June 17, 2025 • 31 mins
Roger welcomes Dr. Jenna Robinson, president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, for a timely discussion on the state of American higher education and how to restore its core mission.
They examine the rise of administrative bloat in higher education, the spread of DEI bureaucracies and the decline of intellectual diversity on college campuses. They also explore how the Martin Center serves as a model to promote academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, institutional neutrality and transparency in public universities. Plus, reform efforts taking place in North Carolina, how legislative and trustee oversight can serve as tools for accountability and why students and faculty alike benefit from a renewed focus on academic excellence over ideology.
In addition to her work with the Martin Center, Dr. Jenna Robinson serves on the board of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, the UNC Alumni Free Speech Alliance and board member of the Board of Visitors at UNC Chapel Hill.
The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Liberty and Leadership Podcast,
a conversation with TFAS alumni,faculty and friends who are
making an impact.
Today I'm your host, roger Ream.
Today I'm joined by Dr JennaRobinson, the president of the
James G Martin Center forAcademic Renewal, an educational
nonprofit focused on publicpolicy.
(00:24):
Jenna serves on the board ofthe Alumni Free Speech Alliance,
the UNC Alumni Free SpeechAlliance, and is a board member
of the Board of Visitors at UNCChapel Hill.
Prior to joining the MartinCenter, Jenna was the EA Morris
Fellowship Assistant at the JohnLocke Foundation.
She has also taught courses inAmerican politics at UNC, chapel
(00:47):
Hill, southeastern BaptistTheological Seminary and Wake
Technical Community College.
Jenna's work has appeared inseveral publications, including
Investors, business Daily,forbes, human Events and the
Raleigh News and Observer.
Jenna, I'm grateful you couldjoin the Liberty and Leadership
podcast today.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It's great to be here , Roger.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Jenna, why don't we start with you describing the
mission and the work of theJames Martin Center?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Sure.
So the mission of the MartinCenter is to renew and fulfill
the promise of higher educationin North Carolina and around the
country, and we do that byoffering policy reforms that can
be enacted by statelegislatures, trustees and
university administrators.
We look specifically at acouple of issues.
We are interested in viewpointdiversity and kind of all that
(01:34):
entails.
We're interested in goodgovernance, a watchdog for the
taxpayers, innovative freemarket reforms and
cost-effective educationsolutions.
So really anything to do withhigher education that is part of
our wheelhouse.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Now, how does your work at the center aim to
influence higher educationpolicy?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
So we do two things we create policy solutions in
terms of model legislation,research on the problems, but we
also do education and sunlighton the problems that exist.
So we publish articles fourtimes a week highlighting the
critical issues in highereducation, the problems that
exist at public and privateuniversities, and then pushing
(02:14):
out that information tostakeholders so they know what
the problems are, and thenfollowing it up with the
solutions that we offer in termsof our model policy, our
blueprints for reform or othermaps, so that leaders can go
ahead and implement policiesthat will affect higher
education.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
I know you've had a lot of impact with that approach
.
Do you get much major pushbackfrom the other side, however?
That's defined from faculty oradministrators that don't like
these reforms?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Absolutely.
There's been a lot of pushback,either from people who say that
the problems we identify aren'treally problems, or disagreeing
about the solutions.
We've had a lot ofdisagreements about where
faculty governance and where thelines really are, whether a
university should be listeningto the legislature or entirely
faculty run, and so, yes, thereis contention, but I think that
(03:07):
by engaging with thosestakeholders and engaging with
people who we disagree with,we've been able to move the ball
forward.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I was thinking in my mind about the many issues you
have to deal with.
There is the free speech issue,which maybe we'll talk some
more about.
There's the issue ofinstitutional neutrality, which
a lot of people, I don't think,understand, and it's been an
issue at my alma materVanderbilt has dealt with.
There are issues of DEI, ofcourse, of faculties that seem
to tilt far to the left, notjust in the humanities and
(03:37):
social sciences but overall.
There are issues of, of course,student loans and funding and
anti-Semitism that have sprungup over the years.
But let's talk about some.
Free speech is one that hasbeen paramount over the past
decade or more, and it seems todeal both with the cancellation
of speakers on campus as well asthe censoring of students or
(04:00):
faculty who want to speak out onissues.
What are some of the problemsyou've seen in the area of free
speech that you had to deal with?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
You've mentioned two of them, that faculty and
students are censored in whatthey can say in the classroom or
out of the classroom, and alsospeakers who are invited
speakers by student groups orsometimes by the administration
itself.
There's pushback on campus andthen they get disinvited.
But the problems go furtherthan that.
You know.
There are the speakers whonever get invited because the
(04:27):
campus anticipates that thosespeakers would be too
controversial.
So we're missing out on all ofthat speech because just the
anticipatory cancellation ofthose people.
And then, in the same vein,students are self-censoring and
I think that's one of thebiggest problems and the hardest
ones to tackle, because it'snot a policy issue.
It's that students areperceiving that their speech
(04:49):
will be unpopular with theirpeers or maybe get them a bad
grade.
They don't feel confidentenough in their convictions to
say something that might beunpopular.
And it's especially bad withpeers.
They feel like the pressure isstrongest that they're going to
be canceled from peers.
And we know from survey datathat a lot of students say you
know, I wouldn't date someonewho is conservative or I
(05:11):
wouldn't want to be friends withsomeone who is pro-Trump, and
so that fear that students feeland the self-censoring that
they're doing is coming from agood read on the campus climates
in a lot of places coming froma good read on the campus
climates in a lot of places.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Where does a school draw the line, if you're an
administrator, between allowinga healthy environment for speech
, which is really a key part ofan environment where you want
people to be looking for truthand seeking the truth, you're
going to have things that arefalse, but then also you have
what we saw after October 7th of2023, this outburst of
anti-Semitism on campus.
How do you deal with that orbalance that?
(05:50):
Or, of course, a lot of thatwas outside of the normal
protocols at the university are.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
You know, vandalism is not speech.
Surrounding someone's car andentrapping them in it is not
speech.
Tearing down flags isn't speech, and so universities need to be
very clear about what is andwhat is not considered speech.
I think the other thing theyneed to do is be really clear
about their time, place andmanner restrictions.
So having a bullhorn andwalking through a building where
students are taking courses orthrough a library, again that is
(06:29):
a reasonable time, place andmanner restrictions, and then
they have to enforce thoserestrictions.
I think something that we sawafter October 7th is that
universities were not enforcingwhat they had on the books in
terms of time, place and mannerrestrictions, in the hopes that
the protests would die down, andthat didn't happen.
Everything just continued andcontinued to escalate.
So I think that universitiesarticulating their rules early
(06:52):
and often and enforcing thoserules as soon as they see
problems is really essential tomaking sure that things don't
get out of hand.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Now, what is this issue of institutional
neutrality?
I know your center has dealtwith that issue as well.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So institutional neutrality is just saying that
the institution itself won'ttake a position on political
issues, controversial issues,unless those issues are central
to the mission of theinstitution.
So the institution can speak upif Congress is going to cut its
funding or the president isgoing to cut its funding.
That's central to its mission.
But the institution, if it isbeing institutionally neutral,
(07:33):
won't speak up on the situationin Israel, kind of writ large.
And the way I like to analogizeit is to say that ideas should
have a level playing field andthe university is that playing
field.
Nobody gets home team advantage, no idea gets home team
advantage, and so all of thoseideas have to compete freely in
(07:54):
a marketplace where theuniversity isn't acting like the
cheering squad or the fans fora particular idea.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Now, how do you have the success you've had on the
free speech issue in NorthCarolina?
Did you work through universityadministrations or faculties or
the boards of regents that youhave in the state?
Speaker 2 (08:14):
So in North Carolina a lot of different stakeholders
worked on the free speech issue.
The legislature passed a bill,but also each individual
institution and the systemitself adopted their version of
the Chicago principles and theirversions of institutional
neutrality.
Faculties have adopted suchthings, and I think the biggest
(08:34):
and most important role theMartin Center played in all of
this was to emphasize theproblems that existed and tell
the stories of students who weredenied free speech, to
articulate to legislators thatlook these policies are on the
books, that are contravening theConstitution, letting them know
that, as a public institution,students and faculty should
(08:57):
expect constitutional freespeech, that universities should
be traditional public fora, andso doing all of that work,
informing people about thebreadth and depth of the problem
and what the solutions were,went a long way to ensuring that
we now have good policies inNorth Carolina on free speech
and, in many cases, goodpractices to follow those
(09:17):
through.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You made a reference to the Chicago Principles so I
have to, as an aside maybe,mention that that was a free
speech policy put in place atUniversity of Chicago is obvious
.
But a previous guest of mine,who was a trustee emeritus at
the Fund for American Studies,Mitch Daniels, took those
principles at Chicago and putthem in place at Purdue where he
was president, and he actuallycoined the phrase Chicago
(09:41):
principles because University ofChicago just had a policy and
he said let's use the Chicagoprinciples here at Purdue, and
then that caught fire and a lotof universities now have adopted
them.
I take it.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
They have.
It's been very widely adoptedthe Chicago principles of free
expression or slightly differentversions thereof, but they all
have that expectation of auniversity campus as a place
where free expression isparamount.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
We've heard a lot recently about universities
being especially publics, Iguess, but probably many
privates too are bloated withadministrators, many of them
probably enforcing.
You hear about the DEI officesthat might number in the one or
200 employees.
We had a student working forone of our independent papers at
(10:27):
Brown University recently sentout an email to all the
administrators there, that kindof mimicked the Doge email,
asking administrators to justifywhat they were doing in terms
of furthering the mission ofBrown.
But is there a real problemwith many universities becoming
bloated with administrators, andis that what's raised the cost
of education to some extent?
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Absolutely.
It is a problem at almost alluniversities In North Carolina,
where the tuition is actuallyquite low, we still have that
problem.
Administrators outnumberfaculty by almost two to one, or
more than two to one at all ofour 16 campuses.
It is a big problem becausethat's a great expense for the
university and also theadministrators are not always
acting in ways that are helpfulfor students or the university
(11:15):
campus itself.
As you said, there are DEIoffices that are often creating
division rather than endingdivision between students, and
you have bias response teams sothat students can report on each
other anonymously for speech,and so there are many reasons
for which we do need to look atadministrative bloat and take a
(11:35):
scalpel and get rid of the partsof the administration that are
not helpful, that are not addingto the university's mission,
that are not helping studentsand that are increasing the
bottom line for both taxpayersand students.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Now we've seen survey data that show that faculties
at many universities are skewedheavily toward the left.
I've seen, you know, in as muchas 90, 95 percent of professors
in particular fields voteDemocrat or are liberal.
It doesn't mean they aren'tgood professors of course there
are plenty of good professorsacross the spectrum but there is
(12:09):
this ideological bias, thisecho chamber that seems to be
created among faculties at many,especially elite universities.
Is there a way to deal withthat?
I mean, tenure probablyreinforces it.
But maybe the answer is whatwe've seen in North Carolina and
some other states, wherethey're setting up whole new
lines of schools or civicthought programs.
Talk about that a little bitand what's been done in North
(12:31):
Carolina.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
In schools across the country.
We've got these new, as you said, schools of civic life and many
of them are reinvigoratingfields that have kind of been
neglected and they're fieldsthat are of interest to
conservatives civics, history ofinstitutions, history of
American development, and sothat's one way to approach it
(12:53):
and I think that reinvigoratinga lot of fields that have been
neglected would be a good way toget more conservatives on
campus without having to do, youknow, affirmative action for
conservatives the terrible ideaand so reinvigorating, say,
military history is one way toget more interest by
conservatives to be professors,to become professors, to get in
(13:15):
that pipeline.
But I also think that the firststep should be to, you know, get
rid of these loyalty oathsmasquerading as DEI statements
that are screening out facultybased on their beliefs and, you
know, in anything else that auniversity is doing in the
hiring process that is acting asa de facto screening tool to
(13:36):
screen out conservatives.
That is, I think the first andmost essential step is to stop
pushing them out and then, youknow, see what happens, because
for a very long time it has beentrue that many departments just
actively are discriminatingagainst conservatives, and we've
got to stop that before reallythinking about active measures.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Yeah, I've read about that as an issue at Harvard.
Steven Pinker has talked aboutthe DEI statements that
professors have to write beforethey can be considered for
hiring, and I'm sure that's trueat a lot of other institutions.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
And I think the worst part of them is that if a
professor says, well, I treatall my students equally because
I believe in equality ofopportunity, then that will be
seen as the faculty committee,as a bad DEI statement that
disqualifies you.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Yeah, how do you go about getting you know the
leadership of universities tolisten to you when you issue
papers or promote reforms?
Is it usually a combination ofthe legislature and the
administration and the boards ofregents of these universities
that you have to kind oftriangulate?
But I mean, you've promoted alot of really sensible reforms
(14:48):
and some have been adopted.
Some, I'm sure, haven't yet.
What's kind of your strategicapproach?
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Sometimes it just depends on which is the
appropriate entity to dosomething.
So an issue that we're verypassionate about is
accreditation, and we have amodel bill on accreditation, and
it does three things.
It allows public universities inthe state that adopts this bill
to choose their owninstitutional accreditor.
