What a week for A. C. Grayling. Since his announcement that he will be opening a New College of the Humanities, he has been subject to attack from students, media, and fellow academics alike; rallied against on Facebook and smoke-bombed out of Foyles. In an interview with Shiv Malik for The Guardian, he commented; “[This issue] has become this sort of lightning conductor for the whole dissatisfaction that everybody feels about what’s happening in higher education ... which is really bad, so they pick on something to have a real go at.” But is it simply a case of jumping on the bandwagon of persecution, or is there a more reasoned argument for the amount of vitriol aimed at Grayling for his decision?

In truth it has exposed an important, underlying issue that has been caused by the current government’s policy on higher education; as Grayling noted in an interview with The Times, “The Government’s higher education policy is in such a disarray that I don’t think they know what it is.” That the need for a privatized university should even be considered is indicative of the problems that face British universities thanks to the cuts implemented by the coalition earlier this year. In this respect, the appearance of this college, along with Oxford congregation’s historic vote of no confidence in the Universities Minister David Willetts, speaks of a resounding fault with the coalition’s decisions regarding university education.

But what a different message the two actions send. Rather than an unequivocal statement of disagreement with government policies, Grayling’s college seems to perpetuate what the government has already set in motion. Firstly, the establishment of a college that charges £18,000 a year, close to the average British income, seems to be deliberately spurning the work currently being undertaken by universities despite considerable financial cuts, to establish outreach programmes and try to find any means possible by which to make a university education accessible. Grayling’s college, rather than support this, seems to further cement the notion that education is an elitist privilege to be judged on your parents’ income, rendering it inaccessible to many. Grayling and others have cited the fees of private US universities as justification for charging this amount per year, but this seems to be a somewhat flimsy defence; just because one country holds one policy does not mean that it should necessarily be adopted by everyone else. After all, in France you are guaranteed a university place provided you pass your Bac and higher education fees are phenomenally low as places are predominantly state subsidised, but there don’t seem to be many calls to follow the French example.

The nutty professor

Secondly, there is the fact that as a satellite of the University of London, students of the NCH will receive a University of London degree for £9,000 a year more than students at other London universities. To justify this, Grayling claims that he will offer something superior to the other London University colleges, with one-to-one tutorials and the opportunity to attend lectures by one of fourteen academics who have decided to support the college. After all, “Higher education is about teaching people how to think not what to think.” Unfortunately, Grayling then goes on to contradict himself. While claiming to provide a balanced education, he announces that “We’re not going to have a department of theology any more than a department of sports science... Religion has a very over-amplified presence in the public sphere. These religious voices have their place but they should be treated as trade unions or the Women’s Institute.” If you want to provide a critical education, encouraging students to think independently, a balanced view with a presentation of both sides of an argument is necessary. Far from being a superior form of education, this sounds more like a loosely veiled form of indoctrination.

This, more than anything else, gets to the heart of why Grayling has incited such anger. A line-up of celebrity atheists does not make a university, it is a publicity stunt under the veil of education. Religion, just as anything else that plays a large part in society and still motivates and inspires debate, should be given as equal a ground as atheism in an education that claims to produce well-rounded individuals with the ability to think critically. Ultimately, if Grayling purports to be providing the tools for how to think, his personal beliefs on the existence, of lack thereof, of God, should have no bearing on what is taught at his university unless it be in the context of a debate where both sides are equally represented. Perhaps it is a fundamental mistake seems to underestimate the public; expecting the acceptance of a humanities college that caters to Britain’s economic elite while downgrading humanities subjects that Grayling does not personally agree with.

And this is the real danger behind the government cuts in higher education. Once the floodgates are opened for private universities, there is a risk that being taught how, not what, to think will be jeopardised. Four unnamed businesses offered Grayling complete funding for his project, risking intellectual loyalty to the business in question. While Grayling turned these offers down for this very reason, there is nothing to stop other organisations from doing this. Furthermore Grayling then negates this act by denying students the right to form their own opinions on central topics. If the aim is to establish a New College of Humanists then it should be named as such, not a claim to be a college for the humanities which should support open debate and critical personal thought. It seems difficult to imagine a comprehensive philosophy degree, one of the college’s main subject areas, with the Master of the College deciding that religion should be given the same academic credence as the Women’s Institute, given the influence that theology has had on some philosophical debates. Conversely, it would not be expected for an institution claiming a humanities university status to categorise atheism with the WI. This does not just apply to religion; any institution teaching a critical course should be expected to encourage students to at least respect an opposing argument and decide for themselves whether they agree with it or not.

If the New College of the Humanities really was a genuine appeal for the appreciation of the humanities and the type of progressive thinking they are supposed to promote, it is unlikely that so much scorn would have been poured upon Grayling’s project. However, the path chosen by Grayling has obscured what could have been a point well made: that the humanities are integral to a balanced education valuing a well-rounded training in independent thought. This college sets a worrying precedent for others that may follow and it is a clear message that the Government would do well to heed now; that a truly critical higher education is in danger of being lost under current policy that devalues the humanities, thus increasing the prospect of the privatization of university education. Hopefully this will be realised before we are taught what, not how, to think.