Abstract. The reform series already presumes that universities misremember what they are for. This paper supplies the memory theory behind that presumption. The idealized past of the American university—a golden age of liberal learning, disinterested, unified, and later betrayed—is set beside the reconstructed past, in which universities appear as mixed from the beginning, contested in their purposes, and serving several masters at once. The two furnishings generate two reform programs, and the quarrel between the programs is not a quarrel about what the university should now do. It is a quarrel about which past may be admitted as the measure, exactly as Paper 1 predicts. The paper takes the occasion to exercise the four probes for the first time, on a case in which the present author has less at stake than he had in Paper 2.
3.1 — The Presumption Carried In
The reform series proceeds on an assumption it has never argued: that universities misremember what they are for. The assumption does real work there. It explains why reform proposals that seem obviously correct on the merits are received as attacks; why every faculty knows what the university has “always been about” and no two faculties agree; why the same institution can, within a single decade, describe itself to legislators as an engine of regional prosperity, to donors as the guardian of a civilizational inheritance, and to prospective students as a credentialing service, without anyone experiencing the three descriptions as being in tension.
An assumption doing that much work deserves an argument. This paper supplies it, and the argument is simply Paper 1 applied. A university is a body that furnishes its founding. The furnishing settles in advance what a departure from present practice signifies. And because the furnishing operates beneath the level at which the faculty believes its arguments are being conducted, the resulting disputes present as disputes about curriculum, tenure, admissions, or general education, when they are disputes about the stored founding surfacing wherever the institution happens to be making a decision.
The university is a better second case than it looks. It lacks what the fellowship possessed. It has no zakar imperative, no commanded storage, no appointed times, no annual rehearsal of a bondage it did not choose. Its memory is entirely voluntary and therefore entirely convenient. Where the fellowship gilds with an anti-gilding apparatus in its hands—the indictment of §2.5—the university gilds with nothing in its hands at all, which makes the mechanism easier to watch and the watching less painful.
That last consideration is not incidental. Note 7 of Paper 2 committed the cluster to building its instrument where the builder has little at stake and bringing it home afterward. This is the first of the three exercise grounds.
3.2 — The Idealized Past
The idealized past of the university has a shape, and the shape is the first disposition of Paper 1, §1.1 in academic dress. It runs approximately as follows.
There was once a place where knowledge was pursued for its own sake. Its curriculum was unified, because knowledge was one. Its students read the same books, and the books were the right books, and reading them formed men rather than trained them. Its teachers were scholars who taught, not researchers who tolerated teaching. It was small, poor, and indifferent to the world’s estimate of its usefulness, and this indifference was the condition of its greatness. Then came the money, the specialists, the administrators, the electives, the disciplines, the grants, the vocationalism—and the place became a different thing while retaining the name. What is required is a return.
Every element of that account can be documented, and none of it is invented from nothing. That is what makes it a gilding rather than a fabrication, and Paper 1, §1.2 predicted exactly this: the declinist error operates on a real past and improves it.
The account’s canonical statement is Newman’s, and the way Newman is used is itself the case in miniature. The Idea of a University holds that liberal knowledge is its own end, that enlargement of mind is not the accumulation of information, and that the university exists to teach universal knowledge rather than to produce discoveries.[^1] The book is now cited as a description of what universities once were, and as a measure of how far they have fallen. It was nothing of the kind. Newman was writing in 1852, in Dublin, about an institution that did not yet exist, against the actual Oxford he had known—an Oxford of clerical sinecures, indifferent tutors, examinations of narrow scope, and a curriculum defended chiefly on the ground that it had always been there. Newman wrote the ideal because the reality had never furnished one. Within a century the polemic had been restored as testimony, and a document composed to indict the university’s present was being read as a photograph of the university’s past.
This is the gilding at its most instructive. Nobody falsified anything. A normative text was reclassified as a descriptive one, and the reclassification happened because the storage required a past worth returning to, and here was a text that described a place worth returning to. The furnishing did not consult the text’s genre. Furnishings do not.
The Yale Report of 1828 works the same way and works earlier.[^2] Confronted with proposals to relax the requirements in Greek and Latin, the Yale faculty produced what remains the most articulate American defense of the classical course, arguing that its purpose was the discipline and the furniture of the mind—that studies were valuable for what they made of the student, not for what they gave him to carry away. The Report is now a founding document of the golden-age account. Notice what it actually is: a defense mounted under attack, by a body that had already lost the argument in most of its peer institutions, appealing to a course of study that had itself replaced an earlier one, on grounds that its own framers were obliged to articulate because nobody had needed to articulate them before. It is a document of contestation. It is stored as a document of consensus.
Two further items of furniture deserve naming.
The medieval university as the home of the liberal arts. In the storage, Bologna and Paris and Oxford appear as communities of scholars pursuing knowledge in freedom under a unified curriculum crowned by theology. In the record, the medieval university was largely a professional school. Bologna trained lawyers. Salerno and Montpellier trained physicians. Paris trained theologians, and its arts faculty—where the trivium and quadrivium lived—was propaedeutic: the arts were what a boy did before he did something that paid.[^3] The liberal arts occupied, in the institution now cited as their golden age, roughly the position that freshman composition occupies today. They were the gate, not the temple.
The collegiate ideal. Harvard was founded, in its own early account, out of dread of leaving an illiterate ministry to the churches when the present ministers should lie in the dust.[^4] This is a founding, and it is a real one, and it is not a founding in the liberal arts. It is a founding in ministerial supply, undertaken by a body that wanted trained clergy and gentlemen and got, for a long while, a rather small number of both. The colonial colleges were denominational, sectional, chronically underfunded, and preoccupied with discipline in a sense that had little to do with the mind—which is to say, preoccupied with keeping adolescent boys from rioting.[^5]
None of this makes the golden-age account contemptible. Something was lost. The claim that a curriculum ought to form the person rather than equip him is a claim I hold to be true, and it is not made less true by the discovery that the institutions which once made it were smaller, meaner, and more compromised than the memory allows. Paper 2, §2.4 named this precisely: the discovery that a memory has been smoothed is a discovery about the memory. It is not a discovery about the deposit.
But the Preacher’s first corrective bears on the question, not on the deposit. Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this (Eccl. 7:10). The reformer who asks why the university has abandoned the liberal arts has not established that the university ever held them in the manner his question presupposes. He has furnished a founding at that location, and he is demanding an account of a distance he has himself laid out. The question cannot be answered because it is not a question. It is a verdict with a request for a cause attached.
3.3 — The Reconstructed Past
Set beside the idealized past a past reconstructed from the record, and a different institution appears—one that is not fallen because it was never standing where the fall requires it to have stood.
The reconstructed university is mixed from the beginning. It served the church, which wanted clergy; the state, which wanted officials and, later, agricultural yields and military officers; the families, which wanted their sons placed; the town, which wanted the trade; the students, who wanted the credential; and the scholars, who wanted to be left alone to work. These masters were never reconciled and were never meant to be. The institution’s characteristic structure—faculties, degrees, charters, the whole apparatus of certification—is what a body builds when it must satisfy several patrons at once without letting any of them look too closely at what it is doing for the others.
It is contested at every joint. Bologna’s students hired and fined their professors; Paris’s masters organized against their students and their bishop; the medieval university’s celebrated freedom was a jurisdictional bargain struck between competing authorities, not a philosophical commitment held by anyone.[^6] The American college’s history is not a history of a settled model degraded but of an unsettled model contested—classicists against utilitarians, denominational against secular, college against university, and the whole quarrel running from the 1820s to the 1890s without producing a winner.
It is plural rather than singular in the moment of its supposed unification. Veysey’s account of the American research university’s emergence is the essential text here, and its finding is the finding that matters for this paper: no single idea of the university triumphed.[^7] Utility, research, culture, and liberal culture each had partisans, none prevailed, and what actually emerged was an administrative structure capacious enough to house all of them while permitting their adherents to avoid one another. The unity of the modern university is an organizational unity. It was never an intellectual one, and it was not achieved by the resolution of the argument. It was achieved by the argument’s abandonment in favor of a bureaucracy that made the argument unnecessary. Kerr said the later version of this out loud when he described the multiversity as a set of enterprises held together chiefly by shared administrative plumbing and a common complaint about parking.[^8]
And it is failure-ridden in ways the storage has quietly disposed of. Colleges were founded and closed in numbers that embarrass the account of a stable inheritance; how large those numbers were is itself contested, which is a datum of its own.[^9] Enrollments were small. Standards were erratic. The classical course was frequently taught by men who had barely mastered it. The professionalization of the professoriate, which the golden-age account treats as the beginning of the fall, was in part a response to the fact that the antebellum college teacher was often not, in any sense a modern faculty member would recognize, a scholar.