It says that all accreditors,both programmatic and
(15:15):
institutional, can't forceinstitutions universities to
violate state law, and also saysthat universities can't accept
or not accept transfer creditsbased on the accreditor of the
institution that a student iscoming from.
And for something like that,the legislature is absolutely
the entity that must act, and soin that case, we would do a lot
(15:37):
of promotion around our bill,do a lot of education on
accreditation.
So we write a lot about what'sgoing on currently with
accreditation, how Betsy DeVoschanged the accreditation
environment to allow morechoices, what can be done, and
just continue to educatelegislators and all actors
really about changes that needto be made.
(15:57):
And, of course, we're promotingour model legislation at the
same time, and so, similarly,it's issue dependent, but in
public institutions and publicuniversities, it is these
pointed actors who are the oneswho can make the change.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Did Secretary DeVos' reforms in that area of
accreditation survive the fouryears of the Biden
administration?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
They did, and two states, including North Carolina
, have announced theirintentions to have all their
public universities leave theircurrent accreditor and go to new
accreditors, that's, northCarolina and Florida.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Are there accreditors that you think are much better
than others?
I mean, you don't have to namenames, but I just thought maybe
they all follow each other.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
There are signs that they are going to try to
differentiate themselves, andthere are also new accreditors
on the horizon.
We have at least three that Iknow of that are attempting to
go through the federal processto become accredited as new
institutional accreditors, and Ithink that's very promising so
that universities have moreoptions and, I hope, a lot of
differentiation, becausedifferent universities are
(17:00):
trying to educate differenttypes of students, are trying to
do different amounts ofresearch serving different
regions, and so we shouldn'texpect our creditors to look
exactly the same.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Another issue you've written about is the student
loan issue.
The Supreme Court and the Bidenadministration had different
opinions of what the presidentwas allowed to do or not.
They issued a ruling thatprohibited him from wiping out
student loan debt, but he wentahead and did much of that
anyway.
Where are we now and what canwe expect going forward, and how
(17:32):
big is the problem?
Speaker 2 (17:33):
We are now in a place where we have a new proposed
model of how student loans willwork, where it's much simplified
.
So we have one income-basedrepayment plan and then the
normal plan being proposed, andI think that that would go a
long way to simplifying whatstudent loans look like and what
students can expect, and Ithink that the expectation
should be that if you borrowmoney, you're going to pay it
(17:56):
back.
But I think what got us intothis situation is that many
universities encourage studentsto attend who they know are very
unlikely to complete, and if astudent attends a university,
gets one year, two years undertheir belt and then doesn't
complete their education,doesn't graduate, that student
(18:16):
is left with debt and nothing toshow for it, and so I
absolutely understand the angerthat a lot of students feel
about these student loans thatare hanging over their heads.
But I think that what we need,and what has been proposed, is
to have universities have skinin the game so that if students
leave the university and cannotpay their student debt, the
(18:36):
university is responsible forsome portion of that debt, and
that changes the university'sincentives right.
It means that they no longerwill try to attract students who
they think have no hope ofgraduating, and it will mean
also they will do more to ensurethat students stay at the
university.
They will do more to ensurethat students know what their
(18:57):
options are for careers afterleaving the university, and so
it really just encourages theuniversity to be more invested
in the students that theyrecruit in the first place, and
so I'm hopeful that in thefuture the student loan problem
and the federal loan programswill be in a lot better place
than they are right now.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Before recording this conversation here, the Trump
administration made anannouncement through Homeland
Security that they were going toprohibit Harvard from admitting
international students and Iwas astounded that I think it
was 27% of Harvard studentsadmitting international students
and I was astounded that Ithink it was 27% of Harvard
students are internationalstudents.
Yale had 28%.
One estimate was Columbia hadalmost 50% international
(19:36):
students and one of thearguments about this was that
Harvard accepts so manyinternational students, in part
because they generally arerevenue-paying, tuition-paying
students and it's a big sourceof revenue for the university.
I imagine some get financialaid of some kind from Harvard,
given their $50 billionendowment.
Do you see that as a majorissue at universities around the
(19:57):
country that they're acceptinga lot of foreign students, or is
that limited to just kind ofthe prestigious Ivy League and
maybe some Californiauniversities?
I don't know what you see inNorth Carolina.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
I think it is a problem that is just at our
elite institutions.
Most institutions across thecountry are either regional
public institutions or evenflagship public institutions,
and they're not admitting nearlythat many international
students, and so I think thatthis is something that has, in
instances, posed a problem atHarvard, where we see some of
(20:29):
the students who are coming inare bad actors, but it's not a
problem at most of our publicand private institutions across
the country.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
What do you think about the Trump administration's
effort to deny Harvard theability to bring in these
international students?
I know it's a new issue you'vemade out of study.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
If that ends up being the case that they can't admit
any international students Ithink that'll be a loss for
Harvard, a loss for thosestudents and a loss for the
country, and I think that thereshould be a way to thread the
needle on that instead of justcutting off international
students entirely.
I agree with the sentiment thatwe shouldn't be allowing bad
actors to come into our countryunder the guise of being
(21:04):
students, but I don't think thesolution is to end all
international students toHarvard entirely.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
In the future of higher education?
Do you think there'll be adisruptive model that might
change things dramatically?
You know it wasn't that longago where it seemed like online
universities were going to bethe thing, and obviously there
are a lot of people takingonline courses and a lot of
universities offering onlineeducation.
But will the traditional campuswhere students go for four
(21:34):
years still be the primary modelfor higher ed in the US in the
future?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It's an interesting time right now because, in
addition to all these otherissues we've talked about, there
is an enrollment cliff thatwe're facing because people are
just not having as many childrenas they used to, and 18 years
ago, right about now, is whenthey stopped having as many
children as they used to.
So we're at this precipice rightnow where enrollment is going
to decline steeply, and whatthat means is that universities
(22:01):
have to already, and will starthave to even more compete for
students, and I think that thatcompetition, if also accompanied
by competition betweenaccreditors, might mean and
maybe this is wishful thinkingmight mean that we get more
models than we've got now, andso, instead of having, you know,
one dominant model, we have aplurality of models where, for
(22:25):
some, higher education lookslike this we already know that
some schools are experimentingwith three-year models, for
example.
We know that Western GovernorsUniversity has a
competency-based model, and sowe are seeing little hints of
innovation around what highereducation could look like.
But I think, with this new,very intense competition that
I'm anticipating coming up soon,we might see even more
(22:48):
innovations, and I don't knowwhat all of those will look like
, but that's an exciting thing.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
I actually have heard about a program that enables
high school students to takeonline courses and then an exam
to demonstrate proficiency sothat they can get college credit
, and they can end up with awhole year of college credit
before they enter college.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Yeah, absolutely.
