Yale Alumnus Jonathan Haidt on the Cultural Roots of Campus Rage

An unorthodox professor explains the ‘new religion’ that drives the intolerance and violence at places like Middlebury and Berkeley.

03:27 / 04:22

New York

When a mob at Vermont’s Middlebury College shut down a speech by social scientist Charles Murray a few weeks ago, most of us saw it as another instance of campus illiberalism. Jonathan Haidt saw something more—a ritual carried out by adherents of what he calls a “new religion,” an auto-da-fé against a heretic for a violation of orthodoxy.

“The great majority of college students want to learn. They’re perfectly reasonable, and they’re uncomfortable with a lot of what’s going on,” Mr. Haidt, a psychologist and professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, tells me during a recent visit to his office. “But on each campus there are some true believers who have reoriented their lives around the fight against evil.”

These believers are transforming the campus from a citadel of intellectual freedom into a holy space—where white privilege has replaced original sin, the transgressions of class and race and gender are confessed not to priests but to “the community,” victim groups are worshiped like gods, and the sinned-against are supplicated with “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”

The fundamentalists may be few, Mr. Haidt says, but they are “very intimidating” since they wield the threat of public shame. On some campuses, “they’ve been given the heckler’s veto, and are often granted it by an administration who won’t stand up to them either.”

All this has become something of a preoccupation for the 53-year-old Mr. Haidt. A longtime liberal—he ran a gun-control group as an undergraduate at Yale—he admits he “had never encountered conservative ideas” until his mid-40s. The research into moral psychology that became his 2012 book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” exposed him to other ways of seeing the world; he now calls himself a centrist.

Paul Gigot says there is a clear disconnect between Wisconsin and New York City.

In 2015 he founded Heterodox Academy, which describes itself as “a politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars” concerned about “the loss or lack of ‘viewpoint diversity’ ” on campuses. As Mr. Haidt puts it to me: “When a system loses all its diversity, weird things begin to happen.”

Having studied religions across cultures and classes, Mr. Haidt says it is entirely natural for humans to create “quasireligious” experiences out of seemingly secular activities. Take sports. We wear particular colors, gather as a tribe, and cheer for our team. Even atheists sometimes pray for the Steelers to beat the Patriots.

It’s all “fun and generally harmless,” maybe even healthy, Mr. Haidt says, until it tips into violence—as in British soccer hooliganism. “What we’re beginning to see now at Berkeley and at Middlebury hints that this [campus] religion has the potential to turn violent,” Mr. Haidt says. “The attack on the professor at Middlebury really frightened people,” he adds, referring to political scientist Allison Stanger, who wound up in a neck brace after protesters assaulted her as she left the venue.

The Berkeley episode Mr. Haidt mentions illustrates the Orwellian aspect of campus orthodoxy. A scheduled February appearance by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos prompted masked agitators to throw Molotov cocktails, smash windows, hurl rocks at police, and ultimately cause $100,000 worth of damage. The student newspaper ran an op-ed justifying the rioting under the headline “Violence helped ensure safety of students.” Read that twice.

Mr. Haidt can explain. Students like the op-ed author “are armed with a set of concepts and words that do not mean what you think they mean,” he says. “People older than 30 think that ‘violence’ generally involves some sort of physical threat or harm. But as students are using the word today, ‘violence’ is words that have a negative effect on members of the sacred victim groups. And so even silence can be violence.” It follows that if offensive speech is “violence,” then actual violence can be a form of self-defense.

Down the hall from Mr. Haidt’s office, I noticed a poster advertising a “bias response hotline” students can call “to report an experience of bias, discrimination or harassment.” I joke that NYU seems to have its own version of the morality police in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. “It’s like East Germany,” Mr. Haidt replies—with students, at least some of them, playing the part of the Stasi.

How did we get here, and what can be done? On the first question, Mr. Haidt points to a braided set of causes. There’s the rise in political polarization, which is related to the relatively recent “political purification of the universities.” While the academy has leaned left since at least the 1920s, Mr. Haidt says “it was always just a lean.” Beginning in the early 1990s, as the professors of the Greatest Generation retired, it became a full-on tilt.

“Now there are no more conservative voices on the faculty or administration,” he says, exaggerating only a little. Heterodox Academy cites research showing that the ratio of left to right professors in 1995 was 2 to 1. Now it is 5 to 1.

The left, meanwhile, has undergone an ideological transformation. A generation ago, social justice was understood as equality of treatment and opportunity: “If gay people don’t have to right to marry and you organize a protest to apply pressure to get them that right, that’s justice,” Mr. Haidt says. “If black people are getting discriminated against in hiring and you fight that, that’s justice.”

Today justice means equal outcomes. “There are two ideas now in the academic left that weren’t there 10 years ago,” he says. “One is that everyone is racist because of unconscious bias, and the other is that everything is racist because of systemic racism.” That makes justice impossible to achieve: “When you cross that line into insisting if there’s not equal outcomes then some people and some institutions and some systems are racist, sexist, then you’re setting yourself up for eternal conflict and injustice.”

Perhaps most troubling, Mr. Haidt cites the new protectiveness in child-rearing over the past few decades. Historically, American children were left to their own devices and had to learn to deal with bullies. Today’s parents, out of compassion, handle it for them. “By the time students get to college they have much, much less experience with unpleasant social encounters, or even being insulted, excluded or marginalized,” Mr. Haidt says. “They expect there will be some adult, some authority, to rectify things.”

Combine that with the universities’ shift to a “customer is always right” mind-set. Add in social media. Suddenly it’s “very, very easy to bring mobs together,” Mr. Haidt says, and make “people very afraid to stand out or stand up for what they think is right.” Students and professors know, he adds, that “if you step out of line at all, you will be called a racist, sexist or homophobe. In fact it’s gotten so bad out there that there’s a new term—‘ophobophobia,’ which is the fear of being called x-ophobic.”

That fear runs deep—including in Mr. Haidt. When I ask him about how political homogeneity on campus informs the understanding of so-called rape culture, he clams up: “I can’t talk about that.” The topic of sexual assault—along with Islam—is too sensitive.

It’s a painfully ironic answer from a man dedicating his career to free thought and speech. But choosing his battles doesn’t mean Mr. Haidt is unwilling to fight. And he’s finding allies across the political spectrum.

Heterodox Academy’s membership has grown to some 600, up about 100 since the beginning of March. “In the wake of the Middlebury protests and violence, we’re seeing a lot of liberal-left professors standing up against illiberal-left professors and students,” Mr. Haidt says. Less than a fifth of the organization’s members identify as “right/conservative”; most are centrists, liberals or progressives.

Balancing those numbers by giving academic jobs and tenure to outspoken libertarians and conservatives seems like the most effective way to change the campus culture, if only by signaling to self-censoring students that dissent is acceptable. But for now Heterodox Academy is taking a more modest approach, focusing on three initiatives.

