Real education — Woodward versus Brandeis and Azusa Pacific universities

In the wake of a recent wave of controversial thinkers being disinvited* from universities, here is a classic quotation from Yale historian C. Vann Woodward on true education:

“The purpose of the university is not to make its members feel secure, content, or good about themselves, but to provide a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, the unorthodox, even the shocking —Woodward-CV all of which can be profoundly offensive to many, inside as well as outside its walls… .
“I do not think the university is or should attempt to be a political or a philanthropic, or a paternalistic or a therapeutic institution. It is not a club or a fellowship to promote harmony and civility, important as those values are.
“It is a place where the unthinkable can be thought, the unmentionable can be discussed, and the unchallengeable can be challenged. That means, in the words of Justice Holmes, ‘not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.’”

Real education is challenging, focuses on the biggest issues, and engages the hardest controversies fully. Especially in higher education — no shirking, no cowardice, and no excuses.

* Ayaan Hirsi Ali was to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis and Charles Murray was scheduled to speak at Azusa Pacific.

Related:
A long quotation from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty states much of my educational philosophy. In this exasperated post: Am I Really a Marxist Revolutionary?
Education: Locke versus Kant.

3 thoughts on “Real education — Woodward versus Brandeis and Azusa Pacific universities”

  1. Two academic friends, left and right, have said to me on a number of occasions, “I could never say this to my colleagues, but…” The wife of one, also an academic, coined a beautiful phrase commenting on it when she spoke of “the ivory tunnel.”

  2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a magnificent woman. Saw her speak in Toronto. Highly recommend her book ‘Infidel’.

  3. Ironically, my leftist academic friend, a tireless worker for the rights of the disenfranchised and marginalized, astonished me by agreeing with my critique of welfare and the welfare state. Spoke of successful programs that were repealed precisely because they were successful, thereby undermining the rationales of the institutions allegedly devoted to their aid.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *