On April 10, 2025, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites, visited Washington University School of Law to discuss the ideological and bureaucratic challenges facing American higher education. In this lecture, Shapiro argues that elite universities have abandoned their core mission of truth-seeking in favor of activism, driven by bloated administrations and timid leadership. Drawing on personal experience and national trends, he explains how law schools, in particular, are failing to uphold classical liberal values such as free speech, academic freedom, and equal justice.

Listen to it as a podcast

The event was hosted by the Show-Me Institute, the Federalist Society, the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

The post Lawless: Ilya Shapiro on Free Speech in Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When universities require applicants to swear fealty to equity, what are they asking them to commit to? Are they asking people to pledge their support for equity policies such as this new mortgage policy? If not, what are they asking applicants to pledge their support to?

This is the problem with requiring DEI statements. Without a clear understanding of what the employer is looking for, one can only speculate about the purpose and intent of a DEI statement. If an applicant gives an answer that is out of step with the ideology held by most at the university, will that person be denied a job? This is one of the reasons why conservatives have called this requirement nothing more than a political litmus test that should not be allowed at public universities.

In March, University of Missouri System President Mun Choi sent an email to faculty that outlined a new policy prohibiting the use of DEI statements in hiring. Instead, the university will ask candidates to reply to the following statement, which Choi called a “values commitment”:

We value the uniqueness of every individual and strive to ensure each person’s success. Contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote intellectual pluralism and enable us to achieve the excellence that we seek in learning, research and engagement.

This commitment makes our university a better place to work, learn and innovate. In your application materials, please discuss your experiences and expertise that support these values and enrich our missions of teaching, research and engagement.

This change is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, many public universities in the state still require an ideological litmus test DEI statements. It is time for more leaders, in the legislature and in higher education, to take a stand against these practices.

The post Mortgages, Job Applications, and Equity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The goal of this language change would be to address concerns about diversity statements resembling “loyalty oaths” or “litmus tests,” Choi explained in his letter. MU spokesperson Christian Basi said Friday afternoon that the university does not and has not used these practices during the hiring process but wanted to clarify its practices. . . .

The Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank that advocates for “free markets and individual liberty,” also criticized the state’s universities for using diversity statements as “loyalty oaths” in the hiring process.

“We do not use loyalty oaths or litmus tests but a few of our job advertisements contained information that may give some readers the impression that such a request was inferred,” Choi wrote in his letter this week.

As reported by the Columbia Missourian, the new “values” language reads as follows:

We value the uniqueness of every individual and strive to ensure each person’s success. Contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote intellectual pluralism and enable us to achieve the excellence that we seek in learning, research and engagement. This commitment makes our university a better place to work, learn and innovate. In your application materials, please discuss your experiences and expertise that support these values and enrich our missions of teaching, research and engagement.

Without nitpicking, I will say that this language is an improvement over previous university job application expectations, such as noting that ideal candidates for a math professor position “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” in their work.

No one should blind themselves to the fact that the woke mindset has penetrated deep into Missouri’s higher academy. The incidents I cited were not isolated, and they are likely the tip of the iceberg. President Choi’s statement was good as far as it goes, but so far as I can tell no university employee was disciplined for requiring diversity statements, and the bureaucracies that produced them remain untouched.

Barring a legislative solution, we are going to see the woke agenda continue to consolidate its control over Missouri higher education.

If the system’s move was made to halt a statutory solution, Missouri legislators should not oblige. While I welcome President Choi’s improved and appropriate expectations for prospective hires, he doesn’t lead every public university in the state, and there’s nothing to stop other universities—or the University of Missouri System in the future—from falling back on woke bad habits.

President Choi’s decision to excise woke loyalty oaths from university hiring documents is encouraging. The legislature should finish the job.

The post University of Missouri System Walks Back “Loyalty Oaths” in Job Listings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Loyalty oaths” can mean a lot of things, but here I mean “loyalty oath” to be an ideological attestation required for public employment. Want to work at Missouri State? UMSL? UMKC? You might have to toe the DEI line first, even though doing so (1) is prejudicial to applicants, (2) undermines the free inquiry objectives of government colleges and universities by homogenizing professors, and (3) could deny Missouri students the best teachers by biasing hiring toward ideologues rather than experts.

Here’s another example: a University of Central Missouri job listing for a librarian features this remarkable sentence that starts reasonably and spirals from there:

The Cataloging and Metadata Librarian identifies and addresses metadata remediation needs, as well as the adoption of new or updated standards and vocabularies in support of James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ commitment to incorporating social justice into our work, focusing on the James C. Kirkpatrick Libraries’ diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist efforts.

A math professor listing for Mizzou notes that an applicant who can “employ justice-oriented frameworks (e.g., anti-racist, abolitionist, decolonial, indigenous)” to their work would be a preferred applicant.

Taxpayers should be paying to “decolonize” math, huh?

Employees of America’s higher education system have long been left of center on average, but taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize this special kind of nonsense. Compelling librarians and math professors to commit to the Left’s preferred politics is viewpoint discrimination that encourages groupthink and creates an academic environment where everyone who’s hired to educate is part of some political in-group. That’s unhealthy if you want an academic environment that challenges biases rather than affirms them.

Hiring practices like those required in these “loyalty oaths” could discourage highly qualified subject matter experts from even applying for jobs that have no, or should have no, political or social justice component. Florida is in the process of uprooting this sort of caustic academic culture entirely, dismantling DEI programs in colleges and universities statewide. All other things being equal, are Missouri taxpayers really willing to cede qualified conservative and moderate professors to states like Florida? I don’t think so.

Missouri institutions of higher learning should focus on creating a welcoming environment by treating employees and students as individuals instead of trying to engineer campus-wide groupthink through the way that they hire teachers. Woke loyalty oaths have no business in the state’s hiring documents.

Update: University of Missouri President Mun Choi responded to this post with the following statement:

University of Missouri President on faculty recruiting practices:

The UM System does not have loyalty oaths

——-

COLUMBIA, Mo. — A recent post from the Show-Me Institute references “loyalty oaths” related to faculty hiring at higher education institutions. I want to be very clear — we do not have loyalty oaths of any kind at the University of Missouri System.

We strive to ensure that every UM System university has employees who are committed to an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone. Currently, we have students and scholars from every county in Missouri, all 50 states and more than 50 countries, among them individuals from various walks of life, including from rural and metro areas, military veterans and first-generation students — each with a different point of view.

———–

We hire the best faculty who exemplify the highest standards of teaching and research, and we do not compromise on quality.

The post “Loyalty Oaths” in University Employment Should Be a Non-starter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A push by the attorney general’s office for the emails of professors and staff at the University of Missouri has academic freedom advocates concerned the office is being weaponized to stifle free speech and deter researchers’ work.

In June, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office sent two records requests to the university….

“When I see these requests, it really makes me worried about how this kind of request for faculty information can be used to burden faculty or hassle them where they’re engaging in research or scholarship that state actors might disagree with,” said Anne Marie Tamburro, program officer for student press and campus rights advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE.

Your mileage will vary on the utility of the Attorney General’s undertaking. Indeed, the vast majority of the public has little interest in the behind-the-scenes decision-making of Mizzou journalism professors. But that has zero bearing on the facts of this case, namely that (1) the people of Missouri fund their public universities through their tax dollars; (2) the people have the right to be informed about the activities of their public employees insofar as they relate to their public functions; and (3)  the Attorney General has the same right to use the Sunshine Law as anyone else, and a greater responsibility to do so where he deems the public interest requires it.

Academic freedom is an important principle, but all it means is that professors at public universities should have the discretion to research and discuss their ideas within the limits of the policies set by those constituted in authority over them. It doesn’t mean that they are exempt from the rules of transparency that apply to all those who work for the taxpayer. If their work would be “deterred” (to use FIRE’s word) unless they can conduct it in secret, maybe it’s work that shouldn’t be done, at least on the public’s dime.

FIRE should be considering the full public policy picture here rather than acting as an apologist for secrecy against the clear interests of transparency under an otherwise unambiguous law.

The post Sunshine Law Applies to Government Journalists, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, who is Ludwig von Mises and why would a donor believe it so important that students learn about him?

To answer this question, I reached out to Dr. G.P. Manish, a Mises Institute fellow and my Austrian economics professor at Troy University. He is well-versed in all things Mises and he laid out some of the main points.

Ludwig von Mises was an economist who supported free markets and economic liberty. He is most famous for fighting against socialism. He also used economic concepts to explain decision-making in non-market areas like households and government. For example, we think about opportunity cost when we decide to spend money on a sandwich instead of a salad, but we can also use this thinking when deciding whether to spend time cleaning or watching TV.

In general, Austrian economics takes a realistic view of the market. It allows for uncertainty, mistakes, and innovation while other economic theories assume these factors away.

After this mini-lesson, I asked Dr. Manish if he thinks that students should learn about Mises. Here is his response:  

I believe it is vital that students learn about the ideas of Mises. Doing so will give them a window into a different way of thinking about economic phenomena and will make them question the mainstream, Neoclassical tradition.

. . .

The free market, as Mises emphasizes time and again, benefits not only a narrow elite, but all groups in society, including the least well-off. This can be eye-opening in a world where capitalism and free markets are often charged with benefiting the rich while leaving the less fortunate masses behind.

. . .

A market economy is not devoid of error: entrepreneurs earn both profits and losses. But it is the only economic system where the production decisions of entrepreneurs and the resulting allocation of resources can be coordinated with the preferences of consumers. This vital lesson can be learnt only by studying the works of Mises.

As I’ve said before, markets work and Mises clearly understood that. The issue at Mizzou will be decided in the courts, but regardless of the outcome, many students would benefit from learning about this important thinker.

Dr. G.P. Manish is the BB&T Professor of Economic Freedom and a member of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. 

The post Should Students Learn Mises? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post David French on Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One paragraph in particular stands out:

“Thus, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. Individual members of the University community, not the University as an institution, should make their own moral judgments about the content of constitutionally protected speech, and should express these judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.”

This is exactly right. The mission of the University should be to empower students with the skills and knowledge that they need to debate and disprove things that they believe are false, not to tell them it’s OK to run and hide from them.

As FIRE points out, Mizzou’s new free speech policy is based upon the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, a document published several years ago at the University of Chicago that has become the gold standard for ensuring that students and faculty have the maximum freedom to discuss and debate topics of importance.

Here at the Show-Me Institute, we have been urging the university to adopt such speech protections for some time now.  In a report I co-authored with Michael Highsmith, “Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from Around the Nation” we wrote:

“Freedom of speech and debate is at risk and can be protected. It seems that not a week of the school year goes by without some story emerging about efforts by a student council, residence hall, professor, or school administrator to stifle the speech of students. If we do not impress upon our students the importance of free speech and defend it vigorously, we risk creating a citizenry that does not value one of the foundational values upon which our nation was built. Luckily, institutions like the University of Chicago offer a great blueprint for fostering debate and protecting speech. Mizzou would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.”

Mizzou has clearly done this. Good for them. 

The post Great News! Mizzou Embraces Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Robert George and Cornel West provide a great example of the kinds of open intellectual exchange that should happen on college campuses. For over a decade the two have team-taught a course at Princeton that examines important works of political philosophy and offers students a chance to see these works from George’s right-leaning and West’s left-leaning perspective.  (If you want some indication of how this might look, check out this video of George and West talking about the purpose of a liberal education at AEI last fall.)

The letter, now signed by hundreds of scholars, is worth reading in full, but I do want to highlight two paragraphs that I found especially compelling:

None of us is infallible. Whether you are a person of the left, the right, or the center, there are reasonable people of goodwill who do not share your fundamental convictions. This does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that all speakers are equally worth listening to. It certainly does not mean that there is no truth to be discovered. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily wrong. But they are not necessarily wrong either. So someone who has not fallen into the idolatry of worshiping his or her own opinions and loving them above truth itself will want to listen to people who see things differently in order to learn what considerations—evidence, reasons, arguments—led them to a place different from where one happens, at least for now, to find oneself.

All of us should be willing—even eager—to engage with anyone who is prepared to do business in the currency of truth-seeking discourse by offering reasons, marshaling evidence, and making arguments. The more important the subject under discussion, the more willing we should be to listen and engage—especially if the person with whom we are in conversation will challenge our deeply held—even our most cherished and identity-forming—beliefs.

A good lesson for all of us.

The post Coming Together for Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For many years, Stein was a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where I am an adjunct fellow and Charles Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar in the social sciences. Last week, Dr. Murray attempted to give a speech at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, and well, you’ve probably heard how that went.

It was the most violent instance in the recent trend of out-of-control protesters on college campuses silencing speakers with whom they disagree. Just days after Dr. Murray’s talk, the philosopher Peter Singer, who I think can fairly be put at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Dr. Murray, had a lecture shouted down by students with megaphones.

This cannot continue. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I think the events at Middlebury represent a turning point in the free speech battle on college campuses. My perusal of the media coverage of the event shows near universal condemnation of the students’ actions. From the New York Times to National Review, educated people of all political stripes have opposed it. Dr. Murray himself has praised the administration at Middlebury, which is rightfully embarrassed and has committed to fixing the problem.

Time will tell, and the concrete steps Middlebury takes will be important, obviously. But I think the tide is turning. If you follow writers like Kat Timpf at NRO or Robby Soave at Reason, it seems like not a week will go by without some speaker that deviates even a tiny bit from the orthodoxy on some issue getting shouted down. Liberals are being protested, conservatives are being protested, and seemingly apolitical folks are being protested. It’s like that scene from Oprah’s “favorite things” episode when she gave everyone a car: “AND YOU GET A PROTEST! AND YOU GET A PROTEST!”