Or get through in three yearsand save a lot of money.
Absolutely yeah, dualenrollment is a big thing too,
where you're taking a class as asenior and it's counting for
both your first year of collegeand your senior year of high
school, and so there has been alot of experimentation and I
think that's exciting.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Now, a lot of us were astounded when the Trump
administration announced theywanted to cut off federal funds
to some of these eliteuniversities like Harvard and
Columbia and elsewhere, andastounded by the level of money
that goes there.
A lot of it's probably researchdollars.
I didn't look at the details,but is that common for a
research university to begetting billions of dollars from
(23:43):
the federal government?
Is that true even at like bigstate universities?
Speaker 2 (23:47):
It's very common for the federal government to be the
largest source of researchdollars at an institution,
regardless of the type ofinstitution if it's a research
institution, and so that wasn'tsurprising.
I mean, the magnitude of it, Ithink, when you look at it all
together, is very it's ashocking number, but the federal
government is the biggestfunder of research, especially
(24:09):
basic research, in this country,and so I think that
universities is a path forwardso that we can figure out a way
to have the federal governmentfund research in a way that
makes sense, in a way that isunbiased and in a way where we
can restore the agreementbetween the universities and the
(24:32):
people about what that money issupposed to be used for,
because I think that's reallywhat happened is the public
trust was broken.
Money is supposed to be usedfor, because I think that's
really what happened is thepublic trust was broken.
The public gives a lot of moneyto universities and they saw
that universities were notspending it the way they
expected it to be spent in waysthat promote the public good,
and I hope that we can rebuildthat trust and that agreement so
(24:52):
that the public anduniversities are both kind of
moving together on a researchprogram that makes sense for
everybody.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Now, one thing I didn't ask you is you're at the
James G Martin Center forAcademic Renewal.
Who is James G Martin?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So James G Martin is a former governor of North
Carolina, also a formercongressman, but he got his
start as a professor ofchemistry.
He taught at DavidsonUniversity and he went to
Princeton and he was anotoriously hard grader.
He didn't give very many A's atall and during his time at
Davidson and as governor ofNorth Carolina he was an
(25:27):
education reformer.
He was very interested incurricula and he now serves on
our board and is still a highereducation reformer and is still
involved with his alma mater,davidson, and is just a role
model for all of us in hisdiplomacy and in his
reform-minded attitude.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
My oldest daughter attended Davidson and graduated
from there, and I should haveknown that was where he was.
It is notorious there, I think,for being a school that's tough
to get an A at.
They decided not to give in tograde inflation and they tell
the parents at orientation.
You know your kids are used togetting A's in high school, but
probably only 10% will get an Ain a particular class, so we
(26:06):
were prepared for that.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Yeah, they might be one of the only holdouts.
Grade inflation is prettyrampant.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
We have a few professors who teach for us, who
also are holdouts in that, andsometimes it's a surprise to
students coming to our programsand taking our academic courses
when they don't get theautomatic A in a class.
And that is an issue you knowin higher education is not only
the fact that you know there'sthis tremendous grade inflation
but there also seems to be amuch of a weakening of the
(26:31):
curriculum at so manyuniversities where you look
through the course catalogs andsee the names of courses and
it's kind of sad to see thatstudents can get through a
four-year educationquote-unquote education taking
courses that we would have neverthought would be taught at a
university.
Is there anything you can doabout kind of strengthening the
liberal arts education?
(26:52):
Is that something you work onat the Martin Center?
Speaker 2 (26:55):
It is, and we are huge proponents of improving
general education.
One of our pieces of modellegislation, written with
Stanley Kurtz and David Randallpartners at other organizations,
is the General Education Act,which would restore a
traditional general education atone public university in each
state that adopts it just togive students an option of
having a traditional generaleducation, because at most
places, as you said, theofferings are weak.
(27:16):
In each state that adopts itjust to give students an option
of having a traditional generaleducation, because at most
places, as you said, theofferings are weak and general
education is really just a grabbag of whatever a student wants,
kind of within very broadcategories.
And so at most institutions youhave, you know, 2000 different
courses and of course, studentsjust want to pick.
In most cases, the easiestcourses are the ones where they
(27:39):
have read online that theprofessor is a you know fun to
listen to and a pretty easygrader.
So we think that generaleducation really is the key to
restoring the liberal arts,getting more students to go
through courses that matter,getting more students to go
through foundational courses sothey can build their knowledge,
so they're ready to take ontheir major.
But we also think that theseschools of civic life also have
(28:01):
a role to play here, because, inaddition to teaching the civics
component, they're oftenteaching great books components,
and I think that's a veryencouraging thing.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Is the School for Civic Life at UNC open to
students who are studying at theuniversity, or is it limited to
those that major in or attendthat school?
Speaker 2 (28:20):
It's open to anyone at UNC, chapel Hill and it is
offering a minor right now.
So students, regardless of whatother school they're in if
they're in the business school,the journalism school, it
doesn't matter they can come tothe School of Civic Life and
Leadership and get a minor.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Down the road another five or 10 years ahead.
What gives you the most causefor hope and optimism about
higher education and academia inour country?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
What gives me the greatest hope actually is coming
from K-12 right now, and thatis the resurgence of classical
education and the appetite forclassical education.
We are seeing so many studentsand families, now that they have
the options, now that we've gotreally strong school choice in
a lot of our states, that theyare choosing classical schools,
and that's something that givesme a lot of hope because it
(29:06):
means that there are studentsout there who want to think
deeply and take hard classes andlearn dead languages and are
interested in the liberal artsall of the things that if you
look at a typical college campustoday, you would think were
hopeless.
But if we're seeing thisresurgence in K-12, it means
that our future students inhigher education do have this
(29:30):
appetite and there is thisuntapped potential.
So that's an opportunity forall of our colleges and
universities to attract thosestudents, to offer those courses
, to offer those courses, tocreate those programs so that
students can continue to enjoy,you know, the great feast of
classical education, of liberalarts education that is out there
(29:51):
as they continue their journeyinto higher education.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
That's great.
I mean, it's a greatorganization and anyone
listening to this conversationcan go to our website to find
your address if they want tosupport the Martin Center.
I think you do great work.
You had me down there someyears ago to speak and you're
still around today, so yousurvived that.
But no, I think what you'redoing is a model for the rest of
(30:15):
the country, and the reformsyou're making in North Carolina
are having impact there, buthopefully will be spreading to
other states, including my homestate of Virginia, where we need
more of the reform that you'vedone there.
So congratulations on your 20thanniversary and all the work
you're doing, and I hope yougreat success in the next 20
years.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Thank you for listening to the Liberty and
Leadership podcast.
