Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
The love of liberty has nourished our nation since before its founding. Yet classical liberalism, which ought to provide common ground for left and right in the United States, is under attack today by prominent elements of both.
Speaking in praise of freedom has fallen out of fashion in American politics. That throws public discourse out of step with the country’s constitutional system, which puts a premium on protecting individual liberty.
To secure the rights that inhere in all persons, American constitutional government weaves together competing principles and promotes compromise among rival interests even as it presupposes a citizenry disposed to tolerate a variety of opinions.
Fifty-five distinguished scholars will publish an open letter Wednesday morning protesting the one-sided and politicized curriculum framework introduced last year by the College Board to prepare high school students for the Advanced Placement Exam in U.S. history. The scholars assert that the College Board’s framework exposes the teaching of American history to “a grave new risk.” It does this and worse.
The annual ritual of freshman orientation, which begins in mid-summer and extends through mid-September, is in full swing. Colleges are welcoming students and showing them around, acquainting them with classmates and college facilities, and making them aware of the full range of campus activities, clubs, and programs.
In a June 4, 2010, Wall Street Journal column, republished in her new collection, “The Time of Our Lives,” Peggy Noonan tells the heartbreaking story of 28-year-old Detroit Tigers’ pitcher Armando Galarraga.
The slowly metastasizing assault on free speech that has played out on American college campuses since the 1960s has reached a crisis point. What’s needed is a concrete plan to restore liberty of thought and discussion to the American academy — a plan capable of focusing the support of sympathetic students, faculty, parents, alumni, administrators, trustees, and citizens, and their elected representatives.
The latest rounds of student rage over alleged racial discrimination—and the subsequent administrative acquiescence to student demands—at American universities should come as no surprise. For decades U.S. institutions of higher education have cultivated an obsession with supposedly hidden-but-ubiquitous oppression.
The amazing success of higher education in America obscures the crisis of higher education in America. According to the U.S. News and World Report 2016 rankings, the United States is home to eight of the top ten universities in the world and to a little more than half of the world’s top hundred universities.
A core curriculum is to a liberal education what the study of contracts, torts, civil procedure and constitutional law is to a legal education and what the rudiments of shooting and passing are to basketball—an essential prerequisite to excellence in the larger undertaking.
Conservatives have been at the forefront of the battle to defend liberal education against the politicization of the college curriculum, the promulgation of campus speech codes, and the denigration of due process—supported by the Obama administration’s Department of Education April 2011 Dear Colleague letter which advised colleges and universities to circumscribe the rights of the accused—in academic disciplinary procedures.
This week The Stanford Review—an independent undergraduate political magazine that seeks “to promote debate about campus and national issues that are otherwise not represented by traditional publications”—issued a bold manifesto aimed at advancing liberal education on campus and nationally.
The notion of requiring students to take two courses in Western Civilization to earn a diploma is so controversial at Stanford University that a recently launched petition that calls for as much has propelled the school into a heated debate complete with name-calling, intimidation tactics and more.
Most Americans understand that individuals who have been subject to an authorized disciplinary procedure and have accepted their prescribed punishment shouldn’t be investigated and punished a second time for the same offense.
Here are two interesting takes on free speech (or the lack thereof) on American college campuses. Jason L. Riley, a black conservative and Manhattan Institute senior fellow who often contributes to the Wall Street Journal, says he had an invitation to speak at Virginia Tech yanked.
On April 22, University of California Berkeley law professor Sujit Choudhry filed an 11-page single-spaced grievance with the 10-member UC Berkeley Privilege and Tenure Committee.
Much as administrators and faculty may dislike it, the fact is that public colleges are subject to both the First Amendment and the state legislatures that fund them. Legislators shouldn’t micromanage the campuses, but they must set some basic rules.
President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order prohibiting nationals from seven countries roiled by jihadism from entering the United States for three months—and the administration’s bungled roll-out of the order—reminded foreign policy elites in both parties why they feared and loathed Trump. As if they needed a reminder.
In an October 26, 2016, letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor David M. Post, chair of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct, defended the Ivy League institution’s “procedures for addressing sexual misconduct.” But his formulation betrayed him.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent. It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.