Graduation Fashion: American Values under Academic Dress

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

It is graduation season again. As a professor, I have gotten used to the ritual of trotting out the elaborate doctoral robes, sitting through hours of ceremonial name reading, and politely applauding while students parade slowly across the stage to receive their diplomas. The speeches and faces at any particular ceremony all blend together after a while, but the air of exuberant pride and accomplishment emanating from the graduates never gets old.

For the graduates, however, who are not so familiar with this tradition, there are some decidedly alien aspects to graduation, which nonetheless symbolize fundamental American principles. Inevitably, some question why they have to wear such seemingly ridiculous costumes. Today, I even read of a high school student who refused to wear the traditional cap and gown in favor of his military uniform, and thus, to the outrage of his community and peers, was barred from participating in the graduation ceremony. 

I sympathize with the unfortunate gentleman. After all, it has been a few centuries since late medieval clerical fashions have been in style, and he clearly wanted to wear a costume that symbolized principles important to him. However, had he known what academic regalia actually means, and how deeply emblematic it is of American virtue, I suspect he would have worn it with the same pride as his military dress blues, as well as understood why military dress would be decidedly inappropriate.

When universities were first founded in the medieval period, they were run primarily by men of the Church. Thus, the academic attire of Europe looked much like the robes of clerics. When the English began to colonize North America, they brought with them that clerical academic tradition—specifically the traditions of Oxford and Cambridge. However, while universities in Europe continued to develop a great profusion and variety of academic dress over the centuries, the U.S. attempted to standardize the medieval look. By the 1895, they had successfully crafted the Intercollegiate Code of Academic Costume. This has since been updated into the Academic Costume Code of the American Councilon Education, from which we derive most graduation regalia in the U.S. today.  

At first glance, the standardization of U.S. graduation regalia seems arbitrary, perhaps even boring, when compared to the flashy variety exhibited by Europe.  The reasons behind it, though, are decidedly  noble.  We in the U.S. believe in equality of rights, and judging people on their merits. The graduation robes reflect those principles. The black robes of academia cover everyone equally, from those wealthy enough to wear bespoke tailoring and pay full tuition, to those who can barely afford decent clothing and attend university through scholarships. Regardless of the circumstances one comes from, irrespective of the circumstances one graduates into, in academia, at graduation, all are equal in what they have achieved. Indeed, the only distinctions visible are those of merit, for the different robes reflect only the degree earned—not inherited or granted-- by each individual through their own efforts. 

The academic robes then serve to dedicate people, even if for only a day, to a unifying higher purpose. The Christian clerics who originated the robes used them to indicate that they were dying to the world as individuals and dedicating their lives to the will of God. When judges, who have inherited the same tradition, put on a black robe, it serves as a symbolic reminder that they have died to the world as an individual, subsumed beneath the higher purpose of justice they take on while wearing that robe. They even give up their names in favor of becoming avatars of that concept (e.g., Justice Gorsuch). Academics also share in this tradition, and at graduation abandon their personal backgrounds and circumstances which divide them, and don the robes to dedicate themselves to the purpose of scholarship.  They do not snobbishly proclaim pride in their individual institutions, families, or organizations as Europeans do. Indeed, for most U.S. universities, an institution is marked only subtlety in the colors of the hood lining. Rather, U.S. graduates dedicate themselves to the larger and universal idea of the pursuit of knowledge. 

Finally, this American standardization further promotes egalitarianism as it allows the graduation regalia to be mass produced. Thus, it becomes much more affordable than the expensive academic costumes of European universities, which were once primarily havens to the elites and aristocracy. For U.S. graduates, the academic costume truly is a uniform—not aristocratic finery. And so, it further represents the triumph of the American Free Market.

These are the principles woven into the U.S. academic costume. They represent the very essence of American values, but few today remember such symbolism. This also explains why the young man who wanted to wear his military uniform to graduation instead of the academic costume was so wrong. In doing so, he would not be marking an achievement of scholarship earned equitably and on the same scale with his peers, but rather his own subsequent dedication to new and different principles in his military pursuits. More, his uniform would stand out to honor a chosen identity, rather than the achievements he had earned for graduation. Such distinction is not what graduation exists to honor. In truth, though, the principles behind U.S. graduation robes represent some of the very ideas our military serves to defend, and thus they deserve to be honored appropriately in their own right.

The Purpose of Higher Education and the Myth of Job Training

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.   

If you ask almost anyone why they would go to college, the answer is likely to be that they value the better career options they believe going to college offers.  They would be right to say so.  Studies consistently show that those with college educations tend to earn more money over a lifetime than those without college education.  Unfortunately, this seems to reinforce the widespread and erroneous belief that college is or should be job training.  

 

These days, any new college applicant who announces a major in the Arts—or even Sciences—will inevitably face endless fretting from family and friends over what to do with such a study, followed by suggestions for something more “practical,” like Engineering or Business instead.  The assumption is that one’s field of study should translate directly into career utility.  Even some otherwise esteemed professors, like Dr. Bryan Caplan of George Mason University’s Economics Department, now lament that the faculties of higher education are woefully bereft of “real world experience,” and might serve the career training function better if they were forced to get real jobs themselves.  

