​​​Note from the Editor: The Intercollegiate Review will be moving to Substack this Summer. 

Substack offers a more convenient and accessible experience to you as the reader and will allow us to reach a wider audience.

We are grateful for your support of the Intercollegiate Review and are committed to keeping your subscription completely free as we move to Substack. 

CATEGORY: CULTURE (17 MIN)

Cultural Revolution: Destroying the "Hermeneutics of Suspicion"

If one word summarized the cultural attitude that dominated the past couple of decades, especially among Americans in the majority or plurality, perhaps it would be “guilt.” With every achievement or success (or even in everyday life), people felt the need to acknowledge some failing of their ancestors to soothe a kind of guilty conscience. But that mentality may finally be on the way out.

For The New Criterion, Heather Mac Donald discusses the “hermeneutics of suspicion:” the idea that we in the West should take an “adversarial stance towards our cultural legacy.” Mac Donald uses the example of warnings about the costs of slavery and colonialism attached to… Dutch still-life paintings. She adds another: the Met adding scenes involving thieving Western archaeologists to a production of Aida.

This “self-hatred,” leading to “self-cancellation,” suffused every aspect of Western life, according to Mac Donald. And she points out that what we commonly called “cancel culture” served to censor any point of view opposed to the hermeneutics of suspicion and the dominance of guilt.

But now, Mac Donald says, we are in a counter-revolution. Major political and business leaders have refused to bend the knee to the hegemony of guilt and have honored Western tradition without the trigger warnings. Mac Donald warns that the battle against entrenched bureaucrats and academics will be difficult, but the new administration has made her “optimistic.”

Mac Donald urges Americans to “declare the truth about America and about Western civilization, as often and as loudly as we can.”

Learn more in her article here.

Weekly Poll

Is America ready to move past guilt and reclaim pride in Western civilization?

[A] Yes--It's time to stand tall again
[B] No --We still have wrongs to reckon with
[C] Unsure--The debate isn't so simple
 

RESULTS: 6/12/2025

Have you heard of Fidelity Month before reading last week's piece?

[A] Yes - 15.4%
​​​​​[B] No - 82.7%
[C] Unsure - 1.9%
 

CATEGORY: EDUCATION (14 MIN)

"Fiat and Intrusion:" Limited Government and Harvard

The relationship between major institutions of higher education and the American government has been a complicated one. Financial ties, recent federal laws, and research programs have created bonds that are hard to break—even at institutions that purport to be private. This relationship has come to a head with the continuing battle between the Trump administration and Harvard University.

Michael B. Poliakoff, writing in Law & Liberty, highlights the potential danger in overusing the power of the government to intrude upon the work that major educational institutions are doing. Poliakoff grants that Harvard has perpetuated terrible offenses, allowing students to inappropriately protest and resisting efforts to root out discrimination in admissions. But he questions the wisdom of cutting their funding and crippling their research efforts.

Poliakoff argues that the Trump administration’s actions are “neither measured nor reasonable” and potentially an overstep of legal authority. Worse, he says, they may harm valuable and legitimate scientific endeavors to fight disease and save lives. The “tawdry history of professional and ethical failures at Harvard,” Poliakoff believes, does not necessarily justify government action that could result in “an incalculable act of harm to the nation.”

Harvard is not off the hook. Poliakoff urges the institution to enact truly effective reforms with transparency and speed. He also suggests a change of messaging for Harvard, one that would focus on the real and important scientific research happening within its walls (and on the foreign nations that are ready to cut into our technological lead if we stumble). Finally, he thinks that a combination of negotiation, policy-making, and the enforcement of the courts can better serve to keep Harvard in line than actions that maim the nature of limited government.

What do you think? Read Poliakoff’s argument here.