-
6. The Tastes of the Multitude: Populism, Expertise, and Academic Freedom
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
6 The Tastes of the Multitude Populism, Expertise, and Academic Freedom In April 1897, when the fusionist governing board of Kansas State Agricultural College (KSAC) replaced several veteran professors, student editors at the University of Kansas (KU) “shudder[ed] at the spectacle prefigured” and predicted that the new faculty would browbeat students into espousing “ultraradical ” theories.1 The dismissals, which outraged professors and college presidents across the nation, became emblematic of the vulnerability of faculty at public institutions of higher education. Although governors had always appointed the KSAC board of regents, the startling victories of the Populist Party attracted special attention to college politics. Populist control of state universities was not more political, or more democratic, than governance by either of the two major parties. Yet Populist takeovers highlighted the politics of higher education because the movement was more blatant about its desire to influence campus affairs. During the administration of President Thomas E. Will, KSAC embraced Populist causes and appeared to violate conventional expectations that scholars should remain, in the words of Harvard University President Charles W. Eliot, immune from “the passing wishes or tastes of the multitude.”2 Indeed, most scholars believed that the obscurity of academic policies and the intellectual authority of professors would prevent universities from being governed by majority rule. Faculty and administrators, therefore, ritualistically saluted popular wisdom without fearing that voters would make many specific demands.3 In contrast, Populist and fusionist regimes seemed to present a unique challenge. To a certain extent, President Will acknowledged that the impact of political pressure on universities was “highly ambiguous” because elected officials might 126 not represent the best interests of the masses. Nevertheless, Will was certain that this risk did not justify transforming KSAC into a “state within a state.” He predicted that autonomous state universities would revert to forms of “priestly education” that would betray the public interest and generate “warfare between the gown and the town.” Asserting that Oxford University had “been on the wrong side of every great question before the English people,” Will had little faith in the judgment of scholars who were insulated from the influence of elected officials.4 Will and other academic Populists often romanticized the prospect of majority rule over state universities and ignored the host of problems that might stem from this most radical definition of “democratic” higher education. While there are many sources of scholarly anxiety about academic Populism , this tolerance of public pressure ranks among the most powerful. Indeed, a section of Walter Metzger’s Academic Freedom in the Age of the University (published in 1955 along with Richard Hofstadter’s Academic Freedom in the Age of the College) has remained one of the most extensive treatments of Populism and higher education for more than fifty years. Basing his analysis primarily on the KSAC takeover, Metzger confirmed typical scholarly concerns about Populists and other “militantly democratic communities.” Academic Freedom in the Age of the University, however, relied on the statements of two opponents of Kansas Populism .5 Drawing on hostile as well as sympathetic sources, the following chapter explores the movement’s transgressions while also demonstrating its conflicted respect for scholarly expertise. As suggested by Metzger, Populists questioned whether citizens should defer to professors. Instead of honoring traditional institutions of higher education, Populists often emphasized the virtues of common sense, autodidacticism , and community-based learning. Local Granges, Farmers’ Alliances, and People’s Party chapters established informal educational networks by sponsoring lectures, libraries, and newspapers.6 Encouraged by these organizations , Populists had no patience for professors who criticized their agenda. Yet the movement still believed that Populist ends could be promoted by scholarship , especially research within recently professionalized social science disciplines . The study of economics, politics, and sociology spread through American universities during the 1880s and 1890s, when strife between capital and labor saturated this research with ideological passion. Accustomed to being a persecuted faction within institutions of higher education, academic Populists craved the protection offered by emerging ideals of scholarly autonomy and celebrated the concept of a scholarly community immune from plutocratic influence. The Tastes of the Multitude 127 E [35.171.22.220] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 17:44 GMT) However, Populists also noticed the inconsistent protection afforded to controversial speech and doubted if the ideal of academic freedom would ever safeguard radical scholars. While university administrators argued that only temperate or neutral professors deserved academic freedom, Populists observed that these definitions appeared to be established by power more than principle. Some academic...