co-edited several other books on American politics and political thought. In addition, he has worked ten years in the federal government as a speechwriter and on policy issues, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was a special assistant to Chairman Clarence Thomas, and the Departments of Justice and Labor.

About the Author

Comments

  1. Waldemar Gute says

    Dr. Masugi is right. Debt has become part-and-parcel of the student experience of higher education, yet we tend to think of the debt problem (when we bother to think about it at all, let alone label it a “problem”) as somehow separate from the nature, purpose, and quality of higher education.

    Within academia, the deleterious effects of debt are reaching well beyond undergraduate education. (Debt is reason #1 on the “100 reasons NOT to go to grad school” list: http://100rsns.blogspot.com/ ). Meanwhile, lavish new recreation buildings spring up on campuses everywhere. The problem is as absurd as it is serious.

  2. werewife says

    This essay was necessary. There has been so much bad news about higher education recently that I really needed something that would remind me, in the face of all its terrible corruption, what education CAN mean, and could mean again someday.

  3. Dan Savage says

    I’ve been hearing abut FDR’s second bill of rights a lot recently. Nothing can guarantee those promises. They rest on an assumption of unlimited resources. And those promises come in exchange for our willing enslavement.

    The only promise should be – “Everyone may work, and everyone will own their individual result”.

  4. Esteban says

    Too bad it will fall mainly on deaf ears. Haven’t you heard? College is now a civil right for everyone. Everyone has a civil right to 5 or 6 years of lazy debauchery, with a little Homer mixed in a couple days a week. Enslavement be damned.

  5. J. Cs. says

    Refreshing insight! I appreciate your words Dr. Masugi. Covering Democracy in America with you this Fall has been equally stimulating.

  6. marksjo1 says

    “But with diminished job prospects in a grim economy what seemed like a good investment appears more like self-indulgent consumption debt, a four-year splurge of languor, parties, study abroad, and the enjoyments of youth.”

    This is a canard. The distance between the job prospects of people who have a college degree and people who don’t is growing, not shrinking, the bad economy notwithstanding. I am with Ken Masugi on the value of a liberal education but let’s not mix that up with the claim, that will not stand up to scrutiny, that college has become a consumption good because unemployment for college grads is higher than it used to be. And don’t fall back on the argument that college doesn’t cause employment; whether a college degree means actual learning or is merely “signaling,” it remains a good investment for people who can complete the degree without going into excessive debt (and median debt among debt holders–not everyone who goes to college goes into debt–is less than $13,000).

    I would add that it would be nice if Professor Masugi would point out a few examples of existing institutions of higher education that work. I have taught at four different colleges and not one matches the description Prof. Masugi gives of “the academy.”

  7. Ken Masugi says

    My earlier comment is not up, I see. I don’t disagree with your second paragraph. But a lot of people spend money foolishly, whether on college or on cars. Four colleges that work, to varying degrees, none fool-proof: Claremont McKenna, Hillsdale, Ashbrook Center of Ashland U., and Thomas Aquinas of California.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>