logo
America's Founders Valued Higher Education

America's Founders Valued Higher Education

Political attacks on higher education are escalating as we approach next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Members of the Trump Administration, state legislatures, and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation call universities 'the enemy' to justify severe funding cuts, censorship, and restrictions on academic freedom.
Yet, higher education has shaped the American experiment from the beginning. Enlightenment ideas studied in 18th-century universities provided the rationale for independence from Great Britain in 1776. Founders of the republic viewed higher learning as essential to its success. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson used ideas learned during his own college education to write the Declaration of Independence and establish one of the most consequential political doctrines in modern history: all people are created equal and possess inherent rights to a government based on their consent.
Jefferson studied at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, from 1760 to 1762 under his primary mentor, Dr. William Small, professor of natural philosophy. Small introduced students from the privileged social classes who attended William and Mary to Enlightenment thought. He taught students like Jefferson intellectually revolutionary theories of empirical science, natural rights, and popular government.
Small's influence over Jefferson was extensive. His teachings, Jefferson said, 'probably fixed the destinies of my life' and provided 'my first views of the expansion of science and of the system of things in which we are placed.'
References to 'the system of things' as Jefferson understood it dominate early passages of the Declaration. Jefferson rooted the Declaration in natural philosophy, or the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe without consideration of supernatural causes. This was Small's specialty and the language of this academic orientation—such as 'course of human events,' 'powers of the earth,' and 'Laws of Nature'—suffuses the document.
Read More: College Presidents Are Right to Defy Trump's War on Higher Education
Members of the Continental Congress of 1776 substantially revised Jefferson's original draft. Some of these revisions indicate that members of congress, not only Jefferson, wanted the Declaration to reflect advanced education of the time. Benjamin Franklin made a momentous revision in this respect: he changed Jefferson's original statement 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable' to 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The word "sacred," Franklin observed, suggested that those truths were matters of religious faith. The term "self-evident" invoked Isaac Newton.
In the language of Newtonian science, a 'self-evident' truth needs no supernatural explanation. It is purely rational, empirically observable. Like Newton's laws of the physical world, the final version of the Declaration posits a natural law of the political world: people will always seek new forms of government to protect their rights.
This decision to ground authority in reason, science, and secular humanism was profound at a time when European monarchs claimed that God had appointed them to the throne. In 1610, James I of England had declared that kings were 'God's lieutenants upon earth' and 'even by God himself, they are called gods.' By the 18th century, French monarchs professed to be deities on earth with 'absolute' power.
Although the Declaration mentioned that people 'are endowed by their Creator' with 'unalienable Rights,' such statements vastly diminished the role of God as a source of rights and government compared to standard proclamations from European monarchs of the day. Jefferson's words implied that people are free to believe that a 'Creator' of their chosen faith is the source of their rights. The Declaration thus subtly rejected any official state religion as an element of American independence.
The phrase 'Nature's God' was even more pointed in the Declaration. It classified 'God' as a passive possession of 'Nature.' The true agent of political events, in this formulation, is nature. The sole reference to God in the Declaration emphasizes empiricism over religiosity. Notably, Small was the only non-clergy member of the William and Mary faculty when he mentored Jefferson.
The Declaration's references to John Locke's political treatises, which Small also taught to Jefferson and other students at William and Mary, further underscored its rejection of supernatural authority. Jefferson declared rights of 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' by imitating Locke's argument that all men possess a right to 'life, liberty, and estate [or property].'
In 1689, Locke examined natural rights in the second treatise of Two Treatises on Government, but his first treatise established the full meaning of those rights. Throughout that first treatise, Locke excoriated the divine right of kings. For him, rights of 'life, liberty, and property' were incompatible with a divine right to rule.
When Jefferson extended those rights beyond property-holders, replacing 'estate' with the 'pursuit of Happiness,' he invited a much larger portion of humanity to reject supernatural justifications for government. That invitation reflected the philosophy that inspired him in college.
In other words, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence depends on Enlightenment ideas that university-educated classes in general, and Jefferson in particular, enthusiastically studied.
After the country's founding, many framers of the new republic advocated for institutions of higher learning to educate citizens in their rights and responsibilities. Doing so, they argued, would promote equality over aristocracy, knowledge over religious superstition, and self-determination over servitude.
Read More: The Complicated History of Government Influence Over Universities
Jefferson was immensely proud of his role in founding the University of Virginia—a publicly funded institution established to educate 'the mass of citizens' in everything they needed for their individual wellbeing and responsible civic participation. Franklin did not attend college formally but he was instrumental in founding the College of Philadelphia, which later became the University of Pennsylvania. Throughout his life, Franklin advocated educational opportunities for working classes as well as the upper class. As president, Washington proposed a publicly funded 'national university' for the general diffusion of knowledge to promote unity in the new republic. These are only a few examples of the deep ties between higher education and the founding generation; approximately half of them attained some form of it—an impressively high level of advanced learning for the time.
Like the political ideals of Jefferson and other founders, however, the ideal of higher education remained out of reach for many Americans. He and many signers of the Declaration deemed Black people especially incapable of advanced study. For much of its existence, U.S. higher education has been badly segregated by race, class, sex and gender, religion, and more.
The personal prejudices of founders like Jefferson, however, do not diminish the power of the ideals that they forged from university study. Free Black people and enslaved Africans in the late 18th century recognized that the revolution was unfinished without equal access to civic institutions, particularly those of higher education. From the Jim Crow era to modern struggles for civil rights, historically disenfranchised communities (people of color, women, LGBTQ Americans, and more) have cited the Declaration in their petitions for desegregated higher education.
Universities have always been integral to American independence, from Jefferson's words to later generations of Americans who pursued the full implications of those words. Defending institutions of higher education from increasingly authoritarian measures is an important way to safeguard not only academic freedom, but the legacy of 1776 as well.
Bradford Vivian is Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State and author of Campus Misinformation: The Real Threat to Free Speech in American Higher Education (Oxford University Press).
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Announces Preliminary Trade Pact With Vietnam
Trump Announces Preliminary Trade Pact With Vietnam

