The Manhattan Institute’s so-called “Statement on Higher Education” is not a policy document. It is a political manifesto wrapped in the language of reform. Its signatories want you to believe that universities have lost their way, that they have betrayed some mythical past when higher education served only truth, honor, and a unified national mission. But their narrative is not grounded in fact. It is nostalgia for a historical time when only certain people—white, male, wealthy—were allowed access to the classroom, the podium, and the presidency.

The authors argue that universities have “burned down their accumulated prestige” and that institutions must now be forced to return to their “original mission.” But let’s be clear: prestige is not vanishing. It is evolving, as it should. And what they perceive as decline is actually a redistribution of access and ideas. For the first time in American history, our institutions are beginning to reflect the full diversity of our nation. That shift is not a crisis. It is a hard-earned victory.

This statement is not about saving education. It is about silencing dissent. It is not about restoring rigor. It is about reasserting control. The Manhattan Institute and its allies list their grievances in dramatic language, calling for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the suppression of campus protest, and the reimposition of ideological purity tests disguised as “merit.” They demand federal intervention to punish institutions that do not comply with their vision, including tying grant funding and accreditation to a rigid political agenda. In doing so, they expose their true goal: to remake higher education in the image of a single political worldview.

Let’s take a closer look. They claim that DEI initiatives discriminate against some while uplifting others. But DEI is not about exclusion. It is about addressing historical and systemic barriers that have long denied opportunity to marginalized groups and use research-based strategies to improve student, staff, and faculty success. For decades, university leadership, faculty hiring, and student admissions remained overwhelmingly homogenous—reflecting and reinforcing systems designed to limit opportunity and ensure that some people had less access to success. DEI seeks to create a more equitable playing field—one where talent and potential are not measured solely by proximity to wealth or elite social capital. To oppose that effort is to protect privilege, not promote fairness.

They also argue that universities have become hotbeds of activism and ideological capture. But higher education has always been a catalyst for social transformation. It was student protests at UC Berkeley that sparked the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Faculty and students across the country played a key role in opposing the Vietnam War. Campus divestment campaigns helped bring down apartheid in South Africa. Black students organized to demand ethnic studies programs, leading to curricular reform. And today, students and scholars are at the forefront of movements for racial justice, Indigenous sovereignty, climate action, and gender equity. Far from ideological capture, this is the democratic spirit of the academy at work. Critical thinking and civic engagement are not signs of collapse. They are signs of a healthy democracy.

And when these critics call for a crackdown on protests, suspension of students who disrupt, and mandatory data collection on campus ideology, they do so in the name of “civil discourse.” In reality, what they are proposing resembles authoritarian surveillance that we’ve seen under dictatorships. They claim to support free speech, but only the kind that does not make them uncomfortable. That is not free speech. It is censorship.

Let us not forget that this statement comes at a time of coordinated political attacks on public education across the country. We have witnessed book bans, anti-DEI laws, the politicization of K-12 curriculums, and threats to tenure and academic freedom. The Manhattan Statement is not an isolated document. It is part of a broader strategy personified by Project 2025 to remake American education through force and fear.

What is most dangerous is that these critics of higher education claim to be defending the public good. But they define that good as conformity to their beliefs, not curiosity. They propose a contract with universities that would strip them of autonomy in exchange for continued public funding. This is not how academic inquiry thrives. This is how it dies.

Our universities are far from perfect. They are facing real challenges, including AI, affordability, labor precarity, and political influence. But the way forward is not to gut the systems that promote equity and silence the voices that demand progress. The way forward is to deepen our investment in truth, access, and democratic engagement.

The Manhattan Institute pines for a time when higher education truly did fail millions of Americans. It was exclusive, hierarchical, and closed to any worldview that dared to challenge dominant narratives. Today, we are beginning to see that change. We are not burning down our institutions. We are broadening them. And in doing so, we are ensuring that the light of knowledge shines not just for the few, but for all. This is the promise of public education in a multiracial democracy. And that promise is worth defending.