Classical Liberal Education

Last week I read an opinion piece at National Review written by Stanley Kurtz, about efforts to restore a classical liberal education at the University of Utah, my alma mater. I wish to add my personal experience to the public debate.

What is a “classical liberal education?” It is one that prepares an individual to maximize the opportunity and master the responsibility of being a free person. This requires a broad-based understanding of the institutions of liberty, including their history and the philosophy upon which they are based.

Classical liberalism is the political philosophy of the American Revolution, as described in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

All citizens of a classically liberal country have equal freedom and equal protection under the law. The very purpose of the law is to establish and preserve that freedom, and the authority to make and execute the law is granted to the government by the people. Our rights belong to us naturally, not because the government grants them to us. The supreme authority of the land is the law itself, not any government officer. This is American Civics 101.

Who were the thinkers and writers who explored and argued these ideas? Where were they first implemented, and how has the design of their implementation changed over time? How have the governments based on these ideas performed in the real world, amid challenges like war, epidemic, famine, innovative and disruptive technologies, competing philosophies, economic upheavals, etc? These questions are the subject of a classical liberal education.

In my first semester at the University of Utah in the fall of 2000, I took a course called “The Intellectual Traditions of the West,” or ITW. This class is still listed in the university catalog. The textbook and supplementary texts were so interesting that I read them cover to cover. I saw for myself how the ideas at the foundation of my civilization were hammered out over the centuries from the ancient Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans.

We studied the writings of Plato and Aristotle, who were both students of Socrates, but their approaches feel like opposites. Plato fearlessly uses whatever truth he can derive through logic to rationally design an ideal society and government structure. His Republic is like a cautionary tale about how bizarre and unworkable your conclusions can become if your Utopian design is untethered to reality. Aristotle, by contrast, keeps his eye on the real world, relying on empirical observations to calibrate his conclusions. I say, give me Aristotle or give me death.

Having this foundation from ITW has helped me to put into context everything else I have studied in the last quarter century, from the Federalist Papers and the slave narratives to The Jungle and the GNU Manifesto. Knowing how we got here is a prerequisite to understanding the epic clashes of the last 100 years between classical liberalism and various forms of authoritarianism and illiberalism at home and abroad (racial segregationism, fascism, communism, terrorism, etc.). Without knowing the origin story of my civilization I would not be able to interpret current events or independently evaluate politicians and pundits.

I didn’t learn everything I know from ITW, but it was a good place to start.

During my first year of medical school I approached a table in the hallway outside the lecture hall where a couple of second-year medical students were handing out copies of Netter’s Atlas of Human Anatomy to every student who signed up to join the American Medical Student Association. Who doesn’t want a copy of Netter’s? I waited to talk to the recruiters, and when I got to the front of the line I asked them about AMSA.

“We are the largest organization of medical students,” the guy said.

“Ok,” I said. “So what do you do?”

“As you can see,” he said, “We hand out anatomy books to medical students.”

“Alright. What else?”

“We also advocate for issues important to medical students,” he said.

“Do you support socialized medicine?” I asked.

This piqued the attention of the other first year medical student at the table, who looked up from the signup sheet he had been busily scribbling his personal information on, and waited for the answer.

“We do advocate for a single-payer healthcare regime in the United States,” he said.

“Ok,” I said. “Well, thanks anyway.” I walked away from the table, and from the “free” copy of Netter’s that might have been mine. Why did I do that? Because I knew the history of political ideas, and I knew which ones I agreed with and which ones I didn’t. An organization that lobbies for a government takeover of my industry will never have my support.

As a personal beneficiary of the classical liberal education offered at the University of Utah 20 years ago, I am wholeheartedly in favor of teaching classical liberalism in higher education. I honestly don’t know how well the university is doing today at teaching these things, or whether they really need the state legislature to tell them how to do it, but I do know that this subject needs to be taught.

For the record, I am also in favor of presenting competing ideologies in the same classrooms. Let critical race theory compete with “all men are created equal” and see who wins. Let Karl Marx challenge Milton Friedman, and winner take all. And above all, let these discussions be led by professors with diverse viewpoints, not just diverse skin hues.

Ideas like intersectionality, free markets, reparations, the right to bear arms, and socialized medicine are harder to parse and evaluate if you don’t understand the intellectual traditions of the West. Learning about and debating with competing ideologies helps you understand what you believe in and why you believe it. An educated citizenry is less prone to seduction by demagoguery, which is most of what we are getting today from both major political parties.

If a university education doesn’t teach you how to engage with diverse ideas and the people who argue them, then what good is it? If our universities can’t teach our brightest minds how to think through the Green New Deal or Make America Great Again populism by comparing them to the ideals of our founding, then we will deserve the dysfunctional politics that will perpetually result. If we give up on the principles of equality under the law, the universal natural rights of humanity, and the rule of law, then we will stop making progress toward a more just and equitable society.

Classical liberalism has been the philosophical force behind political movements in both major parties. It is the “civic religion” taught by Abraham Lincoln, which freed the slaves and saved the republic. It is the “promissory note” called on by Martin Luther King, Jr. when he demanded racial equality under the law. “Conservatism” and “liberalism” both mean different things now than they used to, and there is a lot of illiberalism in politics today across the spectrum. We need people at the bedrock of both political parties who can sing “sweet freedom’s song” if we want our system of government to thrive.

These “just and holy principles” were endorsed by the Lord himself, who claimed responsibility for them:

“And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-80).

Freedom is God’s work, and God’s blessing to us. It is worth preserving and it is worth sacrificing for. I love my country, and I want to see it last forever. I also love the young people, and I want to see them succeed. The future will be bright if we can teach them the principles that have brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and out of oppression, and have made America a land of freedom and opportunity.

---

Alan B. Sanderson, MD is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is a practicing neurologist.