In a time of growing polarization and groupthink, the American Enterprise Institute is a model for universities everywhere.
In a time of growing polarization and groupthink, the American Enterprise Institute is a model for universities everywhere.
W e can no longer pretend that the ideal of the university as a formalized French salon or English coffeehouse in any way resembles our reality. As the range of acceptable campus discourse progressively shrinks, most higher-education institutions no longer view truth-seeking and persuasion as their primary objectives. Why would they? Such places believe they have already found the truth; get with the program.
Beware, anyone who opposes federally mandating that states treat homosexual and heterosexual relationships identically. Repent, you who say that “All Lives Matter.” Forget that the Left’s patron saint, Bernie Sanders, opposed recognizing gay marriage in Vermont in 2006. Leave aside that he, Hillary Clinton, and Pete Buttigieg, among other left-wing political figures, once declared that all lives mattered. Theirs sins are forgivable; yours are not.
In case you don’t get the message, here it is, put eloquently by a Harvard student in 2020: “The next person who has the sheer nerve, the sheer entitled caucasity [sic] to say ‘All Lives Matter,’ I’ma stab you, I’ma stab you, and while you’re struggling and bleeding out I’m going to show you my paper cut and say my cut matters too.” In case you still don’t understand, the University of Idaho administration’s recent decision to forbid members of the Christian Legal Society from discussing their views on gay marriage with nonmembers should clarify things. Several of my Yale friends, meanwhile, have been pressured to provide their pronouns when asked on the first day of classes, just as Vice President Kamala Harris recently did. Even students with firm religious or philosophical beliefs can succumb to such social and institutional pressure. After all, sincerity or popularity of a given view means nothing when voicing it is considered violent.
In response to this trend, many on the right have called for young people to abandon universities that have neglected the importance of intellectual diversity. Christian-college enrollment has dramatically outpaced that of other nonprofit private schools, and Republicans increasingly hold negative views on higher education. Speak to almost any grandparent — they worry incessantly that their grandchildren may enroll at a school they believe is in the business of brainwashing.
But for conservatives to endorse this sort of thinking means resignation, a retreat, an acceptance of defeat. And the American Enterprise Institute demonstrates that capitulation is not necessary.
Right-of-center think tanks and foundations noticed the decline of discourse throughout universities and have risen to the occasion. AEI, the Hertog Foundation, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have opened their doors to college students from across the country. This summer, I completed AEI’s Summer Honors Academy, a five-week academic program made up of twelve college students and recently graduated seniors based in D.C. The academy is a part of the larger Summer Honors Program (SHP), a cohort of nearly 200 students.
Structurally, the program was quite simple. Each student in the broader SHP was admitted into one of 16 week-long courses on a variety of subjects, from political theory and public theology to health-care and education policy (academy students enrolled in four of said classes). Four different classes were taught each week, with twelve to 18 students apiece. The first half of each day was a seminar-style discussion between classmates and a renowned instructor, with a few hundred pages of reading assigned beforehand. The second half of each day was devoted to speaker events and activities to facilitate more informal discussion among students.
Across those weeks, apart from absorbing an absurd amount of information, I had more free-flowing conversations with people I profoundly disagreed with than I had ever had before. I met theocrats, debated monarchists, and broke bread with socialists. Despite living in New England, the historic cradle of Puritanism, I had to go to AEI to meet devout students of John Calvin for the first time. I argued with libertarians and existentialists about whether I should be allowed to physically stop my loved ones from shooting themselves. I even engaged with Trump supporters, the Ivy League’s equivalent of a unicorn. Though most students there had more-conventional views, the intellectual variety was nonetheless astounding.