New York Times

time11 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump Announces Preliminary Trade Pact With Vietnam

President Trump said on Wednesday that the United States had reached a trade deal with Vietnam, one that would roll back some of the punishing tariffs he had issued on Vietnamese products in return for that nation agreeing to open its market to American goods. The preliminary deal will also indirectly affect China, an important trading partner of Vietnam. 'It will be a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries,' Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social announcing the deal. According to Mr. Trump, the deal imposes a 20 percent tariff on all imports from Vietnam and a 40 percent tariff on any 'transshipping.' That provision is aimed at addressing Trump administration criticisms that countries like Vietnam have become a channel for Chinese manufacturers to bypass U.S. tariffs and funnel goods into the United States. Which products would fall under the higher tariff rate is unclear. It could refer to goods imported to the United States from Vietnam that actually originated in China. But it could also apply to Vietnamese products that use a certain amount of Chinese parts. The deal could include a lower tariff on goods that are made in Vietnam with fewer Chinese parts and materials, and a higher tariff rate for Vietnamese goods that contain many Chinese components. Vietnam was soon scheduled to face a 46 percent tariff rate as part of the 'reciprocal' tariffs that the Trump administration unveiled on April 2. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

IDF securing GHF sites critical for stifling Hamas control of population in Gaza
IDF securing GHF sites critical for stifling Hamas control of population in Gaza

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

IDF securing GHF sites critical for stifling Hamas control of population in Gaza

This comes amid fierce allegations and footage of live bullets shot at Palestinians at the GHF sites, which the UN has called a humanitarian catastrophe, where hundreds have been reportedly killed. TheIDF's operations in southern Gaza to secure the food distribution sites run by the American-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation are to break the grip of Hamas on the local population, and to provide Palestinians with an opportunity to eat from another hand that isn't the terrorist group, the IDF said on Monday. This comes amid fierce allegations and footage of live bullets shot at Palestinians at theGHF sites, which the United Nations has called a humanitarian catastrophe, where hundreds have reportedly been killed. Haaretz on Sunday quoted unnamed IDF soldiers who said they were told to fire at crowds to keep them back. The IDF said it does not intentionally shoot at civilians; rather, it is only focused on maintaining order in a chaotic situation, while a GHF spokesperson said there have been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites. The IDF did note one case where bullets were shot into a crowd, and 30 people were injured, but the military maintained that it knows which bullets are its own, it investigates each case, and that the numbers coming out of Gaza are littered with Hamas's influence, are unreliable, and get bolstered by international organizations, which have representatives on the ground. Reports have swarmed regarding the fate of the food once it enters the enclave. Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, and there have been reports of armed clans getting there first; the military said that from what it has seen, these gangs get to the food before Hamas can. The IDF said that Hamas has killed some in the groups coming to get food, shot at others, and threw them down the stairs of Nasser Hospital inKhan Yunis, with instructions to withhold care from them. One of the issues facing the Israeli forces on the ground is that there is no comprehensive way to vet the people showing up, and the chaos can induce fear among the soldiers. The IDF tries to maintain order by giving instructions about when and when not to arrive at the sites, but the chaos reigns, and the work is not done. Should a ceasefire be signed in the next few weeks, the IDF would be prepared to continue humanitarian aid. As part of this operational effort, the IDF has recently taken several measures to reorganize access routes and improve the functionality of aid distribution centers. These actions include erecting fences, installing directional and warning signs, and opening additional access routes. The IDF has also set up barriers and checkpoints to regulate vehicle movement and modified the layout of the centers to allow for external observation of remaining aid packages at the end of each day. These adjustments are designed to ensure the smooth passage of Gazan civilians, facilitate the orderly distribution of aid, and maintain the continuity of the IDF's security operations in the area. The IDF reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the humanitarian effort while ensuring the safety and security of all those involved.

Trump asks Supreme Court to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Trump asks Supreme Court to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump asks Supreme Court to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who were fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge. Trump has the power to fire independent agency board members, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the high court, pointing to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that endorsed a robust view of presidential power. The administration asked the court for an immediate order to allow the firings to go forward, over the objections of lawyers for the commissioners. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward. A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' The three liberal justices dissented. The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch. Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive. The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store