Transcripts For CSPAN2 Discussion 20240702

You see my hand, raise your hand please if you can see my hand raise your hand. See my hand, raise your hand. There we go. That was my k through 12 persona. Terrific, we are going to get started for our afternoon session. We were founded by the Colonial Assembly in the colony of massachusetts, they passed authority to the State Government at the time of writing of the state constitution so harvard is in the massachusetts state constitution. People have come to think its a private university. Go figure how that transpired, but Public University. Pleasure to be here and we are here also as one of coauthors of the educating for american democracy road map for k through 12 education and really a lot of the colleagues, jim are here who worked on that, peter levine as well and maybe some others who participated in that project, checker finn who is currently working with us was here earlier and as i think about the issue of Civic Education in the university, for me it boils to something very simple. The road map released in 2021 was the product of about 300 educators and scholars from around the country working on it. A group of people who spanned viewpoints and subject matter expertise and professional experience and we linked arms we said theres an urgent threat to the nation, kids do not have sufficiently rich opportunities for civic learning, they need core knowledge, they need civic skills and they also need civic dispositions an virtues an together we develop a framework that really had many important compromises in it. A commitment, for example, to educate not for testimony democracy and not for republic but constitutional democracy. A compromise phrase bringing the best of the arguments for both terms to the floor all three words are in the road map, the constitutional and democracy really sits tat center and another compromise around an old but now also reborn idea reflect patriotism, love of country but to marry love of country with the capacity for reflection and thoughtful engagement. That was a really important compromise in the work that we did. Also another important compromise in the work of road map was the idea that as we understand who we are individually and in community and as members of our society the right framework for thinking about challenges around diversity and inclusion is a framework of pluralism where we care about peoples different identities and also diversed ideologies that we are as interested in experience and religion, military service in racial and ethnic background. Pluralism concept was a really important achievement, and so when i think about Civic Education in colleges and universities, my answer now, my dream list to wish of what would happen on College Campuses is simply that all of our colleges and universities would turn out people with degrees, equipped to teach to educate for american democracy road map in our k through 12 schools. If our colleges and universities could deliver that, it would actually address completely our Civic Education challenge. So that means if one is thinking about Higher Education and higher ed and what do grownups need to know in order to teach this for kids, so with that im just delight today moderate what is going to be exciting challenge, two doctors thomas. We have dr. George thomas who is a professor and also book on the founders and the idea of the National Universities, very exciting piece of work dr. Robert thompson, contemporary civilization, of course, and core curriculum has given a lot of thought to that and we are in for a treat and i will hand it over first the george. Before i start, i want to say its a pleasure to be here. Im delighted to think about education in the american context and its great jenna who organized this. So let me start by saying that we have already been saying oh so often, often recognized that education, what is largely forgotten that most of the leading founders propose National University to this and in america, i think, we also like to remind ourselves of the history that we often forget especially given that our history so s so bound up with american identities, actually start with noah webster that in 1708s prior even to the Constitutional Convention is beraiding his fellow americans that they dont know American History at all and so i want to go back and look at part of this history and i want to try to keep remarks and reminding myself and i forgot to stop timing myself, i want to keep my remarks under 15 minutes so we can save time, i think, for conversation and i want to make two essential points. And one really is a point about american constitutionalism and thats link between constitutionalism and education that we so underplay and i will get to that in just a moment and the second, what kind of Civic Education were they attempt to go create and turn back to understand the context of education at the time of the founding, right, and as professor allen who has pointed out. I cant tell you how often somebody from harvard would inevitable say dont we already have a National University but then slipped in so quickly so some could say, yeah, and start to say, this is really a private institution and we are making a private, so we could really to this. We could seize your endowment and use it for our own ends. [laughter] a third point and im going to say loaded right now, and because in part my talk is much about american constitutionalism about Civic Education, but i think what unites is James Madison, what unites them in some way against our comp temporary understanding is constitutional democracy, i like that framing of it is not neutral. Its neutral on certain issues at certain times but its not a neutral political regime and neither are public universities or Public Institutions or private institutions that are in some sense set out to support american constitutional democracy again they can be neutral on certain issues but not neutral overall. So let me start with the National University. We tend to take our Democratic Institutions for granted assuming that theyll be selfperpetuating. Not just public leadership in public Leadership Class but certain ideas that were essential for Democratic Institutions. They did not as so often said think that the constitution was a machine that would go of itself. Its also while we are reminding ourselves to have history we tend to forget, lull didnt mean it that way. Lull gave us to phrase to us in a speech in constitutional degeneration. He was reminding americans that they shouldnt take Democratic Institutions for granted precisely because they were not selfsustaining. And so he like the founding generation thought of education as a way to frame a mindset and culture that was crucial to carries forward the constitutional project and the constitutional imperfect experiment, part of what i highlight here is that we now take the constitution little document largely enforced by courts and lawyers and we are engaged in this process of legal interpretation. I think one of the key things is precisely the fact that in some sense, right, we have given the project of constitutional maintenance to lawyers and to judges rather than to citizens or to members of congress or the presidency and so they understood the constitutional more as an ongoing project. It was hardly just about legal interpretation but it included the ideas of citizens. Let me start, i think, looking back with the question that the founding again ration was thinking about in terms of why they wanted a National University. It is what unites us as people. Providence was please today give the country a United People descended from the same ancestors speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attach today the same government, jays sentiment reentered the public sphere as we can see resurgence of nationalism. The founders on the whole rejected and certainly those who framed or wanted the university rejected this understanding. Diverse and growing nation the shared mindset and understanding committees to certain political and think of it more in terms of civic culture than just legal institutions, youre padsing on the political principles and understanding the mindset. Let me give because it is unknown. Just a brief history. I wont go over all the thinkers who supported the idea of National University but just a brief history. It first comes up with Benjamin Rush. It comes up prior to the Constitutional Convention. Madison actually seconded by wilson made the motion at the Constitutional Convention but then it is picked up by every president until John Quincy Adams and comes up again in interesting ways right after the civil war for reasons we will not get into in just a moment and there the fight and this is where Charles Elliot of harvard returns they start to resist the president of the established University Start to resist and call for National University because they want to keep this for themselves but also gets debated for the last time in congress in 1914 or 15 but the important part of it is early america is precisely constitutional project that theyre trying to create Democratic Institution that is we take largely for granted. The real revolution is just begun, Benjamin Rush echoes this again in the months before a Constitutional Convention. And so their argument is that we need to bring out the idea and the principles of what they will call constitutional democracy in order to sustain this experiment in government, education is an absolutely essential part of this. Im going skip over all the calls. George washington, James Madison but it includes jeffersonians, most things can be left to the state but this is not one of them. It needed to be national and it need today be public and jefferson would, of course, and i can talk about this in the q a, everjon would have taken the ideas as part of founding the university of virginia with James Madison which is in some ways is where the National University is most important in terms of its influence, the curricula out of virginia and the reason for the university of virginia is largely on the arguments of a National University. So why a National University, to understand the second part of it. If i focus largely on the idea that you need the habits of mind of the people, right, not just legal ideas about a constitution to carry this constitutional project forward. Why werent the colleges and universities tat time largely colleges up to the task and just on this i know theres been talk about bens university of North Carolina but claim to be Public University in the nation and largely i think because it actually put forward in the 1776 North Carolina constitution. Doesnt actually come about until 1789. Until the university of georgia makes a similar claim, right, but its in the constitution. The short of it at the time were church State Colleges and varied to different levels. Harvard was deeply a church State College so was yale. Princeton where theres a weaker establishment much less of the university of pennsylvania actually stands out in interesting ways because it has no religious affiliation and is actually thinking of itself very much along the lines of an educational enterprise committed to the new order, a new constitutional democracy. So part of what i highlighted in the book but wont go into detail here about is Constitutional Orders, youre moving from the Colonial Church state organization which is no webster, was largely monarchacl and you had the break the theology and move to a secular basis. Let me be quick to add at this point, in the book i news noah webster 1828 definition of secular which just means it was not founded on theological authority. It creates a place for religious liberty there but doesnt formally or endorse it. Jefferson and madison werent safe but there will be religious liberty, kind of the shift in mind captured by the idea that what the proproponents of the National University want today capture was teaching Something Like religious liberty as the kind of constitutional knowledge. Thats a principle committed to your own religious belief and so let me just address this question, why do we care why does it matter. My vote would be to call them programs in constitutional studies. I know thats probably sort of not the winning vote for political reasons and that makes sense. Constitutional studies that includes all kinds of things that come about with constitutionalism like literature and philosophy and history of certain sort that is felt under that umbrella because when we reorganize knowledge those things come with it in important ways and we dont think of constitutionalism along those lines but thats part are thinking about constitutionalism should be much more capacious because part of it is the fact that we neglected constitutionalism in the civic realm is why we end up with so many people not understanding Constitutional Government and we are trusting lawyers to do the job and they dont always do the job well and its not only because they are problematic themselves but they are looking at them through a narrow realistic lens and that doesnt begin to canture the constitutional universe but trying to so i think a lot of these civic programs have something deeply familiar and for those reasons. How do you cultivate and how you cultivate in a critical way deep understandings about constitutional democracy. Think about constitutional institutions and driven more by career concerns and the market and thats also compounded by a kind of commitment to politics in a narrow and partisan often deeply left manner and that is education, mindset that you want to cultivate at the University Level by way of Civic Education. So i think that in some ways refounding the curriculum or rethinking about the curriculum can be hedge of selfinterested notion of we are teaching Critical Thinking and these are concerns and in this way, i want to put the emphasis on thinking on the past. The way to maybe make programs really work is to put history at the center and put the american regime as a Constitutional Order at the center of that and think of it in an investigative manner. So you put it up as a question, right, crucial to the american regime and then in doing so you also have to look back, right, whats the american regime created against and what are the other kind of political philosophy out there that we need to think about in order to understand the american regime as a constitutional regime and then we put the history as well because that puts both, the bad parts of history and the good parts of history, the conference that is we do often lead out as we talk about the american Constitutional Order without talking about all of its flaws like the fact that we brought a civil war, deeply profound constitutional failure in the middle of this and it was over ideas essentially and i dont think we think enough about that but thats my minor suggestion for what this kind of education might look like in our present time i will send there. Thank you very much. [applause] hello and thank you for having me. So one century and 15 minutes, buckle your seat belts and the automotive metaphor is appropriate because we will be betting into some curricular nuts and bolts here. First, how did this project come out, in 2019 colombia curriculum turned 100 years old. I wont talk about all 7 courses, rather, i will just focus on contemporary, the first 1919 course because was and still argued a civics course, anyway, in 2017 i was teaching then director roosevelt montage some of you may and we both saw theres enthusiasms in really getting in the history for the core celebration and but the course premise is that during crisis and birthdays those are times to reflect and reconstruct two terms from john, ccs godfather and he pitched Butler Library on an exhibit. I spent a year in the archives and here was two weeks before covid shut it down and then it was slowly disassembled over the next few months with nobody able to see it. So the library did put a few items here and put that link, this slide show and link with other useful files with video of my talk online. So, first, ccs origin and evolution. We will ask what the changes can teach us and if todays cc is still civics, unchanging problem that cc and courses have always phrased and im sure theyll be some questions about the protests going on out there right now. But id like to start with a quote looking back from 1932 edmon recalled the spirit. In 1914 he wrote sorry moor is on the campus and readed new republic and eagerly expecting of the Great Society that created intelligence was to usher in. Hg well had given us the vision. Those names suggest cc began as a progressive project, hg wells, peace activist and, yes, sifi writer was a real rock star in 1914. Wallace member of the society and edmon and other framers were his students. 3 ideas were at the heart of cc, first reflective intelligence that is the individual facing a problem reflects on past outcomes before acting. Second idea is related, humans acting together must also reflect to solve shared problems and this is where historians come in and the new history 1910 robinson had said the past most be usable using the shoots of todays problems that solutions are hear, robinson they cowrote books together, signing civilization, and thats still very important to cc. So also touted k through 12, in fact, robinson advised the same as 1916 committee. World war i would create instrumentalities useful to post war and cc was one result. But before we go to cc, i just want to show you a few slides showing how seriously colombia took its own civic duty in 1917. So this is the steven Army Training corp in front of lowe library and all the alma mater. These are the same steps looking to quad, recent encampments are in front of the bleachers. The main thing is that colombia also wrote the satc course used nationwide and this was largely civics propaganda as well but mostly civics. Peace issues and cc was born. This new course plays freshman history and philosophy 4 days a week and students met for Small Group Discussion and 142page outline covering just to gloss here. Problems with representation, it goes on like this for id say a good dozen pages before then turning in 1925, john herman randal, then 22, making to have modern mind leaving primary source excerpts into trailtracing ideas, beliefs and expressways here is randal writing modern mind. [laughter] this block was a little blockbuster. Its still worth checking out. Cc had so much history and it split into 2. Covered the making, the second year cc tackled the problems. During the depression economists, the second gear into a new deal primer. Time magazine. Very democratic and the exams were tough. Look at question number 2 here. Reserve requirements, regulations concerning readies counting of commercial paper and so on and i asked this one question and this goes on for 3 pages so very deep in the weeds on the new deal. But if the tax were hard, ccb field trips were great. You could tour the tunnel on foot. You could visit the stock exchange. In fact, you had to visit at least six of dozens of industrial sites and learned how they worked. Also during the depression