The first is its college guide: a ranking by viewpoint diversity of America’s top 150 campuses. The goal is to create market pressure and put administrators on notice. The University of Chicago currently ranks No. 1—rising seniors, take note.

The second is a “fearless speech index,” a web-based questionnaire that allows students and professors to express how comfortable they feel speaking out on sensitive subjects. Right now, Mr. Haidt says, there are a tremendous number of anecdotes but no real data; the index aims to remedy that.

The third is the “viewpoint diversity experience,” a six-step online lesson in the virtue and practice of open-minded engagement with opposing ideas.

Heterodox Academy is not the only sliver of light. Following the Middlebury incident, the unlikely duo of Democratic Socialist Cornel West and conservative Robert P. George published a statement denouncing “campus illiberalism” and calling for “truth seeking, democracy and freedom of thought and expression.” More than 2,500 scholars and other intellectuals have signed it. At Northwestern the student government became the first in the country to pass a resolution calling for academic freedom and viewpoint diversity.

“What I think is happening,” Mr. Haidt says, is that “as the visible absurdity on campus mounts and mounts, and as public opinion turns more strongly against universities—and especially as the line of violence is crossed—we are having more and more people standing up saying, ‘Enough is enough. I’m opposed to this.’ ” Let’s hope.

If you’re not a student or professor, why should you care about snowflakes in their igloos? Because, Mr. Haidt argues, what happens on campus affects the “health of our nation.” Ideological and political homogeneity endangers the quality of social-science research, which informs public policy. “Understanding the impacts of immigration, understanding the causes of poverty—these are all absolutely vital,” he says. “If there’s an atmosphere of intimidation around politicized issues, it clearly influences the research.”

Today’s college students also are tomorrow’s leaders—and employees. Companies are already encountering problems with recent graduates unprepared for the challenges of the workplace. “Work requires a certain amount of toughness,” Mr. Haidt says. “Colleges that prepare students to expect a frictionless environment where there are bureaucratic procedures and adult authorities to rectify conflict are very poorly prepared for the workplace. So we can expect a lot more litigation in the coming few years.”

If you lean left—even if you adhere to the campus orthodoxy, or to certain elements of it—you might consider how the failure to respect pluralism puts your own convictions at risk of a backlash. “People are sick and tired of being called racist for innocent things they’ve said or done,” Mr. Haidt observes. “The response to being called a racist unfairly is never to say, ‘Gee, what did I do that led to me being called this? I should be more careful.’ The response is almost always, ‘[Expletive] you!’ ”

He offers this real-world example: “I think that the ‘deplorables’ comment could well have changed the course of human history.”

Ms. Weiss is an associate book review editor at the Journal.

Appeared in the Apr. 01, 2017, print edition as ‘The Cultural Roots of Campus Rage.’

SHOW COMMENTS (895)

What To Read Next…

russia news
review & outlook (u.s.)
media & marketing
u.s. news
business
Independent of The Wall Street Journal newsroom
personal finance
Instagram users: we’ve created the most narcissistic social network on the planet
Independent of The Wall Street Journal newsroom
Brand New, Amenity-Rich Bel Air Home Hits Market for $75 Million

Yale may ditch ‘freshman’ for gender-inclusive ‘first-year’

Yale may ditch ‘freshman’ for gender-inclusive ‘first-year’: ‘It’s an antiquated term’

Administrators at Yale may refrain from using the term "freshman" in favor of a gender neutral alternative. (Associated Press) ** FILE **
Administrators at Yale may refrain from using the term “freshman” in favor of a gender neutral alternative. (Associated Press) ** FILE ** more >
– The Washington Times – Friday, March 17, 2017

Yale’s top officials say “it’s time” to leave the term “freshman” behind in favor of something considered gender inclusive.

Administrators at one of the world’s most prestigious universities may adopt the term “first-year” as a way to be more welcoming to new students. Yale’s Dean of Student Affairs Camille Lizarríbar is leading the charge to make it happen “before the next academic year.”

“I think there comes a time when you want to make sure that the way you’re calling things reflects the values that you have,” Ms. Lizarríbar told Yale News on March 8. “If we really are serious about inclusivity and diversity, we need to look at everything. It’s not written in stone that it has to be ‘freshman.’ … We do have some agency in what we call things.”

Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway added that he spent “a lot of time thinking about, recognizing yes, it’s an antiquated term.”

“Dean Lizarríbar, who oversees freshman or first-year orientation … basically said ‘it’s time,’ and I have no problem with that,” he added.

Students at the Ivy League university, which was founded in 1701, backed the change.

Yale’s Inconsistent Name-Dropping

Several campus names are more objectionable than John C. Calhoun—including Elihu Yale.

John C. Calhoun served as U.S. vice president, 1825-32.

John C. Calhoun served as U.S. vice president, 1825-32. Photo: Alamy

Yale University announced Saturday that it would change the name of Calhoun College, one of its original 12 residential colleges that opened in the early 1930s. Henceforth, the college will be named in honor of Grace Hopper, an early computer scientist and naval officer.

No sentient observer of the American academic scene could have been surprised by the move to ditch John C. Calhoun, the 19th-century South Carolina statesman after whom the college was originally named. On the contrary, the unspoken response was “What took them so long?”

Since last August, when Yale’s president, Peter Salovey, announced that he was convening a Committee to Establish Principles for Renaming—yes, really—the handwriting had been on the wall for Calhoun, a distinguished Yale alumnus who served as a congressman, senator, secretary of war, secretary of state and vice president.

Like Belshazzar before him, Calhoun had been weighed and found wanting. He may have been a brilliant orator and a fierce opponent of encroaching federal power, but he was also a slave holder. And unlike many of his peers, Calhoun argued that slavery was not merely a necessary evil but a “positive good,” because it provided for slaves better than they could provide for themselves.

You might, like me, think that Calhoun was wrong about that. But if you are Peter Salovey, you have to disparage Calhoun as a “white supremacist” whose legacy—“racism and bigotry,” according to a university statement—was fundamentally “at odds” with the noble aspirations of Yale University (“improving the world today and for future generations . . . through the free exchange of ideas in an ethical, interdependent, and diverse community”).

During a conference-call press briefing Saturday, and throughout the documents related to the Calhoun decision, officials have been careful to stress that the university operates with a “strong presumption against” renaming things. Because they do not seek to “erase history,” the officials insist, renaming things for ideological reasons would be “exceptionally rare.”

When you study the four principles Mr. Salovey’s committee came up with to justify a renaming, you can see why it took so long. The task, it seems clear, was to find a way to wipe away Calhoun College while simultaneously immunizing other institutions at Yale from politicized rebaptism.

Did the principal legacy of the honored person “fundamentally conflict” with the university’s mission? Was that legacy “contested” within the person’s lifetime? Were the reasons that the university honored him at odds with Yale’s mission? Does the named building or program play a substantial role in “forming community at Yale”?

