President Roth: Thinking for Ourselves in the Company of Others

These are perilous times here in America. But at a moment when people with very different political orientations have a hard time agreeing on anything at all, folks on either side should be able to come together to defend the liberties that are at risk from an overreaching federal government. The Founders were able to do it, and so should we. 

You certainly don’t have to be a progressive to worry about the White House’s assault on civil society. Indeed, the notion that a country needs “countervailing forces” that push back against the centralization of state power has been at the core of conservative thought since the Enlightenment. This was fundamental to Baron de Montesquieu writing about law in the first half of the 18th century, as it was for Edmund Burke writing about political culture in its second half. For the French philosopher, a healthy society depended on the freedoms that are preserved in local and regional traditions. Burke, meanwhile, argued that we learned about freedom from what he called the “little platoons” in our communities—those local associations such as family, work, and religious congregations that nurtured us without the intrusion of a central government. Schools are such associations, groups that come together for the purposes of learning and inquiry, communities that foster practices of freedom without being directed by a central power. 

Alexis de Tocqueville, another thinker beloved by many conservatives, underscored this dimension of American democracy when he wrote in the mid-1800s that “without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.” The spirit of freedom is built on the associations that develop without dictates from central government, and it guides educational institutions. “The art of associating together must . . . be learned,” Tocqueville wrote. “In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.” 

The spirit of freedom is built on the associations that develop without dictates from central government, and it guides educational institutions.

Colleges and universities in this country have long cultivated this subtle “science of association,” and that’s why it is so vital for all Americans to resist the current administration’s efforts to force public and private schools to satisfy the president’s demand for loyalty. It’s not that the ecosystem of higher education is perfect; it isn’t. But neither are other institutions core to our nation’s liberty, including churches and synagogues, scout troops and public libraries. These all require freedom to be healthy, and you don’t have to be perfect to benefit from freedom. 

For many years now, we have been making arguments about the need for greater intellectual diversity on campus, and students and faculty have been a receptive audience. From the time we invited Justice Scalia to campus in 2012 to establishing a fund bringing a wider range of conservative views to the University in 2017, to our more recent training in dialogue across difference, Wesleyan has insisted that free speech and pluralism are compatible with cultivating belonging and fairness. Indeed, it is essential for our educational objectives that we attract people with a variety of life experiences and points of view. Our 2025 Shasha Seminar for Human Concerns, “Dialogue for Change: From Conflict to Action,” continues this work. The event also marks the beginning of a multiyear initiative, Renewing Democracy’s Promise, to strengthen democratic culture at a moment when polarization is testing communities across the nation. 

All of this work is threatened by the enormous pressure the federal government is putting on civil society to “align its priorities” (a phrase repeated in government agencies’ letters to universities) with those of the president. Colleges and universities are on the front lines here, and we must resist the normalization of this authoritarian effort to reshape the ecosystem of higher education. 

Normalization has given rise to opportunists and collaborators who respond to an aggressive White House by noisily preaching neutrality or by just keeping their heads down. Some faculty, student, and alumni groups, however, have begun to stand up and make their voices heard. Whether refusing to apologize for diversity efforts or simply supporting freedom of scientific inquiry, there is growing resistance to the administration’s attempt to control civil society in general and higher education in particular. The groups defending their campuses from governmental intrusion are not just shielding the status quo. They are resisting attempts to undermine education as the practice of freedom, safeguarding the various ways that learning can allow students and teachers to open their minds and their hearts to new ideas and ways of living. 

At Wesleyan, we know that we don’t want the government thinking for us. We want to learn to think for ourselves in the company of others, resisting forced indoctrination or control. Authoritarians expect anticipatory compliance, and we must not be tempted to appease those who would undermine our freedoms. Instead, we in higher education must redouble our efforts to model and defend the ideals of pragmatic liberal education, creating a community that, in the words of our mission statement, “thinks critically and creatively, valuing independence of mind, and embodying generosity of spirit.” If not now, when?