Hillary Clinton’s recent proposal to forgive the student loans of young entrepreneurs has drawn the ire of many. The obvious criticism is—why not for all students?
In this proposal Clinton is encouraging an unfortunate trend in attitudes toward college education, reinforcing what other notable figures have said that is damaging to the very idea of a liberal education. Remember Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s joke during his Stanford 1997 commencement address: "The science graduate will ask, 'Why does that work?', the engineering graduate, 'How does it work?',’ the economics graduate, 'What does it cost?' And the liberal arts graduate, 'Do you want french fries with that hamburger?'"
Breyer’s lack of thoughtfulness was probably aided and abetted by the fact that he felt, rightly, that a groundswell of indignation coming from liberal arts graduates was not going to matter much, since only about 14% of Stanford students major in the humanities—he was safely playing to the majority crowd. Besides, it was a joke, after all. Similarly, Clinton probably never registered how tone-deaf her proposal would sound—her base is the same as Breyer’s—scientists, engineers, and economists, plus venture capitalists. People who, by their estimation, actually do important things. According to this way of thinking, college’s real value is made evident in the production of these sorts of majors, with these sorts of mindsets.
President Obama approached the issue very differently at his speech at the GE Energy Waukesha Gas Engines Facility in Wisconsin: “Folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree. Now, nothing wrong with an art history degree -- I love art history. So I don't want to get a bunch of emails from everybody. I'm just saying you can make a really good living and have a great career without getting a four-year college education as long as you get the skills and the training that you need.”
I do not disagree with the President’s notion that a four-year college education is not for everyone, nor do I criticize anyone concerned with how their college education might lead to a good job. These are critical considerations—perhaps more today than ever before. What is of concern is the degree to which this mindset has become so dominant, and how it has changed not only individual choice, but also the larger university community. On the one hand, “liberal” education is being eclipsed in value and estimation by a neoliberal entrepreneurial education, and on the other hand it dispensable if your goal is not white collar work but blue collar labor. In either case it is the liberal arts, and in particular the humanities, that is the point of difference, in its impracticability and unprofitability.
Clinton’s proposal came at the same time as Stanford’s Global Entrepreneurship summit, at which both Obama and John Kerry spoke. Here at the hub of Silicon Valley, this notion of entrepreneurship on college campuses has special resonance—it has already been pointed out how Clinton’s proposal will especially benefit this area.
Taken to the extreme, Clinton’s proposal and even Obama’s would seem aligned with PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel’s proposal to allow young people to bypass university altogether. Recall how Thiel offered students $100,000 to drop out of college and pursue their dreams in other ways. This was countered (kind of) by the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship announcing their “Global Founders’ Skills Accelerator Program,” which offered students $20,000 to stay in school.
Here we have in a nutshell the battle for the soul of the very idea of a university education. Simply put in terms of “value,” why not just have trade schools with economics departments? College is thus reduced to a social network aimed toward future profit. This has huge ethical and even moral implications.
One part of Obama’s pitch for entrepreneurship at the Stanford event sounded extremely good: “The world needs your creativity, and your energy, and your vision. You are going to be what helps this process of global integration work in a way that is good for everyone and not just some.”
However, just how the idea of a “common good” would even be recognized in the first place was missing. The irony is that in dismissing the humanities and liberal arts in general, those rushing to secure practical results may very well end up creating products and concepts that do little if any service to the common good, that do little to help those who need the benefits of technology the most.
As much as he and others stress the importance of technological innovation, if the desired outcome is to be achieved—a world in which the benefits of entrepreneurship are enjoyed by all--then we need to pay serious attention to developing the ethical sensibilities that a humanistic education can help us develop.
Indeed, the argument can easily be made that the world economic collapse that is forcing students to adopt such a practical mindset was brought about by speculators with little, if any, sense of ethics. The basis for cultural understanding and the ethics that would help students recognize right from wrong depends on a liberal education. The study of histories, languages, cultures--the social worlds in which people exist--is necessary before we can begin to think productively of “what is good for everyone and not for some.” We need to switch from a focus on “incubators” to a regard for the wider world.