Readers who savor tortuous verbal legerdemain will want to acquaint themselves with the “Letter of the Advisory Group on the Renaming of Calhoun College,” which is available online. It is a masterpiece of the genre.

Is it also convincing? I think the best way to answer that is to fill out the historical picture a bit. Nearly every Yale official who spoke at Saturday’s press briefing had to describe John Calhoun (1782-1850) as a “white supremacist.” Question: Who among whites at the time was not? Take your time.

Calhoun owned slaves. But so did Timothy Dwight, Calhoun’s mentor at Yale, who has a college named in his honor. So did Benjamin Silliman, who also gives his name to a residential college, and whose mother was the largest slave owner in Fairfield County, Conn. So did Ezra Stiles,John Davenport and even Jonathan Edwards, all of whom have colleges named in their honor at Yale.

Writing in these pages last summer, I suggested that Yale table the question of John Calhoun and tackle some figures even more obnoxious to contemporary sensitivities. One example was Elihu Yale, the American-born British merchant who, as an administrator in India, was an active participant in the slave trade.

President Salovey’s letter announcing that Calhoun College would be renamed argues that “unlike . . . Elihu Yale, who made a gift that supported the founding of our university . . . Calhoun has no similarly strong association with our campus.” What can that mean? Calhoun graduated valedictorian from Yale College in 1804. Is that not a “strong association”? (Grace Hopper held two advanced degrees from the university but had no association with the undergraduate Yale College.)

As far as I have been able to determine, Elihu Yale never set foot in New Haven. His benefaction of some books and goods worth £800 helped found Yale College, not Yale University. And whereas the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica praises Calhoun for his “just and kind” treatment of slaves and the “stainless integrity” of his character, Elihu Yale had slaves flogged, hanged a stable boy for stealing a horse, and was eventually removed from his post in India for corruption. Is all that not “fundamentally at odds” with the mission of Peter Salovey’s Yale?

Mr. Salovey stepped out of a board meeting briefly to join the conference call on Saturday. More in sadness than in anger he disparaged John Calhoun, praised Grace Hopper, and affirmed his commitment to diversity, free inquiry, etc. Then one of the reporters asked why he was renaming Calhoun College for a white woman, especially since February was Black History Month. Oh dear. Thanks so much, must get back to that board meeting now.

In “The Crack-Up,” F. Scott Fitzgerald comments that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” First-rate or not, the evolving politically correct circus at Yale does not offer a lot of support for that proposition.

Mr. Kimball is editor and publisher of the New Criterion and president and publisher of Encounter Books.

Decision on the name of Calhoun College

President Peter Salovey                                Feb 11
To the Yale Alumni Community,

Today I write to announce that the name of Calhoun College will be changed, and that we will honor one of Yale’s most distinguished graduates, Grace Murray Hopper ’30 M.A., ’34 Ph.D., by renaming the college for her. The university’s board of trustees—the Yale Corporation—and I made this decision at our most recent meeting. The decision to change a college’s name is not one we take lightly, but John C. Calhoun’s legacy as a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately promoted slavery as a “positive good” fundamentally conflicts with Yale’s mission and values. I have asked Jonathan Holloway, dean of Yale College, and Julia Adams, the head of Calhoun College, to determine when this change best can be put into effect.

This decision overrides my announcement in April of last year that the name of Calhoun College would remain. At that time, as now, I was committed to confronting, not erasing, our history. I was concerned about inviting a series of name changes that would obscure Yale’s past. These concerns remain paramount, but we have since established an enduring set of principles that address them. The principles establish a strong presumption against renaming buildings, ensure respect for our past, and enable thoughtful review of any future requests for change.

In August, I asked John Witt ’94 B.A., ’99 J.D., ’00 Ph.D., the Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law and professor of history, to chair a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming. After this committee completed its work, three advisors—G. Leonard Baker ’64 B.A. (Calhoun College); John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History; and Jacqueline Goldsby, professor of English, African American Studies, and American Studies and chair of the Department of African American Studies—were charged with applying the Witt committee’s principles to the name of Calhoun College. The thoughtful and instructive reports produced by these two distinguished groups are available here.

As part of its work, the Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming studied similar conversations about naming and commemoration that have arisen in recent years at institutions such as Georgetown University, Harvard Law School, Princeton University, and the University of Texas at Austin. At these and other institutions of higher learning, certain names have changed, while others have not. Yale has learned from these situations while, necessarily, charting its own course.

The Witt committee outlines four principles that should guide any consideration of renaming: (1) whether the namesake’s principal legacy fundamentally conflicts with the university’s mission; (2) whether that principal legacy was contested during the namesake’s lifetime; (3) the reasons the university honored that person; and (4) whether the building so named plays a substantial role in forming community at Yale. In considering these principles, it became clear that Calhoun College presents an exceptionally strong case—perhaps uniquely strong—that allows it to overcome the powerful presumption against renaming articulated in the report.

Understanding Calhoun’s Legacy
The name of Calhoun College has long been a subject of discussion and controversy on our campus. John C. Calhoun 1804 B.A., 1822 LL.D. served the United States as vice president, secretary of state, secretary of war, and a U.S. senator. Yet he leaves behind the legacy of a leading statesman who used his office to advocate ardently for slavery and white supremacy.

When he learned of Calhoun’s death, Benjamin Silliman Sr. 1796 B.A., 1799 M.A., professor of chemistry at Yale and the namesake of another residential college, mourned the passing of his contemporary while immediately condemning his legacy:

“[Calhoun] in a great measure changed the state of opinion and the manner of speaking and writing upon this subject in the South, until we have come to present to the world the mortifying and disgraceful spectacle of a great republic—and the only real republic in the world—standing forth in vindication of slavery, without prospect of, or wish for, its extinction. If the views of Mr. Calhoun, and of those who think with him, are to prevail, slavery is to be sustained on this great continent forever.”(i)

Silliman’s conviction (shared by many other Americans) that Calhoun was one of the more influential champions of slavery and white supremacy speaks across the generations to us today. As a national leader, Calhoun helped enshrine his racist views in American policy, transforming them into consequential actions. And while other southern statesmen and slaveholders treated slavery as a “necessary evil,” Calhoun insisted it was a “positive good,” beneficial to enslaved people and essential to republican institutions. The legacy that Silliman decried was that of a man who shaped “the state of opinion” on this issue—ensuring that slavery not only survived but expanded across North America.

This principal legacy of Calhoun—and the indelible imprint he has left on American history—conflicts fundamentally with the values Yale has long championed. Unlike other namesakes on our campus, he distinguished himself not in spite of these views but because of them. Although it is not clear exactly how Calhoun’s proslavery and racist views figured in the 1931 naming decision, depictions in the college celebrating plantation life and the “Old South” suggest that Calhoun was honored not simply as a statesman and political theorist but in full contemplation of his unique place in the history of slavery. As the Witt report reminds us, honoring a namesake whose legacy so sharply conflicts with the university’s values should weigh especially heavily when the name adorns a residential college, which plays a key role in forming community at Yale. Moreover, unlike, for example, Elihu Yale, who made a gift that supported the founding of our university, or other namesakes who have close historical connections to Yale, Calhoun has no similarly strong association with our campus. Removing Calhoun’s name in no way weakens our commitment to honoring those who have made major contributions to the life and mission of Yale—another principle described in the Witt report.

