
There's nothing elitist about college or university. We should reject that idea
It's no secret that the Trump administration is not a friend of the country's higher education system. During a speech he gave at the National Conservatism conference in October 2021, vice-president JD Vance pinpointed American universities as 'the enemy' while repeating a litany of increasingly familiar charges about their purported cultural elitism, radical-left ideological agenda, and incapacity to prepare students for the real needs of the labor market.
More recently, Donald Trump has also endorsed plans to tax university endowments and abolish the Department of Education, which oversees both the federal Pell Grant system and most federally subsidized student loan programs, jointly accounting for about 40% of the country's higher education revenues.
Amongst the stated grounds for this hostility, one of the most frequent – but also perplexing – claims is that colleges and universities are 'elite playgrounds'. This is of course one of the several ways in which the current Republican party has sought to rebrand itself as a champion of the interests and values of the working class, against the country's purportedly progressive establishment.
Yet the appeal to anti-elitist sentiment in the attack against higher education remains perplexing, for a few reasons. To begin with, both Trump and Vance are themselves Ivy-League graduates otherwise deeply invested in preserving, rather than upending, the country's established social hierarchies. The 'diversity, equity and inclusion' programs specifically intended to broaden access to higher education institutions have, if anything, been the target of their most virulent attacks.
It's also confusing – and somewhat circular – that most of these attacks have focused on Ivy League colleges and universities, which do primarily serve elites but are also responsible for a tiny fraction of the post-secondary education in the country at large. Their total undergraduate enrollment is currently at around 60,000, which is less than 0.5% of the overall undergraduate population in the United States.
But there is a deeper reason why anti-elitism and hostility towards higher education are strange bedfellows. Higher education institutions have historically been among the most effective powerful engines of social mobility in the country. They are therefore natural antidotes against the consolidation of what the founding fathers referred to as 'artificial aristocracies founded on wealth and birth'.
In advocating for the creation of a publicly funded university in the state of Virginia, for instance, Thomas Jefferson argued that 'those talents which nature hath sown liberally among the poor as the rich' would thereby be 'rendered by liberal education worthy to receive and able to guard the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens … without regard to wealth, birth, or other accidental conditions or circumstances'.
The limits of Jefferson's actual disregard for factors of 'birth' in the target population he had in mind when advancing his vision for a publicly-funded higher education institution are evident in the fact the University of Virginia he contributed in creating initially only accepted white males, notwithstanding the fact the removal of the 'wealth' barrier was in itself a significant achievement.
Yet the same fundamental faith in the capacity of higher education to break down social barriers also underpinned the subsequent expansion of the United States's higher education system to include various categories of individuals who had previously been excluded from it.
Women's colleges began in the first half of the 19th century and played a decisive role in challenging the marginal position that women had historically occupied in American society, eventually leading to their inclusion in previously male-only colleges in the aftermath of the second world war. The same is true of historically Black colleges and universities for African Americans, and of the land-grant universities created between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries for multiple generations of immigrants of Catholic, Jewish and Asian descent.
Contemporary empirical evidence confirms that US higher education institutions continue to function as powerful engines of social mobility: a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts showed that adult children born to parents in the bottom quintile of the income distribution are about four times as likely to reach the top quintile by attending college.
To be sure, there is also evidence that complicates the long-established narrative. Low-income students still attend highly selective colleges at much lower rates than their peers from richer families, and their enrollment at the mid-ranking institutions that are most effective at propelling them into higher income brackets has actually been declining over the past two decades.
But, if that is the case, the answer should be more, not less, investment in expanding access to higher education. The fact that the incoming administration is intent on gutting not only 'diversity, equity and inclusion' programs but also the federally funded Pell Grant and student loan programs shows that it doesn't really intend to contrast the persistent elements of 'elitism' in the country's higher education system.
On the contrary, to the extent that college education has become one of the most powerful predictors of electoral support for the Democratic party, the goal is more likely to be a further entrenchment of the deep socioeconomic divisions that colleges and universities have historically served to undermine but the current Republican party thrives on.
Seeing past this ruse requires separating legitimate concerns about elite power in the contemporary United States from the attack against the very institutions that are most likely to do something about it.
Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is executive director of the Moynihan Center and full professor of political science at the City College of New York.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
38 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department this week fired two more employees who worked on investigations into President Donald Trump's retention of classified records and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to three people familiar with the matter. Including those two, the Justice Department has fired 17 people who worked on former Special Counsel Jack Smith's team prosecuting Trump since he returned to power in January. One of the people fired on Monday worked as a lawyer on Smith's team and also previously helped prosecute some of the defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying Democratic President Joe Biden's election win over Trump. The second person who was also fired Monday worked in a support staff role for Smith's team, the people added. The firings were ordered by Attorney General Pam Bondi, the people said. Both people were most recently working in different divisions at the department. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Fourteen attorneys were fired en masse on January 27 because of their work on the cases against Trump. In April, the Justice Department fired a career public affairs employee who had served as a spokesperson for Smith. Trump, who faced criminal charges in four different federal and state prosecutions, campaigned for president on a vow to exact retribution against his political enemies. He has long accused the Justice Department of targeting him for political reasons - a claim that Smith's team repeatedly denied in court filings.


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
House passes Republican-led bills to repeal D.C. laws on noncitizen voting and policing
WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House is poised to pass a trio of bills this week to repeal Washington, D.C., laws on immigration, voting and policing, even as it has yet to restore a painful a $1 billion cut to the city's budget. The House passed two of the bills on Tuesday. One would bar noncitizens from voting in local elections in the nation's capital, overturning a D.C. law that was passed in 2022. The other would restore collective bargaining rights and a statute of limitations for D.C. police officers involved in disciplinary cases. Then, on Thursday, the House is expected to pass a third bill, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which would require the D.C. government to comply with requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security to share information and detain undocumented immigrants. Under current D.C. law, local authorities do not work with federal immigration officials unless they have a judicial warrant. All together, the bills represent House Republicans' attempt to assert authority over deep-blue D.C. at a time when the GOP has unified control of the federal government. ' Home rule ' — where the D.C. mayor and city council make their own laws but Congress has the ability to review them — has long been a point of contention. Democrats have pushed in recent years to grant full statehood to D.C., while Republicans have slammed decisions made by local leaders and sought to reverse them. 'D.C.'s City Council made radical decisions in our nation's capital under the Biden-Harris administration, passing local laws that are woefully inconsistent with national standards or constitutional principles,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee who authored the GOP voting bill, said in a statement to NBC News. 'I'm proud that the House is taking action to overturn several of these reckless measures — including my legislation to prohibit noncitizens from voting in local D.C. elections,' he said. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Republican leaders have been dragging their feet on a legislative fix for D.C.'s budget. A government funding bill that Congress passed in March to avert a shutdown included a provision requiring the city to revert back to fiscal year 2024 funding levels, leaving it with a $1.1 billion shortfall. The move was quickly met with opposition from local D.C. leaders. The Senate voted by unanimous consent in March to undo it and restore D.C.'s authority to use local tax dollars as its leaders see fit. President Donald Trump endorsed the fix, calling on the House to 'immediately' pass that bill in a social media post on March 28. But months later, Johnson still hasn't held a vote on the bill, prompting criticism from Democrats and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. 'It's absurd that the House hasn't taken it up. It's absolutely irresponsible, unfair and beneath the credibility of leadership,' said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who represents a congressional district just D.C. 'It's not our money, it's D.C.'s money ... and I don't know why the speaker hasn't put the Senate bill on the floor. It'll pass overwhelmingly.' 'This is a particular egregious example of substituting their judgment for those who are locally elected to govern the District of Columbia,' Hoyer said. Last month, Johnson told reporters he was in communication with Bowser and that the House would take up the funding fix 'as quickly as possible.' The speaker said that passing Trump's massive domestic policy package had taken up 'all of our energy' and insisted the delay was not for a 'political purpose.' 'We're working on it right now. It's not like we've closed the door to that,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told NBC News on Tuesday. 