The Need to Reclaim Liberal Education

Peter Berkowitz is one of those rare public intellectuals who doesn’t mind being on the “wrong” side of hot controversies—which is to say, he’s willing to clash with the “progressive” juggernaut. A former professor at Harvard and George Mason Law School, Berkowitz is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution and a columnist for RealClearPolitics. The book is a collection of his essays on higher education written between 2014 and 2025. They give the reader a comprehensive view of the problems that beset our colleges and universities.

He writes, “The nation’s elite institutions of higher education have gone well beyond leaving many students ignorant of the nation’s founding principles and sustaining political institutions. For some time now, numerous classes, academic writings, and even fields of study have disposed students to despise those principles and institutions.” And no, “despise” is not too strong a word. As the book repeatedly shows, college courses are often taught with the objective of turning students into zealots for a thorough transformation of America.  Many never hear anything good about our constitutional system, property rights, or free enterprise—only criticisms.

Berkowitz is an enthusiast for liberal education. A truly liberal education, he states, “fosters virtues of freedom and equips students to prosper in and maintain a free society.” It also teaches them to appreciate the fallibility of the human mind and to respect the rights of others to live their lives as they think best. Liberal education is conducive to a harmonious society and was in large measure responsible for our success.

Unfortunately, there are well-organized interests that want to use education not for liberal purposes but instead for illiberal ones. Berkowitz recounts the battle at Stanford in the 1980s over a core course devoted to understanding the foundations of Western Civilization. Stanford officials caved in to a mob, led by Jesse Jackson, that chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go!” So, to avoid conflict with a small, raucous group of protesters, Stanford’s leaders dumped a key course that most students enjoyed.  

As Berkowitz shows, such cowardice in the face of leftists determined to undermine support for our traditions and values is commonplace.

At the same time venerable courses that gave students a liberal education were being swept out, professors were given the freedom to teach pretty much whatever they wanted. Most crafted courses around their particular interests, frequently narrow academic specialties and classes on popular culture that students would enjoy.  Moreover, the curriculum was increasingly bereft of any courses giving a serious discussion of conservative ideas.

Faculty members who try to provide students with an intellectually balanced diet often find themselves under attack from students who disagree with that approach and claim to be “offended” when their beliefs are scrutinized. One such case involved Duke University’s Evan Charney, who wrote about his dismissal in this Martin Center piece.  Berkowitz writes, “Huge numbers of Charney’s students cherished his courses precisely because he created a class environment hostile to ignorance, self-righteousness, and dogmatism.” Sadly, a handful of students objected to having their beliefs examined and filed a complaint against Charney.  To Duke administrators, his 19 years of successful teaching mattered less than placating a few snowflake students.

The “how dare you say things that offend us” mentality is not confined to students. Faculty members are also prone to throwing tamper tantrums when officials say “wrong” things. Berkowitz recounts the case of former Harvard president Larry Summers, who, in an unguarded moment, said that there might be reasons other than sexual discrimination for the preponderance of men in science. That possibility cannot be discussed, say feminists who are fully invested in the discrimination explanation; women on Harvard’s faculty quickly mounted a campaign against Summers.  His groveling apologies did no good. After the firestorm of criticism—merely for raising a question—would not die down, Summers resigned.  

Universities should be places where ideas can be discussed in a calm, rational manner, but that is no longer the case. Berkowitz nails the truth when he writes, “If the president of Harvard University—a distinguished and hardheaded economist, former Secretary of the Treasury and a prominent Democrat—felt the need to prostrate himself before the thought police, who could hope to resist?” That hits the nail on the head: Our colleges and universities now have thought police with the power to punish those who say things they don’t like. 

Another serious departure from the ideals of liberal education is the way college leaders today feel that it’s fitting or even necessary for them to give their opinions about every controversy.  Berkowitz wrote a letter to the president of his alma mater, Swarthmore College, in 2021 following her declaration that the school needed “deep, thoughtful, frank discussions about challenges facing society” after the death of George Floyd.  Of course, colleges should always allow such discussions, but as Berkowitz writes, they should “avoid taking sides in current political debates and legal controversies. Only by staying out of the political fray as an institution can the college foster a community that enables students and faculty to energetically explore the many sides of hard political questions.”

Many of our colleges and universities, especially those regarded as elite, have embraced “multiculturalism,” which sounds innocuous, but is very much at odds with liberal education. Berkowitz explains that multicultural theory divides people into groups, some of whom are deemed oppressors and others oppressed.  Therefore, he writes, “individual rights and generally applicable law must give way to culture and group identity.” Students hear repeatedly that what drives society is the clash between groups and they should always side with the supposedly downtrodden, no matter the facts. 

That narrative leads to a lack of respect for anyone who dissents, an inability to engage in civil debate, and outright hostility. All of that was on ugly display during the protests and “encampments” on many college campuses after the Hamas attack on Israel in October, 2023. Berkowitz devotes several chapters to exploring the connection between anti-Semitism, multiculturalism, and barbarism. University leaders, he argues, are deeply complicit in fanning the flames of hatred.

What should be done to restore liberal education? Berkowitz offers sound advice. 

First, he applauds the several programs devoted to civics education in states including Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Such programs, “by regrounding higher education in the principles of individual freedom, reasoned inquiry, and self-government, can put our colleges and universities in the service of—rather than opposition to—the public interest.”

Second, he argues that those who want to rescue higher education from the leftist control must avoid using leftist tactics.  For example, don’t embrace affirmative action—namely hiring faculty merely because they have conservative beliefs. Stick to pure merit.

Reclaiming Liberal Education in America is a very timely book that conveys a bitter truth. Our colleges and universities have become public liabilities, squandering resources on the mis-education of students and undermining our foundations. It is a must read for anyone who cares about America’s future. 

George Leef is director of external relations for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.