XPost: alt.education, alt.politics.immigration, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics, alt.society.liberalism   
   From: bb@charter.nut   
      
   Why is 27 percent of Harvard's total student body foreign when there are   
   hundreds of thousands of bright young Americans who could fill those spots   
   instead?   
      
   Of all the questions raised by the Department of Homeland Security's   
   announcement on Thursday that it would no longer issue visas to foreign   
   students at Harvard (a move that has now been temporarily blocked by a   
   judge), that's the one that is the most existential. It forces us to ask:   
   What-and who-are American universities actually for?   
      
   As the proud beneficiary of an international education (I earned my   
   graduate degrees in the UK), I have no standing whatsoever to campaign   
   against foreign students. Nor do I wish to. The primary purpose of any   
   university should be truth-seeking, and truth-seeking knows no borders.   
      
   But I do think these numbers-and Harvard is hardly unique-point to a real   
   problem: Elite American universities are reluctant to be seen as American,   
   or to prioritize American interests, even as they happily accept American   
   taxpayer dollars. Rather, they increasingly cast themselves as global   
   universities, educating "global citizens."   
      
   The story of my undergraduate alma mater's unofficial motto, coined by   
   Woodrow Wilson in 1896, is illustrative. "Princeton in the Nation's   
   Service" has always been much more than a slogan. The school's Nassau Hall   
   served as the nation's capitol for four months and eight days in 1783.   
   Nine Princeton alumni served on the Constitutional Convention in 1787. And   
   there has not been a year without a Princeton alumnus in the U.S. House of   
   Representatives since its first meeting in 1789.   
      
   But not content to serve just our nation in a globalized world, the   
   university revised Wilson's motto in 1996 by adding "and in the Service of   
   All Nations." And then, in the wake of controversy surrounding Wilson and   
   inspired by a speech delivered by alumna Sonia Sotomayor, it was changed   
   again in 2016 to read "In the Nation's Service and the Service of   
   Humanity." As one alumnus said at the time in the official university   
   press release, "It captures the latest narrative of world affairs. We are   
   not just nations separated by borders. . . we may even be nationless. . .   
   service to humanity is apt."   
      
   Nonetheless, Princeton is actually an outlier among elite institutions for   
   even suggesting in its mission statement that the "nation" should be a   
   priority. Stanford, founded "to promote the public welfare by exercising   
   an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization," purports to prepare   
   students "for leadership and engaged citizenship in the world." Yale,   
   which "educates aspiring leaders worldwide," "is committed to improving   
   the world today and for future generations." Johns Hopkins puts it   
   succinctly: "Knowledge for the world."   
      
   This rhetoric persists even at small liberal arts colleges. With the   
   exception of Carleton and the three military academies, not one of the   
   liberal arts colleges ranked in the top 10 by U.S. News & World Report   
   (three are tied for #8) mentions the nation. In the words of Amherst, "Let   
   them give light to the world."   
      
   Who wouldn't be in favor of serving humanity and the world? But shouldn't   
   the first aim be to fix the dysfunction here at home?   
      
   Then again, these are the same universities that have sown so much of that   
   dysfunction in the first place, from the class war to the culture war to,   
   most recently and chillingly, the global intifada. For years they have   
   cultivated an elite that is, on the one hand, unified in its disdain for   
   the working class and all who do not buy its ever-evolving set of luxury   
   beliefs and, on the other, divided by those same beliefs, perpetually   
   sorting itself into so-called affinity groups based on perceived   
   oppressor/oppressed status. The last identity with which the members of   
   this elite wish to identify is "American," because as Americans we must   
   all-rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight, Democrat, Republican-be   
   categorized together as the most privileged and least oppressed people in   
   the world.   
      
   Besides, educating "global citizens" is a whole lot easier than educating   
   American citizens-because what does global citizenship mean? There is no   
   particular knowledge that global citizens must possess, no legal   
   obligations that they must fulfill, no decisions or compromises that they   
   must, as a diverse and opinionated electorate, work through together.   
   Global citizenship sounds important but generally amounts to kumbaya;   
   American citizenship consists of real choices and sacrifices, alongside   
   its many blessings.   
      
   As they pursue their global missions, American universities are failing to   
   form an educated American citizenry. We will soon celebrate America's   
   250th birthday, with great fanfare promised by President Trump, and yet   
   most Americans will not know what they are actually celebrating. Why did   
   the colonists fight the British? What were the original 13 states? When   
   was the Constitution ratified? These are questions that most Americans (76   
   percent, 72 percent, and 87 percent, respectively) cannot answer, even in   
   a multiple-choice format, according to a 2018 survey that found that only   
   one in three Americans would be able to pass the U.S. Citizenship test.   
      
   The situation is hardly less dire if we focus strictly on the college-   
   educated. A survey conducted last year by College Pulse and my colleagues   
   at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) found that most   
   college students think the Constitution was written in 1776. Only 32   
   percent answered correctly that it was written in 1787-and only 31 percent   
   that it was written by James Madison.   
      
   I do not believe that this is because the surveyed students are stupid.   
   There were two civics questions (out of 28) they could overwhelmingly   
   answer: Seventy-nine percent knew what the Electoral College is, and 83   
   percent could identify that Brown v. Board of Education ended racial   
   segregation in public schools. I think we can fairly speculate that this   
   is, on the one hand, because the Electoral College remains relevant and   
   controversial in American life and, on the other, because one thing   
   students do learn about is America's troubled history with race.   
      
   Students learn the information that they are exposed to-and most college   
   students are not exposed to information about America's government or   
   history. Out of the 1,137 institutions whose curricula ACTA tracks, 931   
   require a writing course and 938 require a science course, but only 210   
   require a course in U.S. history or government. So here is a relatively   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)