The presidential advisors found “no Witt committee principles that weigh heavily against renaming,” “three committee principles that weigh heavily toward renaming, and a fourth that suggests the need to rename.” The advisors recommended unanimously that the name of Calhoun College be changed.

It is now clear to me, too, that the name of Calhoun College must change. Yale has changed magnificently over the past 300 years and will continue to evolve long after our time; today we have the opportunity to move the university forward in a way that reinforces our mission and core values.

In making this change, we must be vigilant not to erase the past. To that end, we will not remove symbols of Calhoun from elsewhere on our campus, and we will develop a plan to memorialize the fact that Calhoun was a residential college name for eighty-six years. Furthermore, alumni of the college may continue to associate themselves with the name Calhoun College or they may choose to claim Grace Hopper College as their own. As the Witt report states, “A university ought not erase the historical record. But a great university will rightly decide what to commemorate and what to honor, subject always to the obligation not to efface the history that informs the world in which we live.”

A Legacy of Innovation and Service: Grace Murray Hopper
In selecting a new name for the college at the corner of College and Elm streets, Yale honors the life and legacy of Grace Murray Hopper. Hopper was an exemplar of achievement in her field and service to her country. As we considered potential namesakes, the trustees and I benefited from hundreds of unique naming suggestions made by alumni, faculty, students, and staff who either advocated for a name change to this college or submitted ideas for the names of the two new residential colleges. This community input was indispensable: Hopper’s name was mentioned by more individuals than any other, reflecting the strong feeling within our community that her achievements and life of service reflect Yale’s mission and core values.

A trailblazing computer scientist, brilliant mathematician and teacher, and dedicated public servant, Hopper received a master’s degree in mathematics (1930) and a Ph.D. in mathematics and mathematical physics (1934) from Yale. She taught mathematics at Vassar for nearly a decade before enlisting in the U.S. Navy, where she used her mathematical knowledge to fight fascism during World War II. A collaborator on the earliest computers, Hopper made her greatest contributions in the realm of software. In 1952 she and her team developed the first computer language “compiler,” which would make it possible to write programs for multiple computers rather than a single machine. Hopper then pioneered the development of word-based computer languages, and she was instrumental in developing COBOL, the most widely used computer language in the world by the 1970s. Hopper’s groundbreaking work helped make computers more accessible to a wider range of users and vastly expanded their application. A naval reservist for twenty years, she was recalled to active service at the age of 60. Hopper retired as a rear admiral at the age of 79, the oldest serving officer in the U.S. armed forces at that time.

The recipient of Yale’s Wilbur Lucius Cross Medal, the National Medal of Technology, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, “Amazing Grace” Hopper was a visionary in the world of technology. At a time when computers were bulky machines limited to a handful of research laboratories, Hopper understood that they would one day be ubiquitous, and she dedicated her long career to ensuring they were useful, accessible, and responsive to human needs. An extraordinary mathematician and a senior naval officer, Hopper achieved eminence in fields historically dominated by men. Today, her principal legacy is all around us—embodied in the life-enhancing technology she knew would become commonplace. Grace Murray Hopper College thus honors her spirit of innovation and public service while looking fearlessly to the future.

The Calhoun issue is complex. There are substantive arguments on all sides. Good people—moral and principled people—can and will disagree about it. These disagreements, however great they may seem, should not prevent us from finding common ground. Our bonds as Yalies are greater than our opinions about a name or a building. Those bonds ensure that we will continue together the great work of “improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice.” This is our common ground.

Sincerely,

Peter Salovey
President and Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology

***

(i) George Park Fisher, Life of Benjamin Silliman, M.D., LL.D., late professor of chemistry, mineralogy, and geology in Yale college: Chiefly from his manuscript reminiscences, diaries, and correspondence, Volume 2 (New York: C. Scribner and company, 1866), 98-99. Emphasis added.

 

Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation

Richard Gilder Center

for Science, Education, and Innovation

The Gilder Center will expand access to a broader range of the Museum’s resources for students, teachers, and families, offering new learning opportunities and inviting all visitors to share in the excitement of discovery.

Rendering shows an open space with students and teachers surrounded by desktop and wall-mounted digital screens displaying bright visuals.

A rendering of one of the next-generation classrooms in the Middle School Zone of the Gilder Center, serving grades 5 through 8. The Museum will also work with the NYC Department of Education to invite schools without laboratory facilities to attend “research field trips,” expanding students’ access to scientific equipment as well as to collections and exhibition halls.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

Sweeping architecture creates multiple levels in which visitors can be seen viewing scientific models and collections.

The multi-story, 21,000-square-foot, glass-walled Collections Core will be both a critical resource and a spectacular feature of the Gilder Center, revealing the specimens and artifacts that scientists use to investigate and answer fundamental questions, identify new species, and formulate new research questions and directions.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

(left) Rendering shows visitors viewing larger-than-life insect models as well as live specimens. (right top) Cricket sits on the tip of a finger.

A rendering of the Insectarium on the first floor of the Gilder Center, a place for family and general learning as well as for structured school visits by groups from every grade. The new facility will feature live insects, collections of insect specimens, scientific tools used for conducting research, exhibits, and digital displays.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

Visitor stroll through an expansive space of sweeping design filled with lush greenery and butterflies.

A rendering of the year-round Butterfly Vivarium on the second floor of the Gilder Center, which will feature a variety of opportunities to encounter live butterflies and observe their behaviors in various “environments,” including a meadow and a pond.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

Rendering shows an open space with students and teachers surrounded by desktop and wall-mounted digital screens displaying bright visuals.

A rendering of one of the next-generation classrooms in the Middle School Zone of the Gilder Center, serving grades 5 through 8. The Museum will also work with the NYC Department of Education to invite schools without laboratory facilities to attend “research field trips,” expanding students’ access to scientific equipment as well as to collections and exhibition halls.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

Sweeping architecture creates multiple levels in which visitors can be seen viewing scientific models and collections.

The multi-story, 21,000-square-foot, glass-walled Collections Core will be both a critical resource and a spectacular feature of the Gilder Center, revealing the specimens and artifacts that scientists use to investigate and answer fundamental questions, identify new species, and formulate new research questions and directions.

