Freedom of Inquiry at Dartmouth: The Political Economy Project

2019, the 250^th anniversary of Dartmouth College, is a time to reflect on what we appreciate most about this institution. Before I became a student here, Dartmouth didn’t strike me as a special place. “Small, big on sports, liberal arts, in the middle of nowhere, Greek life” basically represented the totality of my impression. However, after a year at Dartmouth, almost every day, I feel luckier and more grateful than the day I got accepted. The dogs on the Green, the breathtakingly beautiful golden leaves, the fresh air, the wondrous pink sky, the mountains, the countless stars at night. Having spent a summer in the cities, I can really see the Dartmouth charm now. Every time the natural beauty of this place hits me, I am simultaneously shocked by the fact that I failed to see it my freshman year. How could I have not seen all this before?

Indeed, there is so much that we take for granted: our natural surroundings, our material conditions, our prosperity, our internet, the fact that we have so many books at the tip of our fingers, which is “an opportunity that humanists in the Renaissance would have killed for,” to quote Heather Mac Donald. I have come to the conclusion that this really is one of the best places in the world to pursue an undergraduate degree, as long as you take a step back and really—and I mean really—look at the place.

What Dartmouth has to offer, in this day and age, is something truly unique and great, and that includes the Political Economy Project (PEP) under the Economics Department. Just like our beautiful natural surroundings, the diversity of thought, openness of dialogue, and freedom to express on campus are often taken for granted.

According to the program director, Professor Henry Clark, PEP was conceived of in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when some Dartmouth faculty members felt that there was “a broader discussion that could and should be taking place about political economy.” He thinks that they had a kind of “Socratic moment of recognized ignorance.” Essentially there was nobody—either on campus or in the country—who fully and truly knew what was going on or why it happened. Therefore, the purpose of PEP was to foster “the kind of conversation between people in different disciplines—economics, political science, philosophy in particular—that would fill in some of the gaps in the public conversation that the founders perceived.”

A new collaboration among disciplines was needed. The specialization of knowledge has induced excellence and astonishing achievements, but when it comes to certain matters, such as the political economy, it is not enough to only know one discipline. Simultaneously, to perfect the knowledge of one discipline, one needs to be able to draw knowledge from many different aspects of the world. “Faculty are under more and more pressure to produce, in a timely fashion, within the constraints of their own discipline. There are tenure and promotion. Their status within the institution depends upon being outstanding specialists, which is of course a good thing, within limits,” but “a broader, general interest discussion needs to be ongoing also,” according to Professor Clark. Over the years, PEP has upheld its original promise, bringing in speakers whose beliefs fall all over the political spectrum, from Ben Powell, Deirdre McCloskey, and Michael Munger to Adam Gopnik and Arthur Brooks; hosting two annual public debates (once in the fall and once in the spring) between distinguished scholars; and bringing Dartmouth faculty in political science, economics, philosophy, history, religion, international studies, classics, and even biology together. The debate topic will be for and against Universal Basic Income in the fall this year.

At the heart of interdisciplinary learning lies something that reflects the broader mission of a liberal arts education: the freedom of inquiry. The interaction across disciplines in such an established structure is not something that should go unappreciated. With dialogue, there comes liberation of thought, tolerance, happiness, and even peace. It is not about imposing what I think is right on you. Rather, it is about pursuing what is right together, and in that very inquiry lies clarity and joy. Almost every week, I look forward to the PEP speaker event where usually a room full of Dartmouth students and senior citizens from the broader Upper Valley community hear a scholar share their academic insights. Subscribers to the PEP newsletter include not only students and Upper Valley residences but also people from across the nation.

The freedom of inquiry is also reflected in decidedly informal reading groups led by professors such as Douglas Irwin, Meir Kohn, and Henry Clark; in PEP’s signature event, the Monday faculty-student dinners, where Dartmouth faculty from various departments come and share their ongoing research with students and receive feedback in a relaxed manner; and in PEP’s new two-year pilot program, the Independent Research Fellowship, where students can craft a topic on their own and read books under the loose guidance of a faculty at Dartmouth during winterim or a leave term, upon completion of which students will receive a stipend of $1500-$3000. Students are not required to write research papers in this program—just to read. Additionally, although the PEP does not offer an academic degree, it sponsors certain courses in the philosophy, government, economics, and sociology departments, by paying the professors who teach those courses. Lastly, the PEP always invites affiliated students to join speakers for dinner at the Pine.

To me, PEP is a libertarian presence on campus—not because of what it advocates for, but exactly because it does not advocate for anything at all, except for the freedom of inquiry. In other words, PEP realizes the fundamental ideals of libertarianism by facilitating a space for discussion that welcomes and celebrates the ideals of the opposite side. In Professor Clark’s words, “the original idea of PEP, as I understand it, was to hold a wide ranging, ongoing conversation about political economy and all of its dimension on campus, and so, towards that end, we have wanted to make sure that the range of approach, methodology reflects the full spectrum of informed and intelligent opinions about political economy.” To have a “diverse and pluralistic—some may even find it confusing—array of speakers” is “one of the strengths” of the PEP.

I used to be frustrated with the seemingly nonexistent explicit faculty guidance in how we should live our lives. I used to think that we—young people—are honestly so confused, and, for most of the time, eager to hear their opinions. Why don’t they just tell us what’s important in life, and what’s right from what’s wrong?

However, what I didn’t see is the freedom that that absence of moral prescription leaves for us to figure it out ourselves—the freedom that is necessary for us to truly appreciate and be satisfied with the lives that we shape for ourselves later. The freedom of inquiry is a necessary condition for morality, because to have a moral system requires one to inquire first about what goodness means. Therefore, there is another deeper correspondence between PEP and the liberal arts education in which the flourishing of a whole and moral person is the main goal. Indeed, perhaps the structure of the liberal arts education is precisely the lack of one. With a negative structure, it leaves space for infinite possibilities, a limitedness scope of knowledge, and maximum freedom of inquiry and morality. Freedom breeds the bottom-up culture expressed by the Greek Life, but it also breeds genuine reflection, initiative, growth, and transcendence of that culture.

I could not have come to appreciate the natural beauty of the Dartmouth setting if I wasn’t back in the cities for the summer. Similarly, I don’t think I could have come to appreciate PEP if I didn’t know more about the broader academic, political, and public atmosphere where conversation is avoided, and the opponent feared and demonized. To me, the freedom of inquiry and celebration of informal and genuine learning beyond the classroom are unique to PEP and possibly to Dartmouth. Risking the problems of anecdotal evidence and gross oversimplification, I report that my friends at Harvard have told me that the conservatives don’t have a voice on campus and argue that Yale, Brown, and Columbia are almost lost causes, by my standards at least. “There are many things I will miss about Columbia, but finally, I won’t be crucified for not being a liberal,” a friend of mine who recently graduated from Columbia declared. To be sure, I do not criticize these places for embracing liberal ideals. That is fine. However, as institutions, they have been failing to present the other side of the story fairly and, worst of all, they are proud of it. The freedom of inquiry is replaced by groupthink, guilt, and the illusion of a collective purpose. The lack of moral character and academic integrity among the youth reveals the downfall and tragedy of American higher education.

As a libertarian, there were moments here when I found myself discouraged from expressing my political views. However, I also have fond memories of being warmly received by people of very different opinions. Dartmouth is a special place. Sometimes perceived as anti-intellectual because of its sports culture and Greek Life system, it represents perhaps the most pro-intellectual environment with a lack of moral and academic prescription and a steady infrastructure—rather than structure—that supports the free pursuit of knowledge with ferocity, from close personal interactions with professors to PEP, all of which, if not reflected on, will be taken for granted, exactly because of their infrastructural nature. Every day, we are immersed in an environment of natural beauty and educational freedom. As advocates for a smaller government, one of the most important things we ought to do is to recognize freedom, the use of it, and what has been achieved through it. So, before 2020, take a step back and see where you are, what you have at your disposal, and the future the freedom that we have can direct us to, i.e., one that we can truly call our own and love from the bottom of our hearts. Pacing alongside the beautiful Green and seeing friends read, play music, and play frisbee, I sometimes wonder if Marx had anything better in mind when he envisioned his utopia, as well as what would happen to everything we have—the unprecedented living standards, the technological advancements, the environment, and the freedom of inquiry—if we tried it his way.