Best Practices for a Last Best Hope

The number of civic institutes, centers, and schools at public universities has increased significantly since the first one, the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership (SCETL) at Arizona State University, emerged in 2017. Beginning in 2021, nineteen new centers and institutes have been established.

Although many institutions have launched initiatives to enhance civic education, here I focus on the phenomenon of centers independent of any existing academic department but which are established by legislative or trustee action. It is early in their history, and there is no single algorithm for success. But the concept of the centers has been proven, and it is reasonable now to identify the best practices that have distinguished the most successful. 

The growth of course enrollments at a number of these entities suggests their strong appeal and potential. The Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at The Ohio State University grew its enrollment from 28 in Fall 2025 to over 500 in Fall 2026. SCETL taught 45 students in Fall 2017; in Fall 2026, SCETL has over 1,300 students enrolled. The Institute of American Civics (IAC) at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, which began offering courses in Fall 2024, now has 608 students enrolled for Fall 2026. The University of Texas at Austin’s School of Civic Leadership (SCL) moved from 304 in Spring 2024 to 1,683 in Fall 2026. Starting in 2024, the Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida (HS) grew to 1,700 in Fall 2026. Likewise, the School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL) at Chapel Hill advanced from 85 students in Fall 2024 to 523 in Fall 2026. Relatedly, these programs have been successful in maintaining state funding and attracting significant philanthropic support. 

As the title of this essay suggests, this author views the development of the centers as a significant benefit to American higher education, notwithstanding the elements of controversy, sometimes bitter, that have on occasion arisen.

What explains their success?

The Director and Autonomy

The creation of SCETL was a breakthrough that other states have followed. In 2016, the legislature, perceiving a need for greater commitment to civic and economic education, awarded a $3 million appropriation to Arizona State University (ASU) to establish a new academic unit focused on classical civics, Western civilization, and free-market philosophy. A $2.5 million line item went at the same time to the University of Arizona to expand its Center for the Philosophy of Freedom. Its different trajectory is illuminating. The University of Arizona’s Center, while doing outstanding teaching and research focused on Classical Liberalism, depends on faculty hired through existing departments. ASU, in contrast, established SCETL as an autonomous, independent unit, whose inaugural director, Paul Carrese, was chosen by a national committee of scholars led by Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield. The director has hiring authority, independent of existing departments; thus the structure of SCETL and the entities that have followed—in particular the IAC, the Ohio centers, HS, SCiLL, and SCL—are able to transcend the obstacles to intellectual diversity that have created the imbalances seen so widely in higher education. If the new centers were to be largely extensions of existing faculties, they could not fulfill their purpose and mission. In contrast to the SCETL model, the legislation establishing Florida State’s IGC did not stipulate that the director would have hiring authority. The director instead must seek to place tenured or tenure-track faculty in existing Florida State departments and must obtain their approval to do so. That requirement allows existing units to block or delay hiring. The director, Ryan Owens, has built a strong program but largely has done so by hiring non-tenure-track professors.

The creativity in developing new programs and courses that address gaps in the existing humanities and social science offerings is a crucial factor in the success of the civic centers. In this way, they become uniquely integrated into the university, often with powerful contributions to the core curriculum and general education program. The wide-ranging engagement with the Western tradition at SCL and HS, which is building a vibrant program in Jewish Studies under the direction of Steven Frankel, for example, would be inconceivable without the prerogative to shape curriculum and courses according to their missions.

The theories of Herbert Marcuse have returned to campus with a vengeance.

Thus, independent hiring authority is arguably the single most important factor in the growth of civic centers, and it is explicit in much of the enabling legislation of new centers.

Another noteworthy aspect of the model that SCETL established is forming a distinguished, national advisory board to identify top candidates to serve as director. Although not universally followed, it is an important assurance of excellence in leadership that has been applied with success in Tennessee, South Carolina, and at all of the Ohio civic centers. 

Restoring the American Story at American Colleges

Civic and historical illiteracy has increased dramatically in higher education, and it is among the best practices of civic centers to bring remedy.

The need is very real. In surveys of over 3,000 college students, ACTA found widespread inability to identify the term lengths of US senators and representatives, or to name the chief justice, or identify the branch of government with Constitutional authority to declare war. There is an apparent correlation with declining patriotism as well: in that same survey, 57 percent responded that they would flee rather than fight if Russia invaded the United States.

It is not difficult to understand why legislators want more study of the American constitutional order and are willing to invest significant funding in establishing centers to do that. Legislatures have also envisioned the civic centers as the key organizers and providers of the undergraduate courses on American history and government that they have mandated. In Ohio, Senator Jerry Cirino has been instrumental in expanding civic education across higher education. Through the state’s FY24–25 budget, he championed the creation of five new civic centers, included an undergraduate American history requirement in Senate Bill 1 (2025), and introduced Senate Bill 461 (2026) to position these centers as the primary providers of the state’s required history and government coursework. It would then be the prerogative of the Civic Board, consisting of the directors of the five civic centers, to review and approve all courses at the other public institutions proposed in fulfillment of the state mandate. In 2026, the Iowa General Assembly mandated that all undergraduates complete two semesters of coursework on American history and government: the law designates the University of Iowa’s Center for Intellectual Freedom as the sole provider of courses to fulfill the requirement; the centers at the other two Iowa public universities are responsible for approving courses to meet the requirement. Last year, the Education Committees of the Tennessee General Assembly advanced legislation requiring an American history and government course at all public universities and named the IAC as the provider of curriculum and materials for the other universities.

Lest there be any doubt, the civic centers have both the expertise and the commitment to design and offer solid, foundational courses on the American story. The union of their existence and a prerogative in offering the required courses is felicitous for them and for the nation.

Freedom of Thought

The pathologies that arise in the absence of intellectual diversity are well known: echo chambers, monocultures, and the inevitable marginalization, if not persecution, of viewpoints that violate campus orthodoxies. The theories of Herbert Marcuse have returned to campus with a vengeance.

Until recently, the trajectory of higher education, especially at elite institutions, has been an intensified homogeneity around matters of social justice and American policies and principles. It is a dysfunctional way to study American history, and it obviates civil discourse. The evidence of this is robust. It has also been a scandal that has lowered public approval of higher education.

Nearly all civic centers and institutes have been appropriately explicit in their public commitment to intellectual openness. SCETL commits to “fostering a culture of intellectual diversity to facilitate the open and free contest of ideas that are a foundation to a healthy constitutional democracy.” It is self-evident in the name of University of South Carolina’s Center for Civic Leadership and Public Discourse and in University of Iowa’s Center for Intellectual Freedom; the enabling legislation for Ohio’s five civic institutes mandates it, as is reflected in their websites. The Chase Center’s mission stipulates: Affirm a commitment to create a community dedicated to an ethic of civil and free inquiry, which respects the intellectual freedom of each member, supports individual capacities for growth, and welcomes the differences of opinion that shall naturally exist in a public university community. It is too early to assess the overall impact of the centers on campus free speech. Anecdotal evidence, however, that several center directors report of student satisfaction with the free exchange of ideas in their center courses bodes well. As noted below, students approve of the absence of partisanship in their courses at SCiLL and draw a positive contrast with their experience elsewhere in the university. 

“Only Connect”

The growth of many of the centers is correlated with strong programming for in-service teachers and robust public programming. During 2025–26, SCETL had nearly 500 K-12 schoolteachers attending its American civics workshops. IAC’s Civics Academy for schoolteachers grew from 49 teachers in 2023 to over 300 in 2026; its success drew significant funding from the US Department of Education. Its undergraduate Civic Symposium served students from 14 colleges and universities in 2026, featuring, among other things, structured debate to instill habits of civil disagreement.

Partnerships matter. Many of the centers have some affiliation, for example, with the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles and History. Center directors and faculty benefit from its fellowships, its academic network, and its programming.

While autonomy and independence are essential for fulfilling the mission of the centers, connections within the university are important for their longevity and growth. Internal jealousy is virtually a given at every institution, along with competition for students, resources, and prestige. Often, salaries are higher for center faculty than for professors in existing departments. Regrettably, there are often ideological objections to the focus on the American and Western story. Having appropriate bridges and partnerships is likely to be an important factor for long-term flourishing. The Chase Center at OSU, for example, partners with Ohio State’s existing PPE program, providing faculty and support. Several IAC courses are now required for the Public Affairs major within the University of Tennessee’s Baker Center of Public Policy and Public Affairs.

