James Hankins, a history professor with a four-decade tenure at Harvard, is sounding the alarm on the Ivy League school’s approach to race-based hiring and admissions policies. In his essay titled “Why I’m Leaving Harvard” for Compact Magazine, Hankins critiques what he describes as a glaring “shocking indifference” to anti-Semitism and a diminishing commitment to teaching essential Western history.
Central to Hankins’s argument is the shift from meritocratic principles to an emphasis on diversity quotas. He states that this change has profoundly influenced university culture, effectively sidelining “extraordinary candidates” who do not meet certain diversity criteria. “This turned out not to be empty virtue-signaling,” he writes, reflecting on how institutional decisions during 2020 fundamentally altered candidate selection dynamics. He recalls a moment when an outstanding applicant was deemed unsuitable simply because he was a white male, illustrating how policies intended to promote inclusivity can inadvertently produce exclusion.
Hankins doesn’t limit his critiques to his own department but extends them to a broader trend he observed across other institutions. He uncovered an “unspoken protocol” that appeared to govern admissions nationwide, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents at Harvard. As he points out, the impetus for these changes often stems from external pressures rather than internal merit-based evaluations.
Beyond admissions, Hankins delves into the issue of anti-Semitism and criticizes Harvard’s handling of this matter, labeling the school’s attitude as a “shocking indifference.” This characterization underscores a serious concern: the failure of prestigious academic institutions to address deeply rooted societal issues, which ultimately impacts students’ educational experiences.
Moreover, Hankins raises criticisms regarding COVID-19 protocols employed by the university, suggesting that they reflect a disturbingly uncritical acceptance of government guidance. He warns that such an approach can lead to infringements on personal freedoms, mirroring a nationwide tendency toward what he describes as “tyrannous invasions of private life.”
In a broader context, Hankins expresses concern about the neglect of Western civilization within higher education. He argues that by prioritizing global history at the expense of Western-centric studies, universities are failing their students and society. “When you don’t teach the young what civilization is,” he asserts, “it turns out, people become uncivilized.” This statement encapsulates his belief that foundational knowledge is crucial to the social fabric of society.
Hankins contrasts the American educational approach with that of countries like China, where national identity and patriotism are actively instilled in students. He critiques the way Western history is presented in U.S. institutions, claiming it is often framed as something that should warrant condemnation rather than celebration. In this regard, he sees a direct connection between education and cultural identity, suggesting that a lack of appreciation for Western heritage breeds discontent and division.
The professor recalls how Harvard’s trajectory began to shift in the 1990s, attributing this change to external pressures for more inclusive hiring practices. He points out that this push led to a lowering of standards, claiming that the need for equality compromised traditional expectations. His insights draw attention to a significant dilemma faced by educational institutions: the balancing act between inclusivity and maintaining rigorous academic standards.
Now, Hankins has made a fresh start at the Hamilton School of Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida. He believes this institution is still committed to teaching Western civilization, and he finds solace in accepting students deemed undesirable by elite universities due to alleged low intersectional scores. He notes that these students often represent a wealth of untapped potential.
His concluding remarks are sobering. Although some hold hope for transformation within existing institutions, the path forward might instead lie in establishing new ones. “For now,” he argues, “a better hope lies in building new institutions unencumbered by the corruption and self-hatred that infect the old.” His assertion serves as a call for re-evaluation and potential reform within the academic landscape, highlighting a pivotal juncture for higher education in America.
"*" indicates required fields