If you have a comment orquestion, please drop us an
email at podcast at tfasorg, andbe sure to subscribe to the
show on your favorite podcastapp and leave a five-star review
.
Liberty and Leadership isproduced at Podville Media.
I'm your host, roger Ream, anduntil next time, show courage in
(31:01):
things, large and small.
Welcome to the Liberty and Leadership Podcast,
a conversation with TFAS alumni,faculty and friends who are
making an impact.
Today I'm your host, roger Ream.
Today I'm joined by Dr JennaRobinson, the president of the
James G Martin Center forAcademic Renewal, an educational
nonprofit focused on publicpolicy.
(00:24):
Jenna serves on the board ofthe Alumni Free Speech Alliance,
the UNC Alumni Free SpeechAlliance, and is a board member
of the Board of Visitors at UNCChapel Hill.
Prior to joining the MartinCenter, Jenna was the EA Morris
Fellowship Assistant at the JohnLocke Foundation.
She has also taught courses inAmerican politics at UNC, chapel
(00:47):
Hill, southeastern BaptistTheological Seminary and Wake
Technical Community College.
Jenna's work has appeared inseveral publications, including
Investors, business Daily,forbes, human Events and the
Raleigh News and Observer.
Jenna, I'm grateful you couldjoin the Liberty and Leadership
podcast today.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
It's great to be here , Roger.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Jenna, why don't we start with you describing the
mission and the work of theJames Martin Center?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Sure.
So the mission of the MartinCenter is to renew and fulfill
the promise of higher educationin North Carolina and around the
country, and we do that byoffering policy reforms that can
be enacted by statelegislatures, trustees and
university administrators.
We look specifically at acouple of issues.
We are interested in viewpointdiversity and kind of all that
(01:34):
entails.
We're interested in goodgovernance, a watchdog for the
taxpayers, innovative freemarket reforms and
cost-effective educationsolutions.
So really anything to do withhigher education that is part of
our wheelhouse.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Now, how does your work at the center aim to
influence higher educationpolicy?
Speaker 2 (01:53):
So we do two things we create policy solutions in
terms of model legislation,research on the problems, but we
also do education and sunlighton the problems that exist.
So we publish articles fourtimes a week highlighting the
critical issues in highereducation, the problems that
exist at public and privateuniversities, and then pushing
(02:14):
out that information tostakeholders so they know what
the problems are, and thenfollowing it up with the
solutions that we offer in termsof our model policy, our
blueprints for reform or othermaps, so that leaders can go
ahead and implement policiesthat will affect higher
education.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
I know you've had a lot of impact with that approach
.
Do you get much major pushbackfrom the other side, however?
That's defined from faculty oradministrators that don't like
these reforms?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Absolutely.
There's been a lot of pushback,either from people who say that
the problems we identify aren'treally problems, or disagreeing
about the solutions.
We've had a lot ofdisagreements about where
faculty governance and where thelines really are, whether a
university should be listeningto the legislature or entirely
faculty run, and so, yes, thereis contention, but I think that
(03:07):
by engaging with thosestakeholders and engaging with
people who we disagree with,we've been able to move the ball
forward.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I was thinking in my mind about the many issues you
have to deal with.
There is the free speech issue,which maybe we'll talk some
more about.
There's the issue ofinstitutional neutrality, which
a lot of people, I don't think,understand, and it's been an
issue at my alma materVanderbilt has dealt with.
There are issues of DEI, ofcourse, of faculties that seem
to tilt far to the left, notjust in the humanities and
(03:37):
social sciences but overall.
There are issues of, of course,student loans and funding and
anti-Semitism that have sprungup over the years.
But let's talk about some.
Free speech is one that hasbeen paramount over the past
decade or more, and it seems todeal both with the cancellation
of speakers on campus as well asthe censoring of students or
(04:00):
faculty who want to speak out onissues.
What are some of the problemsyou've seen in the area of free
speech that you had to deal with?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
You've mentioned two of them, that faculty and
students are censored in whatthey can say in the classroom or
out of the classroom, and alsospeakers who are invited
speakers by student groups orsometimes by the administration
itself.
There's pushback on campus andthen they get disinvited.
But the problems go furtherthan that.
You know.
There are the speakers whonever get invited because the
(04:27):
campus anticipates that thosespeakers would be too
controversial.
So we're missing out on all ofthat speech because just the
anticipatory cancellation ofthose people.
And then, in the same vein,students are self-censoring and
I think that's one of thebiggest problems and the hardest
ones to tackle, because it'snot a policy issue.
It's that students areperceiving that their speech
(04:49):
will be unpopular with theirpeers or maybe get them a bad
grade.
They don't feel confidentenough in their convictions to
say something that might beunpopular.
And it's especially bad withpeers.
They feel like the pressure isstrongest that they're going to
be canceled from peers.
And we know from survey datathat a lot of students say you
know, I wouldn't date someonewho is conservative or I
(05:11):
wouldn't want to be friends withsomeone who is pro-Trump, and
so that fear that students feeland the self-censoring that
they're doing is coming from agood read on the campus climates
in a lot of places coming froma good read on the campus
climates in a lot of places.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Where does a school draw the line, if you're an
administrator, between allowinga healthy environment for speech
, which is really a key part ofan environment where you want
people to be looking for truthand seeking the truth, you're
going to have things that arefalse, but then also you have
what we saw after October 7th of2023, this outburst of
anti-Semitism on campus.
How do you deal with that orbalance that?
(05:50):
Or, of course, a lot of thatwas outside of the normal
protocols at the university are.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
You know, vandalism is not speech.
Surrounding someone's car andentrapping them in it is not
speech.
Tearing down flags isn't speech, and so universities need to be
very clear about what is andwhat is not considered speech.
I think the other thing theyneed to do is be really clear
about their time, place andmanner restrictions.
So having a bullhorn andwalking through a building where
students are taking courses orthrough a library, again that is
(06:29):
a reasonable time, place andmanner restrictions, and then
they have to enforce thoserestrictions.
I think something that we sawafter October 7th is that
universities were not enforcingwhat they had on the books in
terms of time, place and mannerrestrictions, in the hopes that
the protests would die down, andthat didn't happen.
Everything just continued andcontinued to escalate.
So I think that universitiesarticulating their rules early
(06:52):
and often and enforcing thoserules as soon as they see
problems is really essential tomaking sure that things don't
get out of hand.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Now, what is this issue of institutional
neutrality?
I know your center has dealtwith that issue as well.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
So institutional neutrality is just saying that
the institution itself won'ttake a position on political
issues, controversial issues,unless those issues are central
to the mission of theinstitution.
So the institution can speak upif Congress is going to cut its
funding or the president isgoing to cut its funding.
