However, in perhaps the most important development of the just completed 2025-26 academic year, a few of America’s universities are waving the white flag in a long-running war mounted by conservative critics of higher education. Five years ago, JD Vance argued that conservatives should declare that college professors are “the enemy” and treat the most prestigious schools as “totalitarian” institutions.

His proposed solution: Conservatives need “to seize the institutions of the left and turn them against the left. We need a… de-wokeification program.” They need “to deinstitutionalize the left, reinstitutionalize the right.”

As the 2025-2026 academic year comes to a close, Yale, Harvard, and others like them are on board with the “de-wokeification program.” Vance wants these colleges and universities and their students, faculty, and staff to be more deferential. Alas, that will not help prepare their students for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.

Viewpoint diversity does not guarantee that students will be willing to practice empathy before judgment, to read deeply, and to listen attentively to any argument, left, right, or center. Only if they do can they live well in a democracy.

And as hard as it is for universities to hire faculty with conservative views, it is much harder to rediscover the habits of mind, like those I just enumerated, that are necessary if free speech and democratic political life are to flourish. Trying to appease the JD Vance‘s of the world or powerful alumni who complain that we need to hire fewer faculty to teach about the evils of colonialism or the injustices of America’s past and more who will teach about the virtues of capitalism and our country’s founding ideals, is a mistake that elite colleges and universities seem eager to commit.

The problem is cultural, not representational. Conservatives think that addressing the latter will cure the former and bring a vibrant marketplace of ideas back to our campuses.

Sadly, this year, some of the most prestigious colleges and universities seem to have bought that line.

In November 2025, the New York Times published an interview with the leaders of Dartmouth College, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Wesleyan University. They did not agree on everything, but here is one example of how they are drinking the Kool-Aid on viewpoint diversity.

Jennifer Mnookin, then Chancellor at Wisconsin and now incoming president of Columbia University, put it this way: “I think that many universities, not all, but many, were for a period of time deeply focused on identity diversity, and really not so focused on viewpoint diversity or belief diversity. I think there’s a danger of a pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, and we need to worry about that.”

“But,” she continued, “I think universities should be spaces where ideas, and different ideas, embodied by people from different backgrounds, come together, and where it won’t always be comfortable, but where we will learn and do better from that engagement.”

Note how Mnookin elevates viewpoint diversity and offers a vision of higher education as bringing together “different ideas, embodied by people from different backgrounds….” She assumes, I guess, that a good college will be a place where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

But she said nothing about how that alchemy is supposed to take place once her Noah’s Ark has been assembled, nor how it would help to be equipped for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.

Moreover, Mnookin pushed back when Wesleyan’s president, Michael Roth, warned about the danger of parroting the White House’s talking points about higher education and the Trump Administration’s plan “to capture higher education for ideological purposes.”

“Michael,” she responded, doubling down on her “commitment to viewpoint diversity and to pluralism,” it “should prevent external capture and internal capture. And it should be a way of thinking about a piece of our mission and looking for excellence that can actually bring people together, even across their differences.”

Then in April, Yale University issued the report of a committee charged with the task of addressing the crisis of trust in higher education. It highlighted the conservative talking point that “the nation’s leading universities, including Yale, tend to exclude conservative intellectual traditions.”

“Some,” it said, “point to the partisan composition of the faculty, noting that professors overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party. Others focus on the curriculum, or on the suggestion that liberal professors indoctrinate their students. Taken together, these critiques frame universities as intellectual and ideological echo chambers, out of touch with the American nation and out of step with its political currents.”

While the committee did not agree on whether that was the right diagnosis of the problem of free speech and academic freedom at Yale, it did conclude that in ways that would please conservatives that “Echo chambers do not produce the best teaching, research, or scholarship.”

Of note, two years ago, a prominent conservative intellectual, Prof. Keith Whittington, was hired to join Yale’s law school faculty. At that time, Whittington seemed clear about one of the reasons he was hired and about his mission.

As he explained, “I’m not unmindful of the significance of this move at the present moment….Yale has notoriously lacked right-of-center public law faculty for decades…The lack of political diversity on elite law school faculties,” he added, “is unhealthy, and I’m glad to be able to do my small part to mix things up.”

“With the very meaning of the conservatism in the United States up for grabs,” Whittingham said, “I look forward to lending what perspective and expertise I can to public debates.”

Yale seemed to be conceding that conservatives have been right about elite colleges and universities all along.

