Hillsdale students have a love affair with the Framers and the Constitution.
This unique romance is a beautiful thing. In a day when James Madison is seldom quoted and the average person cannot tell you all of his First Amendment rights, a place such as Hillsdale is like a lone-standing tree amongst prairie grasses.
While this consensus is a marvelous testament to the character and mission of the college, it is also a great intellectual weakness.
How could a place with such academic prestige produce intellectual complacency? This overwhelming love for the Constitution and its authors has created an environment where the defense of such things is no longer required. The Hillsdale bubble enables students to become inept at defending the originalist perspective. The same opposition that is present on most other campuses is simply not present here.
Furthermore, the campuswide acceptance of constitutional doctrine leads to a general feeling among students that the Constitution is infallible simply because it is the Constitution. Slowly, the Founders appear to be more than men simply because they wrote the document. These vicious circles of logic do not hold up well in the world—outside the bubble—of growing abrasiveness towards the founding principles of America.
But the Constitution is not more or less than what it is: the Supreme Law of the Land. It is the law and it must be defended as such. However, many on this campus make it out to be much more than it is. Some even treat it as a “good” in and of itself or as some kind of divinely-inspired construction that should never be questioned. While these opinions are not foolish, one must view the text objectively and find whether the components of the law can indeed stand up on their own against the views of the opposition. By testing it against those who disagree, one can gain a much better understanding of the reality of the document and be able to defend it better than ever before.
A good analogy would be the cross country runner who always trains but never puts his speed to the test in a race. He may have all sorts of delusions of how fast he may be, but he will never know until he actually toes the line with his competitors.
Something similar may be said of the Founders. These men were intelligent and principled but far from infallible. The creators of our nation were indeed human beings, so it is totally illogical to quote them as if they were more than that. For example: Two students get into a (respectable) argument about the merits of political parties, and one of them uses a quote from George Washington. Suddenly, the argument is over because the other would not dare challenge the words of America’s first president. Now, if the discussion ended because the quote asserted actually had some empirical weight that legitimately convinced the opposing student of the other’s point, there is no issue. However the problem arises when the argument ends simply because the person quoted was a Founding Father as if it is some kind of trump card (just find a Framer that matches your point of view and you could win some debates at Hillsdale College). Why is it that the majority of students here have no problem analyzing and debunking the words of Karl Marx but would rarely challenge the words of Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton?
We as a student body must constantly put our perspective to the test in order that it might become even more refined and powerful.