As an alumnus of Davidson College and a former associate professor of chemistry there, and as a member of the board of directors of the Martin Center, I am fascinated by our August 2025 essay, “From Purpose to Politics: The Decline of Three Liberal Arts Institutions,” by Shannon Watkins. She analyzes changes that have redefined Davidson College, Washington and Lee University, and Williams College since their respective founding over a century ago. With the power of 46 specific citations in the case of Davidson, it is a characterization that would be hard to dispute.
Let me say clearly that I love Davidson College. I respect and support many ways in which it has become more modern and representative in its curriculum and community. There are also things about my alma mater that I do not love and will continue to try to reform. You have noted and encouraged efforts of a relatively small, unofficial band of alumni, Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse (DFTD), on whose board I also serve. By working with campus leadership, we were involved in efforts leading to nearly unanimous votes of the faculty and trustees for “Davidson’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression.” This was the first private college in North Carolina to affirm all elements of the University of Chicago statement on freedom of expression. Why was this necessary?
Within a few weeks of the murder of George Floyd for which a Minneapolis police officer was found guilty, 173 Davidson professors signed a June 10, 2020, “Statement on Systemic Racism and Injustice.” While their motives seemed idealistic and their views defensible in a free society, it was not long before many began to accuse innocent students of oppressing anyone less fortunate or less successful. As at many schools, DEI ideals were replaced by authoritarian politics. When students objected, no one paid attention until they turned to DFTD with their complaints. We became the unauthorized but de facto ombudsman for many conservative students by default, because no one else listened or showed respect.
Happily, there have been other welcome developments of which you could not have been aware. Any source from whom Shannon may have obtained background leads would not have felt at liberty to disclose and celebrate what we had been told in confidence. Reassured today that commendable progress can be applauded without discourtesy to anyone, let me share now several noteworthy examples.
Dozens of course syllabi were discovered with copycat language absurdly asserting that all students were either victims or oppressors of each other. Was this mere “virtue signaling” or a weird, new orthodoxy? Students were required to confess their sin, repent and atone as a course requirement. It was a bizarre derivative from Critical Race Theory, separating students for blame or pity in the name of inclusion and diversity. Sports teams were required to watch a corrosive documentary that told them if you’re white, you are racist by its new, inflammatory definition. Had we not objected, this hatred would have festered and spread unquestioned.
Fortunately, individual professors and departments began to reflect on what we reported. Even before the Trump administration’s focus on DEI abuses, Davidson began to question seriously whether it was constructive to turn students against each other in keeping with these incendiary theories from the political left. To their credit, they began to turn the corner by scouring the curriculum of such abuses. Every one of the offensive course syllabi has now been cleansed of unfair “oppressor” language. No horrid political documentary films are now considered mandatory for “building team spirit.” Certain academic departments have ceased requiring candidates for teaching positions to declare their commitment to DEI and its “inclusive pedagogy,” eliminating a practice that was guaranteed to filter out conservative applicants. Any who persist in partisan bias within their departments will deserve to be exposed as such.
Notably, while Davidson has a vice president for DEI, her inspiration is genuinely devoted to treating all students with respect, without shaming or blaming anyone based on their identity or views. Isn’t this more commendable than schools where they changed the name but not the game? Davidson president Doug Hicks immediately condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk as “reprehensible and unacceptable,” while encouraging civil debate among faculty and students on any related topic. This parallels his response in October 2023, condemning the Hamas raid on Israel, yet taking neither side of the history involved while encouraging students to listen to each other’s views in debate. This applies institutional neutrality at Davidson even if there’s no adopted policy by that name.
Regrettably, Davidson still fails to qualify for better than a mediocre (yellow flag) ranking for protecting academic freedom for students, among colleges evaluated by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). In a waste of resources, the catalog still offers dozens of curious courses catering to various identity crises in an overweight, poorly focused curriculum. As students begin to value what a future employer might find appealing or repulsive on their academic record, trifling course offerings should wither away.
Even so, there’s a credible degree of progress toward academic renewal, thanks to a more benign and respectful attitude on campus that deserves credit and encouragement. Davidson has reaffirmed its Latin motto, Alenda Lux Ubi Orta Libertas (“Let learning be nourished where liberty has arisen”) … also vice versa. It’s a good example of leadership for other schools to consider.
Respectfully,
James G. Martin, 70th governor of North Carolina
Author
Letters to the Editor
