The University Against Its Own Curriculum

In future histories of higher education, the current moment may be called the “Great Confusion.” At present, no one really knows why universities exist. Various ideas about the university’s purpose compete with one another, without altering the underlying uncertainty.

In this disorienting context, attempts are sometimes made to give universities something resembling a general direction. A case in point is “Foundations of American Democracy” (or FAD), a curriculum requirement approved by the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors in 2024 and implemented in Fall 2025. The requirement introduces students to key documents in the history of American democracy, including selections from the Federalist Papers and the Emancipation Proclamation. FAD is not a course, but rather a unit that can be taught in a wide range of classes. Students satisfy the requirement by taking courses that, through an approval process, have been granted the FAD “attribute.” At UNC Chapel Hill, for instance, FAD courses range from “Anthropology of Democracy” to “Introduction to Peace and Security Studies.”

There is considerable merit to this proposal. The tricky part is what it means to introduce such a requirement in the present context. Let me suggest an analogy. Different faiths not only embrace different doctrine but have different attitudes towards doctrine. For the Catholic Church, doctrine is constitutive of faith. To be Catholic means believing in the triune God and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These beliefs are not optional: being Catholic means believing this doctrine. Unitarian Universalism, however, has a very different attitude towards doctrine. Though it has some core beliefs (such as the rejection of the Trinity), it does not believe that faith requires doctrine. As one Unitarian Universalist puts it, “We are a free religious faith, and so have no creed.” Hence the old joke: “I hear Unitarian Universalists deny the divinity of Christ.” “Not true! Unitarian Universalists don’t deny anyone’s divinity!”

FAD is a Catholic idea that is being introduced into a university system that is profoundly Unitarian Universalist. The structures that define the modern university are premised on the refusal of doctrine—on having “no creed.” This is most evident in core curricula, which usually expect students to take a smattering of courses in different disciplines rather than specific required courses. Rather than knowledge, these programs emphasize second-order values like skills. Similarly, Unitarian Universalism does not mandate a doctrine but encourages its members to use their “reason … to decide upon [their] own theology.” The refusal of doctrine in today’s university goes well beyond teaching. It is woven into higher education’s current self-conception. 

For example, most academic departments now operate in a quasi-free market system that awards resources based on the number of students they attract. This system largely determines FAD course offerings. Departments seeking to increase enrollment in their classes, or to offset gains made by other departments, have an interest in adding the FAD designator to their courses. This system may be efficient, but, if FAD is added to courses having little to do with American democracy, it risks creating perverse incentives. Even so, the free-market model sits uncomfortably with the principle of doctrine. “Butts in seats” is not how the Catholic Church decides matters of faith. 

Moreover, recent policies promoted by the UNC Board of Governors prioritize fluidity—the speed and ease through which students can complete their studies. For example, transfer articulation agreements streamline the process by which students from community colleges can enroll in four-year institutions. Yet because they usually complete their general education before arriving on UNC campuses, FAD is effectively waived for these students.

Another issue concerns how FAD aligns with the degree programs that most universities are now promoting. In recent years, higher education has taken a sharp practical turn, emphasizing “jobs-ready skills” and majors in fields such as health care and STEM. The stature and funding of humanities programs have declined accordingly. Yet it is these “poor cousin” departments that are, for the most part, called upon to teach FAD. This is not inherently inconsistent. In earlier times, impoverished parishes could still impart robust faith. But it sends mixed messages. If humanities departments are charged with teaching something as essential as the foundations of American democracy, don’t they deserve resources on par with those granted nursing or cybersecurity?

Finally, FAD’s prospects must be assessed in light of that daunting question hanging over higher education’s future: is AI compatible with genuine education? University boards and administrators have become AI boosters. They believe that AI’s triumph is inevitable and that universities must promote the skills required of an AI economy. AI skeptics are dismissed as backward-looking and “afraid of change.” 

Perhaps we should embrace technological change. But what if the figures being championed by FAD thought otherwise? Indeed, what if they thought certain forms of “change” undermined democracy itself? Thomas Jefferson believed that technological “progress” and resulting forms of sociability undermined the independence of the yeoman farmers that he believed was integral to democracy. “Dependence,” he wrote, “begets subservience and venality, [and] suffocates the germ of virtue.” Is the intellectual dependence that AI boosters champion compatible with true democracy? Corruption, Jefferson believed, results from deferring to the “casualties and caprice of customers.” What is the great AI push—and the modern university itself—but a vast enterprise for gratifying student-customers? 

Maybe a few enlightened trustees or administrators will resolve these contradictions. These days, after all, Alexander Hamilton is vastly more popular than Jefferson. Maybe he is the philosophical middle ground on which woke progressives and business-minded conservatives can meet in building a forward-looking AI republic. Ditch the Declaration, go full Federalist! 

What must be acknowledged, in any case, is the fundamental incoherence on which modern universities rest. As FAD attests, many feel that, when it jettisons doctrine, higher education is missing something—a sense that there is some repository of cultural values that deserves to be passed on. Yet the structure and management of contemporary universities are fated to relentlessly undermine this ideal. 

Michael C. Behrent is a professor of history at Appalachian State University. He specializes in modern European history, modern French history, and European intellectual history.