God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom"

God and Man at Yale cover

Great and terrible Books

On our shelf:

Unscientific America Letter to a Christian Nation Trump's War: His Battle for America Literature Orthodoxy (book) True Allegiance

Writer's block

John A. Keel Arthur Koestler David Bellamy Rush Limbaugh Christina Hoff Sommers Jeanette Winterson v - t - e

God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom" is a 1951 book by William F. Buckley where he argues that Yale University is indoctrinating students away from free-market capitalism and Christianity and into skepticism, collectivism, and liberalism. Given that Buckley is considered one of the most important thinkers of the post-World War Two conservative movement, and this (his first book) was the book which made him famous, it should not surprise you to learn that much of the modern right-wing complaining about "liberal colleges" that faux-intellectual blowhards like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson love to traffic began here. Conservative Lee Edward even went as far as to write, "The publication of God and Man at Yale marked the birth of the modern American conservative movement." Historian Heather Cox Richardson has argued that the book is part of a continuum of an anti-democratic oligarchy in America.

The book is an exercise in verbose pomposity (something Buckley became famous for in his long-running PBS TV show, "Firing Line"), concluding in part with "I do not intend to hazard what I believe to be the validity of my case by proposing a specific formula for Yale and for similar universities to follow." This followed the preceding pages where newly-minted alumnus (BA) told Yale exactly what they should do (fire all the damn atheists and socialists). The book as a whole can be taken as anti-Enlightenment for its opposition to decision making though making argument based on evidence, what amounts to anti-intellectualism.

Poppycock

As mentioned above, Buckley attempted to prove that Yale is anti-Christian and anti-individualist. However, his standards for what it means to be either of those things are so specific that essentially everybody would fall into these categories. One critical review of the book published in The Atlantic noted that "on Mr. Buckley's strict definition of a Christian such men as Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, and Yale's own William Howard Taft would fail to qualify." (In spite of this, Buckley lists Jefferson alongside Adam Smith and Jesus Christ regarding men he believes college students should be taught to unconditionally worship. Said conflation was called "humorless, or else blasphemous" by one reviewer.) In the same regard, Buckley's definition of "collectivist" would include the 'radical communists' Herbert Hoover, Aristotle, and Robert Taft.

Regarding economics, all of his arguments come down to little more than red-baiting — except instead of "communism", he says "collectivist", and hopes the reader will treat those two terms as interchangeable (and agree with Buckley's skewed definition of both of them), what amounts to a motte and bailey fallacious argument style. In response to one textbook saying that increasing income tax rates might not decrease productivity, Buckley wrote, "This is an important argument of the socialist." despite making no attempt to debunk it.

To call the book hyperbolized would be a rather hyperbolic understatement. Edward Cain noted while talking about the book that "Even Buckley could unearth only five professors out of 1,100 who were atheists or agnostics" and that many of the theological statements Buckley took issue with "might be deplorable Catholicism" but are "sound neo-orthodox Protestantism." Cain makes a similar note about Buckley's fear of collectivism, writing that "None of the economics textbooks examined by Mr. Buckley could be labeled collectivist in any sense other than recognizing the inevitability and desirability of a mixed economy."

These statements reveal what Buckley truly wants education to be like; he does not think higher education should be about, you know, learning. Instead, he takes the view that academics should start at a very specific set of conservative conclusions — mostly that capitalism and Christianity are the greatest things ever created — and work backwards, while demanding their students do the same. This is indoctrination, not education, and this was not something Buckley was ever shy about admitting.

Buckley's solution

Buckley felt the best way to get Yale back on track was through having alumni determine the curriculum. McGeorge Bundy, writing in The Atlantic, specifically criticized this notion through saying:

His basic argument is that because the alumni pay the piper, they should call the tune. This argument has no more validity than a proposal that the religious teachings of the Roman Catholic Church should be dictated to the Pope by the Roman Catholic laymen who pays his bills.

This example is especially notable given Bundy has every reason to be sympathetic to Buckley's political views, even beginning his review by saying:

As a believer in God, a Republican, and a Yale graduate, I find the book is dishonest in its use of facts, false in its theory, and a discredit to its author and the writer of its introduction.

Even if Buckley did get his way, it is unlikely much would change because his views were on the fringe side of those he wants to give power to anyway.

In advancing this proposal, Buckley is treating Yale alumni as a monolith of people who agree with him. However, actual reality is much more complicated than Buckley seems to realize. Richard Wolff, the famous Marxist economist, got his Ph.D. in Economics from Yale University. Would Buckley be fine with somebody with such openly radical politics determining the curriculum? Is Buckley open to the impression that allowing an open Marxist to do such a thing would somehow make what students are taught less leftist?

In the same regard, one has to wonder how students, who are supposedly being indoctrinated left and right (or really just left) into irrational ideas, would somehow be able to create a rational curriculum. Going back to Cain, he asks:

If the alumni are really more knowledgeable than the faculty, aren't they wearing the wrong hats?