Moreover, it was not at the expense of other forms of diversity. Participants hailed from Mexico, the U.K., Nigeria, the Republic of China, and elsewhere. I studied with Orthodox Jews wearing kippahs and spoke to Muslims with headscarves. Students had vastly different future plans. Some planned to enter medical school. Others sought careers in law and government. Still others planned on finance or corporate jobs. Nor did any “type” of college dominate the SHP. Baylor tied Columbia for supplying the most participants, with Abilene Christian, Hillsdale, and Arizona State following close behind. To top it all off, the gender breakdown was pretty much even. Only the most sophisticated of DEI officers could complain.
“We look for thoughtful and principled college students with intellectual curiosity about public policy that aligns with AEI’s mission and research areas,” Jeff Pickering, the director of academic programs at AEI, explained. “While students come to AEI with varying career ambitions and ideological beliefs, they share a commitment to integrity, academic freedom, and elevating the tone and substance of discourse on their campus.” Call me idealistic, but, perhaps if universities adopted this philosophy, campus culture could improve considerably.
I obviously do not endorse the beliefs of everyone I met while in D.C. — that would require some incredible mental gymnastics. The SHP is not without its flaws, either. For example, one student from rural America noticed that participants were disproportionately from suburban or coastal areas. He found this strange, considering the makeup of the contemporary conservative movement. Point taken. If AEI hopes to represent and influence the Right, then it should do its best to appeal as broadly as possible. But the SHP demonstrated that it is simultaneously possible to tolerate wide ranges of discourse while also rejecting ideological neutrality. Nearly every student who studied America’s social-safety-net system under Angela Rachidi left her class in favor of work requirements for welfare. Yuval Levin and Tim Carney offered deeply socially conservative worldviews that struck chords with their students. Using empirical evidence and reasoning, AEI fellows moved students on a broad swath of hot-button issues.
In many ways, the American Enterprise Institute exceeded my expectations. In conservative circles I frequent, AEI is often pejoratively labeled “squishy,” or in some way unwilling to be controversial. How the think tank that employs a contrarian libertarian such as Charles Murray could garner that reputation boggles the mind. Others have criticized it for being too libertarian. I’d point those critics toward the writings of AEI’s president, Robert Doar, about child-support enforcement. In reality, AEI scholars simply hold various, nuanced positions across the ideological spectrum that encompasses the Right. Just like any good truth-seeking institution should, it fosters a healthy amount of internal discourse.
Secular colleges, much like think tanks, are anything but ideologically neutral. DEI offices peddle new forms of identity politics every day. University administrations and student governments weigh in on everything from abortion to global affairs. They pass on imitating AEI’s willingness to treat dissenting opinions respectfully, however. In a way, we should consider ourselves fortunate. Not only is the AEI model more in keeping with our ideals and traditions of open discourse, but, more important, it is the most effective way to persuade.
Students and faculty at Yale have no idea how to engage with someone with traditional views of marriage. The idea that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a complete and utter mistake is so unchallenged that few college students even know why only around 20 percent of our parents opposed it at the time. Regardless of whether it was proper, it’s difficult for people who grew up after 9/11 to appreciate just how much of a genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein was. We naturally overestimate our ability to understand why those who disagree with us believe and think as they do, which in turn makes persuasion far more difficult.
There must be important people on the Left who know this. A plurality of Americans believe the transgender movement has gone too far, and that number will likely increase should activists continue to conduct themselves as one enlightened sophist did during her Senate testimony. Just read the comments — people are aghast by her palpable contempt for conversation. Such people refuse to engage civilly because they know that their advocacy has zero persuasive power. When your beliefs are more dogmatic and unfalsifiable than most religions, then you simply must resort to acridity.
When faced with such infantile eye-bulging and facial contortions, reasonable people cannot retreat into their own, more-comfortable environments. Reasonable people don’t need safe spaces. Students at the few (generally faith-based) colleges that have escaped wokeism should thrust themselves into environments similar to the SHP, both to inform themselves and, well, to evangelize. Instead of writing out another check to their already-thriving — yet still stultifyingly left-wing — alma maters, alumni should consider donating to the less-flashy sectors of intellectual life that are doing what academia won’t.