> What we saw at UT-Austin was a huge gap in the study of the fundamentals of how free societies function, as well as the relationship between freedom and human flourishing.
You are young, talented, and the world lies before you. No one else can decide for you how you should use the unprecedented freedom we enjoy in America. Reflect on what freedom is, when and why it is good, and how you might best take advantage of it."
And as for contrarianism and intellectual diversity, there was plenty of that too. I took an excellent philosophy class taught by an objectivist (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/smithta), not exactly a mainstream philosophical discipline.
What I find surprising is that the donors, whoever they are, backed the switch. My impressions was college Presidents are hugely influenced by what their donors want. Maybe this is more true at private than public universities.
The statement "Ultimately, it was conservative...donors...who brought it down out of their unwillingness to confront a supposedly prestigious Texas institution" to be the unexpected bit. The conservative donors are exactly who I'd expect to be willing, nay eager, to confront UT, and have the power to do it. They can always take their money and donate it somewhere else.
This makes me wonder if there was something else going on. If the donors were really behind the original Liberty Institute proposal, they wouldn't have backed off so easily. Perhaps there's more to this story.
This is exactly why I don't contribute to the university. I earned an M.A. in philosophy from the university in 2003, but have never been able to bring myself to give money back to such a closed minded school.
> What we saw at UT-Austin was a huge gap in the study of the fundamentals of how free societies function, as well as the relationship between freedom and human flourishing.
This does not ring true to me as a recent UT grad. See this page on the Jefferson Scholars curriculum, just the first example that comes to mind: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/coretexts/academics/jefferson-scholars/index.html
"'An Education for Liberty
You are young, talented, and the world lies before you. No one else can decide for you how you should use the unprecedented freedom we enjoy in America. Reflect on what freedom is, when and why it is good, and how you might best take advantage of it."
And as for contrarianism and intellectual diversity, there was plenty of that too. I took an excellent philosophy class taught by an objectivist (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/smithta), not exactly a mainstream philosophical discipline.
What I find surprising is that the donors, whoever they are, backed the switch. My impressions was college Presidents are hugely influenced by what their donors want. Maybe this is more true at private than public universities.
The statement "Ultimately, it was conservative...donors...who brought it down out of their unwillingness to confront a supposedly prestigious Texas institution" to be the unexpected bit. The conservative donors are exactly who I'd expect to be willing, nay eager, to confront UT, and have the power to do it. They can always take their money and donate it somewhere else.
This makes me wonder if there was something else going on. If the donors were really behind the original Liberty Institute proposal, they wouldn't have backed off so easily. Perhaps there's more to this story.
This is exactly why I don't contribute to the university. I earned an M.A. in philosophy from the university in 2003, but have never been able to bring myself to give money back to such a closed minded school.
Bring on University of Austin instead!
How sad...