The Stewardship of Higher Education
Institutions endure only when their leaders understand the specific responsibilities they owe to those who sustain them. This principle applies as much to private universities as it does to family businesses or civic organizations. The tension between institutional mission and administrative convenience often reveals itself in how an organization defines its standards for competence and character.
Buckley’s Early Warning
William F. Buckley Jr. articulated this concern at age 25 in his book God and Man at Yale. He argued that faculty and administration at private institutions like Yale were responsible to their alumni. Those donors were largely Christian and individualist, supporting an education that advanced those values rather than undermining them.
Buckley observed that Yale treated honesty and professional competence as the sole metrics for faculty evaluation. Views on Christianity, democracy, or capitalism were deemed irrelevant under this framework. He believed this neutrality was a facade masking a bias toward skepticism and collectivism among students.
The Hypocrisy of Neutrality
Robert P. George revisits these arguments in his recent essay “God, Man, and Academic Freedom.” He agrees with Buckley’s assessment that Yale’s claim to neutrality was hypocritical. The university maintained a veneer of Christian identity for donors while most students avoided religion classes or encountered skepticism when they enrolled.
Buckley supported his claims with evidence from syllabi, campus newspapers, and speeches. He demonstrated how the institution hid behind an unattainable ideal of academic freedom to avoid accountability for its cultural direction.
Civic Formation
The deeper issue concerns the role of higher education in forming citizens. James Madison noted that a “well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” George identifies a tension between education for citizenship and liberal education defined as unrestricted truth-seeking.
While Buckley’s vision may have been misguided in some respects, his core argument remains relevant. Institutions must acknowledge their foundational commitments rather than claiming neutrality while advancing specific ideological outcomes. Stewardship requires honesty about purpose.