and this is key, colombia rebooted the important books course that john had offered in the 1920s, yes, this was the course that they took to chicago in 1929, birth of great books. New required version humanities joined cc as required course, why. Students prefer classic text to textbooks, so in 1941cc also switched to source books. Now, cc becoming a great books course . No, books on teams, cc read excerpts with opposing views just on topics relevant to now. Remember the new history. So you see many short temperatures between 5 and 30 pages on such topics there. Political economy, philosophy, religion and then in the spring it finished with these topics. Two volumes that came along with these books. Now all of these books were really the key to ccs success, by 1955, cc four volumes nationwide, ccb by that year turned into survey and we will come back to those but the point i make right now is that all this publishing did much more than pay the bills. Let me explain. For many decades the core was run to department to college faculties, undergrad in their own fields demand the core. Cc itself had a chair, planning was done in committee and Editorial Committee in charge of all the books become the sources brain keeping both the books and courses up to date, this then was ccs golden age but if theres one thing there are no permit golden ages and so the trouble began with ccb which was never popular in 1961, the second year became optional and social scientists left the core and then came 1968. Now, cc was not a casualty of the protests per se rather the course with finger to the wins would form the course just days in advance of the protest. What was the students biggest grudge, it was these books. Huge expensive with authoritative context wrapped around them. Books had to go and when the smoke cleared cc resumed with the famous syllabus, so you see, actually it was the revolution and identity kill bus eerily enough. I think it meant Something Different at the time. Cc staff reexpanded the syllabus and by 1990 it looks pretty much like it does now. This years fault tax and i apologize for that small print. So we have the greeks, the bible, islam, lots of early modern texts and medieval texts and then onto hobbs at the end. In the spring theres smith, note the u. S. Haitians founding text, and then this year shorter text along with the usual suspects and the last 3 weeks instructors with options and i believe this years options were race and gender or climate change. Okay. So, again, truly cc was short livered but the changes to 1960s mattered in at least 3 ways. First, ccb opened the course to charges of irrelevance and second, the loss of the Editorial Committee has been less revision, third, the loss of edited volumes and context had obscured the difference between cc and the literature course and, of course, as we weve seen the string ends with more radical works to compensate for loss relevance in hopes of meeting students halfway. So is cc still civics, well, i was thinking it certainly is until i read your paper and then it gave me pause, there certainly was much more civic in earlier version starting with the 1919 version . Here is how that ccb the social course ended in the 1950s. Fair amount of illumination on problems of liberal democracy. And briefly after ward, even a ccb that was almost entirely American History and this versions really quite wonderful sourcebook called the shaping of the american tradition, now, unfortunately neither version of cc was popular. There were several others besides, both of them were hard to staff and is that course perished. Back to the question, is cc still civics. Im going to go out on the limb and say, yes, it is. It covers foundational thinkers and their critics, two, it models liberal discussion in person unlike social media and, three, reading idealogues inoculates most students against living once. Its one thing to teach Judith Butler to say the latest round in 25hundred year dialect and another only butler and those who agree with her and worth noting that when Judith Butler was a professor at colombia she taught cc, so did susan in the 50s. So much more the 1960s. Anything from cc century long shift to Something Like great books. I think so and its this. The students cutting real quick and the issues changed and constant reinvention and huge required courses 60 sections in the case of cc. Its just not sustainable, better to swap classic text in and out or post topical arts or what students care about. Okay. Thats it for change. Here is cc chair, year is 1955, thats the very peak of the golden age of cc. Began departing memo by speaking of running cc for a decade. His work as chair since 1950, revisiting cc books, remaking ccb and creating its book and getting social scientists to teach. He had a 35 member staff, 50 sections. The staff is strong in equal rights, maybe stronger than ever but then comes will win true for any who has run a college program. Toddes College Faculty he says if you know much about cc and they care less. Department heads treat it as distraction from proper work. The best ones let go or quit of 34 teachers last year, only 2 were four professors. The younger one with distinct kind of class separation that turn academic and would not be applicable. Note 13 years before 1968, all i can say i dont much like it. Lets search the big problems civic is the conflict between the imperative of the college and those of the university. The latter with knowledge. Both are necessary but for the past century only science has brought the grants, the patents, the corporate money, the expansion at home and abroad, so few want civics secure the autonomy of the college but without fettering it from the university. Thank you. [applause] thank you so much. I feel like faculty has come. [laughter] such an incredibly good i dont know what to do with myself. Thank you if that. Youve given us an amazing survey of aspirations across span of time of this countrys history. What i would like to do first is ask you to think forward a little bit. Over the course of the morning and now as well weve had a chance to think about different work that we consider worthy and worth our time, worth intellectual time, early modern resources, constitutionalism, the great 20th century social theorists and the like. Theres just too much to learn too much to know but what you both done is also show very forcefully how at critical moments you said birthdays and crises, some sort of individuals have achieved a diagnosis of their contemporary moment and intellectual needs. So i wonder what we might look forward, which things that we loved we want to refer and rather ask the question what precisely are the intellectual needs right now that we want to equip of the rising generation for. So if you both might take a run at that question and then we will open it up to the room. Well, i a lot comes as a whole for people who dont like western centric. You know, someone i cant remember in which talk brought up a World Literature course. There has been attempts to have some pilot versions of cc that are global in scope that, you know, bring buddhist text and confusion text and these were in dialogue with one another. Its a bit forced when you assemble with global text. So i think one way of getting around the problem bringing other texts in and you have nonwestern texts, recent and critical. These traditions are everywhere, so so it sounds like your answer partly that we do actually need to connect learners to a global kind of traditions but your point too that you want to rebalance strictly critical lens . Yes. I think one of things i think he is lacking in students explains many of the problems are wrestling with is a lack of knowledge about history. And i found the lack of knowledge of that history to be deeply important. When you talk about religious liberty. Take this for grants i did not know they were enforcing that recently in places where you could be coerced. Why did you actually think of individual rights in the first place . Going back is the way your world is organized and how you think about things i thought the way the world has always been. Situations in historical terms really brings the lack of knowledge on the think it makes him curious. They become open to thinking about not just the present when you do it by way of history theres less contemporary ideology attached to it. Mcgraw made that point you entered historical debate they dont necessarily come in thinking this is where i am. Im struck by very smart students often how can you situate a particular book and a timeline . The fact that we can is why they dont understand. Cannot read a quote . Thats on my phone come not checking tiktok. Quick please do that but its impossible now. Let me see if i can find it here. Good for you. Let me see if i can find it. This is from a memo written by another disgruntled chair in 1968 papers in the basement of hamilton were famously burned. That was supposed to be his next book. [laughter] he was running around his hair on fire before the president s perch is happening but knew something was coming. Weve got to reform the court the students are not present. Took the staff to retreat and they tried to come up with a rationale for the courts the first of all subscribed to the original rationale of 1919 and then they said an awareness of the context of most issues arise is requisite for an understanding of the truth which poems are stated and dealt with his knowledge of the variety of alternative solutions theoretical and practical the problems allowed to this approach the student is encouraged to read critically and develop sound judgment. That history is almost entirely gone. It initially it was precisely wt youre talking about. Let me make one observation. George, i was really struck in your remarks about the National University in your description of its project has been the creation or development of a constitutional culture in effect. The mindset and the like. I suppose the question i propose to another version of it will be Something Like if we thought now as we might reasonably think we need to start fresh constitutional mindset what would that look like in the contemporary moment . I would imagine look somewhat different its a different time and place. I wonder if thats a reasonable way of putting the question of what a project is . And so we live in a world incredible scale and complexity, and governance problems are all around us. All of our institutions are suffering under strain of governance and capacity in relationship to problems at hand. And in the context of that sort one does need to rebuild or create a culture capable of understanding governance or institutions. As a sense from scratch its like roughly speaking where we are to be blunt about it. Where do you start . Im not sure you do start with plato but thats the question really asking. Where do you start if youre trying to build a constitutional culture mindset from scratch and Current Conditions . Lets throw it open maybe someone has an answer to that question which would be really wonderful. Im sure you have other questions for the panel two. Over here. Thank you. This questions for george thomas. Im a director of the center and should be happy with that title. My question is good one of the innovations of it was becoming secular but in the way you describe which is not against religion but theologically agnostic. One story of western universities different times, different disciplines the organizing structures so it theology, philosophy my question is twofold. One is university of virginia innovation dimension Charles Elliott put into practice the system at harvard university. The ascetic protruding factor complete disorganization of disciplines and second you ended with an uplifted note putting the american regime at the center of our curriculum. What makes you think it has the resources to be able to organize University Curricula . Im thinking about discipline of biology. Some of the first question again on the university of virginia . The. [inaudible] quick so i suppose it most certainly did. This is over get to the tension within the modern universities in the late 19th century. The discipline of knowledge because on the one hand who break who has a stranglehold you want to be free to explore knowledge generally and cultivate that knowledge and to that degree it does decentralize and there is something to that. I think in part, on the one hand we think thats a very good thing it allows for knowledge to develop and all of these ways you have universities today single what you do . We are in the business of cultivating knowledge. I think that is to write the catch is and this is great which you are pointing to is dont you have these other kinds of obligations as well . I think that is more