'But obviously there are other problems we're trying to resolve along the way.' Bowser's office denounced the GOP bills to revoke DC law and — while noting that D.C. has mitigated the most 'catastrophic' impacts of the budget restrictions — urged Congress to pass the funding fix. 'Mayor Bowser continues to oppose all congressional interference in the lives and affairs of Washingtonians. DC will continue to fight to protect our home rule and self-determination,' a Bowser spokesperson said in an email. 'If Congress wants to be helpful, they should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act to fix their damage to DC's FY25 budget.' Johnson's office had no comment when asked Tuesday when — or whether — he still plans to hold a vote on the funding fix. Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., the No. 4 in Republican leadership, said, 'I honestly don't know. I haven't heard yes or no,' when asked if the funding fix will come up for a vote. Other congressional Democrats said Republicans should stay out of D.C. issues. 'It's bad enough, usually, when they're playing in D.C. local, home rule issues,' said Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., whose district abuts Washington. 'But then to do it at a time when they haven't returned the $1.1 billion is especially egregious.' Immigration has dominated the national political debate this week, with protests erupting in Los Angeles in response to the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts. Republicans said the fight over immigration is a winning issue for the party, and they've continued to lean into it with the legislation on the floor this week. 'If D.C. wants illegals to vote, we've made it clear at the federal level people here illegally should not vote in any elections,' Scalise said. 'We're still the most generous nation in the world in terms of our legal immigration system,' he continued, 'but we have to fix our broken immigration system. And you could just see what's going on in L.A. to prove the point.'


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump makes huge World War I blunder in fiery speech as LA riots rage
Donald Trump made a huge blunder about World War I in a fiery speech at Fort Bragg, as the U.S. continues to be rocked by riots over the President's mass deportation order US President Donald Trump delivered a speech at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, as unrest continued in Los Angeles between protesters and ICE officials over his far-reaching deportation order. Fort Bragg, situated near Fayetteville, North Carolina, is home to the military's Special Operations Command, which includes elite units such as the Green Berets and Rangers. During his address, Trump made a significant historical blunder, claiming that many countries had recently commemorated the end of World War I, while the US did not participate in the celebrations, despite asserting "we're the ones who won the war." "Without us," Trump said, "You'd all be speaking German right now." "Maybe a little Japanese thrown in. But we won the war," he added. "We're gonna celebrate on Saturday." However, Trump's claim that citizens would have been speaking Japanese is inaccurate, as Japan was an ally of the US, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy against the Axis powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, reports the Mirror US. It appears the President was actually referencing WW2, which was commemorated recently during VE celebrations. The end of WW1 is traditionally commemorated on "Armistice Day" on November 11 each year. The event at Fort Bragg was also attended by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and included both active service members and their families. The speech comes ahead of the 250th anniversary of the army and coincidentally, Trump's 79th birthday, which will be marked with a parade in Washington, D.C. The city is bracing for a massive turnout at the parade this Saturday, with officials already setting up 18 miles of "anti-scale fencing" and deploying drones, despite the usual no-fly zone rules. City representatives have told The Associated Press they're expecting an "preparing for an enormous turnout." Secret Service's Matt McCool from the Washington Field Office is preparing for "hundreds of thousands" to line the streets, while military sources estimate around 200,000 will join the celebrations. "We have a ton of magnetometers," McCool said. "If a million people show up, then we're going to have some lines." To manage the expected crowds, 175 magnetometers will be in place at security checkpoints throughout the day and for the evening parade. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith has warned of "major impacts to traffic" and advises attendees to consider using the Metro instead of driving. "This is a significant event with a large footprint," she stressed. "We're relying on the public to be an extra set of ears and eyes for us." The event has hit the headlines as a National Special Security Event, with security measures on par with presidential inaugurations or state funerals. This elite status is reserved for high-profile functions drawing sizeable gatherings and the likelihood of significant protests, triggering an increased security collaboration between local officials, the FBI, Capitol Police, and the National Guard, all led by the watchful Secret Service. Officials are also on high alert for possible immigration-related protests, mirroring those in Los Angeles, potentially hitting D. C. 's streets. "We're paying attention, obviously, to what is happening there. We'll be ready," affirmed McCool, underlining the extensive preparations in place to manage any civil unrest.