Since my first immersion into academia in graduate school, I’ve noticed a systemic “fight the power” attitude in the humanities, especially English studies, which includes my field of rhetoric and composition. The unquestioned assumption was that the world needed saving, and we were the ones to do it.
What makes this different from the typical heroism and elitism of intellectuals—especially youthful intellectuals—is that English studies sought to save the world from itself by at least mitigating the effects of Western civilization and its concomitant capitalistic framework. No one ever came close to asking, “Is Western Civilization so bad?” or “Why is Western Civilization such a salient target of academic criticism?” Its detriments were assumed and often unarticulated.
However, in some places, we may be moving beyond those questions and starting to settle on the idea that Western civilization is not simply worth salvaging but worth celebrating. Higher education should focus on that celebration by helping students understand and navigate Western Civilization successfully.
This means taking a machete to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and slashing federal funding and student aid that does more harm than good. However, legislators like those in Utah are taking a more targeted approach by trying to prescribe a general higher education focused on the intellectual building blocks of Western Civilization, including the rise and influence of Christianity. Utah State legislators tacitly frame this bill as a rescue mission for higher education, saving it from the illiberal grip of anti-Western sentiment. But is it really an improvement?
Utah’s Republican Sen. John Johnson seems to think so. His bill, SB334, establishes a new Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University. This center will be responsible for hiring and training faculty to teach in the school’s general education program, which Harrison Kleiner, the school’s vice provost for general education, says is currently fragmented, incoherent, and “broken.” According to Johnson, the Center for Civil Excellence will be charged with “engaging students in civil and rigorous intellectual inquiry, across ideological differences, with a commitment to intellectual freedom in the pursuit of truth.”
With that in mind, SB334 will mandate the following: six credits in written and oral communication combined with three humanities credits; three three-credit humanities courses focusing on foundational texts predominantly from Western Civilization, covering intellectual contributions from ancient Israel, Greece, Rome, the rise of Christianity, medieval Europe, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and post-Enlightenment periods; and one three-credit course in American institutions that explores the development of the United States’ republican form of government, emphasizing founding principles such as natural rights, liberty, equality, constitutional self-government, and market systems.
Proponents of the bill say it will better ensure that students are prepared for successful participation in Western society. I agree, adding that the taint of illiberalism seemingly systemic in American higher education will be mitigated substantially by a civic and more pragmatic curriculum. That said, some opponents of the bill argue that there is potential for government overreach, an infringement of First Amendment rights, and the wresting of university governance from the faculty, the group that should be running colleges and universities.
Shane Graham, a professor in USU’s English department, says the bill “feels like an attack on our expertise and our academic freedom.” As I see it, the latter target of this attack, academic freedom, should be taken seriously. However, based on national trends in the humanities, the attack on “expertise” is understandable.
Let’s take my field of rhetoric and composition. Like in other humanistic disciplines, in rhetoric and composition, Anti-Western sentiment is not an aberration; it is the norm. Anti-capitalist writing pedagogy—which is as nonsensical as it sounds—along with a brazen embrace of Marxist notions are just some of the anti-American stances. But if the job of a faculty is to prepare students for a successful and fulfilling life in American society, having professors who openly hate American society is inherently contradictory. What could possibly go wrong?
Regarding the attack on academic freedom, I understand Graham’s concern. This bill aligns with the anti-DEI legislation put forth by the Trump administration. Still, like that legislation, the bill ironically sounds like an infringement on academic freedom and free expression. With DEI, the problem was never discussion about Critical Race Theory or Critical Gender Studies; it was the compelling of students and faculty to embrace such ideologies as truth and the moral high ground. Yet, the legislation’s lack of specificity and clarity opens the door for all discussion of things related to race and sexual orientation, which would be a disservice to all students’ ability to acquire a well-rounded education in Western Civilization.
For example, any discussion of American history without a sufficient treatment of race relations would be like trying to understand European history without mentioning religious contention. SB 334 is similar, potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater by jettisoning free speech and free inquiry about certain topics. Although the bill cites Lao Tzu and Chinua Achebe—authors considered marginal to the traditional Western Canon—as ideal texts, more non-Western authors and themes should also be included.
Ultimately, I do not like government intervention in spaces traditionally run by non-government actors. However, as a former academic and target of illiberal intolerance, higher education reform is needed direly. If other states follow suit, I hope, at the very least, that they do so in a way that promotes a classically liberal education while exposing students to some non-Western ideas as well.
After all, education should teach students how to think, not what to think. I would like to see the illiberal sentiment I’ve experienced in academia defanged, but not at the expense of a truly holistic education.