Now: the reconstructed past is not the second disposition. It is important to say this plainly, because the reconstruction can be conscripted, and it usually is. Paper 1, §1.3 described the tarnishing—the smoothing of the achievement out of a founding so that the founding becomes a place worth having left. The materials assembled above can be used that way, and they are. The founders were sectarian; the curriculum was narrow; the students were rich and white and male; the freedom was a jurisdictional bargain; therefore nothing in the founding binds us, and the present university, whatever its faults, requires no justification from that quarter. That inference is exactly the move Paper 2, §2.4 identified as the progressive error in its most seductive form, made in the name of honesty about the past.
Butterfield’s warning applies to the conscripted version and not to the reconstruction as such.[^10] The Whig history of the university—sectarian college to secular research institution, each stage an advance, each earlier figure sorted by whether he was moving in our direction—is a method, and the method produces an institution that cannot be criticized from outside its own present, because the only vantage that could stand outside has been demoted to a stage the present has passed. The declension history—Marsden’s, Burtchaell’s—is the mirror-image method, and it is a method too: the same road, traversed downward, with the same false inevitability.[^11] Both retain the past. Each retains it as vindication of a verdict already entered.
And the second corrective bites here as it bit in Paper 2. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be (Eccl. 1:9). The rhetoric of advance in the university requires the premise that its situation is unprecedented—that the founders could not have contemplated mass enrollment, the knowledge economy, the credential market, the research imperative, and that their judgments are therefore inapplicable rather than merely inconvenient. Ecclesiastes will not grant the unprecedentedness, and neither will the record. The tension between the university as a place of formation and the university as a supplier of what patrons will pay for is not a modern condition. It is the condition, present at Bologna, present at Paris, present at Cambridge in Massachusetts. What is new is the scale, and scale is not a category of argument.
3.4 — Two Furnishings, Two Programs
Everything above resolves into a single observation, and the observation is Paper 1, §1.4 verified in a body that never read it.
Where the founding is stored as a revered origin—the liberal arts college, unified, disinterested, formative—the reform that follows is a reform of return. Its measures are recognizable: restore a core curriculum; reduce the elective principle; recover the great books; shrink the administration; reassert the primacy of teaching; recall the institution to a mission from which it has drifted.[^12] Its characteristic vocabulary is the vocabulary of infidelity, which §1.2 predicted: drift, capitulation, accommodation, betrayal. Its characteristic emotion is grief. Its critical instrument is real and powerful, because it supplies a standard the present administration did not set and cannot revise, available to any faculty member who can read a charter. Its characteristic blindness is equally real: it cannot see any departure from the founding as a repair, because on this storage there is nothing about the founding needing repair, and so the extension of the university’s benefits to persons the founding excluded must be either ignored or classified as one of the departures.
Where the founding is stored as one stage among others—a sectarian, narrow, patron-serving college that the institution has outgrown—the reform that follows is a reform of advance. Its measures are equally recognizable: align the curriculum with what the present requires; expand access; professionalize the administration; measure outcomes; serve the region, the economy, the future. Its characteristic vocabulary is developmental: superseded, no longer tenable, of its time. Its characteristic emotion is impatience. Its critical instrument is likewise real: it can correct founding errors, and the founders made some, and a body that cannot say so has confused its furnishing with its deposit. Its characteristic blindness is the one Butterfield named: it has no vantage outside its own present, and so whoever holds the offices this year becomes the measure by default—not because anyone appointed them, but because the storage has removed the competition.