difficult because i think in this is the public universities the private can be very useful for private universities to have commitments that dont really concern themselves with the political regime at all and are organized along a certain orthodoxy that would be just fine republican institutions are doing it that part is problematic. I think is so far as you are also wanting to cultivate a certain kind of understanding for citizens and for the political order. I think theres going to be some tension there and decentralization is inevitable. Again this is always ubiquitous so Civic Education of liberal and i think there is. I think it can be done a more healthy and productive way. Goes, right up here. The mike is coming there you go. Thank you professor alan i love how you open this idea we really love to do is maybe it move students among receivers of knowledge to givers of knowledge. I think that is a beautiful age is definitely something i would love to think about doing as a teacher. Talk court im embarrassed to say its probably the most amazing experience. I am very anxious we cannot do this to work just inside the classroom. The classroom has almost become this tiny part of the university in the large part what you thint what your diagnosis is im wondering if you could comment how you understand the institution at the time allocations how you understand inside the classroom versus what is happening outside the classroom. Where should we be making those . Where we may be too focused on what happens inside the classroom versus outside. Fantastic question. This should mention that recently eric holder is a columbia alum. One of the students who took over buildings at some point in the 70s. He love the core is the holder censures that right . The purpose of that is to remedy that relative lack of the core someone else said today i think when you hear engagement it often means channel your energies into some kind of protest. Bread french theory a few years ago. Some observes in this book you proposed speaking of the state as a frenchman speaks about the french say its a monolith is a giant agenda you can pull things that will still be there. The treat the american state like that just is not that way. At any level. I would like to see a center where people are going into internships to congress and things like that. During break i walked around the block i saw the university of california Washington Center i was an intern here 25 years ago. Congressional pages and volunteers for every Civic Institution and city. That is a great program. Columbia should have that. There should be a history course required. [laughter] really quickly august the second part that i neglected. I would start smaller and if you want to start smaller it does the kinds of things ive given thought too. The modern university is this huge thing. I have nothing to say about. I want this to proceed. We want that kind of knowledge to be cultivated and we dont actually want to get deeply political there. We would largely be talking about his undergraduate education. Undergraduate mission of the university of the liberal arts college to lend themselves to this. There you can focus more narrowly. To me this isnt an experience f teaching and thinking about it when you are putting either big political principles question her big idea questions putting them into Historical Context is the best way to do it insofar as it forces the students to think about those issues. It does not try to amp up to be to grant all at once. Which could also be offputting. I dont know their grand solutions to many of these problems. Its a great question youre also not going to start from scratch. You dont ever get to historically. You are always starting where you are. Lots of different institutions trying these two Different Things is probably a good way to start to do this. A quick note on that, that is super important point. Weve been hearing different examples about success cases, often the success cases of specific teachers who have a specific contextual vision and oversubscribed course the get the opportunity to grow or particular leaders of you see that you described who have a vision and carried it forward in the course of time with their energy specifically but this discussion was a problem or as a Cornerstone Program for a significant amount specifically in terms of that. I want to underscore your point about context and the need for specific teachers in place to answer specific teaching problems in place. I think i saw a hand back here. Chris greene from ole miss. Im curious about these discussions about the columbia stuff interact with the idea of 14th amendment equal citizenship. A lot of people during reconstruction say all citizens of all creeds, harkening back to jeffersons first inaugural have the right to the same civil rights, because a lot of, we dont agree on religion so we have to agree on political creeds and this columbia stuff is like lets give them all this nonsense, what about people who think its nonsense, if columbia were state school, would they be obliged to do things differently. First of all, that was 1919 and if you go through the syllabus from 1919 and i encourage you to do that, you will see the phone weight is outlined in done is it is truly a liberal course. It gives points pro and con on every issue so that students could debate it in class. Columbia in 1919, progresses many students were not back in the day so there would have been interesting conversations in the seminar rooms. In terms of the founding generation thinking about education generally, one of the reasons why State College wouldnt be sufficient, not that religion couldnt contribute in important ways as jefferson pointed to his alma mater but a problem at all the board members, professors have to subscribe to the 39 articles and that kind of orthodoxy is not a Public Institution partly because the citizenship, taxed to fund it. Not just jefferson and virginia but a preacher from massachusetts complaining about harvard. I am not allowed, i dont benefit from it and denies me equal citizenship in a very real way. Its not surprising it comes up again post civil war insofar as other elements about National University, easily glossed over it in early founding era, deeply entrenched, its the new englanders in the 1812 war, may be we should secede and join britain. Thats an active problem. After the civil war you