Courtesy of Ralph Appelbaum Associates

 

How Colleges Stack Up on the Payoff for Students

One of the most important measures of a college is how its students fare in terms of graduation rates, salaries and debt repayment
Yale University topped the outcomes list in part due to its financial-aid policy.
Yale University topped the outcomes list in part due to its financial-aid policy. Photo: Craig Warga/Bloomberg News
By Melissa Korn
Sept. 27, 2016 10:37 p.m. ET
4 COMMENTS

Students choose a college for all kinds of reasons—from the courses it offers to the quality of its football team—but in dollars and cents, the best measure of a good college is what happens after graduation.

Can the new grads find jobs? Can they repay their loans? Will their diplomas open doors—or shut them?

While exercises in intellectual exploration are valuable, and a truly integral part of the college experience, these student outcomes matter. And with student-loan debt in the U.S. totaling $1.3 trillion and the average debt burden for those who received loans topping $28,000, outcomes matter perhaps more than ever before.

That’s why The Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings weighted outcomes as the most important factor in our overall ranking, with a hefty 40% of the total score. Outcome scores are derived from graduation rates and academic reputation, as well as measures of loan-repayment rates and graduate salaries that take into account the educational performance, financial backgrounds and other characteristics of a school’s student population.
Explore the Full College Rankings

VIEW Interactive
Peter & Maria Hoey for The Wall Street Journal
Journal Report

Read more at WSJ.com/CollegeRankings

More in U.S. College Rankings

Which Schools Fared Best—and Why?
What Makes These Rankings Different
Schools That Rank High in Student Engagement
The Biggest Surprises
Funding Cuts Hit Public Schools Hard

“College is about opening the door to economic independence,” says Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “You’re going to have to have a career someday. You’re going to do this for four or five years, but what you’re going to do for the next 45 years is intimately linked to that.”
Yale is No. 1

By our analysis, Yale University is the best U.S. college in terms of student outcomes. A whopping 97% of its first-time, full-time students graduate within six years and 95% of those with federal loans were paying back some of the principal three years after graduation. Within 10 years of starting school, median salaries for Yale graduates who got federal aid and are therefore in the government’s College Scorecard database top $70,000.

Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale, says the school’s stellar performance is due in part to its generous financial-aid policy. The school says about 83% of undergraduates graduate debt-free. Those with loans generally have low balances.

“At Yale we are deeply committed to making our world-class education affordable for all students,” Mr. Quinlan says.

Tied for second place in our outcomes ranking are Princeton University and Stanford University, both wealthy schools with large financial-aid budgets, meaning graduates don’t take on much debt. Students at such elite schools also have well-paved paths to high-earning careers, thanks to generations of alumni connections at big corporations.

Columbia University and Duke University tied for the fourth spot in the ranking.
Beyond raw numbers

There’s a reason why these rankings don’t just score schools based on a straight analysis of graduate salaries. Such a measure may reflect how many investment banks and consulting firms show up for on-campus recruiting sessions. But it doesn’t reveal the true return on investment, the extent to which a student is doing better—or worse—than they would have if they hadn’t attended that particular school.

In other words: Outcomes must be measured with some understanding of the inputs. Schools with many students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are working with a population that mostly doesn’t have personal connections to hiring managers at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. So it’s a big win for a school with a large share of first-generation college students to report that graduates actually do land those jobs and are in good standing on repaying their loans.

Our value-added measures of loan-repayment rates and salaries were calculated by comparing predicted salaries and repayment rates—based on factors like students’ SAT scores, family income and an institution’s population of first-generation students—and the actual outcomes. We used a landmark 2015 Brookings Institution analysis of value-added college outcomes as a guide on this measure, recognizing that high graduate salaries alone don’t indicate school success.

“If you’re Harvard, and you take all the best students, and they get all the best jobs, you’re not necessarily taking them on much of a journey,” says Phil Baty, the Times Higher Education rankings editor. (Harvard University landed at No. 14 in our outcomes ranking, in part because only some 85% of students with federal loans were paying back some of the principal three years after graduation. Few had loans to begin with.)

One example of outcomes strength is the University of Virginia. It tied for 56th in our overall ranking, but comes in at No. 32 on outcomes thanks to a cap on loans it expects students to take out, a solid proportion of graduates who enter engineering and business fields, and among the best six-year graduation rates of any public institution.
The role of reputation

One word of caution when looking at our outcomes table: Salaries vary widely by major. But the federal College Scorecard on which much of this analysis is based doesn’t break down salaries for particular majors, limiting how we could collect such granular information.

“That’s very rough stuff,” Georgetown’s Mr. Carnevale says of the lack of specificity in the scorecard data on salaries. But he says it spurs prospective students and their families to “realize this is something they should be asking about.”

Finally, the outcomes ranking includes a measure that isn’t purely quantitative—academic reputation. The results of this measure, derived from a survey of academics associated with U.S. institutions and conducted by Times Higher Education and Elsevier, favor schools with the most recognizable brands. Academics were asked to identify the U.S. schools they feel have the best reputations for teaching. An institution well-known regionally but not nationally may not score as well as schools with broader prominence.

Ms. Korn is a Wall Street Journal reporter in New York. She can be reached at melissa.korn@wsj.com. Beckie Strum, a writer in New York, contributed to this artlcle.

Corrections & Amplifications:
Some of the rankings mentioned in this article may have changed slightly due to subsequent adjustments to the data. For the latest rankings for 2016, see WSJ.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/. (Sept. 28, 2016)

 
PETERL BLACK
1 day ago

Given that Yale, and other top schools all offer aid generous enough that students need not take out loans unless they choose not to work in the summer or take term-time employment, I do not know why the military academies were not included in this survey. Moreover, most of the top schools view themselves as offering a liberal education, not as trade schools offering terminal degrees. Most of their students go to a professional school or graduate school after undergrad. The normal business route is to work for a few years and then go to B school Medical school is four years. Many professional schools do not offer the generous aid packages that the top undergrad schools, so students might, as is their right, not pay their undergrad loans until they get out of professional school and into the workforce. For students getting a PhD, five to six years is the norm to complete classes and their thesis.
Flag Button
Share
RONALD MOONIN
RONALD MOONIN
5 days ago

I think you also have to look at what school job recruiters go. They know which school have quality programs. This is really missing in your survey. If I wanted to hire a top notch accountant I would certainly look at the University of Illinois or University of Michigan over Stanford.
Flag Button
Share
1
PETERL BLACK
PETERL BLACK
1 day ago

@RONALD MOONIN Stanford does not have an accounting major.
Flag Button
Share
WILLIAM A TAYLOR
WILLIAM A TAYLOR
5 days ago

When it was discovered that people with degrees made more money than people without, nobody bothered to notice that the choice of degree made a huge difference. “XX Studies” programs produce indebted baristas, for example.
Since then, the discussion has grown more and more incoherent because nobody can even agree on the purpose of education. Democrats are convinced that the purpose of education is to provide safe jobs for academics who indoctrinate young people in liberal dogma.
Ivy league colleges have utterly different objectives from stem schools, for example. It’s far too long to post here, but “The Purpose of Education – University Goals” at http://www.scragged.com/articles/the-purpose-of-education-1-university-goals discusses competing convictions about the purpose of education.
What do you think is the purpose of education?