And now the point of the paper. These two programs are not disagreeing about the reform. Put the same concrete proposal before them—a required two-year course of study in a small canon of works, say—and each will read it correctly according to its own furnishing and find the other’s reading not merely wrong but unserious. To the first, the proposal is recovery, and opposition to it is opposition to the institution’s own nature. To the second, the proposal is regression, and support for it is nostalgia for a place that excluded most of the people now in the room. Neither party is lying. Neither can be moved by evidence, because, as §1.4 established, evidence is metabolized by the furnishing that receives it. Show the declinist that the medieval arts faculty was a preparatory school, and he will file it as a local irregularity. Show the progressive that Newman anticipated the vocationalist argument and answered it, and he will note that Newman was a Victorian cleric.
The quarrel over reforming the university is a quarrel over which past to admit as the measure. That is the thesis of Paper 1, and the university is where it can be seen without needing to be argued for.
3.5 — The Probes, Exercised
Paper 2, §2.4 named four probes and deferred their construction to the hinge paper. The university is where they are first run, and the running is instructive because the university fails three of them badly and passes one by accident.
Authority versus evidence. Is the founding held because it can be shown, or because someone with standing has said so and the showing was never attempted? The golden-age account fails this immediately. It is transmitted by citation—Newman, the Yale Report, a general gesture toward Athens and Bologna—and the citations are almost never opened. When they are opened, as above, they turn out to be polemics and defenses rather than descriptions, which is precisely what a memory held on authority rather than on evidence would fail to notice. The reform-of-advance account fails the probe in the other direction: it holds a founding of narrowness and exclusion, also on authority, also without inspection, and would be as surprised to find the record contested as the declinist is.
Distance. Can the body say, of its own founding, things the founding would not have wanted said? Does the stored account contain anything the account did not wish to contain? Here the university nearly passes, and passes for a reason that does it no credit. Its historians have said such things—Veysey, Hofstadter and Metzger, Reuben, Geiger, Labaree—and the sayings have been published and shelved and are available to anyone.[^13] But the sayings have not entered the storage. The institution’s own self-descriptions, its charters and convocations and fundraising literature and inaugural addresses, remain innocent of everything its own historians have established. The distance exists in the library. It has not reached the room where the reform is argued.
The feedback of expected futures. Is the stored founding doing work for an expected future? Koselleck’s pairing answers before the question is finished.[^14] The golden-age founding sustains a horizon of restoration, and is maintained by that horizon: a body expecting to recover a lost unity requires a past in which the unity existed, and the requirement supplies the past. The stage-among-others founding sustains a horizon of further advance, and is maintained by it: a body expecting to become something better than it has been requires a past worse than the present, and the requirement supplies that too. In each case the expected future feeds back onto the furnished past so that the past goes on saying what the horizon needs. This is why neither furnishing is embarrassed by the discovery of contrary evidence. Neither was built out of evidence in the first place.
Real failures versus laundered. Does the account include failures that cost something to admit, or only failures that flatter the admitting? This is the probe on which the university performs worst, and the worst performance belongs to the reform-of-advance party, which appears to admit a great deal. It admits the exclusions, the sectarianism, the narrowness, the servility to patrons. But observe what these admissions cost the admitting body: nothing. Every one of them is a failure of the past, confessed by a present which is thereby exonerated, and the confession is the mechanism of the exoneration. That is a laundered failure. It has the form of penitence and the function of self-congratulation. The declinist party launders differently and more obviously: it admits failures of the present only, and stores the founding without any failure at all, which is the gilding in its plainest dress.
The probe that would cost something is the one neither party runs. It asks whether the body’s account of its founding includes a failure that indicts the party doing the accounting—a failure the accounting party is still committing, still benefits from, and would have to give something up to repent of. No university self-description I know of contains one.
What the appointed times store, structurally, is exactly this and nothing else. Atonement stores a guilt the body cannot retire. Tabernacles stores forty years in booths, kept annually by a people with every incentive to store the arrival instead. The fellowship has an apparatus for the fourth probe and does not use it, which was §2.5’s indictment. The university has no such apparatus, has never had one, and could not have been expected to build one from its own resources. That is the difference between the two cases, and it does not run in the university’s favor as much as the university might like. A body that has never been handed the instrument is not culpable for lacking it. It is simply without it, and its memory is therefore whatever its present finds convenient, and its reform arguments are therefore unresolvable in principle.