That's central to its mission.
But the institution, if it isbeing institutionally neutral,
(07:33):
won't speak up on the situationin Israel, kind of writ large.
And the way I like to analogizeit is to say that ideas should
have a level playing field andthe university is that playing
field.
Nobody gets home team advantage, no idea gets home team
advantage, and so all of thoseideas have to compete freely in
(07:54):
a marketplace where theuniversity isn't acting like the
cheering squad or the fans fora particular idea.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Now, how do you have the success you've had on the
free speech issue in NorthCarolina?
Did you work through universityadministrations or faculties or
the boards of regents that youhave in the state?
Speaker 2 (08:14):
So in North Carolina a lot of different stakeholders
worked on the free speech issue.
The legislature passed a bill,but also each individual
institution and the systemitself adopted their version of
the Chicago principles and theirversions of institutional
neutrality.
Faculties have adopted suchthings, and I think the biggest
(08:34):
and most important role theMartin Center played in all of
this was to emphasize theproblems that existed and tell
the stories of students who weredenied free speech, to
articulate to legislators thatlook these policies are on the
books, that are contravening theConstitution, letting them know
that, as a public institution,students and faculty should
(08:57):
expect constitutional freespeech, that universities should
be traditional public fora, andso doing all of that work,
informing people about thebreadth and depth of the problem
and what the solutions were,went a long way to ensuring that
we now have good policies inNorth Carolina on free speech
and, in many cases, goodpractices to follow those
(09:17):
through.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
You made a reference to the Chicago Principles so I
have to, as an aside maybe,mention that that was a free
speech policy put in place atUniversity of Chicago is obvious
.
But a previous guest of mine,who was a trustee emeritus at
the Fund for American Studies,Mitch Daniels, took those
principles at Chicago and putthem in place at Purdue where he
was president, and he actuallycoined the phrase Chicago
(09:41):
principles because University ofChicago just had a policy and
he said let's use the Chicagoprinciples here at Purdue, and
then that caught fire and a lotof universities now have adopted
them.
I take it.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
They have.
It's been very widely adoptedthe Chicago principles of free
expression or slightly differentversions thereof, but they all
have that expectation of auniversity campus as a place
where free expression isparamount.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
We've heard a lot recently about universities
being especially publics, Iguess, but probably many
privates too are bloated withadministrators, many of them
probably enforcing.
You hear about the DEI officesthat might number in the one or
200 employees.
We had a student working forone of our independent papers at
(10:27):
Brown University recently sentout an email to all the
administrators there, that kindof mimicked the Doge email,
asking administrators to justifywhat they were doing in terms
of furthering the mission ofBrown.
But is there a real problemwith many universities becoming
bloated with administrators, andis that what's raised the cost
of education to some extent?
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Absolutely.
It is a problem at almost alluniversities In North Carolina,
where the tuition is actuallyquite low, we still have that
problem.
Administrators outnumberfaculty by almost two to one, or
more than two to one at all ofour 16 campuses.
It is a big problem becausethat's a great expense for the
university and also theadministrators are not always
acting in ways that are helpfulfor students or the university
(11:15):
campus itself.
As you said, there are DEIoffices that are often creating
division rather than endingdivision between students, and
you have bias response teams sothat students can report on each
other anonymously for speech,and so there are many reasons
for which we do need to look atadministrative bloat and take a
(11:35):
scalpel and get rid of the partsof the administration that are
not helpful, that are not addingto the university's mission,
that are not helping studentsand that are increasing the
bottom line for both taxpayersand students.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Now we've seen survey data that show that faculties
at many universities are skewedheavily toward the left.
I've seen, you know, in as muchas 90, 95 percent of professors
in particular fields voteDemocrat or are liberal.
It doesn't mean they aren'tgood professors of course there
are plenty of good professorsacross the spectrum but there is
(12:09):
this ideological bias, thisecho chamber that seems to be
created among faculties at many,especially elite universities.
Is there a way to deal withthat?
I mean, tenure probablyreinforces it.
But maybe the answer is whatwe've seen in North Carolina and
some other states, wherethey're setting up whole new
lines of schools or civicthought programs.
Talk about that a little bitand what's been done in North
(12:31):
Carolina.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
In schools across the country.
We've got these new, as you said, schools of civic life and many
of them are reinvigoratingfields that have kind of been
neglected and they're fieldsthat are of interest to
conservatives civics, history ofinstitutions, history of
American development, and sothat's one way to approach it
(12:53):
and I think that reinvigoratinga lot of fields that have been
neglected would be a good way toget more conservatives on
campus without having to do, youknow, affirmative action for
conservatives the terrible ideaand so reinvigorating, say,
military history is one way toget more interest by
conservatives to be professors,to become professors, to get in
(13:15):
that pipeline.
But I also think that the firststep should be to, you know, get
rid of these loyalty oathsmasquerading as DEI statements
that are screening out facultybased on their beliefs and, you
know, in anything else that auniversity is doing in the
hiring process that is acting asa de facto screening tool to
(13:36):
screen out conservatives.
That is, I think the first andmost essential step is to stop
pushing them out and then, youknow, see what happens, because
for a very long time it has beentrue that many departments just
actively are discriminatingagainst conservatives, and we've
got to stop that before reallythinking about active measures.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Yeah, I've read about that as an issue at Harvard.
Steven Pinker has talked aboutthe DEI statements that
professors have to write beforethey can be considered for
hiring, and I'm sure that's trueat a lot of other institutions.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
And I think the worst part of them is that if a
professor says, well, I treatall my students equally because
I believe in equality ofopportunity, then that will be
seen as the faculty committee,as a bad DEI statement that
disqualifies you.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Yeah, how do you go about getting you know the
leadership of universities tolisten to you when you issue
papers or promote reforms?
Is it usually a combination ofthe legislature and the
administration and the boards ofregents of these universities
that you have to kind oftriangulate?
But I mean, you've promoted alot of really sensible reforms
(14:48):
and some have been adopted.
Some, I'm sure, haven't yet.
What's kind of your strategicapproach?
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Sometimes it just depends on which is the
appropriate entity to dosomething.
So an issue that we're verypassionate about is
accreditation, and we have amodel bill on accreditation, and
it does three things.
It allows public universities inthe state that adopts this bill
to choose their owninstitutional accreditor.
It says that all accreditors,both programmatic and
(15:15):
institutional, can't forceinstitutions universities to
violate state law, and also saysthat universities can't accept
or not accept transfer creditsbased on the accreditor of the
institution that a student iscoming from.
And for something like that,the legislature is absolutely
the entity that must act, and soin that case, we would do a lot
(15:37):
of promotion around our bill,do a lot of education on
accreditation.