get the last serious advocates of it, president s grant and garfield and they do attach it. The religious question, its partly about equal citizenship. In the front, you can get ready to go to paul after that. I loved your talk very much and i had a thought experiment as i was listening to you and robert and so the founders wanted to do this nationally and it petered away, didnt quite come to fruition. If you could raise it from the dead, and ask them danielles question, things have gone a little differently than you once thought were starting from scratch now. Is it time to do a National University . How would they answer danielles question . I cant speak for them but i find it most interesting not because im positive the National University itself would be the way to do what they wanted to do but because they are genuinely wrestling with how do you cultivate the habits of mind and public Leadership Class that embraces political principles in a way thats going to sustain itself, what education do you need for that and how does it carry the constitutional project forward. Maybe its not the best way to do that. I suppose these days i would be hesitant and not because i think harvard is the National University or yale is the National University, probably there is tremendous benefit but the state institutions to me, pick the projects up. In many ways the National Universities were distributed. And what has happened is the distribution of different followers strayed in so many different ways that we were ready for some sort of deaggravation, not one institution but their vision is arguably still right, just a question of one university. Sound like youre saying this conversation is the National University. It is exactly. At the state university, the first of these new universities for Department Around the country. At unc chapel hill, director dean at the new department raising that question. All often cheap knockoffs of the original school of economic cooperation. Thank you for your wonderful introductory remarks and being magnanimous and gracious. If you would respond to comments question. There was a sharp contrast between the Research University model and civil this panel has done the same. If we are in 1838 moment with abraham lincoln, failure of Civic Education, constitutional education, wouldnt we have to, as educators, reclaim a space in the university apart from the Research Culture for the sake of saving the political work . Ron daniels, president of johns hopkins, says this extraordinary thing. The First Research in the country, an unintended consequence of the Research University culture is liberal arts, Civic Education approach. One other point, its interesting to read the john dewey inspired curriculum, from getting it correctly, the declaration isnt there and the constitution isnt there or maybe the declaration and the constitution isnt there. Maybe the declaration is there but the constitution is not. It has been there in the past. It was there. Which of you would like to take that . Im going to plug the Research Part of a little bit, my research can contribute to this debate. University press 2015, from amazon. I dont think they have to be as at odds with it. I suppose you would think more deeply about the science question and some of the specialties, those are obviously, and shouldnt be, i dont know that i want my biologists, they should care deeply about Civic Education, they should be engaged in Serious Research as opposed to other disciplines that can do Serious Research that also contributes to liberal education and Civic Education in a serious way. I take your point but i want to resist thinking that you would want to say they need to claim their place back at the university but they can claim it by way of research. Some of my skepticism about the programs, as much as i want to applaud them, like columbia core or the new program at stanford, i dont mean in any way to lessen what they are doing but they are largely taught by nontenured faculty. I think it is great that they are being taught and that we have them and excellent that it is giving people a chance to teach, all of that is good but i worry about how solid their place is if they are also not part of the normal faculty. I would rather see a kind of defense of how research can be done along those lines it has something to contribute and faculty can teach in that and it has its own problems but wouldnt want the Research Part of it. I will comment on that and to a footnote. What george and pauls exchange is very helpful in illuminating the fact that why when we talk about this relationship between college, civic and liberal liberal educational function or research function, why would anyone accept the proposition that the Research Enterprise is how it is and shouldnt change. The Research Enterprise is facing difficulties right now including the difficulty much of the research is published for other specialists nobody wants to read and nobody does read and perhaps we should be thinking not less but more ambitiously about what University Research ought to look like. Maybe we could publish more books like the civic bargain which is readable by people beyond the university. A couple further thoughts. It s an excellent question about fundamental structural tension between Research University and liberal arts college. Thats beneath this whole conversation we are having and we are also hearing as in the cases of many bureaucratic forums, changes from the margin so change comes from being able to build a program with adjective faculty members or change comes from building an entirely new school rather than trying to change the heart of the enterprise but it is exactly correct to ask the question of how to get from the margins the more substantial transformation of the enterprise, it wouldnt be i would say sufficient if what happened was simply that the change continued to live on the margins, you wanted to actually change the whole enterprise around it so tactful question being asked earlier, they need to have that additional piece to them not just how do we get started but how does the work we do whether it is through a standalone court or through a new school or through reanimating a set of existing general ed courses which is another possible pathway in some places, whatever that path may be, what comes next. How does it get connected to the incentive structures at the