The instrument is what the hinge paper builds. Two cases remain before it can be built: the constitutional founding, where the gap between the idealized origin and the operational norms is documented rather than inferred, and sports governance, where the revered origin was assembled from a past that was never there. Paper 4 takes the first, and takes it because the emoluments quarrel offers something the university does not—a body of contemporaneous record detailed enough that the gilding can be measured rather than merely alleged.
Notes
[^1]: Newman (1996), Discourse V especially. Two cautions about how the book is used in this cluster. First, I make no argument here for or against Newman’s thesis; the paper’s interest is in the genre of his text and in what the storage did to that genre. Second, the fact that a normative text has been misread as a descriptive one is not a criticism of the text. Newman’s own preface makes his polemical situation plain enough for any reader who reaches it, and most citers do not.
[^2]: The Report is reprinted in Hofstadter and Smith (1961), vol. 1, and it repays reading in full rather than in the two or three sentences that circulate. What is striking on a full reading is how thoroughly the Yale faculty understood themselves to be losing. The document has the tone of a besieged garrison, not of a settled establishment, and it is stored as the latter. Cf. Paper 1, §1.2 on the pressure a return-disposition applies to memory: it needs a founding held with confidence, and so it remembers confidence where there was anxiety.
[^3]: Rashdall (1936) remains the standard account of the medieval universities’ structure, and Rüegg (1992) the standard collaborative one; on the propaedeutic standing of the arts faculty and the professional orientation of the higher faculties, see Rüegg (1992), chapters on faculties and curricula. I am pressing a structural point and not an evaluative one. That the arts were preparatory does not entail that they were unimportant, and it does not entail that a body cannot now choose to hold them as central. It entails only that a body which claims to be returning to a founding in which they were central has furnished the founding rather than found it.
[^4]: The formulation is from New England’s First Fruits (1643), reprinted in Hofstadter and Smith (1961), vol. 1. I paraphrase rather than quote at length. The passage names two aims—an educated ministry and the advancement of learning—and readers on both sides of the golden-age dispute have made a great deal of whichever aim they arrived wanting. That both are named, and named together, is the fact the storage cannot accommodate on either furnishing.
[^5]: Rudolph (1962) and Thelin (2019) both treat collegiate disorder at length. Thelin’s account is the more careful about the difference between what the colleges said they were doing and what they were doing.
[^6]: The jurisdictional character of academic liberty in the medieval period is a commonplace of the specialist literature and a surprise to nearly everyone else. See Rashdall (1936) on the privileges obtained from popes and princes, and their function in the standing quarrel between town, bishop, and studium. The modern doctrine of academic freedom has a different genealogy, chiefly German and nineteenth-century; Hofstadter and Metzger (1955) trace the American case and are careful not to collapse the two.
[^7]: Veysey (1965) is the load-bearing citation of this section and possibly of the paper. His conclusion is that the American university was not built by the victory of an idea but by the construction of an administrative shell within which incompatible ideas could be housed without confrontation. Note what this does to both furnishings. It denies the declinist his unified origin and it denies the progressive his story of rational supersession. Whatever else the modern university is, it is not the outcome of an argument that anyone won.
[^8]: Kerr (1963). I paraphrase the remark about the multiversity’s cohesion rather than reproduce it, and I note that Kerr’s line is almost always cited as satire against him when he intended it as description, offered by a man who thought the arrangement, on balance, defensible. The misuse of Kerr is a small instance of the same mechanism that misuses Newman, running in the opposite direction: a descriptive text reclassified as a polemical one, because the storage needed a villain and here was a man who had described the thing without deploring it.
[^9]: Tewksbury (1932) reported a very high mortality among antebellum colleges, and the figure passed into general circulation. Burke (1982) and later work have argued that the figure was inflated by counting institutions that never opened, never chartered, or were never colleges. I flag the dispute rather than resolve it, and I flag it because the dispute is itself an instance of what this paper describes: the high-mortality figure was congenial to a reconstructed past and was accepted with less scrutiny than it deserved by exactly the historians most alert to the gilding of the idealized one. Nobody’s furnishing is only other people’s problem.
[^10]: Butterfield (1931), and see Paper 1, note 3, for what precisely is being borrowed. The error is a method, not a political program, and the declension historian who reads the whole road as leading downward to us commits its mirror image with the same false inevitability.
