Ex-College Chiefs Say Runaway Costs, Not Politics, Fuel Public Mistrust

前大学校长指出：失控的高昂费用而非政治问题才是引发公众不信任的根源 高等教育面临的公众信任崩塌根源在于飙升的学费门槛和不透明的助学金机制，而非校园言论之争，这亟需对大学的经济模式进行全面改革。 主持人玛丽·苏·科尔曼（密歇根大学前校长）与布莱恩·罗森伯格（麦卡莱斯特学院前校长）及特蕾莎·萨利文（弗吉尼亚大学前校长）就高等教育的社会责任展开对话。与会嘉宾分析了人口结构转变、社会经济分层以及受利益驱动的媒体极化对校园生活的影响，指出住宿式人际接触、协作式教学法和人文学科能够培养至关重要的公民同理心。发言者们拒绝接受近期相关机构报告中所建议的向内退缩立场，主张以“机构审慎”取代绝对中立，并捍卫大学服务于公共利益这一具有约束力的社会契约。他们最后探讨了言论自由的界限、以人为本的探究面对人工智能时的韧性，并指出不透明且持续攀升的大学费用才是公众信任崩塌的核心诱因。 高等教育界领导人对修订后的耶鲁报告中关于淡出社会行动的建议提出质疑，认为大学承担着弥合公民裂痕的基本非营利社会契约。 (35:47) 人口结构的转变与州政府强制的招生政策发生碰撞（例如得克萨斯州录取前5%的高中毕业生，弗吉尼亚大学要求本州学生录取比例达到70%），从而引发了围绕校园多元化的政治争议。 (16:21) 与会嘉宾主张采取“机构审慎”而非刻板的绝对中立，认为高校应避免进行常规性置评，但当核心教育使命或学生受到直接威胁时必须发声。 (43:04) 高等教育公众信任度的下降主要源于学费恶性膨胀和不透明的助学金体系，而非仅仅由政治意识形态导致，目前私立大学的年均费用已逼近10万美元。 (57:10)

Higher-education leaders Mary Sue Coleman, Brian Rosenberg, and Teresa Sullivan argue that universities retain a fundamental public obligation to bridge social and political divides, rejecting proposals for institutions to retreat into passive neutrality. Contact, Pedagogy, and Developing Empathy Muscles (21:30) Campus leaders contend that bridging polarization cannot rely on top-down curricular mandates. Former University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman cautions that requiring students to take specific discourse courses inherently fails. Instead, former Macalester College President Brian Rosenberg emphasizes that universities cultivate empathy—which he defines as the capacity to view the world through another's eyes—primarily through diverse residential encounters and engagement with the arts and humanities. Drawing on John Keats's concept of negative capability, Rosenberg argues that encountering unfamiliar cultures and ideas trains the intellectual faculties necessary for civil cohesion. At large public flagships where domestic students arrive sorted by geography and class, structured classroom collaboration fills the gap. Former University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan highlights inclusive pedagogy, noting that attending class is the single universal activity all students share. Citing Harry Braverman's research on university marching bands, Sullivan explains that assigning random peer groups to solve complex, practical tasks—such as demographic research projects—overcomes post-pandemic social isolation and enables students from polarized backgrounds to discover unsuspected commonalities. Monetized Division and Institutional Reticence (32:22) The panel identifies modern polarization as qualitatively distinct because social media platforms have commodified outrage, turning controversy into an industry that coordinates disruptions across multiple campuses simultaneously. While acknowledging deep historical fractures, Sullivan and Rosenberg note that this monetization combines with an off-campus collapse of faith in established institutions, fueling widespread student cynicism. In navigating political pressure, the panel rejects both constant public posturing and total withdrawal. Addressing the University of Chicago's Kalven Committee Report, Rosenberg advocates for "institutional reticence" rather than absolute neutrality, which he warns can become passive silence. Under this framework, institutions avoid issuing commentary on outside events unless an issue directly threatens the university's core operational mission—such as federal restrictions targeting international students. Sullivan adds that institutions must maintain non-partisan stances while aggressively defending facts and institutional standards against political misrepresentation. Speech Boundaries and the Price of Freedom (50:20) When defining the boundaries of campus discourse, Sullivan notes that speech crosses into illegal conduct only when it escalates into specific threats directed against individuals. Short of that legal threshold, offensive expression remains constitutionally protected, requiring counter-speech rather than institutional suppression. While Sullivan rejects the "heckler's veto" as destructive to academic inquiry and democracy, she cautions against dismissing affected students as "snowflakes," noting that hateful rhetoric can cause genuine fear and perceived hostility. Rosenberg describes enduring offensive symbols as the painful price of maintaining an open society. Recounting an episode at Macalester where swastika vandalism occurred over an entire year, he explains that stopping the perpetrator would have required blanket surveillance, which is fundamentally incompatible with an academic community. Choosing not to default to authoritarian policing meant actively supporting distressed Jewish students while preserving campus freedom, illustrating that open expression inevitably carries difficult institutional trade-offs. Economic Realities Underlying Declining Trust (57:10) While media narratives frequently attribute public dissatisfaction with higher education to ideological polarization, Rosenberg asserts that empirical data points to financial barriers as the primary driver of eroding confidence. Select public flagships now charge in-state tuition and fees exceeding $50,000 annually, while private college costs often top $100,000 per year, forcing families to make massive financial commitments through opaque aid systems. This economic strain creates an acute divide across higher education. While elite flagships and heavily endowed colleges see record application volumes—such as UVA receiving roughly 90,000 applications for 9,000 seats—smaller regional colleges face an existential crisis marked by frequent closures. Sullivan suggests mobilizing alumni and expanding educational quality across more institutions to ease taxpayer resentment. Rosenberg concludes that restoring public faith ultimately requires higher education to develop a sustainable economic model rather than relying on unrealistic state funding increases. The dialogue underscores that while universities possess unique structural capacities to counter civic fragmentation, their effectiveness remains limited by institutional failures to communicate empirical research, rising tuition costs, and the delicate balance between protecting open expression and ensuring community safety.

前高校领导人指出，大学负有弥合社会裂痕的根本公共契约，但化解极化不能依赖行政命令或将使命狭隘收缩为知识生产，而应依靠结构性接触、人文学科培养以及坚守制度克制原则。 社会契约与知识传播的公共责任 (35:47) 针对耶鲁大学关于高校信任度报告建议大学退出社会行动、回归纯粹学术使命的主张，Macalester College荣休校长Brian Rosenberg提出明确反对。他认为大学作为非营利机构的核心理由在于服务公共利益，高等教育承担着具有约束力的社会契约，必须直面当前最严峻的公民极化危机；相较于耶鲁封闭的主张，康奈尔大学面向外部社会的报告展现了更理想的模式。 Rosenberg直言，高校必须诚实承认过去在引导学生建设性应对对立观点上的不足，掩饰失败只会加剧公众的不信任感。 University of Virginia荣休校长Teresa Sullivan以自身的人口学专业为例，指出学术研究必须为公共政策提供实证支持。例如全美人口学家正在组织反馈，反对2030年人口普查拟取消种族与族裔问题的提议；又如时间生物学已明确证明人类生理节律需与太阳同步，每年两次调时最有害健康、永久标准时间最优，但科学共识并未被有效转化为公众决策。Sullivan认为，大学有责任将实证科学结论直接传递至公共争议中，未能承担此类公共传播正是耶鲁模式的盲区。 微观接触与任务驱动化解人口区隔 (25:42) 美国公立基础教育按地理位置划分学区，导致大量本土新生进入大学前生活在阶级和种族区隔的环境中，加之COVID-19疫情后线上教学使学生更加缺乏面对面互动的信心。University of Michigan荣休校长Mary Sue Coleman强调，高校无法通过强制选修课程来化解隔阂，行政强制往往适得其反，而应提供实质性的建设性沟通机制，例如密歇根大学自1988年设立的群际关系项目（IGR）。 Teresa Sullivan指出，课堂是所有学生不可避免的共同交集。大学教师通过包容性教学法（inclusive pedagogy），打破传统单向讲授，采用随机分组与结对合作方式，引导学生共同完成复杂的具体任务。Sullivan以其人口学课程为例，学生通过协作完成陌生国家人口档案并自发组织模拟旅行；她援引社会学家Harry Braverman在加州大学伯克利分校的研究，证明大学军乐团之所以能跨越背景高度凝聚多元群体，核心正在于成员必须共同协作完成精密任务。与此同时，通过培训学生领袖主持含冲突观点的讨论，能以同伴影响力在校园形成长效辐射效应。 人文学科在人工智能时代的共情价值 (21:30) Brian Rosenberg指出，结构性对话项目固然有益，但高校化解分歧最底层的路径在于多元居住环境的日常接触，以及对艺术和人文学科的沉浸。以Macalester College为例，2000名学生来自110个国家，与背景截然不同的同龄人共同生活是迫使学生脱离闭塞圈层的关键机制。文学研究中济慈（John Keats）提出的“消极感受力”（negative capability）——即悬置自我、体验他人意识的能力——正是公民社会所需的共情训练。 在AI快速发展与人文学科投资萎缩的背景下，Rosenberg反常识地持乐观态度。他反对将高等教育仅仅视为短期职业培训，指出市场需求转变极快（如计算机科学与工程学位的热潮轮换），过度迎合当前就业市场易使毕业生面临被淘汰的风险。人文学科培养的团队协作、思维敏捷性、坚韧与创造力等核心素养正是算法最难复制的，人机交互的冲击将反向促使社会重新审视人类智慧特有的价值与共情能力。 制度克制原则与言论自由的边界 (43:04) 在大学是否应就政治议题表态的问题上，Rosenberg主张“制度克制”（institutional reticence）而非绝对中立。他回顾了芝加哥大学1960年代后期的《卡尔文报告》（Kalven Committee Report），即大学应作为批评者的家园而非批评者本身；但当核心使命直接受外部政策威胁时，大学不仅有权且有责任公开发声，正如他在联邦政府限制国际学生流动时代表Macalester表态一样。Sullivan进一步区分了政治问题与党派立场，强调大学绝不能卷入党派之争，但当本校招生标准或学生资质遭政治人物歪曲时（例如德州政客将本州依法录取的多元学生诬称为“替代本土人的外国人”），校方必须用核实的事实有力捍卫学生。 围绕仇恨言论与表达自由的冲突，Sullivan明确指出，法律上唯有针对个人的具体威胁才属违法并由执法机关介入，令人不悦的思想言论仍受宪法保护；她明确反对“起哄者否决”（heckler's veto），认为扼杀演讲有损民主与大学基石，同时反对将受创伤群体的关切轻率贬为“脆弱”。Rosenberg则认为，容忍冒犯性表达是开放社会的自由代价，若为彻底根除匿名仇恨符号而全面铺设监控，其破坏性远胜于恶劣言论本身，高校不能滑向威权式的严密管控。 商业化极化与公众信任的经济根源 (32:22) 与会领导人指出，当前校园极化的加剧受到外部大环境的深刻塑造。Sullivan分析称，现代极化已演变为成熟的牟利产业，利益方利用社交媒体在全美多所高校跨地域、有组织地制造对立。Rosenberg则观察到全社会对建制机构的信仰普遍崩塌，加上日益扩大的贫富差距与算法平台影响，年轻一代对大学的愤世嫉俗态度具有现实动因。 然而，民调显示的公众对高等教育信任度下降，其根本症结在于经济承受力而非意识形态分歧。尽管密歇根大学、德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校和弗吉尼亚大学等公立旗舰校以及顶尖私立名校申请量屡破纪录，但全美绝大多数区域性院校正面临生存危机，新英格兰地区高校频繁倒闭。公立旗舰校州内就读总成本部分已突破5万美元，私立名校普遍逼近或超过10万美元，加之复杂的资助计算导致家庭在面对仅次于房产的重大支出时极度缺乏透明度。Rosenberg总结，在州财政预算向医疗与幼教倾斜的大环境下，建立可持续且公平的经济模式是高等教育重塑公众信任的首要任务。 讨论揭示出美国高等教育在弥合分歧时面临的内在两难：一方面必须坚守容忍尖锐甚至冒犯性表达的开放原则，另一方面需面对受侵害群体的安全诉求；尽管精英名校依然生源爆满，但高等教育整体的可承受性危机与财务不透明，持续侵蚀着公众对大学履行社会契约的根本信任。

[50:20] Teresa Sullivan: I don't like the heckler's veto. I think that's bad for universities. I think it's bad for democracy. [19:12] Mary Sue Coleman: I think anytime you require students to take a course or do something, you've lost the game. [57:10] Brian Rosenberg: And if there's one thing, I think, that higher education could do to begin to rebuild public confidence, it's to create a more sustainable and equitable economic model. [32:22] Teresa Sullivan: I think one thing that is different now is that there are people who are making money out of encouraging division. [7:01] Laurie McCauley: Every cohort has to learn again how to live, work, and ultimately flourish with people across the full spectrum of human experience. [16:21] Teresa Sullivan: The public schools have changed dramatically, and people are not prepared for the fact that that means the colleges are going to change as well.

[0:07] JEFFREY VEIDLINGER: Hi, everybody. [0:09] Welcome. [0:11] My name is Jeffrey Veidlinger, and I'm [0:13] the Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute [0:16] here at the University of Michigan. [0:22] Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. [0:25] Thank you, in particular, to the students who are here. [0:28] I want to remind all of the students who are in the audience [0:31] that we'll be hosting a moderated discussion [0:34] after the event next door. [0:38] Food will be available, and all students who are here [0:41] are welcome to go to that moderated discussion [0:44] to talk about what you hear the people talking on stage about. [0:49] Thank you as well to the staff at the Wallenberg Institute [0:51] for making this event happen, to Miriam Mora, Eleanor Camp, [0:56] Alexis Gideon, and Joe Johnston. [0:59] The Raoul Wallenberg Institute was established [1:01] by the University of Michigan in December 2023 [1:05] as part of a university-wide effort to combat anti-Semitism [1:09] and advanced religious diversity and inclusion. [1:13] Raoul Wallenberg, the institute's namesake, [1:16] was a 1935 Michigan alum who worked with the United States [1:21] and Swedish governments in Budapest [1:23] to save thousands of Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust. [1:27] After the war, he was detained by the Red Army [1:30] and died in a Soviet prison. [1:32] The mission of the institute is to advance [1:35] the values he represented-- tolerance, courage, leadership, [1:40] and empathy-- by studying and combating [1:43] all forms of ethnic and religious hatred, [1:45] and fostering civil discourse. [1:48] The Samantha Woll Dialogues are an important part [1:51] of this mission. [1:52] This series of conversations on contemporary issues [1:55] of consequence was established to honor [2:00] the memory of Samantha Woll, a passionate community [2:03] leader, committed grassroots organizer, and advocate [2:06] for interfaith conversations, who was tragically [2:08] murdered in Detroit just over two years ago. [2:13] And thank you to her family, Margo and Doug Woll, and Monica [2:15] and Ben Rosen, for helping us realize [2:18] the vision of this series. [2:22] This afternoon's dialogue, Should Universities [2:25] Strive to Bridge Divides, addresses [2:27] some of the most important contemporary issues [2:29] in higher education today. [2:31] I want to say we originally titled it [2:33] How Can Universities Bridge the Divide, [2:36] but after the Yale report on trust in higher education, which [2:40] recommended that universities move away from social action [2:43] and focus instead on core issues of dissemination of knowledge, [2:48] we chose to alter the question to Should Universities [2:51] Strive to Bridge Divides. [2:53] And I expect our speakers will address both of those issues. [2:57] And now, to introduce this afternoon's speakers [2:59] and the program, I would like to welcome provost Laurie McCauley, [3:03] whose partnership in establishing the Raoul [3:05] Wallenberg Institute and whose support along the way [3:08] has been instrumental in turning our vision into the reality [3:12] that you see today. [3:14] [APPLAUSE] [3:18] LAURIE K. MCCAULEY: Thank you, Jeff, [3:20] and thank you so much for your leadership [3:21] and bringing really the most engaging conversations [3:26] on our campus to the Woll Dialogues. [3:36] This is my favorite space on our campus to have conversations, [3:42] and we are also benefited by having [3:44] an amazing panel of colleagues. [3:47] So we're really in for a treat. [3:50] And as Jeff said, we're here to talk about [3:53] whether universities should strive to bridge division. [3:58] To discuss this question, well, we [4:00] must first observe that we live in a divided [4:03] country and a divided world. [4:05] And of course, I don't have to tell all of you [4:07] that, it's pretty much obvious. [4:10] But what is less obvious is whether our condition [4:14] or this condition is historically exceptional. [4:18] We often are told that we are more divided than ever. [4:24] By some metrics, that could be true. [4:27] But we human beings have devised ways of dividing ourselves [4:31] for all of recorded history, whether it's by religion, class, [4:37] nationality, race, ideology, territory, [4:42] sports teams, or any other number of distinctions, [4:48] some profound and some absurd. [4:54] We continually find ways to divide ourselves. [4:58] What may be more historically notable about this moment [5:01] is the existence of institutions deliberately constructed [5:05] to bring many of those differences into discussion [5:09] and to fruitful inquiry. [5:12] Chief among those is the university. [5:16] Every semester, thousands of people from different countries, [5:20] communities, faiths, political traditions, and ways [5:24] of seeing the world come here, planning [5:28] to spend years in one another's company. [5:32] Occasionally, this produces friction. [5:36] But remarkably, and of course, we hear about those dust-ups, [5:41] but remarkably, most of the time people [5:43] manage imperfectly but persistently to coexist. [5:48] And they revise their arguments, they [5:51] find common ground and unlikely friends. [5:54] And they do all of this, by and large, [5:56] with civility and in good faith. [5:59] We are so accustomed to that phenomena [6:02] that we can fail to notice how incredible it really is. [6:08] Universities remain places where societies have most [6:11] deliberately attempted to make these collisions between people [6:17] productive ones, in a way that serves both them as individuals [6:22] and the greater society around them. [6:25] This is an experiment that has been going on for at least 1,000 [6:30] years, and on this campus, more than 200 years. [6:36] It's worth unpacking why is it successful, [6:40] and asking how can we do it even better. [6:44] This leaves us with our profound question of the day, "what, [6:49] if anything, should universities be doing as institutions [6:54] in a society full of strife?" [6:58] That is a question that's not new at Michigan. [7:01] For decades, we have invested in conditions that make [7:06] difficult dialogue possible. [7:09] Our Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, [7:12] which was founded in 1962 has long [7:15] helped faculty think carefully about how [7:18] consequential and controversial questions play out [7:22] in the classroom. [7:24] Since 1988, our program on intergroup relations [7:29] has made Michigan a national leader in intergroup dialogue [7:33] and helped develop an approach that has since been adopted [7:38] by many other universities. [7:41] So we've been doing this work for a long time, [7:44] and in recent years, we've also doubled down on these efforts. [7:49] We created a program called Talking Maize & Blue, which I [7:53] highly recommend you engage in. [7:56] It's open. [7:57] It's targeted for our entering new students, [8:00] but anybody can go on and take the module. [8:05] It introduces students early in their Michigan experience [8:09] to questions of open inquiry of disagreement [8:13] and intellectual community. [8:16] Not all Wolverines think alike, and that's [8:20] the gist of the module. [8:23] Our Speak Your Mind, Change Your Mind Series [8:25] is a part of a larger effort around building [8:27] our culture of open inquiry, and was launched in conjunction [8:31] with our theme here on life-changing education. [8:35] Our new Center for American Dialogue [8:38] aims to examine the idea of dialogue [8:40] through research, experimentation, and public [8:43] engagement, and taking a proactive approach [8:46] to reporting on its findings. [8:50] Many events moving this important work forward, [8:53] including speakers, panels, workshops, and research [8:56] are products of this Raoul Wallenberg Institute. [9:00] And for that, we are incredibly grateful. [9:03] The institute has brought renewed attention [9:06] to studying hatred directed against religious and ethnic [9:10] communities, fostering cross-cultural understanding [9:14] and elevating civic discourse in this crucial moment. [9:23] Michigan has been engaged in this work in one form [9:26] or another for generations. [9:30] The work is not easy. [9:32] It's not always intuitive. [9:34] It doesn't happen automatically. [9:36] Every cohort has to learn again how [9:40] to live, work, and ultimately flourish [9:43] with people across the full spectrum of human experience. [9:48] This is an incredible responsibility [9:51] we have to help each generation co-create [9:55] a healthy culture of discourse. [9:59] Tonight, we are fortunate to have three people with us [10:02] who have spent much of their careers [10:04] thinking about universities and how [10:06] to create a productive intellectual culture [10:10] within them. [10:12] Our moderator, President Emerita Mary Sue Coleman, [10:15] served as president of the University of Michigan [10:18] from 2002 to 2014 and returned to serve [10:22] as interim president in 2022. [10:28] She also served as president of the University of Iowa [10:31] and of the Association of American Universities. [10:35] Mary Sue is an enduring feature of our landscape [10:39] here at Michigan. [10:40] Personally, an incredible role model for me. [10:46] Of course, we know that we have a building named [10:50] after Mary Sue-- [10:52] Mary Sue Coleman Hall, where groundbreaking work in the life [10:56] sciences takes place, in that building that bears her name. [11:01] Joining her is Brian Rosenberg, who served for 17 years [11:05] as president of Macalester College. [11:08] He's now a Visiting Professor at the Harvard Graduate [11:11] School of Education. [11:14] His recent book has one of the best titles I've ever heard, [11:20] which is, Whatever It Is, I'm Against It. [11:24] [LAUGHTER] [11:28] The book considers higher-education's talent [11:30] for resisting change and what meaningful reform might require. [11:36] And finally, Teresa Sullivan, who [11:39] is the President Emerita of the University of Virginia. [11:43] She has also served in my favorite position, provost [11:47] and executive vice president for academic affairs, [11:50] here at Michigan. [11:52] And I fondly remember being a department chair [11:54] when she served as provost. [11:57] She's a sociologist by training, and she [11:59] led the University of Virginia as president from 2010 to 2018. [12:05] Presidents emeriti, thank you for joining us. [12:11] And I'm now going to turn it over to Mary Sue. [12:14] MARY SUE COLEMAN: OK, thanks very much. [12:16] Thank you so much, I really appreciate that. [12:19] [APPLAUSE] [12:20] Well, I want to thank the Wallenberg Institute [12:23] for inviting all of us here to this, what I consider to be [12:26] a very important conversation. [12:34] So I want to start by just having us describe a little bit, [12:38] briefly, the institutions that we led-- [12:42] because have some diversity here, [12:44] and I think that'll be important to the discussion. [12:48] So all of you know about the University of Michigan. [12:50] I describe the University of Michigan [12:53] as the best public university in the country, [12:58] with a breadth and depth of study that is unparalleled. [13:03] I mean, this place constantly amazes me [13:06] in terms of what it studies and what its faculty and staff do. [13:11] So, I just want to start with that. [13:12] But, Brian, why don't you tell us [13:14] a little bit about Macalester. [13:16] BRIAN ROSENBERG: So for those who don't-- first of all, [13:18] thank you for having me. [13:22] And I should note that I feel a debt of gratitude to Michigan. [13:27] My son got his law degree here and is gainfully employed, [13:31] so I am a grateful father. [13:37] Macalester College was founded in 1874 [13:40] by the Presbyterian Church. [13:44] And by the time I got there, in 2003, [13:48] it had a student body of about 2,000-- [13:50] so a very classic liberal arts college size. [13:53] What is most distinctive about Macalester College, I think, [13:57] is its international focus. [13:59] Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, [14:02] under a very visionary president, [14:05] the college began actively to recruit students from all over [14:08] the world. [14:09] Now, among those 2,000 students, there are students from 110 [14:14] different countries. [14:16] And so I had the privilege during my time [14:19] there of learning, I think, as much from the students [14:23] as any of them learned from any of their faculty. [14:29] And it is a college that is unusual in being located-- [14:35] a small college in the middle of a three-million person [14:37] metropolitan area. [14:39] So it was a privilege to be there. [14:43] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Terry, what about UVA? [14:44] TERESA SULLIVAN: Well, the University of Virginia [14:46] is considerably smaller than U of M, [14:49] a little more than half the size of the University of Michigan-- [14:53] required by state law to take 70% of its student body [14:56] from the Commonwealth of Virginia. [15:02] But the Commonwealth of Virginia has changed a lot over time. [15:05] And the wealthiest part of the commonwealth, [15:09] which is the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, [15:12] where the per capita income now is $72,000, [15:18] has generated lots of students for the university, [15:22] but it also employs now lots of people from all over the world. [15:25] And so as a result, the students that Virginia [15:28] is taking from Northern Virginia are [15:32] not what you might think of as the traditional white [15:34] Southerners. [15:35] It's all sorts of people. [15:37] The rest of the state-- and by the way, [15:38] the students refer to Nova as Northern Virginia. [15:40] And Rova, the rest of Virginia-- [15:46] Rova are far more likely to be either White or African [15:50] American, with now some Latinos included. [15:54] So there's always some suspicion that there's [15:58] too much affirmative action one way or the other. [16:00] We're letting in too much of Nova. [16:02] We're letting in too much of Rova. [16:04] It's always an issue. [16:07] And because Virginia received 90,000 applications last year [16:12] for first-year class, about 9,000, it's very selective. [16:18] And that raises the ante for lots of folks. [16:21] But I want to talk about Texas, if you don't mind. [16:23] I live now in Austin, and I was on the faculty [16:26] at the University of Texas at Austin for 27 years. [16:29] So what's happened in Austin, basically, [16:32] with the political class not exactly noticing, [16:35] is that the public schools there are now 66% [16:38] African American and Latino. [16:41] And the university is required to take 90% of its student body [16:45] from the state of Texas. [16:46] And there's another law, which says that if you graduate [16:49] in the top 5% of your graduating class in high school-- [16:53] it's 10% for most universities, it's 5% for UT-- [16:57] then you're automatically admitted. [16:58] It doesn't matter what your test scores were. [17:01] It doesn't matter what your recommendations are. [17:03] You're in automatically if you're up there. [17:06] Well, the reason this is important [17:08] is that the complexion of the student body [17:09] is changing rapidly. [17:11] And there's an assumption that affirmative action, which [17:16] has been illegal in Texas longer than it has been in Michigan, [17:20] was being practiced to let in these students. [17:22] And if I could just talk about a little vignette, [17:24] we have a statewide politician who's [17:26] running for office next Tuesday. [17:29] And so after the first football game, [17:32] he saw a picture of celebrating students. [17:34] Why were they celebrating? [17:36] Well, going into the fourth quarter, [17:37] we were 21 points behind Ohio State. [17:40] And miraculously, we won the game. [17:43] And the students were enormously happy. [17:45] They were jumping in the air, throwing their arms up, throwing [17:48] the hook 'em horns sign. [17:49] And there was a picture caught of these students. [17:52] And so here's what this politician [17:53] had to say about that on social media. [17:56] I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. [17:59] I don't believe it. [17:59] This problem is now obviously far worse than anyone imagined. [18:03] Well, if you had any doubt about what problem he's speaking of, [18:06] he doubled down. [18:08] The next social media post-- [18:13] body cams exposed criminals. [18:16] Social media is exposing how many Americans have [18:18] been displaced by foreigners. [18:21] And further, I weep for the families in Texas [18:24] who can't get into UT because they prioritize foreigners [18:28] over Texans. [18:29] Well, these were not foreigners. [18:31] These were American-born residents of Texas [18:34] who graduated in the top 5% of their high-school class, [18:38] and therefore were automatically admitted to Texas. [18:41] But the political class has not yet caught up with this, [18:43] and is assuming it must be the product of some kind [18:45] of social engineering. [18:47] And that is an issue that a lot of schools, [18:49] especially in the South, are facing. [18:51] The public schools have changed dramatically, [18:54] and people are not prepared for the fact that [18:56] means the colleges are going to change as well. [18:59] And so an enduring division in American society, [19:03] which is the division by race and ethnicity, [19:05] has become a contested point between universities [19:10] and the public that surrounds them. [19:12] MARY SUE COLEMAN: I think that raises an interesting question, [19:15] because we're thinking about, how do we bridge the divide? [19:20] That is, what has happened with demographics, [19:22] and it's really changing. [19:23] And of course, the University of Michigan [19:25] is famous for its defense of affirmative action [19:28] and going through all those years of trying [19:33] to provide opportunity. [19:36] In Michigan, I think, as a state. [19:38] now, the most important demographic is, [19:41] because of the robust financial aid that's [19:44] being given to universities, is its socioeconomic diversity-- [19:48] is that many, many of the in-state students [19:51] now are from lower socioeconomic circumstances, [19:55] and many of the out-of-state students [19:57] are quite wealthy coming into the institution. [20:00] And so we've got multiple divides. [20:03] We've got racial divides, socioeconomic divide. [20:05] And how do we get these groups not [20:10] to be required to do something that [20:13] would let them meet each other and learn from each other, [20:18] but what are the kind of things that we did back [20:24] 20 years ago or 15 years ago to bridge the divide? [20:30] And one of the things that I wanted [20:32] to mention, at least at Michigan, because it's [20:35] been mentioned already by Laurie, [20:37] in her group, relations group-- [20:40] actually, it was a consortium between student affairs [20:46] and LSNA. [20:50] Actually, there were courses and programs [20:52] that taught students how to talk to each other, that [20:54] came from very different circumstances. [20:57] And so, at least from my perspective, in looking-- that [21:01] started back in 1988, that the University of Michigan [21:04] has for a long time tried to figure out [21:07] how to bridge the divide. [21:09] So what, at least in your past, had [21:13] you done to try to-- not to do with requirement. [21:17] I think anytime you require students to take a course [21:20] or do something, you've lost the game. [21:22] It has to be encouraged, and it has [21:25] to be in a way that's interesting and constructive [21:28] for them. [21:28] So, Brian, what about you? [21:30] BRIAN ROSENBERG: So, first of all, [21:32] I just want to emphasize that we always [21:34] have to remember that universities [21:36] are embedded in larger social structures and issues. [21:42] And I think too often we look at universities as if they're [21:44] a world unto themselves. [21:46] The reality is, the entire world around universities [21:50] has become more divided and more contentious over the last couple [21:54] of decades. [21:55] When I started at Macalester in 2003, there was no social media. [22:02] If someone got angry at me, they actually [22:04] had to either write me a letter or send me an email. [22:08] Donald Trump was bankrupting casinos in Atlantic City. [22:13] And it was just a different time. [22:15] And so a lot of the divisiveness that we [22:18] see on university campuses is a reflection of divisiveness [22:22] that extends beyond them. [22:25] I guess, I'd make two points. [22:30] I think that the programs that bring people [22:32] into dialogue across difference are really important. [22:35] You do them here. [22:36] They're doing them at Macalester. [22:38] But for me, there are two more fundamental ways [22:43] that universities have been working [22:46] and can continue to work to bridge divisions. [22:50] One is implied by what I said earlier about Macalester's [22:54] student population-- [22:55] 110 different countries. [22:57] I really do believe that it is important to bring people [23:02] into regular contact with others whose views and backgrounds are [23:05] different from their own. [23:08] For many, many of the students on these campuses, [23:11] this will be the most diverse community within which they [23:14] will live in their lifetimes. [23:17] Does it always work? [23:19] No. [23:20] Are there times when students will cluster together, [23:23] like to like? [23:23] Yes. [23:25] But if you create the right kind of culture on a campus, [23:29] and I've seen this, students will come out [23:32] changed because they have encountered people [23:35] who are different from them. [23:37] And what they will develop is, to me, [23:40] one of the essential characteristics, [23:43] both of a university education and of being [23:45] a citizen in a civilized society, and that is empathy-- [23:49] being able to see the world through the eyes of someone who [23:52] is not you. [23:54] There's an even more fundamental way in which we do this. [23:58] And this reflects my own background [24:00] in being a student of literature, [24:04] and why I think studying the arts is so important. [24:10] What happens to students in classrooms [24:12] when they read a novel, or when they read a historian, [24:16] or when they look at a painting, is that, on some level, [24:20] they are seeing the world through the eyes of someone [24:23] else. [24:24] It's what Keats, who was one of my favorite poets [24:28] when I used to teach English, called negative capability-- [24:34] the ability to negate yourself for a while [24:37] and see the world through the eyes of someone who is not you. [24:41] And there is no place that happens more regularly and more [24:47] purposefully than at universities and colleges. [24:51] And so I think, again, these programs are great, [24:57] but it's the core work. [25:01] It's the core work of getting students [25:03] to study cultures they didn't know about, to read books [25:07] by people who were different from them, by going to a museum, [25:13] by seeing a play. [25:15] That's the way you develop those empathetic muscles. [25:19] And only if you develop those muscles, [25:21] ultimately, can we overcome those divides. [25:28] MARY SUE COLEMAN: I think, Brian, [25:29] that's a really interesting aspect, [25:32] is the international students coming in. [25:38] I mean, we're living in a time now [25:39] where it's difficult for international students [25:42] to get visas, and that's going to be another problem for us. [25:46] But the other thing that always struck me [25:49] about both the University of Iowa [25:51] and the University of Michigan is [25:53] that students coming to the university were-- [25:57] because public schools, public secondary and primary education [26:01] is based on neighborhoods. [26:02] And so students coming into the university with people [26:06] from neighborhoods all over the country, or all over the state, [26:11] are all of a sudden confronting people [26:13] that they had never interacted with before. [26:16] Because education in this country is so sort of location [26:20] based, where you live, where you come from. [26:24] But it's just another way, I think, [26:26] to think about this sort of coming together and interacting [26:33] with people and having to live with people who you've never [26:37] encountered before in your life. [26:39] But, Terry, what about in both? [26:42] I guess you can talk about Texas too, but both in Virginia. [26:48] What was that sort of interaction like, [26:51] and what did you do to try to help ameliorate it? [26:56] TERESA SULLIVAN: One thing that we discussed among faculty [26:59] and graduate students was developing inclusive pedagogy. [27:03] Because the one thing we know students do is they go to class. [27:06] They don't necessarily join any particular club [27:09] or extracurricular group, but they go to class. [27:11] And it's very easy for a faculty member [27:15] to fall into a lecture mode. [27:17] And the students sit there and never [27:19] have to interact with anybody, including the professor. [27:24] So an inclusive pedagogy encourages a different approach [27:28] to teaching in which students may be paired with one another. [27:31] They may be randomly assigned to working groups. [27:34] But they have a natural reason to be together with each other. [27:37] Now, when I was teaching right after COVID, what I discovered [27:40] was that COVID had a deep effect on students [27:45] who were high-school juniors and seniors [27:47] and had to go to school online. [27:49] They were very cautious about approaching anybody, [27:52] no matter how similar to themselves [27:54] that person seemed to be. [27:56] So we had to go back through introductory, [27:59] here's how you meet somebody. [28:01] Here's how you talk to them-- which was extreme. [28:04] I think none of us had experienced that before. [28:07] But what happened with this over the course of a semester [28:11] was that students found that they had commonalities [28:15] they didn't suspect with people they'd [28:17] been randomly assigned to. [28:20] I teach demography. [28:21] And so one of the things all my students have to do [28:23] is a detailed demographic portrait of a country [28:26] they're not familiar with, and then present it to each other. [28:29] And what I found was students sat down with each other [28:31] and talked about, how could we make a trip [28:33] to all these countries together? [28:35] So they were learning from each other, [28:37] even though they weren't necessarily [28:38] from those countries, and they were doing it naturally. [28:44] There was a study done by sociologist Harry Braverman, [28:48] back in the 1970s, at the University of California, [28:51] Berkeley, about, which aspects of the campus seem to bring [28:55] together the most students of different backgrounds? [28:58] And he found it was the marching band. [29:00] And it was because they had a task to complete together, [29:04] and it was working together as a team that helped [29:06] them get to know one another. [29:08] Well, that's what you can do in the classroom too, [29:10] if you think about it. [29:12] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a very important [29:15] aspect, particularly as universities-- [29:20] particularly the public universities, [29:22] you're representing a private, but the public universities [29:24] become larger and larger, creating opportunities [29:29] for having this happen-- [29:33] not in a terribly structured way, but at least to have [29:37] students confront each other. [29:40] Are either of you familiar with programs at your institutions [29:45] that you've led that help to try to teach students to facilitate [29:52] these conversations? [29:53] Because I think it's not only engaging in the dialogue, [29:57] but it's having some help and learning [29:59] how to engage the dialogue so that it doesn't become [30:04] a mechanism to try to convince somebody of your point of view-- [30:08] that you can have different points of view, [30:10] and you can at least learn to listen. [30:14] Is that something that you had some interaction with [30:17] and at least some experience in trying to set up? [30:20] TERESA SULLIVAN: We did have leadership programs [30:22] in which students were encouraged [30:24] to learn, as a function of leadership, [30:27] to try and bring a group together-- [30:33] despite the fact that people in the group [30:35] might have differing views. [30:37] It didn't mean you had to come to consensus, [30:39] but it meant that they could facilitate those different views [30:42] being expressed. [30:43] And I'll tell you, in my own classes, [30:44] I could tell the student who had been in one of those programs, [30:48] because it just showed in the way [30:49] they approached folks who disagreed with them. [30:59] BRIAN ROSENBERG: There are actually [31:01] two parents here whose son was a Macalester student, and now, [31:04] I gather, their daughter-in-law. [31:06] And they met in a program called Lives of Commitment. [31:11] And this brought together students [31:13] before classes even started. [31:16] And they came from many different places [31:18] with many different beliefs. [31:20] And the one thing they had in common [31:21] was that they wanted to live lives [31:23] that benefited other people. [31:26] And almost without exception, those students [31:29] then became leaders and facilitators. [31:31] You sort of seed them throughout the community. [31:35] And it's what we hope all of our graduates will do. [31:39] Especially when you're a small college, [31:41] like we are, you feel like, well, we're only graduating 500 [31:45] students a year, how much of a difference [31:47] can we make in the world? [31:48] But each of those people can go on and affect a dozen or 100 [31:54] or 1,000-- or in the case of our most famous alum, Kofi Annan, [31:59] millions of people. [32:01] So you never know who that person is going to be. [32:08] I always found students listen to other students [32:11] more than they listen to me or just about anybody else. [32:14] And so if you can create student leaders, [32:18] then they can in turn do a really nice job of creating [32:21] other student leaders. [32:22] MARY SUE COLEMAN: So is there something [32:24] that's unique about the time that we're living? [32:28] We were all leaders a number of years ago. [32:32] We had our challenges then. [32:34] Is this a particularly divisive time? [32:39] Do you see that on the campus? [32:41] Do you feel it on the campus? [32:43] Is it a more challenging time, I guess, for university [32:49] leaders to try to do something about creating these sorts [32:55] of opportunities for dialogue? [32:57] TERESA SULLIVAN: I think one thing that is different [32:59] now is that there are people who are making money [33:03] out of encouraging division. [33:06] And so it's become an industry. [33:08] And that puts a lot of energy behind division as opposed [33:12] to unity. [33:14] And that is new in my experience. [33:17] That was not something I had to face when I was in office. [33:21] And so that leads to pretty structured, divisive moments [33:27] that happen simultaneously at a number of schools [33:31] at the same time, because they're [33:33] linked now by the internet and social media and other things. [33:37] That's very different from what it used to be. [33:40] However, to put this in perspective, [33:43] Gary Gallagher, who is an eminent historian of the Civil [33:46] War, once told me that Abraham Lincoln would gladly [33:50] trade his best day for Barack Obama's worst day. [33:56] Things were pretty bad then, too. [33:59] BRIAN ROSENBERG: Yeah, it's always [34:01] tempting to see your particular historical moment as the most [34:06] extreme of one thing or another, and I wouldn't [34:08] go as far as to say that. [34:12] I will say that I am very glad not to be a college [34:16] president right now. [34:17] [LAUGHTER] [34:18] I do think it is harder. [34:21] As I said earlier, I think colleges and universities [34:24] are embedded in society. [34:26] And look, there's no way around it, we're living in a time [34:29] when there is a profound loss of faith in institutions. [34:33] People point to the loss of faith and faith [34:36] in higher education, which is true. [34:37] But compared to some other industries and institutions, [34:43] we don't look so bad. [34:45] It's a general loss of faith. [34:48] And if you're a member of a generation [34:51] that, say, my children are members of, [34:54] you can understand it. [34:56] A lot of these institutions have failed them. [35:00] And things like income inequality [35:02] have gotten dramatically worse over the course of my lifetime. [35:07] I won't sound like a complete Luddite and say, [35:11] I wish social media had never been invented, [35:14] but I wish social media had never been invented. [35:16] [LAUGHTER] [35:17] And I, to be totally honest, kind of [35:19] feel even more strongly about AI. [35:24] It's a really, really tough time. [35:27] And that pressure does not tend to bring out the best in people. [35:32] And so yeah, it's certainly not what Lincoln had to deal with, [35:39] but it's a lot harder than it was [35:42] when I began my presidency a little over two decades ago. [35:47] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Brian, coming to that point, [35:50] do you think that colleges and universities have an obligation [35:55] to try to create opportunities for students [35:59] to learn how to talk to each other when they may not agree, [36:05] and to move away from ad hominem attacks-- [36:10] if you don't agree with me, or to have every conversation [36:13] or every interaction be one in which [36:15] you're trying to convince somebody that your point of view [36:19] is the only correct one? [36:21] BRIAN ROSENBERG: I do. [36:22] I mean, I am not a fan of the "Yale Report." [36:27] Which, for those of you who aren't familiar with the "Yale [36:30] Report," they changed their mission statement and removed [36:35] the reference to benefiting society, [36:38] and simply reduced it to, the production and the dissemination [36:43] of knowledge. [36:45] By the way, I would recommend to you, [36:47] as an alternative vision, the report produced [36:51] by the faculty at Cornell. [36:54] It kind of got overwhelmed by other things that [36:56] had been going on at Cornell, but it [36:59] is a very, very different vision of a university-- [37:06] much more outward looking. [37:09] And I do think universities have a responsibility to-- [37:13] they have a social contract. [37:15] And part of that social contract is [37:17] we are going to try to address the main problems [37:20] in the universities that we serve. [37:22] It's the reason that we're nonprofits, [37:25] because we're supposed to be serving the social good. [37:28] And right now, serving the social good [37:30] means trying to get people to be less divided. [37:33] And so I think we do have to be thoughtful and deliberate [37:38] about it, maybe in a way that we have not always [37:40] been throughout our histories. [37:43] And we also have to acknowledge where [37:44] we have not been successful. [37:47] We've not, I think, done a great job of training students, [37:52] preparing students to encounter viewpoints that [37:55] are different from their own. [38:01] I happen to be a graduate of Cornell and Columbia, [38:04] so I get lots of emails from embattled presidents. [38:08] And the latest at Columbia-- and this [38:11] ties together the two universities. [38:13] Two students at Columbia wrote an op-ed [38:16] that ran counter to the prevailing [38:18] narrative around the situation at Cornell. [38:22] Do I agree with what they wrote? [38:24] No. [38:25] Do I believe that they had the right to write it and say it? [38:29] Yes, I do. [38:31] Do I believe that they have the right [38:33] to be engaged in dialogue with people who disagree with them? [38:38] I do. [38:38] Well, what ended up happening is the whole conference around, [38:42] ironically, freedom of speech got [38:44] canceled, because people objected to the fact [38:49] that the publication that printed their op-ed [38:52] was going to be represented. [38:54] And people look at that and say, you [38:56] know what, you guys are not doing a very good job of what [38:58] you claim to be doing. [39:00] And I think pretending to be successful [39:03] when you're not never works. [39:05] And so I think we need to acknowledge where we're not [39:07] being successful and figure out how we can try to do better. [39:15] MARY SUE COLEMAN: So, Eleanor is coming around here [39:17] with some cards, and she's going to hand them to you. [39:23] And if you'd like to have one, raise your hand. [39:28] And if you have a question that you'd [39:30] like to ask that hasn't been asked, [39:33] please feel free to do that. [39:35] She'll just walk around. [39:36] That's what she's doing. [39:41] So, Terry, give us your sense about the same question. [40:00] TERESA SULLIVAN: Well, I'm from a field [40:02] in which research and public service [40:04] are pretty closely aligned with each other. [40:09] Let me give you an example. [40:11] In the Federal Register, there is now [40:12] a notice of changes to the 2030 census, one of which [40:16] would eliminate any question on race or ethnicity. [40:21] And so demographers around the country, [40:24] applying their own research expertise, [40:27] are writing responses to this, to explain why you need [40:30] data on race and ethnicity. [40:34] That is something that our students should also [40:37] be able to do when they finish a course in demography. [40:42] In my own field, at least, I see the close relationship [40:46] between research and public policy. [40:51] Now, that's not to say we make the public policy, [40:54] but we can enlighten it. [40:56] Let me give you another example of a division [40:58] where I think universities could have been stronger in explaining [41:03] their own research. [41:05] Next Sunday morning, we're going back on Standard Time. [41:10] So you all get ready. [41:11] Because after we go back on Standard Time, [41:13] there are more heart attacks, there are more strokes, [41:15] there are more automobile accidents. [41:18] But for years, people have debated, [41:23] should we keep switching twice a year, [41:25] from Standard to Daylight Saving and back again? [41:29] Well, we've got research on that. [41:32] The single worst option is switching back and forth [41:34] the way we do now. [41:37] The second worst is staying on permanent Daylight Saving Time. [41:42] A bill to do that has already passed the House [41:44] and is currently stalled in the Senate, [41:46] although the president has said he would sign it. [41:49] The best alternative is to go on Standard Time and stay there. [41:52] Why is that the best? [41:54] Well, medical experts, biology experts, particularly [41:58] those who study chronobiology and circadian rhythms, [42:02] have agreed that we're much better off because we [42:05] have evolved to deal with the sun [42:08] and not with an arbitrary time. [42:11] Have we said that clearly? [42:13] I don't think so, because the whole country is divided about, [42:17] what should we do? [42:17] Should we go on Standard Time? [42:19] Should we go on Daylight Saving Time? [42:20] And the Senate appears to be divided on the issue, too. [42:23] They can't make up their minds. [42:24] Why have we not introduced some scientific research [42:28] into that conversation? [42:30] We have this research. [42:31] We have done it. [42:33] It's just that we're not always able to convey it. [42:36] But I would hold that conveying it is a public service, [42:39] and that's the boat that Yale has missed. [42:43] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Well, we're in a current circumstance [42:46] where we don't pay attention to a lot of scientific evidence [42:49] that's out there, about what would be better for our lives. [42:52] But let's see, why don't we get some questions now [42:58] from our audience, if you've got anything ready for us [43:02] to ask about. [43:04] OK, very good. [43:09] This is a good question. [43:11] Should universities take political stances? [43:17] BRIAN ROSENBERG: Small topic. [43:20] So, my answer to that is, occasionally. [43:27] If you go back to the formative document upon which [43:32] institutional neutrality has been based, [43:34] it's the "Kalven Committee Report" [43:35] of the University of Chicago, that was produced in the late [43:40] 1960s. [43:42] And that report does say that in order for the university [43:46] to be a place where all views can be openly expressed, [43:49] it should be what they say is the home of the critic, but not [43:54] the critic. [43:56] And by and large, I agree with that. [43:57] But they make an exception. [44:00] And the exception is when an issue [44:03] threatens the mission of the university itself. [44:07] And in that case, the university, [44:11] it says, doesn't have an option, it [44:13] has a responsibility to speak. [44:17] And so a friend of mine, who was the president of Carleton [44:21] College, has written a book in which he describes [44:23] a policy of institutional reticence, which I think [44:27] makes more sense than neutrality-- [44:29] which too often means withdrawal and silence. [44:33] Reticence means, you don't weigh in on every issue. [44:36] And as any president knows, if you put out statements [44:38] too often, they become just white noise-- meaningless. [44:44] And you shouldn't put out statements [44:46] where you don't really have expertise to put out statements. [44:50] But when it is something that touches directly [44:53] upon the ability of the institution [44:55] to carry out its mission, then I think the appropriate position [45:00] is not silence, which is kind of a position itself, [45:04] but to say something. [45:05] To just give one example-- and this can [45:07] be very institution specific. [45:10] So I mentioned McAllister's commitment to global diversity. [45:15] Well, when policies are put in place [45:17] that make it impossible for international students [45:19] to get to the United States, my view as the president [45:23] of that institution, whose mission statement said, [45:26] internationalism, multiculturalism, and service [45:29] to society, well, if you are blocking our ability [45:33] to do those things, you're affecting our mission. [45:36] And so it was my responsibility as the leader [45:38] of that institution to say, we think [45:40] that policy is wrong, even though not everyone would [45:43] agree with that. [45:45] So I don't think withdrawal is the right answer. [45:48] I don't think speaking all the time is the right answer. [45:52] I think picking your spots when the mission of the institution [45:55] is threatened is probably where universities and colleges should [46:00] be. [46:01] TERESA SULLIVAN: I'm pretty much aligned with Brian on this, [46:03] but I would also draw a distinction between what's [46:06] political and what's partisan. [46:08] And so I do not think universities [46:10] should take partisan positions. [46:13] The problem with the political definition [46:15] is that so many things have been politicized, [46:18] or are themed red or blue, that it's difficult to say anything. [46:23] But I also agree with Brian that when your own university is [46:27] called into question, then I think you do have an obligation [46:30] to defend it. [46:31] Had I been the president of the University of Texas [46:33] after the Ohio State game, I would [46:35] have issued a statement which said, [46:37] all our students are here because they deserve to be here. [46:40] We are 90% Texas students, and they graduate [46:42] at the top 5% of their class. [46:44] Those were simple facts that the University of Texas did not say, [46:49] and so most of the public didn't know. [46:52] And I see no problem whatsoever in stating [46:56] factual material that is relevant to a growing [46:59] political controversy. [47:00] MARY SUE COLEMAN: I think we can generally [47:02] see that presidents have been very reticent to speak out [47:06] about almost anything. [47:07] But, Terry, I want to ask you, can you [47:09] comment about foreign money that comes to universities [47:14] and the influence? [47:16] Would you have worried about that [47:19] as influencing something that the institution did or didn't [47:22] do? [47:25] TERESA SULLIVAN: You need to declare it, [47:27] at least in a public institution. [47:31] You have to declare the foreign money and its source. [47:35] And foreign money covers a lot of things. [47:38] Is it a foreign alumnus who's donated back to his college? [47:43] Don't really see a problem with that. [47:45] Is it a foreign government that's [47:46] supporting medical research on a disease they're [47:48] particularly concerned about? [47:50] Again, that doesn't bother me very much. [47:53] But there are certainly instances or cases [47:57] when the institution could be compromised [48:01] by having accepted the money. [48:03] Where I think the biggest issues have come from [48:06] is with individual faculty members [48:08] who have accepted under-the-table appointments [48:11] to foreign universities and have not disclosed it to anybody, [48:14] including their own university. [48:16] And some of the cases where American professors have [48:20] been sentenced in court, it's not [48:22] just that the money was foreign, it [48:24] was that it was a conflict of interest [48:26] and they didn't declare it to anybody. [48:29] But in the two universities I've been associated [48:33] with for the longest, foreign money is just not really [48:35] been an issue. [48:37] You were president, Brian. [48:40] Do you think being exposed to more international students [48:44] in your position as president helped [48:46] you understand more about just education in general? [48:54] I mean, talk to us just a little bit [48:57] about what that impact was on you as president [49:01] to have really-- [49:04] a lot of your diversity in your population [49:06] was in international students, as I understand it. [49:10] BRIAN ROSENBERG: It was profound. [49:11] And I should also allude to some work [49:13] I've been doing since I left Macalester. [49:18] Again, this is a good example of how one person can affect [49:22] thousands and even millions. [49:24] One one of our graduates, named Fred Swaniker, [49:26] has become an educational entrepreneur [49:29] on the continent of Africa. [49:30] And he founded something called the African Leadership [49:33] University. [49:34] And I've been working with them for the last six years. [49:38] And during that time, it's grown from about 800 to about 5,000 [49:42] students, many of whom grew up in towns without electricity. [49:47] And it gave me an opportunity both to become familiar [49:52] with cultures about which I knew absolutely nothing, [49:57] and also see the transformative effect of education. [50:02] And the same would happen at Macalester. [50:04] I mean, there was an instance at Macalester [50:07] where a Palestinian student and an Israeli student [50:10] became best friends. [50:14] And it is moments like that give you hope. [50:20] And so I learned a lot. [50:21] But what it did and what it continues to do, [50:24] even when we are going through very difficult times, [50:28] is to give me fundamental hope that education [50:31] can make a difference. [50:34] MARY SUE COLEMAN: I want to ask you a pretty tough question, [50:37] because I think it's one that we grapple with a lot. [50:42] Terry, where does hate speech end and freedom of speech begin? [50:47] TERESA SULLIVAN: That is a very tough question. [50:49] And I think that the legal answer would be-- [50:53] and I know I've got at least one lawyer here in the audience who [50:56] can correct me. [50:57] I think the legal answer would be, [50:59] when it becomes a threat against an individual. [51:03] That's when it becomes illegal and a matter [51:07] for law enforcement. [51:09] But saying something that people just don't like, [51:12] that's probably protected free speech. [51:16] But other people should be allowed [51:18] to use their free speech to say, that's just wrong, [51:21] and here's why it's wrong. [51:25] What happens too often is that only one voice gets platformed, [51:29] and that other dissenting voice does not get platformed, [51:33] or has no way to make itself felt. [51:37] So I don't like the heckler's veto. [51:40] I think that's bad for universities. [51:42] I think it's bad for democracy. [51:44] But the heckler needs to have a way [51:46] to make his or her voice heard. [51:50] That could be by holding a sign or by being given some time [51:53] to ask questions. [51:55] I do have to agree, it's a really difficult issue. [51:59] The other thing is the listeners who [52:02] may be harmed just by hearing the hate speech, [52:07] their feelings should be taken into consideration. [52:10] It doesn't do to just say that they're snowflakes. [52:15] It can make them feel that the people around them [52:18] are hostile to them and that they are in danger. [52:20] And you've got to be careful about that, as well. [52:23] But listen, it's a dicey issue. [52:24] It's not just dicey at the university, by the way. [52:28] It happens in workplaces. [52:29] It happens in the military. [52:31] It happens all over the place. [52:33] But it's one that we've not come to grips with very well, [52:36] I don't think. [52:37] By the way, the Europeans have a very different view of it. [52:40] I mean, they have codes of things that you cannot say. [52:43] And we just are not willing to take [52:45] that step in the United States. [52:49] BRIAN ROSENBERG: It's the price of freedom. [52:54] We had an incident, ongoing for about a year [52:58] at Macalester, where someone was drawing little swastikas [53:03] around campus. [53:05] And there's no realistic way to stop it, [53:10] unless you put surveillance cameras up in every hallway, [53:14] in every room. [53:15] And I don't think you want to do that, [53:17] and I don't think students would want you to do that. [53:21] But for a year, I had to deal with Jewish students [53:26] telling me that they felt unsafe and the college needed [53:29] to do something about it. [53:32] But what exactly you do about it, there's no easy answer. [53:39] Unless we want to live in a society [53:42] that is constantly surveilled and that does have very, very [53:46] strict restrictions on what people can say and do, [53:51] we have to live with the fact that there [53:53] are going to be people who do awful things. [53:57] And again, the distinction that Terry made [54:00] is in some ways that's the easy one. [54:03] You can't go up to someone and say, I'm going to kill you. [54:06] But what happens if you draw a swastika, [54:10] or you hang a noose out your window, [54:13] or you display a Confederate flag? [54:17] This is not an issue that's, as you say, [54:20] limited to colleges and universities. [54:22] It's everywhere. [54:22] But my view has always been, we have to accept that bad in order [54:28] to have the benefit of the larger good, which [54:31] is the ability to have freedom of speech. [54:36] MARY SUE COLEMAN: We touched on another topic [54:38] that you brought up in one of your responses, Brian, [54:40] that I'd like to go back to you a little bit-- [54:44] what about the arts and humanities [54:46] and the role of the arts and humanities as universities is [54:51] are disinvesting, perhaps having more lucrative studies-- [54:59] particularly, I think, in finance and business education, [55:02] which seems to be the most popular major now [55:04] in many universities. [55:06] But as AI rises and really does change maybe humanity's [55:14] traditional role in the universities, [55:16] how should we be thinking about that in the future? [55:26] BRIAN ROSENBERG: So I try to be optimistic about this [55:29] and say that one of the things that AI is going to do [55:34] is remind us of how important the things that the humanities [55:38] and the arts teach us are, because they are the things that [55:43] are perhaps hardest to be replaced [55:46] by artificial intelligence. [55:48] When I left Macalester, the most popular major in the college [55:53] was computer science. [55:54] That was only six years ago. [55:55] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Not long ago, right. [55:57] BRIAN ROSENBERG: It's not anymore. [56:01] And if you try to build your education, either as [56:05] an institution or an individual around what you think [56:08] will prepare you for your job, you're [56:11] going to probably pretty quickly learn [56:13] that those jobs change rapidly. [56:17] There was a period earlier on where it was engineering. [56:20] Everyone was going into engineering. [56:21] And that fell apart. [56:24] And so, I think the goal should be to prepare [56:27] you to be a lifelong learner. [56:30] And I think the goal should be to have the kind of skills [56:35] that I think will serve you well-- [56:37] creativity, the ability to work in teams, [56:40] resilience, flexibility. [56:43] And those are things that can be learned in any discipline. [56:47] But certainly those are things that [56:49] can be learned in the arts and humanities, I think. [56:52] And I'm hoping there'll be a realization, [56:58] as we become confronted with non-human forms of intelligence, [57:02] that there are human forms of intelligence [57:05] that maybe we should pay attention to. [57:10] MARY SUE COLEMAN: AI seems to be a big topic [57:12] these days, particularly, and it's an area [57:18] that I think is uncharted. [57:19] And we're going to see what will happen as a consequence. [57:25] But both of you have thoughts about-- we've [57:29] talked a little bit about lack of confidence [57:32] in higher education. [57:33] And I think this is a sort of a ironic topic, [57:42] because we hear about loss of confidence [57:45] in higher education-- except the great universities [57:49] in the country have many more students applying [57:52] than they can possibly admit. [57:54] And so this lack of confidence doesn't [57:57] seem to be dampening the enthusiasm for families [58:00] to send their children to great institutions of higher [58:05] education. [58:06] But are there things that universities and colleges can [58:09] be doing to get people to have more [58:13] confidence in institutions and in higher education, in general? [58:19] TERESA SULLIVAN: Well, every time we graduate somebody, [58:21] we're sending a little public relations message out [58:24] into the world. [58:25] And I think we don't do enough with the power [58:29] that our alumni have to change conversations and say, [58:34] when I was at Michigan, it wasn't like that. [58:36] It was much better. [58:39] Because I found that with alumni of the great universities, [58:43] you don't have to talk to them for very long [58:45] to discover that it was a profoundly [58:46] life-changing experience, and they were happy for it. [58:50] I think we need more of that. [58:52] At least some of the resistance to higher education [58:57] actually is envy, from parents who feel their kids could never [59:01] benefit from it. [59:02] And they're paying taxes to support a school [59:04] their kids can't go to. [59:06] I understand that. [59:07] And one answer to that is to make more schools great, [59:10] not to take away the greatness of the ones you have. [59:15] BRIAN ROSENBERG: If you look at the surveys that [59:19] suggest there's been a loss of confidence in higher education, [59:22] the number one reason is not politics, it's cost and access. [59:30] And if there's one thing, I think, [59:33] that higher education could do to begin [59:37] to rebuild public confidence, it's [59:41] to create a more sustainable and enable [59:44] an equitable economic model. [59:48] I just read that, for the first time, [59:51] the full in-state tuition at some flagship publics has [59:55] exceeded $50,000 a year. [59:58] At privates, of course, the cost of attendance in many schools [60:01] has exceeded $100,000 a year. [60:03] And we all know about financial aid, [60:06] but we also know that for the average family, [60:09] the whole system is completely opaque. [60:13] Just imagine making what is probably [60:16] the largest purchase of your life, [60:18] with the exception of your house, [60:20] and not knowing how much it's going to cost you. [60:23] And so it's not just the cost, it [60:25] is the complexity and opacity of the system. [60:31] And it's not sustainable. [60:34] For places like UVA, Austin, Michigan, they're booming. [60:41] Michigan's student body is the largest it's ever been, [60:45] and there's no sign that that's going to change. [60:47] But that is a slice of higher education. [60:51] There is a whole other world out there. [60:54] And I see it in New England, where [60:56] I live right now, where colleges are closing every month-- [61:01] and where the majority of institutions in the country [61:04] are not worried about who they say no to but how [61:06] they fill their seats. [61:12] I mean, that economic pressure, on both the institutions [61:17] and the public, we've got to do something about it. [61:20] And I'd love to say that we should [61:24] make more public investment in it, because I believe we should. [61:30] I'm a realist about that. [61:32] There are a lot of things that we [61:33] should make more public investment in, [61:35] like health care and early childhood education. [61:40] So I'm not holding my breath to wait and see states [61:43] putting a lot more money into higher education, [61:47] but we need to figure out a way to bend the cost curve. [61:52] And if we don't do that, we're going to become, I think, [61:55] increasingly distrusted by a public that doesn't understand [62:00] why a year at Macalester College right now probably costs you [62:06] $90,000, if you're paying full tuition. [62:19] MARY SUE COLEMAN: Well, with that, [62:21] I think we've come to our stopping point. [62:24] And I just want to thank our panelists [62:26] for having a very intriguing and engaging conversation, [62:30] and thank the audience for your questions. [62:32] I'm sorry that I couldn't get to many of them, [62:35] but I can see from just the questions that you asked, [62:38] you were deeply engaged. [62:39] And so thank you all so much for being here. [62:41] [APPLAUSE]