So we write a lot about what'sgoing on currently with
accreditation, how Betsy DeVoschanged the accreditation
environment to allow morechoices, what can be done, and
just continue to educatelegislators and all actors
really about changes that needto be made.
(15:57):
And, of course, we're promotingour model legislation at the
same time, and so, similarly,it's issue dependent, but in
public institutions and publicuniversities, it is these
pointed actors who are the oneswho can make the change.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Did Secretary DeVos' reforms in that area of
accreditation survive the fouryears of the Biden
administration?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
They did, and two states, including North Carolina
, have announced theirintentions to have all their
public universities leave theircurrent accreditor and go to new
accreditors, that's, northCarolina and Florida.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Are there accreditors that you think are much better
than others?
I mean, you don't have to namenames, but I just thought maybe
they all follow each other.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
There are signs that they are going to try to
differentiate themselves, andthere are also new accreditors
on the horizon.
We have at least three that Iknow of that are attempting to
go through the federal processto become accredited as new
institutional accreditors, and Ithink that's very promising so
that universities have moreoptions and, I hope, a lot of
differentiation, becausedifferent universities are
(17:00):
trying to educate differenttypes of students, are trying to
do different amounts ofresearch serving different
regions, and so we shouldn'texpect our creditors to look
exactly the same.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Another issue you've written about is the student
loan issue.
The Supreme Court and the Bidenadministration had different
opinions of what the presidentwas allowed to do or not.
They issued a ruling thatprohibited him from wiping out
student loan debt, but he wentahead and did much of that
anyway.
Where are we now and what canwe expect going forward, and how
(17:32):
big is the problem?
Speaker 2 (17:33):
We are now in a place where we have a new proposed
model of how student loans willwork, where it's much simplified
.
So we have one income-basedrepayment plan and then the
normal plan being proposed, andI think that that would go a
long way to simplifying whatstudent loans look like and what
students can expect, and Ithink that the expectation
should be that if you borrowmoney, you're going to pay it
(17:56):
back.
But I think what got us intothis situation is that many
universities encourage studentsto attend who they know are very
unlikely to complete, and if astudent attends a university,
gets one year, two years undertheir belt and then doesn't
complete their education,doesn't graduate, that student
(18:16):
is left with debt and nothing toshow for it, and so I
absolutely understand the angerthat a lot of students feel
about these student loans thatare hanging over their heads.
But I think that what we need,and what has been proposed, is
to have universities have skinin the game so that if students
leave the university and cannotpay their student debt, the
(18:36):
university is responsible forsome portion of that debt, and
that changes the university'sincentives right.
It means that they no longerwill try to attract students who
they think have no hope ofgraduating, and it will mean
also they will do more to ensurethat students stay at the
university.
They will do more to ensurethat students know what their
(18:57):
options are for careers afterleaving the university, and so
it really just encourages theuniversity to be more invested
in the students that theyrecruit in the first place, and
so I'm hopeful that in thefuture the student loan problem
and the federal loan programswill be in a lot better place
than they are right now.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Before recording this conversation here, the Trump
administration made anannouncement through Homeland
Security that they were going toprohibit Harvard from admitting
international students and Iwas astounded that I think it
was 27% of Harvard studentsadmitting international students
and I was astounded that Ithink it was 27% of Harvard
students are internationalstudents.
Yale had 28%.
One estimate was Columbia hadalmost 50% international
(19:36):
students and one of thearguments about this was that
Harvard accepts so manyinternational students, in part
because they generally arerevenue-paying, tuition-paying
students and it's a big sourceof revenue for the university.
I imagine some get financialaid of some kind from Harvard,
given their $50 billionendowment.
Do you see that as a majorissue at universities around the
(19:57):
country that they're acceptinga lot of foreign students, or is
that limited to just kind ofthe prestigious Ivy League and
maybe some Californiauniversities?
I don't know what you see inNorth Carolina.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
I think it is a problem that is just at our
elite institutions.
Most institutions across thecountry are either regional
public institutions or evenflagship public institutions,
and they're not admitting nearlythat many international
students, and so I think thatthis is something that has, in
instances, posed a problem atHarvard, where we see some of
(20:29):
the students who are coming inare bad actors, but it's not a
problem at most of our publicand private institutions across
the country.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
What do you think about the Trump administration's
effort to deny Harvard theability to bring in these
international students?
I know it's a new issue you'vemade out of study.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
If that ends up being the case that they can't admit
any international students Ithink that'll be a loss for
Harvard, a loss for thosestudents and a loss for the
country, and I think that thereshould be a way to thread the
needle on that instead of justcutting off international
students entirely.
I agree with the sentiment thatwe shouldn't be allowing bad
actors to come into our countryunder the guise of being
(21:04):
students, but I don't think thesolution is to end all
international students toHarvard entirely.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
In the future of higher education?
Do you think there'll be adisruptive model that might
change things dramatically?
You know it wasn't that longago where it seemed like online
universities were going to bethe thing, and obviously there
are a lot of people takingonline courses and a lot of
universities offering onlineeducation.
But will the traditional campuswhere students go for four
(21:34):
years still be the primary modelfor higher ed in the US in the
future?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
It's an interesting time right now because, in
addition to all these otherissues we've talked about, there
is an enrollment cliff thatwe're facing because people are
just not having as many childrenas they used to, and 18 years
ago, right about now, is whenthey stopped having as many
children as they used to.
So we're at this precipice rightnow where enrollment is going
to decline steeply, and whatthat means is that universities
(22:01):
have to already, and will starthave to even more compete for
students, and I think that thatcompetition, if also accompanied
by competition betweenaccreditors, might mean and
maybe this is wishful thinkingmight mean that we get more
models than we've got now, andso, instead of having, you know,
one dominant model, we have aplurality of models where, for
(22:25):
some, higher education lookslike this we already know that
some schools are experimentingwith three-year models, for
example.
We know that Western GovernorsUniversity has a
competency-based model, and sowe are seeing little hints of
innovation around what highereducation could look like.
But I think, with this new,very intense competition that
I'm anticipating coming up soon,we might see even more
(22:48):
innovations, and I don't knowwhat all of those will look like
, but that's an exciting thing.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
I actually have heard about a program that enables
high school students to takeonline courses and then an exam
to demonstrate proficiency sothat they can get college credit
, and they can end up with awhole year of college credit
before they enter college.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Yeah, absolutely.
Or get through in three yearsand save a lot of money.
Absolutely yeah, dualenrollment is a big thing too,
where you're taking a class as asenior and it's counting for
both your first year of collegeand your senior year of high
school, and so there has been alot of experimentation and I
think that's exciting.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Now, a lot of us were astounded when the Trump
administration announced theywanted to cut off federal funds
to some of these eliteuniversities like Harvard and
Columbia and elsewhere, andastounded by the level of money
that goes there.