Caplan points out that academics, insulated within the Ivory Tower of universities, provide incredibly poor training in skill acquisition through their lectures.  He further insists that the format of academia (going to class at will, turning in a few papers, and taking a final exam) is nearly useless for teaching good work habits.  He also reminds us of enormous piles of evidence demonstrating that professors and classroom lectures often do not teach people how to think so much as how to parrot the professor.  Instead, he argues that higher education merely serves a signaling function to employers, something I would call a gauntlet proving, that a prospective employee knows how to put in the required work and follow directives.  

For a student merely looking to find employment, what one studies at university is almost irrelevant.   In the end, nothing really matters save that you have the diploma that proves you ran the gauntlet while others did not or could not.  A student so tested by a university, will then be hired by an employer. Actual job skills will be learned on the job through experience.  That signaling function, as Caplan points out, does indeed mean that greater career success is a consequence of higher education, but it is not the purpose or intent of higher education itself, and does not mean professors should reorient themselves to that function.  While Caplan is quite correct that higher education provides poor career training, he entirely misses the point of higher education in general—as do most people.

It is true that most people are unlikely to ever directly use courses in History, Philosophy, or Anthropology during their careers.  But they were never intended to be so utilitarian.  Indeed, the notion of college as career training is quite modern, and grows out of the same Progressive movement that first shaped public education into the K-12 system originally designed to train factory workers.  Higher Education was intended for a different type of social engineering.    

College is supposed to help those charged with governing society, whether they are professionals, business executives, government agents—or simple citizens. It should provide an understanding of the government, the culture, its social bonds and markets, and its exalted principles. It should give these community leaders the tools to understand the problems people have faced before, are facing, and will face, as well as provide ideas for how to solve some of those problems through a breadth of understanding and cross disciplinary research. To do this, however, requires that colleges actually believe in something, and that professors actually profess truth. Our modern universities largely reject universal principles or truth, and discount the idea of universal ethics, instead promoting a banal multiplicity of perspectives—to no apparent end. Thus, its moral worth eliminated, higher education is left with the meager utility for job training. This is a tragedy.  

What use is studying Rome, the British Empire, and the American experiment to the mere job of a modern business executive who finds it much more useful to study marketing? We know the answer to that only when we see the ignorance and apathy of the people faced with the collusion of government and social media companies to accommodate universal surveillance, not just in China, but here in the U.S.A. Does this violate the Constitution and basic human freedom?  Certainly. But what earthly use is the Constitution, anyway, when we know the utility of safety and of government favor? 

This is not training for mere careers; it is training for being moral leaders among the citizenry.  It is the necessary statesmanship required for the survival of any republic.  Such education is necessary, not to teach individuals how to function in business, but what vigilance they need to keep over their society and government to do business at all.  

Some might object that exploring such concepts is best done by the professions, where knowledge specialization is vital, and it is easy to see the connection between curriculum and the associated career paths.  Those who go onto become professors and researchers, attorneys, or physicians quite reasonably engage in esoteric study, but the rest of society should focus on being productive.   Once we isolate such knowledge though, who would ever heed whatever wisdom it could offer?  If the intellectual elite only spoke to one another, what real influence would they have on society?  They rely upon undergraduates to study their ideas, and bring them out into the citizenry.  These students then disseminate their knowledge to their associates, providing an ethical framework for their businesses, perspective on the role of government to friends and family, and a better understanding of the framework of society itself, by which we protect our fundamental principles.  

I happen to be one of those professors Caplan so admires; beyond my academic career, I have a “real” job as a business attorney.  I am sure this experience adds some welcome flavor to my classes. Yet, I did not start teaching because I thought people needed better job training.  Indeed, the most job training I have ever seen anyone take from college is a thorough knowledge base; they invariably get their actual skills in employment.  Rather, I began teaching because I noticed such a profound lack of ethics and moral reasoning in the workforce, as well as complete ignorance of the history and governing principles that afforded them the opportunity to pedal their labor at all.  These ideas do not develop from skill training, but from those anti-utilitarian subjects like History, Philosophy, and Political Science.  This is the sort of thing managers and executives—college graduates— are supposed to be instilling into their staff and corporate culture, but it is largely absent.

I am the first to admit, however, that colleges are failing in this vital duty.  Our bizarre notion of higher education as job training has resulted in an equally erroneous idea that everyone should thus go to college.  Such universalism destroys the ability of colleges to convey the few skills they should be instilling (such as research, analytics, writing, communication, etc.) as they are forced to lower standards to matriculate the masses.  Moreover, fueled by an endless supply of printed student loan money ready to fund anyone who wants to attend, the colleges no longer have to offer courses of substance or principle at all, but are free to indulge in whimsical nonsense.  Indeed, for most students, who care nothing for education, and have no incentive to care about the value of their tuition, but merely seek to earn their diplomas to enter the workforce, the absurd classes without accountability are the most appealing. 

