Last spring, conservative online influencer Charlie Kirk was on campus. His team caught attention with their large inflatable “free speech ball,” camera team, and most notably, their t-shirts reading “College Is A Scam.” Kirk is far from the only voice on the right bashing higher education today.  

Political activist Matt Walsh said college was “an unmitigated catastrophic failure and should be torn down entirely.” Conservative activist and writer Christopher Rufo was appointed trustee of the New College of Florida by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Upon appointment, he called the college a “social justice ghetto” and immediately set to work abolishing the school’s gender studies program. The American Association of University Professors reported over 150 bills crafted to “undermine academic freedom and university autonomy” were introduced in state legislatures nationwide between 2021 and 2023.

Conservatives often frame their distaste for higher education as concern for students’ return on investment. In reality, attacks on universities are ideological.  

These influencers do not care about your career prospects. They are anti-education because they are anti-critical thought.  

We must actively combat anti-intellectualism and address concerns about college by organizing for lowered costs and increased public funding to universities.  

What is College For?

It is true that college provides a pathway to careers. However, from a societal perspective, its many other functions should matter to us. For instance, time at a university often introduces students to a far more diverse population than they might otherwise interact with. About 40% of current American undergraduates are students of color. Data shows mere exposure to other races reduces prejudice. This is crucial in a country as diverse as the United States. Working and studying alongside peers from diverse backgrounds helps us understand each other more. This understanding facilitates empathy, which facilitates a well-running society.  

Rigorous education is essential for a functioning democracy.

“Free speech is essential to a society surviving, and so is democracy,” Dr. Frank Page, a sociology professor at the University of Utah said. “Without free speech and democracy, we can’t define problems and we can’t change them. I think limiting education to career choices does just that.” 

Data also suggests critical thinking is substantially improved throughout a normal college experience. Our education is not about adopting an ideology, but about becoming strong thinkers. This is essential to remember when Kirk says universities “force anti-American and progressive ideologies onto students.”

“We have embraced science. We like to look at the data, and look at cause-and-effect relationships, be it in physical science, social science, political science. That is not a function of what party you belong to, that’s part of the Enlightenment spirit. That’s part of the scientific method, and that’s what we represent. If those conclusions lead to a situation where some of us tend to be more Democratic, that says more about the parties than it does about the people,” Page said.

On Anti-Intellectualism  

Many conservatives have firmly positioned themselves against college. They oppose the institutions that are bastions of diversity, critical thought and social education for one reason — to benefit the status quo. These influencers and politicians come down hardest on degrees in the social sciences, humanities and liberal arts. They say this is because the fields are “useless.” Here, they’re using “useless” to mean “not profitable.” 

In truth, these courses often teach an intersectional understanding of the world. A background in sociology helps one understand the social and systemic forces at play in human behavior. Psychology highlights human tribalism, thus encouraging active attempts to resist it. Philosophy and literature are often intensely critical of the powers that be. Education in these courses encourages seriously evaluating social structures. This is threatening to those who would rather use fear-mongering tactics like “they’re eating the pets“ to win the blind loyalty of voters.  

Often, online pundits will claim they are not anti-education but advocate being self-taught. “Autodidacticism is what Leonardo da Vinci was. You don’t have to go to college to be wise,” Charlie Kirk said to a student debating him on the U’s campus. He makes a valid point here — you don’t necessarily have to go to college to be wise. That said, it helps. College provides a structure and rigor to education that is difficult to obtain on one’s own. It forces one to rub shoulders with those of different beliefs and backgrounds. It also connects students with educators and mentors.  

“The fact of the matter is, good teachers can be a powerful influence,” Page said. “They can save you a lot of time scrapping around, not doing this, because of their wisdom and their experience.”

Most importantly, academia has oversight. Academic articles must be peer-reviewed. What is taught in lectures must be empirically backed. On the other hand, in the effort to teach oneself, there is great risk of falling prey to misinformation and propaganda.  This is especially true when it comes to teaching oneself politics. It is well-documented that social media algorithms heighten political polarization. If you attempt to be an autodidact in the digital age, it is easy to become an extremist instead.  

When people like Charlie Kirk tell you college is a scam, they are not worried about your return on your tuition dollars. If they were, they would advocate for what progressives do — increased public funding of universities and lowered cost of attendance. In reality, they are anti-higher education because they benefit from a docile populace. We must remember who stands to benefit from anti-intellectualism — always those already in power.
 

[email protected]

@samreaganslc