Flag Button
Share
2
What To Read Next…
journal reports: leadership
Defense Contractor Raytheon Pivots to Commercial Cybersecurity
journal reports: leadership
Sheryl Sandberg: Women Are Leaning In—but They Face Pushback
journal reports: college rankings
The Biggest Surprises in College Rankings
election 2016
Stakes Rise for Mike Pence in Vice-Presidential Debate
infogrfx house of the day
A Spanish Villa With an Ayurvedic-Inspired Design
sports – golf
U.S. Lead Dwindles Through Morning Session of Ryder Cup

Campus political correctness spurs Alumni to tighten purse strings

by Allan C. Brownfeld

0 478

As part of a growing backlash against political correctness and limitations on free speech on American college and university campuses, an increasing number of alumni are dropping financial support for their alma maters.

image: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/we-condem-free-speech-700×422.jpg
IMAGE: Sam Graham/Flickr Found at http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25086/

WASHINGTON, August 23, 2016 – When alumni receive letters soliciting contributions from their alma maters, more and more of them are either declining to contribute or cutting back the amount of their gifts. This attitudinal shift is part of a growing backlash against political correctness on the nation’s college and university campuses. Of particular concern to alumni donors are the imitations on free speech that are being imposed on a growing number of college and university campuses.

It’s clear there is an increasing awareness of the dangers of recent trends. In March, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a report arguing that the Federal law known as Title IX, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, has been stretched beyond its intended boundaries to punish language and ideas that are Constitutionally permitted.

The AAUP report cited examples of abuses such as the case of Patty Adler, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who had long taught a popular sociology course called “Deviance in U.S. Society.” Adler’s Dean threatened her with forced retirement after some students complained about role-playing exercises in her class. The threat was ultimately rescinded, but a disillusioned Adler chose to retire. In another case, Teresa Buchanan, a Louisiana State University professor, was fired over the objection of a faculty committee, because some students complained about her use of profanity.

According to AAUP,

“Overly broad definitions of hostile environment harassment work at cross purposes with the academic and free speech rights necessary to promote learning in an educational setting. Learning can be best advanced by more free speech that encourages discussion of controversial issues rather than by using punitive administrative and legal fiat to prevent such discussion from happening at all.”

Today, more than half of America’s colleges and universities have imposed restrictive speech codes. According to Newsweek,

“American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceana, with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for ‘hate speech’ while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at accidentally offending any students and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics.”

Examples of abuse abound.

  • A Brandeis University professor endured a secret administrative investigation for racial harassment after using the word “wetback” in class while explaining its use as a pejorative.
  • At Amherst College, students called for a speech code that would have sanctioned some students for making an “All Lives Matter” poster.
  • Activists at Wesleyan trashed their student paper and pushed to get it defunded after it published an article critical of the “Black Lives Matter” group.
  • At the University of California system, some groups supporting Israel demanded that opposition to Zionism and criticism of Israel be labeled “anti-Semitism.” In this case, the university deplored anti-Semitism but declined to broaden its definition.
  • Students at Emory University protested messages in support of Donald Trump which were chalked on campus sidewalks as an attempt to intimidate minority groups.

Not only are students and faculty members having political correctness imposed on them. Guidelines issued at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in its Employee Forum sought to help staff avoid “micro aggressions,” by cautioning them against using allegedly offensive phrases such as “Christmas vacation,” “husband/boyfriend” and “golf outing.”

With regard to “gender” microaggressions, the guidelines discourage comments such as “I love your shoes” to female colleagues, or otherwise complimenting the appearance of women. The guide also discourages staff from inviting others to play a “round of golf,” which “assumes employees have the financial resources/exposure to a fairly expensive and inaccessible sport.”  At faculty award ceremonies, says the guide, honorees should not be asked to “stand and be recognized” for their achievements, which assumes “that everyone is able in this way and ignores diversity of ability in the space.”

At Princeton University, the Office of Human Resources has issued a list of gender-inclusive style guidelines. The word “man” can no longer be used, in order to foster “a more inclusive community.” Instead of “man,” employees are told to use words such as “human beings, individuals or people.” Instead of “man and wife,” the acceptable terms are “spouses” or “partners.” The term “manmade” should be replaced by “artificial, handmade or manufactured.” The term “mankind” should be replaced by “humankind,” and “workmanlike” should become “skillful.” The list is a long one.

“Microaggression” is usually defined as unintended slights directed toward vulnerable groups. In reality, “microaggressions” often carry political implications and serve as a pretext for silencing political dissent. At an event last year titled “Managing Microaggressions,” students at the University of Virginia said that identifying oneself as an “American” is a microaggression. Students at the University of Wisconsin said that calling America a “melting pot” or “the land of opportunity” is micro aggressive.

In a front-page report headlined “Amid College Protests, Alumni Are Less Fond and Less Giving,” The New York Times cited Scott MacConnell, a 1960 Amherst graduate, has now cut the college out of his will. In a letter to the college’s alumni fund, MacConnell wrote: “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community.”

Scott C. Johnson, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, accusing the professor of failing “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college. In Johnson’s view, “This is not your daddy’s liberalism. The worst part is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.”

Last March, some Amherst alumni learned that a new director of the Women’s and Gender Center asked to be addressed as “they,” rather than “he” or “she.” Robert Longsworth, who graduated from Amherst in 1999, is the seventh in his family to have attended Amherst and was president of the New York City alumni Association and a class agent. He has now withdrawn because he feels the college has become

“…wrapped up in the politically charged mission rather than staying in its lane and being an institution of higher learning. When the administration and faculty and ultimately a lot of the student body spends a great deal of time on witch hunts, I think that a lot of that intellectual rigor is forgone… Friends who went to Hamilton, Trinity, Williams, Bates, Middlebury, and Hobart are not pleased at what’s happening on campus, and they’ve kind of stepped away. Refusing to write a check seems to be the only lever that can make a difference.”

The backlash against political correctness and the politicization of many colleges and universities is increasingly evident. In the case of Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 per cent for its last fiscal year, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 per cent to 50.6 per cent, the lowest participation rate since 1975. At Princeton, where protestors unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 per cent and participation dropped 1.9 per cent.

Elsewhere, 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff (Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals), recently reported that their initial annual fund results for FY 2016 indicated that 29 per cent of them were running behind 2015 results in dollars and 64 per cent were behind in donors.

Fortunately, there are a few universities that have been doing their best to maintain academic freedom and free speech. The University of Chicago has taken the lead in defending free speech on campus. Last year, a special committee issued a statement noting the importance of civility but upholding “the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the university community to be offensive, unwise, immoral or wrong-headed.”

If universities cannot be persuaded to embrace free speech and academic freedom as a matter of principle, perhaps alumni can push them in the right direction by withholding contributions until they do. All of us would benefit if such an effort were to succeed.

Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News

The College Formerly Known as Yale

Any renaming push on the Ivy campus should start at the top—with Elihu Yale, slave trader extraordinaire.
By Roger Kimball
Aug. 8, 2016 7:19 p.m. ET
787 COMMENTS

The English novelist Kingsley Amis once observed that much that was wrong with the 20th century could be summed up in the word “workshop.” On American campuses today, I suspect that the operative word is “committee.”

On Aug. 1, Yale University president Peter Salovey announced that he is creating a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming. There has been a craze for renaming things on college campuses the last couple of years—a common passion in unsettled times.

In the French Revolution, leaders restarted the calendar at zero and renamed the months of the year. The Soviets renamed cities, erased the names of political enemies from the historical record, and banned scientific theories that conflicted with Marxist doctrine.

At Princeton, Stanford, Georgetown, Harvard and elsewhere, students have demanded that buildings, programs and legacies be renamed to accommodate modern sensitivities. Amherst College has dropped Lord Jeffrey Amherst as its mascot because the colonial administrator was unkind to Indians. Students at the University of Missouri have petitioned to remove a statue of the “racist rapist” Thomas Jefferson. This is part of a larger effort, on and off campuses, to stamp out dissenting attitudes and rewrite history to comport with contemporary prejudices.

But isn’t the whole raison d’être of universities to break the myopia of the present and pursue the truth? Isn’t that one important reason they enjoy such lavish public support and tax breaks?
An 18th-century oil painting of Elihu Yale with a servant. ENLARGE
An 18th-century oil painting of Elihu Yale with a servant. Photo: Yale University Art Gallery

A point of contention at Yale has been the residential college named for John C. Calhoun, a congressman, senator, secretary of war and vice president. Alas, Calhoun was also an avid supporter of slavery.

Mr. Salovey is also perhaps still reeling from the Halloween Horror, the uproar last year over whether Ivy League students can be trusted to pick their own holiday costumes, which made Yale’s crybullies a national laughing stock. In the wake of that he earmarked $50 million for such initiatives as the Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration.

He then announced that Calhoun College would not change its name. Apparently, he has reconsidered. After the Committee on Renaming has done its work to develop “clearly delineated principles,” he wrote, “we will be able to hold requests for the removal of a historical name—including that of John C. Calhoun—up to them.”

I have unhappy news for Mr. Salovey. In the great racism sweepstakes, John Calhoun was an amateur. Far more egregious was Elihu Yale, the philanthropist whose benefactions helped found the university. As an administrator in India, he was deeply involved in the slave trade. He always made sure that ships leaving his jurisdiction for Europe carried at least 10 slaves. I propose that the committee on renaming table the issue of Calhoun College and concentrate on the far more flagrant name “Yale.”
Related Articles

How the Yale Halloween Vigilantes Finally Got Their Way
Sex Smears and the Rule of Law at Yale
Yale’s Little Robespierres

There is also the matter of historical artifacts. Earlier this year an unhappy employee at Calhoun College smashed a stained-glass window because it depicted slaves. He was dismissed but then, after a student outcry, rehired. In response, Mr. Salovey convened a Committee on Art in Public Spaces. Offending objects, he explained, including “certain windows,” would be “relocated” and “conserved for future study.” Wasn’t there a similar initiative in Europe in the late 1930s and 1940s?

Yale’s leaders have compared the renaming committee to the so-called Woodward Committee that, in the mid-1970s, issued on behalf of the school a ringing defense of free speech (“to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable”).

A closer historical parallel, however, might be the Committee of Public Safety, which during the French Revolution worked overtime to assure that citizens lived up to its ideal of virtue. “Virtue” was a word always on the lips of the revolutionaries in France. They took the term from the man whom Robespierre called a “prodigy of virtue,” Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

In everyday life, acting virtuously means such boring things as being kind, honest and dutiful. For moral prodigies, such pedestrian examples are beneath notice. Rousseau, “drunk with virtue” as he put it in his “Confessions,” nonetheless shipped off to a foundlings home all five of the children he had with his semi-literate mistress. She protested, but Rousseau cared not for he had “never felt the least glimmering of love for her.”

Robespierre floated aloft upon a similarly callous intoxication. The Republic, he said, was founded on “virtue and its emanation, terror.” Hence the work of the Committee of Public Safety, whose chief handmaiden was the guillotine and whose activities depended critically on anonymous reports about those whose commitment to virtue was less than wholehearted.

Yale, though sitting on a tax-exempt endowment of $24 billion, does not have the guillotine. But like many institutions entrusted with educating America’s future leaders, it is hard at work undermining due process and fostering an atmosphere of anonymous accusation. In a campus-wide email this spring, Stephanie Spangler, a Yale professor of obstetrics and gynecology as well as “University Title IX Coordinator,” discussed the school’s plans to launch “on-line tools for reporting sexual misconduct anonymously.”

The right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser have been hallowed guarantors of liberty since the Roman Republic. They are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. But those who are infatuated with their own virtue find it easy to dispense with such unwieldy constraints.

I suspect that Mr. Salovey believes he will be able to pacify the professional grievance-mongers on his campus by bribes and capitulations. He should remember what an earlier cultural provocateur, the Yippie leader Jerry Rubin, said: “Satisfy our demands, and we’ve got twelve more. The more demands you satisfy, the more we’ve got.”

The Committee of Public Safety came into being in April 1793. On July 28, 1794, Robespierre, the man who oversaw the murder of so many, was himself guillotined. Thus do revolutions consume their abettors.

Mr. Kimball is editor and publisher of the New Criterion and president and publisher of Encounter Books.

WSJ 8/9/16

The Closing of the American Mind

There are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles of a free and open society that fostered the nation’s rise.
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto
By Charles Koch
July 21, 2016 6:53 p.m. ET
832 COMMENTS

I was born in the midst of the Great Depression, when no one could imagine the revolutionary technological advances that we now take for granted. Innovations in countless fields have transformed society and radically improved individual well-being, especially for the least fortunate. Every American’s life is now immeasurably better than it was 80 years ago.

What made these dramatic improvements possible was America’s uniquely free and open society, which has brought the country to the cusp of another explosion of life-changing innovation. But there are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles that foster such advances, particularly in education, business and government. Which path will the country take?

When I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950s, I quickly came to appreciate that scientific and technological progress requires the free and open exchange of ideas. The same holds true for moral and social progress. I have spent more than a half-century trying to apply this lesson in business and my personal life.

It was once widely accepted that progress depends on people challenging and testing each other’s hypotheses. This leads to the creation of knowledge that, when shared, inspires others and spurs the innovation that moves society forward and improves lives. It is a spontaneous process that is deeply collaborative and dependent on the contributions of others. Recall Sir Isaac Newton’s statement that he achieved so much by “standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Scientific progress in seemingly disparate fields creates opportunities for fusion, which is where the greatest innovations often occur. The British writer Matt Ridley has brilliantly described this process as “ideas having sex.” Today, this creation-from-coupling is evident in, for example, the development of driverless cars, which combine advances in transportation and artificial intelligence. When seen through this prism, the opportunities for life-altering innovation are limitless.
Related Articles

Lee Hsien Loong’s American Exceptionalism
U.S. Economic Freedom Continues to Fade
America the Indispensable

Despite our enormous potential for further progress, a clear majority of Americans see a darker future. Some 56% believe their children’s lives will be worse off than their own, according to a January CNN poll. A Rasmussen poll released the following month found that 46% believe America’s best days are behind it. Little more than a third believe better days lie ahead.

I empathize with this fear. The U.S. is already far down the path to becoming a less open and free society, and the current cultural and political atmosphere threatens to make the situation worse: Growing attacks on free speech and free association, hostile rhetoric toward immigrants, fear that global trade impoverishes rather than enriches, demands that innovators in cutting-edge industries first seek government permission.

This trajectory takes the U.S. further away from the brighter future that is otherwise within reach. Resisting calls to exclude, divide or restrict—and promoting a free and open society—ought to be the great moral cause of these times. The most urgent tasks involve the key institutions of education, business and government.

(My italics) Education in America, and particularly higher education, has become increasingly hostile to the free exchange of ideas. On many campuses, a climate of intellectual conformity has replaced open debate and inquiry, stifling discussion on a host of topics ranging from history to science to economics. Dissenters are demonized, ostracized or otherwise treated with scorn and derision. This disrupts the process of discovery and challenge that is at the root of human progress. Holland embraced this philosophy—best expressed by the phrase “Listen even to the other side”—in the 17th century, contributing to it becoming the most prosperous country in the world at the time.

Similarly, in business the proliferation of corporate welfare wastes resources and closes off opportunity for newcomers. It takes many forms—direct subsidies, anticompetitive regulations, mandates, tax credits and carve-outs—all of which tip the scales in favor of established businesses and industries. The losers are invariably the new, disruptive and innovative entrepreneurs who drive progress, along with everyone who stands to benefit from their work. Just ask the citizens of Austin, Texas, who recently lost access to Uber after a campaign backed by its competitors in the taxi industry.

Government, which often has strong incentives to stifle the revolutionary advances that could transform lives, may be the most dangerous. The state often claims to keep its citizens safe, when it is actually inhibiting increased individual well-being. See, for example, the FDA’s astronomically expensive and time-consuming drug-approval process, which University of Chicago professor Sam Peltzman argues has caused “more sickness and death than it prevented.” These kinds of harmful barriers to life-enhancing advances exist at every level of government.

Unleashing innovation, no matter what form it takes, is the essential component of truly helping people improve their lives. The material and social transformations in my own days have been nothing short of astonishing, with a marked improvement in well-being for all Americans. If the country can unite around a vision for a tolerant, free and open society, it can achieve even greater advances, and a brighter future for everyone, in the years ahead.

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries and the author of “Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies” (Crown Business, 2015).
Most Popular Videos

WSJ

 

How the Yale Halloween Vigilantes Finally Got Their Way

Nicholas and Erika Christakis step down from their administrative posts, closing a sorry chapter at the university.
By
Zachary Young
June 3, 2016 6:18 p.m. ET
389 COMMENTS

Nicholas Christakis and his wife, Erika, came to Yale University in 2013 with high expectations. At Harvard, the couple had held prominent teaching and administrative roles. At Yale, Dr. Christakis, a sociologist and physician, received a laboratory directorship and four appointments; Ms. Christakis, an expert in early-childhood education, became a seminar instructor. Two years after their arrival at Yale, Dr. Christakis and Ms. Christakis were awarded positions as master and associate master of Silliman College, Yale’s largest residential college. (I attend the university and reside at Silliman).

Last week, the Christakises resigned those posts.

Early-childhood educator Erika Christakis.

Early-childhood educator Erika Christakis. Photo: Axel Dupeux/Wall Street Journal

Their departure comes as no surprise. For seven months, the couple has been subject to bullying, harassment and intimidation. They inadvertently became a national media story last fall and catalyzed a month of campus protests, prompting Yale President Peter Salovey to tell minority students: “We failed you.”

The Christakises encountered a witch-hunt mentality on a contemporary college campus. It began fittingly on the day before Halloween, when Ms. Christakis questioned guidelines from Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee warning against “culturally unaware or insensitive” costumes. Ms. Christakis reasoned, in an email to Silliman residents, that students should decide for themselves how to dress for Halloween, without the administration’s involvement.

Student radicals of the 1960s might have recognized her note as a defense of free expression, but those days are long gone. Instead, Ms. Christakis was denounced as a proponent of cultural insensitivity. Irate students circulated petitions, wrote editorials and posted social-media tirades. They scribbled criticisms in chalk outside the Christakises’ home and posted degrading images of them online. Two student groups demanded their removal from Silliman.

In one incident captured on video, dozens of students confronted Dr. Christakis, berating and cursing him, while a Yale dean looked on. One student screamed at Dr. Christakis: “You should not sleep at night. You are disgusting.” Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway did not help matters when, the next day, he offered his “unambiguous” support for the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s guidelines, calling their intent “exactly right.”

Though President Salovey rejected calls for the Christakises’ firing, animus for the couple simmered. In December, a crate appeared outside their Silliman office containing a sombrero and a Rastafarian wig—the sort of Halloween paraphernalia now taboo on college campuses. In January, a fake email purporting to be from Ms. Christakis objected to the administration’s safety ban on hoverboard scooters. The couple canceled teaching plans for the spring.

At Silliman College’s graduation ceremony on May 23, several seniors refused to accept their diplomas from Dr. Christakis or to shake his hand. Two days later, the Christakises announced that they would step down from Silliman. Many students celebrated the news on Facebook.

While the Christakises remain affiliated with Yale and could return to teaching, their resignations from Silliman had the air of a chapter closing in one of the more disturbing episodes of modern campus intolerance.

The Christakises made remarkably unlikely targets for purging by student activists. The couple has a long record of advocating for minority students, and the Christakises have devoted much of their academic work to highlighting health and development problems facing underserved communities.

In the months since the controversy erupted, the Christakises have met one-on-one with offended students. They have invited their critics over for a group lunch to “continue the conversation.” Though not always with success, the Christakises tried to improve a fraught situation, with little backup from the administration.

“We have great respect for every member of our community, friend and critic alike,” Dr. Christakis wrote in announcing the couple’s resignation from Silliman, effective in July. “We remain hopeful that students at Yale can express themselves and engage complex ideas within an intellectually plural community.”

On the evidence of the past year or so across American campuses, such hope is becoming ever more beleaguered. With luck, the sorry episode at Yale will cause students to spend less time vilifying professors and more time engaging with their ideas.

Mr. Young, a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal this summer, will be a senior at Yale University in the fall.