This is all, of course, profoundly wrong.  Even so, the solution is not to capitulate, and call for professors to be better job trainers.  Rather, we might think of cutting off the free flowing federal student loans.  It would limit the population to those who would serve as true opinion leaders, those who truly valued education enough to put effort into getting there. More, it would restore accountability to the universities, lower the bloated tuition, and vastly improve standards all in one blow.

I agree that higher education has devolved into wretchedness.  I agree that it is now provides such limited utility that it is reduced to a signaling function for employment. What breaks my heart is that its own denizens have now come to see job training as its purpose!  What else is there, they ask? Only the very body and soul of human liberty.

Meghann Silverthorn for Douglas County School Board

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

This election cycle, the People’s Press Collective has fielded one of its own as a candidate. Meghann Campos Silverthorn, a long time writer for the PPC and Slapstick Politics, is campaigning to serve on the Douglas County Board of Education here in Colorado.

Over the years, I have come to view most candidates with a rather jaundiced eye. I can scarcely count the number of times I have been disappointed. No matter what principles candidates draw their sound bites from, their underlying motivation always seems to be self aggrandizement—and principles are the first things they sacrifice in their drive to be popular, powerful, bipartisan, a compromise broker, or whatever else they envision for themselves. I know I am not alone when I see the latest political ads, chuckle, and file them appropriately in my wastepaper basket. This is the type of politics we have all come to expect. Thus, I was completely stunned when my old friend, Meghann Silverthorn dropped into my parlor to tell me that she intended to run for school board. I do believe I dropped my crumpet, which of course fell straight into my tea and made a right mess. People should really give warnings before making the world stand on its head.

You see, Meghann Silverthorn is not your average politician. Everything about her is unique. The daughter of diplomats, she grew up in embassies and schools all around the world. Her early life reads much like an adventuresome travel journal. Some of those adventures are splendid and exciting. Others, however, are so terrible that I have rarely met anyone who would have more right to call herself a victim—but Meghann has never done so. In fact, she claims that if she ever allowed herself to feel like a victim, she probably would not be alive today. Her personal strength is astonishing.

Her intellect is equally impressive. Already blessed with extreme intelligence, she supports her natural gifts with a master’s degree in Public Policy, and bachelor’s degrees in both Political Science and Aerospace Engineering (yes, she actually is a rocket scientist). She also has more than passing familiarity with Austrian School Economics, and her international background, especially in socialist nations, showed her exactly why the principles of the free market and individual liberty cannot be ignored.

Her strength and intellect combine to make her one of the most principled people I have had the honor of knowing. I first met her while she served as a student administrator at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I recall her sitting at budget meetings where millions of dollars would be allocated to various programs and fees and tuition would be raised or lowered accordingly. While administrators and student activists would give long-winded, self-important speeches in support of various programs, Meghann would sit quietly listening and, of all things, knitting. When she had heard enough, she would set her knitting needles aside and ask a question which would often take the administration completely off guard and leave them stammering. She seemed to have a way of finding efficient ways of achieving goals without raising costs and, as often as possible, actually cutting costs. She simply refused to believe that funding higher education required bankrupting students and their families. University administration always seemed to view her questions and comments with complete surprise, yet her suggestions often ended debate and swayed the vote. She would then go back to knitting.

Despite her quiet ways, even then she was passionate about the quality of education the university provided. She constantly crusaded to add curriculum to the College of Engineering and even helped to push for what eventually became a complete curriculum overhaul of the College of Arts and Sciences in order to increase educational rigor.

Meghann has been a good friend for many years, and the hours we have spent discussing principles of individual liberty, fundamentals of good economic policy, and quality in education are now beyond count. After so many discussions, it was no surprise to me to see the key issues of her campaign:

• preserving and improving parental choice for educational options,
• improving transparency and accountability in school administration and financing,
• and demanding increased educational rigor in all areas, especially in math and science.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Meghann will be an effective advocate for all these things.

Indeed, my only frustration is, oddly, that Meghann is not a typical politician. While she never fails to make an appearance at meet and greet functions, it goes against her nature to show up at gatherings, foist herself into people’s conversations, promote her platform, and ask for money. She thinks it seems pushy, arrogant, and intrusive. While I may agree, I have often threatened to get her a hand held sign (think Loony Tunes’ Wile E Coyote) reading, “Shy candidate; please donate.” Nonetheless, although this may drive supporters like me to shake our heads in exasperation, it is also proof that this is not a self-promoting politician as usual. Rather, Meghann Silverthorn stands as a woman of exemplary principles and humility, genuinely dedicated to ensuring the best quality in our educational system, both in rigor and administration.

It is my great honor to write this endorsement for Meghann Silverthorn on behalf of the entire People’s Press Collective. It is actually astonishing that such a fine person is willing to involve herself in politics at all. If the world were operating normally, such an individual would stay as far away from politics as possible. Happily, though, the world is standing on its head, my crumpet is swimming, and my tea is mucking about on the floor rather than remaining in my cup where it belongs. Instead of mopping up, I think I shall add to the mess by popping a few bottles of Champagne in celebration as I imagine Meghann quietly knitting the way to educational excellence on the Douglas County school board.