In response to my July 22 column critiquing the Manhattan Statement, one of its signers, Eric Kaufmann of the University of Buckingham, wrote an extensive response that I believe readers of my column should consider, along with my reply, which follows it.
From Eric Kaufmann
In Defense of the (Imperfect) Manhattan Statement
John Wilson writes a robust critique of the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, developed by Chris Rufo—but also by Jesse Arm, also of the Manhattan Institute, who led on polling. John views the statement as “a recipe for tyranny” and an abandonment of the principles of free expression. If adopted, it would require colleges to “give total obedience to the reigning president.”
I signed the statement, not because I agreed with every word, but because I believe the fundamental principle—that universities which take public money implicitly accept that they must serve the needs of a democratic society. The reason this must be explicitly stated now, in contract form, is because universities have lost the trust of the majority of the public. The label on the tin which proclaims the pursuit of truth and knowledge conceals a cultural socialist agenda. That is, that the highest aims of the university are to advance “Social Justice”: equal outcomes and emotional harm protection for historically marginalized race, gender and sexual identity groups.
Let me state at the outset—as I have before—that Trump is authoritarian, corrupt, narcissistic and taking a sledgehammer to the universities where a scalpel is needed. He is taking a punitive and amoral rather than principled approach to higher education reform, which is both wrong and a missed opportunity. This statement is not going to rouse him to do anything he is not already doing, but it may nudge the administration toward principles and processes rather than haphazard spiteful lunging.
John, along with John Tomasi, Walter Olson and others, hold that universities can reform themselves, perhaps with the aid of civil society and lawfare. It is a position I respect, but disagree with. Since the emergence of affirmative action in the 1970s and speech codes in the late 1980s, universities have been in the forefront of cultural socialist activism. When the courts struck down speech codes in the early 1990s, or the state of California outlawed affirmative action in 1996, the universities did not comply, but acted as if they were above the law. After all, if the law is immoral, why obey it?
Universities which accept public money in the form of research grants and subsidized student loans agree to government regulation. When that regulation is progressive, such as Obama’s 2011 Dear Colleague letter abrogating due process for those accused of rape, universities overdeliver. When it is classical liberal, they resist it tooth and nail. For a long time Republican governments looked the other way. This has changed, which I believe is healthy for democracy—defined as the idea that policy should reflect the will of the majority subject to liberal constraints. Those liberal constraints do not in my view include institutional autonomy, which is a privilege granted so long as universities adhere to a social contract with the democracy.
When the University of Mississippi barred black students, the federal government intervened. When Germany reunified in 1989, Marxist historians in East Germany were dismissed. Around the same time, when the University of Copenhagen’s sociology department became captured by the far left, it was closed down by the government. The question is not whether there is a public goods case for reforming universities, but under what conditions, at what threshold, and via what mechanisms. Where I agree with John is that legislative safeguards must be in place to limit undue political meddling and ensure due process, which Trump is trampling on.
My final point is that, as Tocqueville noted, it is often necessary for power to check power, to create the conditions for liberty. Just as the nobility checking the king gave rise to Magna Carta and the liberal tradition, government limiting the institutional power of the left-wing university has created an opening for ideas such as institutional neutrality, ending mandatory diversity statements and encouraging viewpoint diversity.
Trump’s current approach is the wrong one, but one thing is clear—the status quo ante was not working. A new modus vivendi is required, which does not alienate Republicans and Independents. The formalized model of the Manhattan Statement is as good a start as any.
From John K. Wilson
I appreciate Eric Kaufmann’s thoughtful and forthright response to my column, but I must admit that I am baffled by him signing a statement when he disagrees with the core proposals for implementing its goals.
I agree with Kaufmann that Donald Trump is “authoritarian, corrupt, narcissistic” and his attacks on colleges are “punitive and amoral.” I cannot therefore comprehend why anyone who believes this would sign the Manhattan Statement, which calls for giving Trump much more authoritarian control over colleges. You shouldn’t embrace authoritarianism just because you think the authoritarians have a few good ideas.
Kaufmann denounces Trump for “taking a sledgehammer to the universities where a scalpel is needed.” Personally, I am also scared of lunatics with scalpels, but the key point is that the Manhattan Statement calls for giving Trump a much bigger sledgehammer.
Kaufmann imagines the need for “power to check power” and claims that Trump’s orders have achieved good by creating institutional neutrality, the end of diversity statements and moves toward viewpoint diversity. In reality, most of these changes preceded Trump and often reflect internal campus reforms. By embracing the unchecked executive power at the heart of the Manhattan Statement, Kaufmann actually endangers the reforms he desires, because a future president could simply order colleges to do the opposite of what he wants.
I would argue that Trump’s authoritarianism is a far worse problem than whatever “social justice” aims Kaufmann imagines are controlling universities. If we want universities to embrace principled goals of free expression and due process, Trump’s authoritarianism is making things much worse.
The Manhattan Statement isn’t a “good start”—it’s a terrible ending for liberty on campus if Donald Trump follows his past practice of doing what Chris Rufo suggests. It’s wrong to embrace authoritarianism, even if you really hate the victims of it, and even if you imagine that the authoritarians don’t pay any attention to you.