Where possible, early outreach, even before the center’s programs begin, has been highly advantageous. IAC Director Joshua Dunn participated in programming at the Law School and cross-listed a course with the Department of Religious Studies. IAC’s professional development programs for teachers engage faculty from the Education School. Support for cultural events, including a performance of Joseph Addison’s Cato, and interdepartmental events commemorating the anniversary of the Scopes Trial and the anniversary of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, roots IAC firmly into university life. IGC Director Ryan Owens recommends working closely with the admissions team. Its First Amendment clinic within the Florida State Law School similarly raises the profile of the center.

SCL’s Director Justin Dyer emphasizes that centers must “build according to the norms and culture of the institution.” They should respect the processes for hiring and promotion. University of South Carolina’s Center for Civic Leadership and Public Discourse (CCLPD) has experienced no pushback. Board Chair Thad Westbrook credits the collaboration of the board, top administrative leadership, and faculty leadership. He emphasizes that “trustees should ensure their institutions are fulfilling their responsibility and work with administrators and academic leaders to elevate civic education.” The center engaged with the institution’s stakeholders and was respectful of internal processes. As it now rapidly expands, these are good omens.

The phrase Dyer uses goes beyond “non-partisan” to “pre-partisan,” in the search for truth.

Whether initiated by a board, as in the case of SCiLL and CCLPD, or, as is more common, by legislative action, the importance of board support cannot be emphasized enough. Their recognition of the vital role the centers play in university life and their active support for the centers are essential. Active, engaged boards have contributed significantly to the success of HS, SCL, and CCLPD. It is a crucial, fiduciary duty.

Beyond Partisanship

Eschewing partisanship is another best practice. When Tennessee Governor Bill Lee called for an institute devoted to teaching “informed patriotism,” with a $6 million initial appropriation, his evocation of President Reagan in no way discouraged bipartisanship. The General Assembly approved the legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Director Joshua Dunn expresses pride that IAC exposes students to a wider range of opinion than typically found elsewhere, with, for example, the Foundations of American Citizenship and Visions of America course structured to build competing ideas into the fabric of the class. SCETL, from its start, has presented nonpartisan public programs in its Civic Discourse Project, with speakers including Cornel West, Randall Kennedy, Danielle Allen, Jonathan Rauch, Khalil Muhammed, and Karen Attiah.

SCiLL Dean Jed Atkins notes that in hiring faculty, the SCiLL does not impose political litmus tests—it removes them. The result is a faculty committed to keeping their own political views out of the classroom so that students are free to explore ideas, disagree with one another, and form their own judgments. Atkins notes with satisfaction that students regularly report in teaching evaluations that they do not know their SCiLL professors’ politics—and frequently draw a favorable contrast with their experiences elsewhere at the university. He also notes that SCiLL has benefited from support from donors across the political spectrum.

It might at times be tempting to call explicitly for the centers to combat the woke ideology pervasive on campuses, as did West Virginia’s Governor, who claimed that the new Washington Center for Civics, Culture, and Statesmanship will “push back on the woke ideology.” That is, in this author’s opinion, a mistake. The absurd excesses of the modern university are apparent to anyone who has even glanced in the direction of contemporary higher education. Broad and non-partisan speech and behavior have generally served the centers far better than culture wars rhetoric. On their own, they act as an obvious, irrefutable critique of what has gone wrong in the academy. Refutation by example will bring more people to the table and lead to more durable results than understandably gratifying but unnecessary attacks. 

SCL Director Justin Dyer counsels avoiding negativity and instead articulating what the center seeks to accomplish. The phrase he uses goes beyond “non-partisan” to “pre-partisan,” in the search for truth, welcoming the criticism that clarifies ideas and builds deep understanding. HS’s Steve Frankel is explicit that a successful center “must appeal to both sides.” The fact that Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute’s white paper on intellectual diversity recognizes the potential of civics institutes to be a positive influence in higher education is yet further testimony to their contribution to academic excellence. They are successful because they offer students a unique opportunity to rise above the partisan and polarized. In other words, they educate.

This piece was originally published by Law & Liberty on October 21, 2026.