Not to be outdone, we also learned last month that “Harvard is quietly asking donors for $10 million gifts to establish new endowed professorships in a sweeping bid to reshape its faculty under the banner of ‘viewpoint diversity.’ The campaign, driven by Harvard’s top brass, aims to raise several hundred million dollars to support a new cohort of professors. If successful, the funding could bring dozens of faculty members to campus and drastically shift Harvard’s academic makeup.”

Wow.

As an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education published in the wake of that revelation points out, Professor Harvey Mansfield, “the sharpest conservative thorn in the side of Harvard’s body politic,” is “entitled to a kind of victory lap…” He has long said, “I think it has to be explicit that you’re hiring conservatives,” and now it seems that Harvard is doing just that.

There is nothing wrong with viewpoint diversity, but it will neither fix the problems that elite schools are experiencing nor equip their students to preserve and improve democratic life. In fact, this year’s let’s hire conservatives crusade may make matters worse.

As my colleague Leah Schmalzbauer and I have argued, that crusade “misses the point and distracts us from the work that needs to be done to further improve the quality of the education students receive in American colleges and universities. Put simply, instead of fixating on who is in the classroom, and whether they are liberal or conservative, we should be focused on how we are in the room.”

“Higher education’s greatest challenge to achieving open inquiry,” we argue, “is not one of ideology or viewpoint diversity, but of disposition….You can decorate campuses with all the colors of the political rainbow, but not make them better places to learn.”

Unfortunately, 2025-26 may go down as the year when elite colleges and universities started doing that kind of decorating. Conservatives may take a victory lap, and the Trump Administration may think its pressure campaign is working.

But for those of us who are privileged to teach in privileged places and want to get students ready for democratic citizenship, our most important work will remain the same whether or not we bring more conservatives to campus: Teaching students to think democratically.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

After landing three-star edge rusher/defensive lineman Yahzeen Zion on Saturday, the Wisconsin Badgers got another key commitment at the position on Sunday, as three-star Darin Graham committed to the program.

Graham, a native of Illinois, stands 6’5, 220 pounds, and hails from Mount Carmel, which is where the Badgers got running back Darrion Dupree from in the 2024 class.

The three-star edge rusher was a part of Wisconsin’s first group of official visitors last weekend, but left campus without announcing his commitment.

The two other top suitors here were Ole Miss, which was expected to get an official visit this weekend, and Purdue, but Graham elected to shut down his commitment this weekend and committed to the Badgers on Sunday.

He caps off quite the weekend for outside linebackers coach Matt Mitchell, who now has a loaded room with Graham and Zion (if he sticks at edge) joining three-star in-state recruit Isaac Miller.

Wisconsin also had three-star Texas Tech edge rusher Brody Pfannenstiel on campus this weekend, being a top contender there as well. But, it’s unclear if the Badgers will take another edge rusher after their success this weekend.

Graham becomes commit No. 20 in the class for Wisconsin, and the Badgers still have more to come.

Luke Fickell just landed a massive 2027 commitment that should have Wisconsin stoked for. Yahzeen Zion, a 6-foot-4, 265-pound defensive lineman from Arizona, pledged to the Badgers, and the punch line isn’t just his size. It’s who Wisconsin beat to get him.

Zion’s offer list immediately separated this from a routine early-cycle win. He held offers from LSU, Oklahoma, Penn State, Miami and USC, with Georgia interest floating around as well. Wisconsin has lived for decades on developing three-star linemen into NFL players, but that model gets harder when opponents stockpile blue-chip disruptors up front. Pulling a national-recruitment defensive lineman out of Arizona signaled Wisconsin’s recruiting footprint has expanded under Fickell in a real way.

On the field, Zion fits the modern profile Wisconsin has needed more of on the defensive front. He arrived at football as a converted basketball player, and that background showed up in the movement skills on his film. Zion shows versatility at multiple spots on the defensive line, winning both on the edge and inside with speed-to-power and an active motor that didn’t shut off snap to snap. Wisconsin has leaned on scheme and development to generate pressure, but Big Ten games usually swing when a defender can win one-on-one without help.

Zion projects as that kind of disruptor.

The bigger point for Wisconsin is what this kind of pledge can do inside a class. Recruiting builds on itself, and momentum is real right now for Wisconsin.  Next up, watch whether Wisconsin can stack more out-of-state wins off Zion’s momentum and turn a splashy 2027 start into a true foundation class.

Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion.