We Had to Destroy the University to Save It!

Many of our leaders seem to believe that the way to improve our public institutions is first to weaken, even destroy them.  Universities, public schools, libraries, public health agencies—even churches—are treated not as inheritances to be carefully stewarded, renewed and improved but as enemies to be subdued.

Do you recall the ridiculous logic during the Vietnam era when we heard “We had to destroy the village to save it”?  A similar impulse is visible today. When leaders have grievances with universities, public health agencies, or other public institutions, the answer too often is not reform but dismantling. Instead of broadening inquiry, they narrow it. Sadly, we are seeing such “logic” across many public settings, notably in our universities.

Indianapolis Star opinion writer Jacob Stewart recently argued (July 28, 2026) that the I.U.’s flagship school should be moved from Bloomington to the Indianapolis campus.  There is no doubt that Indianapolis has become an increasingly important economic, medical, and technological center. Strengthening Indiana University’s presence there is both wise and necessary. But that need not come at the expense of Bloomington’s historic strengths, nor with and ignoring of the reciprocity between these two communities and institutions over the years..    

It overlooks Bloomington’s contribution in supporting these improvements, especially as the primary resource for medical education and research in Indianapolis.  Like so much of our current social and political discourse, this presumes a dichotomy, the false choice of one must be destroyed for higher education to thrive. There would be no world class medical education in Indianapolis without decades of focused resources being shared from Bloomington.

Rather than offering the promise of two first-rate institutions, one in Bloomington and another in Indianapolis, with differing strengths as in other state university systems, Mr. Stewart’s opinion assumes there must be a “winner” and a “loser.”  It is not only sad and limited in imagination; it also carries within it the seeds of the Vietnam fallacy.

Two centuries of accumulated scholarship, teaching, and public service have made Bloomington one of the nation’s distinguished comprehensive universities.  The opinion piece demonstrates limited imagination and misses the remarkable wholistic gifts of Indiana University as a comprehensive university.  For Mr. Stewart to reduce Bloomington to a “pretty campus” while failing to acknowledge internationally recognized programs (music, business, public policy, languages, law, humanities, natural and social sciences to name a few and miss so many other places of excellence) is tragic enough.  Worse, the opinion piece proceeds as if unaware of the many educational options currently being shredded and destroyed.  Respected programs and leaders are being shunted aside with no explanation or clarity as to a comprehensive strategy.  The historic ways alumni/ae elected some representatives to the I.U. Board was discarded in a last minute, with blunt force, legislative action that sought to destroy rather improve is overlooked.

The continuing research built on faculty excellence; a research corpus and alumni support cannot be so unilaterally sidelined.  Instead of any understanding of higher education’s purpose and value to build up knowledge around what is good, true and beautiful, the recent monolithic project seems to be primarily to tear down.  In this model, universities are reduced to being cultural and ideological feed lots with the focus is on producing the fattest bank accounts for the heard upon graduation. 

Historically deep intellectual discourse results in vocations offering new insights in living that cannot be measured on a bank ledger.  Often those with modest incomes after graduation make the more lasting and wider difference.  Those who serve in public safety, research and teaching, faith leadership, or in environmental activities in forestry, water management or agriculture are also significant outcomes.  Lives saved, cures discovered, poetry written, poor families finding new pathways to security, music that widens the heart and mind – all hold immeasurable value.  Our current era may seek fat wallets as the sole goal of higher education, but our civilization and democracy are based more on the development of personal character and just societal practices enriching and strengthen the entire public.

What troubles me is that the debate over Indiana University is not unique. The same pattern appears whenever institutions become objects of grievance rather than stewardship. Public schools. Libraries. Museums. Public health. Even churches.  Instead of asking, “How do we make our core institutions better?” increasingly it appears the question is, “Whom and what can we defeat?”

Democracies are not sustained by grievance alone. They are always under construction. They are sustained by imagination. They require citizens who know history well enough to avoid repeating it, theology deeply enough to recognize the dignity of those with whom they disagree, poetry that enlarges the heart, and music that reminds us harmony is something created—not imposed. Universities at their best exist to cultivate precisely those habits. We should expect them – and our government and academic leaders –  to become wiser, more open, and more accountable.

Philip Amerson