A lot of it's probably researchdollars.
I didn't look at the details,but is that common for a
research university to begetting billions of dollars from
(23:43):
the federal government?
Is that true even at like bigstate universities?
Speaker 2 (23:47):
It's very common for the federal government to be the
largest source of researchdollars at an institution,
regardless of the type ofinstitution if it's a research
institution, and so that wasn'tsurprising.
I mean, the magnitude of it, Ithink, when you look at it all
together, is very it's ashocking number, but the federal
government is the biggestfunder of research, especially
(24:09):
basic research, in this country,and so I think that
universities is a path forwardso that we can figure out a way
to have the federal governmentfund research in a way that
makes sense, in a way that isunbiased and in a way where we
can restore the agreementbetween the universities and the
(24:32):
people about what that money issupposed to be used for,
because I think that's reallywhat happened is the public
trust was broken.
Money is supposed to be usedfor, because I think that's
really what happened is thepublic trust was broken.
The public gives a lot of moneyto universities and they saw
that universities were notspending it the way they
expected it to be spent in waysthat promote the public good,
and I hope that we can rebuildthat trust and that agreement so
(24:52):
that the public anduniversities are both kind of
moving together on a researchprogram that makes sense for
everybody.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Now, one thing I didn't ask you is you're at the
James G Martin Center forAcademic Renewal.
Who is James G Martin?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
So James G Martin is a former governor of North
Carolina, also a formercongressman, but he got his
start as a professor ofchemistry.
He taught at DavidsonUniversity and he went to
Princeton and he was anotoriously hard grader.
He didn't give very many A's atall and during his time at
Davidson and as governor ofNorth Carolina he was an
(25:27):
education reformer.
He was very interested incurricula and he now serves on
our board and is still a highereducation reformer and is still
involved with his alma mater,davidson, and is just a role
model for all of us in hisdiplomacy and in his
reform-minded attitude.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
My oldest daughter attended Davidson and graduated
from there, and I should haveknown that was where he was.
It is notorious there, I think,for being a school that's tough
to get an A at.
They decided not to give in tograde inflation and they tell
the parents at orientation.
You know your kids are used togetting A's in high school, but
probably only 10% will get an Ain a particular class, so we
(26:06):
were prepared for that.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Yeah, they might be one of the only holdouts.
Grade inflation is prettyrampant.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
We have a few professors who teach for us, who
also are holdouts in that, andsometimes it's a surprise to
students coming to our programsand taking our academic courses
when they don't get theautomatic A in a class.
And that is an issue you knowin higher education is not only
the fact that you know there'sthis tremendous grade inflation
but there also seems to be amuch of a weakening of the
(26:31):
curriculum at so manyuniversities where you look
through the course catalogs andsee the names of courses and
it's kind of sad to see thatstudents can get through a
four-year educationquote-unquote education taking
courses that we would have neverthought would be taught at a
university.
Is there anything you can doabout kind of strengthening the
liberal arts education?
(26:52):
Is that something you work onat the Martin Center?
Speaker 2 (26:55):
It is, and we are huge proponents of improving
general education.
One of our pieces of modellegislation, written with
Stanley Kurtz and David Randallpartners at other organizations,
is the General Education Act,which would restore a
traditional general education atone public university in each
state that adopts it just togive students an option of
having a traditional generaleducation, because at most
places, as you said, theofferings are weak.
(27:16):
In each state that adopts itjust to give students an option
of having a traditional generaleducation, because at most
places, as you said, theofferings are weak and general
education is really just a grabbag of whatever a student wants,
kind of within very broadcategories.
And so at most institutions youhave, you know, 2000 different
courses and of course, studentsjust want to pick.
In most cases, the easiestcourses are the ones where they
(27:39):
have read online that theprofessor is a you know fun to
listen to and a pretty easygrader.
So we think that generaleducation really is the key to
restoring the liberal arts,getting more students to go
through courses that matter,getting more students to go
through foundational courses sothey can build their knowledge,
so they're ready to take ontheir major.
But we also think that theseschools of civic life also have
(28:01):
a role to play here, because, inaddition to teaching the civics
component, they're oftenteaching great books components,
and I think that's a veryencouraging thing.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Is the School for Civic Life at UNC open to
students who are studying at theuniversity, or is it limited to
those that major in or attendthat school?
Speaker 2 (28:20):
It's open to anyone at UNC, chapel Hill and it is
offering a minor right now.
So students, regardless of whatother school they're in if
they're in the business school,the journalism school, it
doesn't matter they can come tothe School of Civic Life and
Leadership and get a minor.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Down the road another five or 10 years ahead.
What gives you the most causefor hope and optimism about
higher education and academia inour country?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
What gives me the greatest hope actually is coming
from K-12 right now, and thatis the resurgence of classical
education and the appetite forclassical education.
We are seeing so many studentsand families, now that they have
the options, now that we've gotreally strong school choice in
a lot of our states, that theyare choosing classical schools,
and that's something that givesme a lot of hope because it
(29:06):
means that there are studentsout there who want to think
deeply and take hard classes andlearn dead languages and are
interested in the liberal artsall of the things that if you
look at a typical college campustoday, you would think were
hopeless.
But if we're seeing thisresurgence in K-12, it means
that our future students inhigher education do have this
(29:30):
appetite and there is thisuntapped potential.
So that's an opportunity forall of our colleges and
universities to attract thosestudents, to offer those courses
, to offer those courses, tocreate those programs so that
students can continue to enjoy,you know, the great feast of
classical education, of liberalarts education that is out there
(29:51):
as they continue their journeyinto higher education.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
That's great.
I mean, it's a greatorganization and anyone
listening to this conversationcan go to our website to find
your address if they want tosupport the Martin Center.
I think you do great work.
You had me down there someyears ago to speak and you're
still around today, so yousurvived that.
But no, I think what you'redoing is a model for the rest of
(30:15):
the country, and the reformsyou're making in North Carolina
are having impact there, buthopefully will be spreading to
other states, including my homestate of Virginia, where we need
more of the reform that you'vedone there.
So congratulations on your 20thanniversary and all the work
you're doing, and I hope yougreat success in the next 20
years.
Speaker 2 (30:34):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Thank you for listening to the Liberty and
Leadership podcast.
If you have a comment orquestion, please drop us an
email at podcast at tfasorg, andbe sure to subscribe to the
show on your favorite podcastapp and leave a five-star review
.
Liberty and Leadership isproduced at Podville Media.
I'm your host, roger Ream, anduntil next time, show courage in
(31:01):
things, large and small.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.