[^11]: Marsden (1994) and Burtchaell (1998) are the two indispensable declension histories, and I say indispensable deliberately: they document a real and largely uncontested process by which institutions founded to serve the churches ceased to serve them, and they document it better than anyone sympathetic to the outcome has troubled to do. My quarrel is not with their evidence. It is with the shape of the road. A history in which each stage is read as a further remove from an origin held pure is a history that cannot register any of the intervening changes as repairs, and some of them were.
[^12]: Bloom (1987) is the best-known statement and the one most often invoked without being read; Kimball (1986) supplies the long history of the idea of liberal education against which such statements have to be measured, and shows that the “liberal arts” have named at least two incompatible programs—the orator’s and the philosopher’s—which have been at odds since antiquity and which the golden-age account silently fuses. That fusion is a gilding all by itself, and it is prior to every reform proposal built on it.
[^13]: Veysey (1965); Hofstadter and Metzger (1955); Reuben (1996); Geiger (2015); Labaree (2017). Labaree’s title says the thing outright, and his argument—that the American system’s peculiar strength came from its incoherence, its competition, and its lack of a plan—is the reconstructed past in its most unsentimental form. Note that a body can employ historians of this quality, publish them under its own imprint, and remain wholly unaffected by them in its self-description. The failure of the second probe is rarely a failure of scholarship. It is a failure of storage: the institution’s history is written in one building and its founding is furnished in another.
[^14]: Koselleck (2004), and see Paper 1, note 4, for the narrower use to which the pairing is put here. What is borrowed is the feedback between the space of experience and the horizon of expectation, and specifically its power to explain the stability of a furnished past under contradiction. What is not borrowed is Koselleck’s thesis about the modern gap between the two, which Ecclesiastes 1:9 may well deny and which the prolegomenon has addressed.
[^15]: A concession, offered because §3.5 will look complacent without it. The present author’s stake in the university is smaller than his stake in the fellowship but it is not nothing, and the reform series to which this paper is auxiliary is itself an argument for a program. A reader is entitled to ask which of the two furnishings that program is built on, and to ask it before accepting the diagnosis offered here. The honest answer is that the reform series has drawn on both without saying so, which is a common and not a defensible position, and that the hinge paper’s instrument will be applied to it before it is applied to anyone else. That was the promise of Paper 2, note 7, and I intend to keep it in the order stated: exercise the probes where little is at stake, then bring them home.
References
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. Simon & Schuster.
Burke, C. B. (1982). American collegiate populations: A test of the traditional view. New York University Press.
Burtchaell, J. T. (1998). The dying of the light: The disengagement of colleges and universities from their Christian churches. Eerdmans.
Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. G. Bell and Sons.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse University Press.
Geiger, R. L. (2015). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture from the founding to World War II. Princeton University Press.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W. P. (1955). The development of academic freedom in the United States. Columbia University Press.
Hofstadter, R., & Smith, W. (Eds.). (1961). American higher education: A documentary history (Vols. 1–2). University of Chicago Press.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press.
Kimball, B. A. (1986). Orators and philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal education. Teachers College Press.
King James Bible. (1987). Thomas Nelson. (Original work published 1611)
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time (K. Tribe, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Labaree, D. F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendancy of American higher education. University of Chicago Press.
Marsden, G. M. (1994). The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established nonbelief. Oxford University Press.
Menand, L. (2010). The marketplace of ideas: Reform and resistance in the American university. Norton.
Newman, J. H. (1996). The idea of a university (F. M. Turner, Ed.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1852)
Rashdall, H. (1936). The universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (F. M. Powicke & A. B. Emden, Eds.; Vols. 1–3). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1895)
Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality. University of Chicago Press.
Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. Knopf.
Rüegg, W. (Ed.). (1992). A history of the university in Europe: Vol. 1. Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.
Shils, E. (1981). Tradition. University of Chicago Press.
Tewksbury, D. G. (1932). The founding of American colleges and universities before the Civil War. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Thelin, J. R. (2019). A history of American higher education (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. University of Chicago Press.
Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1982). Zakhor: Jewish history and Jewish memory. University of Washington Press.
