The Canonical Succession of Higher Ed

How Harvard Abandoned The Liberal Arts

In recent months, the higher education battleground of the Culture War has been fierce. Two presidents of elite universities have fallen, not by literal bullets, but by sustained reputational assaults on their digital presence.

The media circus around these events has generated renewed interest in the Grievance Studies Affair, and crowds of curious newcomers are circulating through my hoax-related work. If my DMs are anything to go by this platform will benefit from an influx of intelligent and motivated subscribers who are connecting the dots in interesting ways.

I’ll use this opportunity to take readers unfamiliar with the Claudine Gay scandal through a brief video synopsis before tying the skirmish into the broader institutional battle that gave rise to it.

Hopefully, I’ll be able to convince you of what seems obvious to me - the war over knowledge production has begun in earnest and a new era for Higher Ed is on the horizon. For better or worse.

---

Making Sense of the Skirmish

In a 2016 presentation, a brilliant social psychologist by the name of Jonathan Haidt, pointed out what he saw as a schism forming within the university system. He claimed that US colleges are caught between two irreconcilable missions - truth and change.

Haidt used two quotes to exemplify the opposing perspectives, the first from liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion...

… he must know them (opposing opinions) in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

This quote reflects a liberal arts perspective. One that considers the discovery of truth as primary and is more concerned with accuracy than what’s to be done with the findings.

Embedded in this spirit of curious humility is a belief that objective reality exists and is accessible to all inquiring minds as long as they’re willing and able to overcome their subjective biases.

We recognise research conducted in this Millian disposition as scientific, with rigorous empirical methods, the development of testable hypotheses, and systematic observation, all being reflections of a striving toward the reduction of subjective bias.

Haidt contrasts this Millian perspective with that of Karl Marx, the father of communism, who was notoriously pragmatic in his pursuit of revolution.

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

- Karl Marx, Eleven Theses on Feuerbach

This quote reveals an activist’s disposition that regards the effect of thought as its primary purpose. Embedded in this perspective is an eagerness to impose one’s will on the world and it would likely give rise to an eye roll if confronted with Millian appeals to dispassionate analysis.

These two perspectives result in two irreconcilable missions for a university and they are at the heart of our present-day war over higher education. Claudine Gay was targeted by conservative activists because she occupies the Marxian disposition, and her work to transform Harvard into a Social Justice institution speaks to this fact.

Haidt uses “truth” and “change” to describe the warring perspectives but considering I see them as manifestations of underlying bodies of scholarship, I’ll describe the schism as the liberal arts tradition being succeeded by the critical canon.

The term “canon” refers to a collection of works considered to be of great importance and enduring value within a particular culture. At any point in time, the essence of a university is defined by its canon. That is, what it is researching and teaching. That essence changes over time as Haidt pointed out with his reference to the evolution of liberal education from Christian monasteries in the early modern period.

It’s clear a new canon is emerging to define the essence of Western learning institutions once more, and The Reformers project was an attempt to understand and undermine it.

It turned out to be a tragic tale for Helen, James, Peter, and I, because we were all, in our own ways, naive about the scale of the problem.

Having abandoned economics for identity, the new canon currently subsuming the liberal arts isn’t explicitly Marxist. However, Haidt was inclined to quote Marx because it’s an unmistakable evolution of his critical analysis.

“... it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists”

- Karl Marx, 1843 letter.

Influential figures within the critical canon, a group of men known as the Frankfurt School, claimed that social science needed to integrate philosophy into its methods so that findings would work toward a moral end. Namely, the liberation of human beings from the interests of a dominant group within a given society.

Taking up these critical methods, scholars created Critical Race Theory (CRT), Postcolonial Theory (PCT), & Queer Theory (QT), among others, which are vast bodies of academic research that are essentially variants of the same theme. They seek to scrutinise the social expectations, art, media, laws, & institutional practices of Western societies to reveal how they fall short of perfect equality.

CRT criticises society on behalf of African Americans, PCT on behalf of indigenous inhabitants, and QT for unusual sexualities, but the canon can extend itself to any group that may harbour grievances against norms. This is why in The Reformers series, we named it 'Grievance Studies'.

In its most basic form, one could describe the work of the critical canon as denouncing the world to make room for a utopian alternative. For example, queer theorists will continually describe the word "queer" as a "horizon of possibility". They want to make room for the exploration of sexualities that are free from the judgmental gaze of social norms. They’re not interested in positing alternatives but simply clearing the way for something else - a kind of wrecking ball for social “progress”.

While reading the scholars working in the critical tradition, I often find myself muttering the phrase “another underpants gnome,” alluding to the characters from South Park. The underpants gnomes steal underpants from children as part of a grand plan to make a profit but when asked how they will turn the underpants into money they stare blankly before reiterating their grand plan.

Critical scholars are similar in their approach. It’s rare to see proactive solutions that don’t amount to “give our people more funding so we can criticise more.”

As it currently exists, the critical canon is a bottomless body of social critique that’s accumulated over more than half a century. Its scope has become so broad and influential that it’s the dominant paradigm for humanities departments throughout the Western world and it’s enmeshed in almost every form of human study.

Over the years, activist scholars have been syncretising other fields of study into the critical canon by first applying their analysis to the social environment in which academic work takes place, and then applying their methods to the research itself.

Take critical dietetics for example, which is a parallel "critical" study of the study of diet and nutrition (dietetics). Activists started by scrutinising the gender and race makeup of the scholars studying diet and nutrition and once established in the sociology around the field, they moved inward to the research itself.

Now, by looking for hidden discrimination in food and nutrition, they’ve established the discipline of “critical dietetics,” which is dedicated to the revolutionary enterprise of liberating people from the hidden power systems within food.

Some version of this process has been replicated across most disciplines within the contemporary Western university. Like a tumour growing on an otherwise healthy organism, the critical outgrowth of a discipline merges with the research DNA of the field and grows by diverting sustenance. In most cases, this is financial resources and graduates who might have otherwise spent their time studying the underlying subject.

Offices of “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, or whatever linguistic variant a particular institution uses for the entity, are all administrative appendages that sprouted from the critical canon. They’re a surface-level symptom of canonical succession, and they wouldn't have been acceptable to liberal arts faculty had they not been subject to decades of subterranean knowledge activism.

DEI administrators foster a monoculture on campus, and along with student activists and critical faculty, work to socially reward politically convenient research findings while punishing scholars who stray too far from orthodoxy. This is what the “free speech crisis” on college campuses is really about - The social dynamics of a university can be used to shape a society’s knowledge from its source.

Just like a media organisation can use journalism to fortify a political worldview through selective reporting and emotive conjugation, an academic institution can limit the scope of what can be studied, influence how findings are framed, and set up carrot-and-stick social dynamics on campus.

Mild-mannered researchers, which is most of them, have directed their efforts toward findings that align with, or at least don't contradict, the critical orthodoxy because the social and career costs of standing against it are too great.

It’s not surprising that ex-president Gay has an unimpressive academic history that’s riddled with plagiarism. In an institution where the liberal arts have been cast aside for the mantle of the critical, the measure of achievement is no longer in the pursuit of truth but in the capacity to effect change.

Viewed from the Marxian disposition, Gay is an elite performer, and her story is a textbook example of how critical scholars have been able to ride the momentum of canonical succession into power and prestige.

Throughout her early career, Gay's minimal academic output on race and identity secured her a steady stream of awards and prestigious appointments. In 2007, she accepted a professorship in Harvard’s African-American Studies department, where she continued to publish sparingly while inculcating many.

In 2015, she took on the position of Dean of Social Sciences and rapidly advanced to head Harvard’s largest division, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS). During this period FAS was marred in scandal following reports about Jeffrey Epstein's private office within the division and the ongoing mishandling of sexual misconduct complaints. It didn't take Gay long to convert these campus tensions into ideological change.

Responding to formal complaints about staff flirtations and "off-colour jokes," she took decisive action against Professor Roland Fryer, a distinguished economist recognised for research that challenges the critical orthodoxy. Placing him on a two-year administrative leave, she not only barred him from teaching or conducting research at Harvard but also shut down his research lab.

This investigation by filmmaker Rob Montz on the Fryer scandal is well worth a watch.

Since covering the egregious DEI-hit jobs against Peter Boghossian and Bret Weinstein, I semi-regularly have academics contact me with harrowing stories of how their institutions weaponised accusations against them to discredit their academic work. The story of Professor Fryer seems to fit the pattern of DEI activists leveraging real or imagined complaints against faculty to shape an institution’s culture and research output.

Consistent with a pattern of leveraging crisis, Claudine Gay later channelled political momentum from the tragic death of George Floyd toward an aggressive expansion of Harvard’s DEI bureaucracy.

In a leaked memo to FAS staff and faculty, Gay said.

This moment offers a profound opportunity for institutional change that should not and cannot be squandered. The national conversation around racial equity continues to gain momentum and the unprecedented scale of mobilization and demand for justice gives me hope.

In raw, candid conversations and virtual gatherings convened across the FAS in the aftermath of George Floyd’s brutal murder, members of our community spoke forcefully and with searing clarity about the institution we aspire to be and the lengths we still must travel to be the Harvard of our ideals.

I write today to share my personal commitment to this transformational project and the first steps the FAS will take to advance this important agenda in the coming year...

… This fall, we will reactivate the cluster hire (click here for a definition) in ethnicity, indigeneity, and migration, with the goal of making four new faculty appointments. These appointments are critical to our long-term efforts to strengthen our research and teaching capacity and ensure that our students have access to this vital body of knowledge (the critical canon).

… I am also establishing the Harvard College Visiting Professorship in Ethnicity, Indigeneity, and Migration to recruit leading scholars of race and ethnicity to spend a year at Harvard College actively engaged in teaching our undergraduates.

… the Inequality in America postdoctoral fellowship program, which currently recruits two new fellows each year, will be expanded in the coming year to recruit two additional early-career scholars whose work focuses specifically on issues of racial and ethnic inequality.

… this fall, I am launching the Task Force on Visual Culture and Signage to take up this consequential conversation.

… I soon will appoint the inaugural Associate Dean of Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging for the FAS. Their work will be dedicated to the creation and implementation of an FAS-wide strategic vision for inclusive excellence …

These initiatives are just a starting place. Our engagement in anti-racist action and the infusion of inclusive practices into all aspects of our teaching and research mission reflect a new sense of institutional responsibility and will require sustained effort over time.

… we must be relentless, constructively critical, and action-oriented in our pursuit to build the thriving, more equitable FAS we all deserve.

… collectively, we are the authors of Harvard’s future. As we begin this historic year, I offer you my personal commitment to be a partner and ally in the work for equity and justice.

Sincerely, Claudine.

- Claudine Gay, Leaked memo 2020.

TLDR - “I’m passive-aggressively expanding our already giant patronage network for the critical canon, and if you don’t like it we’re going to make it uncomfortable for you here at Harvard.”

This canonical surge may have generated the momentum Claudine Gay needed to climb to the summit of Harvard’s leadership in 2023. It was certainly the reason she had a target on her back for conservative activists who are now parading her reputational scalp around social media.

Her resignation, however, is only a symbolic victory. Harvard’s DEI structure remains unchanged and rivers of money continue to flow into the accounts of scholars who comfortably expand the critical canon while indoctrinating successive waves of fresh graduates into their political project.

Claudine Gay hasn’t even left Harvard, she simply scurried back into her ideological fiefdom of African American studies where she will enjoy a 900k yearly salary and enough influence to continue to effect critical change. It’s difficult to measure how deep the roots of the critical canon have spread into Harvard’s institutional soil but my guess is ‘Mutatio’ is a more accurate crest than ‘Veritas’ at this point.

Now that the critical canon has ascended to become the dominant body of scholarship within many academic institutions throughout the West, the Claudine Gay scandal is a sign of things to come. Conservatives, and increasingly liberals, aren’t going to sit idle while elite universities create an epistemological supply chain for top-down political activism. 

A university devoted to truth earns the right to sanctify its walls, shielding impassive truth-seekers from intimidation and attack. But when truth succumbs to the dictate of change those walls have no right to sanctity. They become hollow fortifications beckoning to be bulldozed by political actors driven to respond in kind. 

As news spreads about the canonical succession, fewer people will support the protections universities have enjoyed as ostensible practitioners of science. And we can expect this Culture War frontier to rage hot.