university, contracts for teaching and so forth that drive wholesale change in the structure of the whole institution. A big kind of conversation there to be had. One more thing, answer my own question, study and constitutionalism from scratch where would you start . I will say, this is from left field for everybody but where i would start if i had to start from scratch would be with Cormac Mccarthys the road and the hunger games, for real. Thats what kids are reading, thats where their heads are, they are in dystopia. Start with this boat be a. Thats the path the constitutionalism. Anyway, just a thought. My name is kevin combo. Thank you so much for the panel. I have a question about a specific habit of mine which is piety. It seems to me that historically, this is not a sound characteristic, it happens and so on. It seems to me even as we stress the humanistic side of things, generally, cities or whenever dont really exist as human stickley but in context and they presume a kind of world behind them. The questions coming up, is there a way to address the question of a specific habit of mine which is piety, mixing with the guys who are protesting and so on . Its a piety problem in some ways. With technical aspects, the things we have to do about pollution and purification and all these things, humanistic education cant get at that question. Always trying to figure out something that is very human but beyond kind of Civic Education. I would agree with you the protests have a quality of a great awakening and also those who say they are awake tend to be q1 on. There is no container and no direction, how to fix that . Wind the historical tape into the box. I dont know. Do you . Do you want to comment . Its a great question. It is not clear to me humanistic education cant address that. It has for a long time. I think it does. I wouldnt want to exaggerate how bad things are. Theres plenty of excellent education going on a long those lines and lots of places and it does address fat. Maybe we just need more. A quick question for larry. Coming from uc santa barbara, my question is simple. Can virtue be taught . I come from philosophy and the question applies to every panel weve had today so far. It strikes me the field of ethics has confronted this question for a long time. The institutional forms it has taken have been either to be taught in a very abstract way by philosophy departments whose aim is not to make you a better person or taught in law school or Business School or medical school with a specific aim to make you a good doctor or good lawyer. My deeper question, does Civic Education needed to take a stand on that question, can virtue be taught . It seems to me if the discipline is going to be distinct its going to be unique in claiming its going to make you a better person if you study it and that is not what University Disciplines, no other University Discipline makes that kind of claim. It seems to me that behind the advocacy for Civic Education is the claim that virtue can be taught. In the summer form, that claim has to be presupposed and i wondered what you thought about that . I think models, tools of her virtue can be put in front of students who never can countered it before. I see lightbulbs going off and they become fascinated with apartheid, aristotle, all of the different opposites that have to be balanced. Youre not going to turn a bad person into a good person but you can get people to be more mindful of their actions. I think habits can be probably and whether it is genuinely virtue are not as a question. To teach habits that mirror Something Like virtue. Im also a skeptic that reading old books will make people virtuous. Russo, socrates, i mean, maybe theres more attention than we think. Its not clear that thats the way to virtue as well as opposed to what you are trying to do with civic and liberal education is actually teach habits of mind and understanding which is sort of a substitute for kind of virtue. Not that you could try to foster that. Last question over here. Im going to teach this fall, maybe i dont have too. My question is a little less lawfully put, seems to me we are encountering something or not quite encountering but circling something that is questionable or problematical liberalism, at the risk of creating a rupture in the house of thomas. If you said that as you put it, to constitutional democracy is not neutral, you said the same is true of a liberal education or Civic Education, rob was showing us how thoughtful and provocative verse 60 curriculum was, debating everything, pro and con. Sounds like neutrality there and for a lot of people that is what liberalism means, thinking back to brooks and the emphasis, the need for pride, something particular to inculcate habits of mind just by teaching pretty abstract principles or add stories to them or make a National Story to them, how do you deal with all this . I have been wanting to put in a plug for american studies at columbia, on arrival here. If you want to develop particularity about the united states, great surveys of American Literature and it occurred to me they have constitutional conflicts that you are looking for, so i dont know. A small gesture would be require all students to have in American History literature end and history course. Its shocking that thats not the case. I would say even within a liberal framework these questions are up for debate and it is healthy to have serious critics of her liberalism and what i think of why i would teach historically, one of the great virtues is you can understand the historical arguments of why liberalism develops, the issues it is wrestling with and why it is not neutral on questions of popular sovereignty or should you have religious liberty. And differently on different Belief Systems and can be defended in those things but also shows you its limits and its critics, thats extraordinarily helpful. You have not both sides, i dont like the sides, there are more than two and sometimes there arent two but engaging those questions, in some sense, lets read this, that a distinctly liberal take on things. I teach adrian for mule along with other people, not like, so, i take it he doesnt want to be that often. Carl schmidt was on the syllabus. You cant get more liberal than that. Out of time, im afraid. I want to thank you all, starting with the hunger games ends with the constitution. Thank our panelists. [applause]