Ironically, the upside is that it isn’t just conservatives who are being shouted down anymore. This has the effect of widening the group of people who oppose the protests. It’s easier to be a bystander when you disagree with the person who is being protested. It’s harder when you feel your own tribe is under attack.

Things that cannot continue, won’t. This has to end, and the sooner the better.

The post L’Affaire Middlebury appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nationwide there are six liberal professors for every conservative professor.

This data point was emphasized in a recent Boston Magazine article in which Chris Sweeny records stories of students and professors afraid to express their conservative viewpoints because of the threat of backlash. While there is no single cause behind this fear, the political composition of colleges’ faculties may be a significant factor.

The 6-to-1 ratio comes from the work of Dr. Samuel Abrams, professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. Interestingly, this ratio was not uniform nationwide. Of all the factors he examined—religious affiliations, departmental differences, size of college, etc.—the region in which the college is located had the biggest impact.

The West Coast matched the national average of 6 to 1 and the Plains and Southeast had the most balanced ratio, at 3 to 1. Far surpassing other regions, however, was New England—where liberal professors outnumbered their conservative colleagues 28 to 1.

While it is not surprising that university faculty in New England are more liberal than their counterparts in the Plains region, such a large disparity is disturbing. Moreover, it should concern Missourians that the University of Missouri is currently facing some problems that we might expect to see in New England schools, given their apparent lack of intellectual diversity.

In November, Mike McShane wrote about Mizzou being tied for last place on Heterodox Academy’s ranking of the top 150 universities for their policies on free speech and acceptance of different viewpoints. Since then, Mizzou has “improved,” and is now second to last according to the updated rankings. The University of Oregon, scoring 0 out of 100, is in sole possession of last place. Mizzou scored an underwhelming 6.25 out of 100 points, tying them with Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Rutgers.

While it is unlikely the ratio between liberal and conservative professors will become more balanced any time soon, universities can implement policies to protect the viewpoints of students and faculty. The University of Chicago’s commitment to Freedom of Expression is one such policy Mizzou should adopt.

In their recent paper, Mike McShane and Michael Highsmith wrote:

Freedom of speech and debate is at risk and can be protected. It seems that not a week of the school year goes by without some story emerging about efforts by a student council, residence hall, professor, or school administrator to stifle the speech of students. If we do not impress upon our students the importance of free speech and defend it vigorously, we risk creating a citizenry that does not value one of the foundational values upon which our nation was built. Luckily, institutions like the University of Chicago offer a great blueprint for fostering debate and protecting speech. Mizzou would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.

Even in an environment where conservative students and faculty are in the minority, their rights and contributions can be respected.

The post Conservatives on Campus: A Vanishing Breed? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We travel from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where President Mitch Daniels has embarked on an ambitious program to keep costs down and design new majors and programs that allow students to progress at their own pace, to Texas, where then-Governor Rick Perry’s call to create a $10,000 degree spurred innovation statewide. Finally, we conclude at one of the finest universities in our nation, the University of Chicago, to show what it means to have a commitment to free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from around the Nation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The tumult in Columbia has caused people around the state to ask “What can we do?” The Missouri legislature even went so far as to create its own independent review commission to examine the workings of Mizzou and the rest of the University of Missouri system.

We’re here to help.

In a new case study released today, Michael Highsmith and I present three case studies of different universities and university systems from around the country tackling the very problems that are facing Mizzou today: namely, how do we make college more affordable, relevant, and rigorous?

We travel from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where President Mitch Daniels has embarked on an ambitious program to keep costs down and design new majors and programs that allow students to progress at their own pace, to Texas, where then-Governor Rick Perry’s call to create a $10,000 degree spurred innovation statewide. Finally, we conclude at one of the finest universities in our nation, the University of Chicago, to show what it means to have a commitment to free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

We don’t present these stories as a paint-by-numbers guide to exactly what Mizzou should do to improve its standing in the state and region. Rather, we hope to spark a conversation about how to make Mizzou, and higher education in Missouri, stronger. We hope you’ll join us in that conversation in the coming months.

Click here to read more.

The post New Paper Offers Guidance for Improving Mizzou appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Heterodox Academy is a collection of university professors committed to supporting intellectual diversity and free speech on campus. Its ringleader is Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at New York University. Haidt’s work focuses primarily on business ethics, but increasingly he has become known for his efforts to promote civil debate and ideological diversity in the academy.

Heterodox Academy’s ranking relies on four main metrics. First, it grades schools on whether they have endorsed the University of Chicago’s principles on free expression. Second, it adds the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s rating of the school’s speech code. Third, it uses the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s rating of openness to conservative and libertarian students from its guide Choosing the Right College. Finally, it notes any relevant events related to free speech on campus since 2014.

The top five schools in the ranking are the University of Chicago, Purdue, Carnegie Mellon, William and Mary, and George Mason.

The bottom five are the University of Oregon, Mizzou, Rutgers, Northwestern, and (ironically, given Haidt’s employment there) NYU.

Mizzou was dinged for not adopting the University of Chicago’s speech code, for being rated red (the lowest possible distinction) by FIRE, and red (the lowest possible distinction from ISI). It also lost points for University of Missouri police asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech to call the campus police station (or 911), banning student protests, the censorship of students, and for efforts to limit press access on campus.

Debate on college campuses is healthy. As Haidt and his colleagues have demonstrated, ideological diversity leads to more interesting and useful research and helps guard against errors driven by groupthink. Mizzou's spot at the bottom of this list is an embarrassment. The university should take the criticism seriously and work to make campus a more welcoming place to people of different viewpoints.

The post Diversity of Viewpoints? Not at Mizzou appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Courage does not tremble in the face of coercion. It does not beg for forgiveness for non-existent crimes.  It stands tall in the defense of freedom . . . and in opposition to the dangers of mob rule or jackbooted tyranny.

All of which brings us to the wave of student protests that hit colleges and universities across the country in the fall of 2015. In one college after another, college presidents and administrators capitulated to unreasonable demands and went out of their way to curry favor with unruly protestors. In doing so, the titular leaders of these citadels of higher education acted both unwisely and with a shameful lack of courage.

The wave of protests began at the University of Missouri in Columbia, and it was here that assault on free speech became crystallized in the now-infamous picture of an MU communications professor calling for “some muscle” to bar campus journalists from a public area occupied by protestors.

Showing real courage in the face of taunts and physical intimidation, Tim Tai, a student photographer on assignment from ESPN, refused to leave the scene and asserted his First Amendment right to videotape in a public place—telling the protestors that his desire was to protect free speech for them no less than for himself.

In a quick succession of events in early November, protesters toppled University of Missouri system President Tim Wolfe, who was unpopular for reasons that had little or nothing to do with race. It began when a black graduate student (the son of a wealthy business executive) went on a hunger strike demanding Wolfe’s resignation. A few days later, black football players (coming to the end of a losing season) joined in a sympathy strike—refusing to play and  exposing the university to a $1 million fine if it were forced to forfeit an upcoming game against Brigham Young University. Then head football coach Gary Pinkel (only days before announcing his retirement for health reasons) chose to play Fletcher Christian to Wolfe’s Captain Bligh – supporting his players in the mutiny against a sitting university president. On the very next day, Wolfe resigned—and black football players agreed to end their strike.

Lessons learned?

We are all limited to our own experience, so no one can tell how prevalent bias and racism may be at an institution the size of the University of Missouri (with 35,000 students).  However, putting aside undocumented claims of deep and widespread bias by a few protestors (including a much-trumpeted but spurious report of a large Ku Klux Klan presence on the MU campus), we will cite three lessons.

First, there is a clear free-speech problem at the University of Missouri and other campuses. People are not allowed to express certain opinions, and even media coverage of protesting students is prohibited by those whose self-righteousness is overwhelming.

Second, you can tell that the values of the university have been misplaced—and indeed corrupted—when the football team and its coach play a decisive role in the resolution of a major conflict. 

Third, it seems to us that the obsessive insistence by protest leaders (not just at MU but within the larger Black Lives Matter movement) that almost everything that is wrong in our society reduces to a single problem—white racism and supremacy in an ongoing saga that casts blacks in the role of victims—is not only unfair but truly unhelpful. More than anything else, it is a major distraction in the way of any serious attempt to come to grips with problems that disproportionately affect black people living in poorer neighborhoods—everything from low rates of K-12 educational achievement to high rates of unemployment and crime among black youth, and from government programs that discourage work to the sharp decline in recent decades of intact two-parent families.

At the end of the day, it may be that what happened at Mizzou last November will serve a useful purpose—alerting many people to the danger of falling into an intellectual trap: supporting calls for greater “diversity” that are more realistically described as an attempt to enforce an unquestioning and frightened conformity.

We hope that the new leaders of the university will have the wisdom and courage to reject an anti-free speech conformity that masquerades as a paradigm-busting “diversity.”

The post Free Speech Under Fire at Colleges and Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In my remarks today, I hope to convince you of three things. First, the idea of the Common Core was noble, but misguided. Second, the Common Core State Standards will not significantly improve student achievement. And finally, the federal government created the controversy we have seen surrounding the Common Core over the past few years.

A Noble but Misguided Goal

The idea behind the Common Core is quite simple. Schools need standards because standards allow teachers to align the curriculum and allow teachers to see what they are to cover in each grade. I have been told many times that prior to schools adopting learning standards, it was not uncommon for students in the same grade in the same school to have radically different experiences depending on the teachers they had. Standards help alleviate that problem.

Following the infamous “A Nation at Risk Report” report of 1983, the standards movement was launched. This Reagan-administration report used alarming language to describe the nation’s education system. The authors of the report wrote:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. . . . We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.

The report fueled a desire to improve the quality of our education system. State officials wanted to keep a watchful eye on how schools were performing. To do that they needed tests, and to have tests, they needed standards on which to base them.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, states began creating their own standards-based accountability systems. By 2000, 39 states had accountability systems in place. After the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001, the remaining states were forced to follow suit. As a result, by the mid-2000s we had 50 different state standards and 50 different accountability systems.

These individual state standards created a problem. Students from families that moved from one state to another could miss entire topics if they were covered in one grade in one state and in a different grade in another. And, very importantly, the different tests did not allow us to compare one state to another because the accountability systems were different. In a state with very low standards a student might score “proficient,” but if he were in a state with very high standards he might score “basic.”

In reality, these were not problems created by having 50 state standards. They were problems that have always existed, and in many regards still exist. To be honest, these problems are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. I mean, would you go through all of the effort that the Common Core designers went through just to improve transparency across states? I wouldn’t, especially when we have the National Assessment of Educational progress, known as the nation’s report card, which already allows us to compare one state to another. The most valid reason to support the Common Core comes from the thought that these standards could improve student achievement for all students. This is where the supporters for Common Core were misguided. This is where the logic for Common Core falters, and this is what brings me to my second point: that Common Core will not improve educational outcomes for students.

Common Core Will Not Improve Educational Outcomes

Let me ask: How might a system of new standards improve educational outcomes for all students? As far as I can tell, there are three options:

• The standards could better align the curriculum.
• The standards could be more rigorous.
• Or, the standards could create a broader platform for collaboration.

Let’s examine each of these.

The standards could better align the curriculum

Remember, states have already developed standards and aligned curricula. We’d have to believe that the Common Core has somehow come up with a better way to do these things—that they have discovered the special sauce or that the designers have figured out the right progression of learning. Something tells me that is not the case. While the quality of education research is improving, there is simply not enough evidence to know if we should teach fractions in third grade or fourth, or whether we should introduce money in kindergarten or first grade. I recently sat on a committee to rewrite Missouri’s state standards. I can tell you, while the process is informed by research, it often comes down to educated guessing. The individuals making these guesses are indeed educated, but in the end, many of these decisions are completely subjective.

So what is the second option?

The standards could be simply be more rigorous

They could raise the level of expectations for students. After all, students rise to the level of expectation, don’t they? If this were true, we would expect students in states that previously had rigorous standards to perform better than students in states with weaker standards. In a study for the Brookings Institution, Tom Loveless examined this very issue. He found no relationship between the rigor of state standards and student performance on the NAEP. None. Another thing to consider is that ratings of the Common Core Standards by the Fordham Foundation, a group that has been very supportive of the effort, do not place Common Core at the top of the standards list. They are among the best according to Fordham, but in Math and Language arts, other standards were rated higher. If we believe that rigor or the quality of standards matter, then it puzzles me why supporters of national standards would be so willing to go to bat for Common Core. Why not simply adopt the superior Massachusetts standards?

The Common Core will not improve student achievement by better aligning curriculum, nor can we improve student learning simply by being more rigorous. What’s left?

A system of national standards could create a broader platform for collaboration

Before Common Core, textbook companies often designed curricula for more populous states like California and Texas. As a result, states found it difficult to get textbooks that aligned with their individual standards. Common Core helps alleviate this problem. Moreover, it allows teachers throughout the country to collaborate on lessons related to the standards. While this sounds great, planning on a substantial benefit from collaboration is misguided. If it were true that more opportunities for collaboration led to success, then we would expect to see more populous states—those that drive textbook production—to have an advantage. Not only would they have textbooks tailored to their curricula, but with a larger number of teachers, they would have greater opportunities for collaboration. Yet, we don’t see a California or Texas advantage.

In the face of the evidence, there is simply no logical model that can explain how a set of standards that simply tells teachers what to teach will improve student learning. At least not today.

To be clear: Standards are important, and evidence does show that the standards-based accountability movement has led to modest learning gains for students. It seems, however, that the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Schools have already aligned curricula, and we have already begun focusing on student outcomes. New standards may have some impact on the margins, but by themselves they cannot substantially improve student achievement.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive indictment of Common Core. I don’t believe Common Core will ruin our education system. I don’t believe it is some grand conspiracy to dumb down America. I simply believe it is bad policy.

But if Common Core is innocuous, then why are we devoting so much time to it? We are having this conversation today because promoters of Common Core oversold, and because the federal government overstepped. As is often the case, the actions of the federal government came with unintended consequences.

The Federal Government Created the Common Core Controversy

Common Core did not begin as a federal initiative. I hesitate to call this a “state-led” initiative, and it certainly wasn’t a grass roots initiative. It was instigated by the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. These two trade organizations began the process late in George W. Bush’s administration, but the idea of national standards goes back even further, to his father’s administration. Early on in the development of the Common Core standards, some thought that the standards would be adopted by a handful of states; it was hoped that other states would adopt them voluntarily over time. That changed with federal involvement.

In 2009, President Obama launched his Race to the Top initiative, a competitive grant program that was part of the stimulus plan. States could compete for $4.35 billion dollars in prize money by proposing a series of reforms. This came at a time when states were feeling the pressure of the recession and could ill afford to pass up an opportunity for additional federal funding. One of the reforms supported in Race to the Top was the adoption of learning standards that were common to a majority of states—what would become Common Core.

As part of the first round of the Race to the Top process, states had to submit their applications (including a commitment to the Common Core standards) by January 19, 2010. The second round was June 1. But the final draft of the standards was not even released until June of 2010. In other words, the federal government encouraged states to commit to common standards before those standards were even finalized. Still, states jumped at the opportunity. By 2013, 45 states had adopted the standards. President Obama took credit for this in his State of the Union address.

At the same time, the Obama administration doubled down on support of Common Core by offering to waive certain No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements to states that adopted Common Core. Schools and states were finding it increasingly difficult to comply with various aspects of NCLB; that is, they had failed to meet the mandated 100 percent proficiency marks. States could avoid penalties by promoting education reform policies championed by the administration, one of which was common standards.

Whether you support federal involvement or not, it is difficult to deny that the actions of the U.S. Department of Education caused or at least contributed to the controversy surrounding Common Core. What might have been a coalition of states that grew and developed over time was catapulted into the national stage as a new and radical reform that many states adopted, if not against their will, then at least under duress.

Conclusion

While the motivation behind the Common Core standards was good, the outcomes—at least in terms of liberty—are not. Common Core moves control of one of the most important aspects of education—what students learn—further from students and parents, and it concentrates power at the federal level. As Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” The Common Core standards reduce individual liberty and academic freedom for states, teachers, and students. They nullify the great advantage of individual states—the ability to act as laboratories that allow us to evaluate different systems to see what works best—in favor of a monolithic approach that stifles innovation. Ultimately, the Common Core movement is an expression of the flawed mindset that we can mandate and orchestrate improved student achievement through centralized control. 

The post A Well Intentioned Disaster: A Presentation on the Merits of Common Core State Standards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click may appeal the Board's decision, but whatever the outcome there, Click's case was always very separate from the important policy issues her behavior brought into focus. Policymakers should recognize that Click is a symptom of the broken campus culture at Mizzou, not the cause of it. Accordingly, legislators should not take their eyes off the reform ball that's already started rolling this session. 

• Along with a host of other transparency measures, professors at Missouri universities should have to make their course syllabi available to the public. The idea that taxpayers don't have a right to see what they're paying for is ludicrous and anti-democratic. Our universities are there to act as stewards of taxpayer money to educate students so that they can be productive, informed, engaged members of society; taxpayers should be able to see the fruits of that investment.
• Mizzou is an important institution, but Mizzou is not "owed" money by taxpayers; rather, it and all state universities owe taxpayers a duty to earn every dollar they receive. That's also why regular audits of the school are also eminently reasonable.
• Policymakers should also decide whether Mizzou should have the privilege of acting as a bottleneck to degree programs across the state. Universities in every region of Missouri are providing valuable and innovative educations to students already. Why should Mizzou have effective veto authority over the degree decisions of other institutions? Maintaining this status quo seems unwise and exceedingly risky.

Melissa Click represented problems that have institutionally bedeviled the University for years, and her departure should signal not just the end of her tenure, but the beginning of a round of higher ed reforms that taxpayers can be proud of. After all of the embarrassments Mizzou brought to the state last year, that would be a welcome change of pace.

The post After Melissa Click, Higher Ed Reforms Must Stay on Course appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Universities have to be able to weather these events, though; otherwise, nothing will ever get done. It’s clear that the recent turmoil was more than the administration could overcome. Much ink was spilled in the post-mortem of the Wolf presidency, but I prefer to look to the future rather than dwelling on the past. I’m more interested in what we can do to improve Mizzou as the university moves forward.

That’s why I was heartened to see a legislative effort to promote greater transparency in the university system. Taxpayers and citizens have a vested interest in the university, and they can’t know if their hard-earned dollars are going to productive ends if they don’t know how those dollars are being spent. Louis Brandeis had it right—sunlight is the best disinfectant—and illuminating the inner workings of the university system can empower citizens to influence how the system is run.

The reform efforts have two central planks (available here and here). The first calls for the Missouri state auditor to complete a comprehensive audit of the university every year. The people of Missouri (many of whom will never have a child set foot on Mizzou’s campus) fund the university system to the tune of half a billion dollars every year. Is it going to fund research on Twilight fans, or is it being used to put more microscopes in the chemistry lab? Right now, we don’t know, and we should.

The second reform requires all instructors to put their syllabi and course reading lists online. Now, it’s not as if these documents are top secret today, but in the past when citizens and researchers have asked for access to syllabi to find out what students were being taught, Missouri universities have stonewalled them. Again, taxpayers have a right to know what they are paying for, and they should not have to pull teeth to find out what is actually being taught in the university’s classrooms.

The University of Missouri system is an important part of the fabric of our state. Not only does it instruct tens of thousands of our students every year, but it also serves as the locus of important research, debate, and discussion. A thriving Mizzou is good for Missouri, and greater transparency will strengthen the university and give Missouri citizens greater confidence that their tax dollars are going to fund important work.

The post Greater Transparency Would Be Good for Mizzou appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The thin silver lining here is that Mizzou's broken campus culture—not only among students, but among faculty as well—has finally been laid bare, providing the opportunity for policymakers and administrators to fix it.

So, where does Mizzou go from here? One important step would be to reestablish the University's bona fides as an institution that believes in free speech for everyone, not just those who support the politics of the university faculty. On point, L. Gordon Crovitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about a strong, student-supporting free speech policy that the University of Chicago adopted earlier this year. The policy has already been adopted at Purdue and Princeton, and which is now being pushed nationwide by FIRE, a student advocacy group.

You can find the University of Chicago's full report here, but I'd like to pull out two important paragraphs that could have written about Mizzou and its handling of free speech issues. (Emphases mine)

As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s longstanding commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness. That is our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future.

A lot needs to change at Mizzou in the coming months. Administrators should start by unequivocally rejecting the university’s recent Orwellian nonsense on speech matters and commit to the free speech principles on which this country was founded, and possibly by adopting the University of Chicago policy construction. As the University of Chicago statement suggests, open inquiry and speech are the inheritance of all universities. It is up to policymakers and administrators to ensure that this inheritance is not wasted at Mizzou.

The post University of Chicago: An Example for Mizzou on Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From Ugarte’s commentary:

[T]he reason I’m against SB 465 is that I don’t trust the motivations of those who are proposing it. It’s a bill with an agenda that goes far beyond a desire for transparency. It provides an opportunity for those determined to question, debunk, attack and diminish the pedagogical and research projects of university professors. I don’t think the effects will be positive; rather, we will have more of the same: animosity and lack of understanding.

As someone who has written on and testified in support of curriculum transparency for Missouri’s public universities, I can tell you that my motivation for supporting proposals like this comes from a conviction that public universities—and all public institutions—should be candid and open with the public about their affairs. Members of a public university should abide by the same transparency laws as everyone else who works in our public sector.

My motivation for supporting this bill doesn’t stem from a desire to “question, debunk, attack or diminish” the university, but I find it odd that a scholar would view someone questioning his work as a problem. Scholarship thrives on debate and challenges. As a student at Mizzou, you can bet I questioned my professors. They questioned, attacked, and debunked me right back. And I got a great education because of it.

I disagree with Professor Ugarte’s contention that an open academy will breed animosity and lack of understanding between it and the rest of society. On the contrary, I believe an open and honest discourse is the way you build trust and understanding. And there’s no reason why open and honest discourse can’t involve questions, debate, and, yes, sometimes even debunking.

The post No, Transparency Benefits the Academy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.