Education in the U.S. has a complex history, marked by intellectual progress and systematic exclusion. For over three centuries, its institutions have often prioritized certain forms of knowledge and ways of thinking, inadvertently or intentionally reinforcing intellectual hierarchies. Western philosophical traditions played a significant role in this by emphasizing reason and science while promoting a Eurocentric worldview. The influence of colonialism further complicated matters, as it led to the suppression and erasure of Indigenous knowledge systems around the world and in the U.S. This historical context left a lasting impact on the structure and focus of American higher education, influencing who has access and what is considered valuable knowledge.
Much of this can be traced to the Age of Reason of the 17th and 18th centuries, which profoundly shaped philosophical and educational frameworks in Europe and internationally. Prominent thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant advanced the authority of rationalism and empiricism, influencing philosophical discourse and promoting certain disciplines over others.[i] This focus led to the development of university curricula that, while comprehensive, often functioned selectively.
The Age of Reason reinforced a Eurocentric perspective that marginalized non-Western forms of knowledge and understanding. Visions of world history that placed Europe at the pinnacle of civilization, as set for by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, rendered other cultures as less developed or worthy.[ii] This prejudice led academic institutions to the criticize, misrepresent, or entirely disregard non-Western philosophies, sciences, and cultural practices. Edward Said’s concept of “Orientalism” explained how Western academia constructed and perpetuated distorted views of non-Western societies, often rendering them as exotic, backward, or irrational in contrast to the supposedly rational and progressive West.[iii] This intellectual bias not only shaped academic disciplines like anthropology and geography but also influenced broader educational curricula, diplomatic relations, and colonial policies. Consequently, the university emerging from this intellectual milieu often failed to recognize or value Indigenous knowledge systems, oral traditions, and alternative epistemologies, further entrenching the dominance of Western thought in global academic discourse.
This exclusionary mindset extended beyond mere neglect. In Europe and the Americas, a systematic denial of instruction affected entire populations. In the case of the U.S, the education — or rather, the enforced non-education — of enslaved populations stands as a stark example of this discriminatory practice. Laws explicitly prohibited schooling for slaves, perpetuating a cycle of oppression and economic dependency that would have lasting implications for generations to come.[iv] This deliberate withholding of knowledge served as a powerful tool of control, ensuring that enslaved people remained tethered not just by physical bonds but also by intellectual ones. The fear of educated slaves was so profound that it led to severe punishments for both those who taught and those who learned. Restrictions extended beyond basic literacy to encompass all forms of formal learning, effectively creating an intellectual apartheid. The consequences of this educational suppression were far-reaching, contributing to long-lasting social and economic disparities. Even after emancipation, this educational deprivation continued to reverberate through segregated and underfunded schools, perpetuating ongoing discrimination toward Black communities.[v]
European thinking also provided a blueprint for the modern university in structural and philosophical terms. During the 1800s, Wilhelm von Humboldt conceptualized a model of higher education in Germany that became the quintessential representation of the university in Europe.[vi] Humboldt’s vision, premised on integrating instruction into research, profoundly influenced the structure of higher education institutions, first in Europe and eventually in the U.S. through the land-grant universities launched in the 1860s.[vii]These institutions were charged with promoting advanced studies and research, mirroring Humboldt’s ideals. Yet, while these universities fostered significant academic freedom and intellectual growth, they also entrenched a change-resistant dogma that emphasized theoretical knowledge over practical use.[viii] As a product of its times, the Humboltian university was largely restricted to men until the 20th century. Its curriculum reproduced regressive gender roles and limited women’s prospects to domestic spheres, significantly delaying their full participation in universities and most aspects of professional life.[ix]
The German university model, while revolutionary in certain respects, also institutionalized several mechanisms that limited diversity in knowledge production. These provided exclusionary templates that continue to exist within many universities within the U.S. and elsewhere. The system of academic ranks, with its emphasis on the Ordentlicher Professor (full professor) at the top, created a rigid hierarchy that privileged established scholars and their intellectual traditions.[x] This made it difficult for younger academics and those with unconventional ideas to gain influence. Additionally, the model’s strong emphasis on specialized, discipline-specific knowledge often marginalized interdisciplinary approaches and non-Western forms of scholarship. The use of German as the primary language of instruction and publication further excluded international perspectives and reinforced a Eurocentric worldview. Moreover, the system of Habilitation –– a post-doctoral qualification required for professorship –– served as a gatekeeping mechanism that often perpetuated existing power structures and intellectual orthodoxies.[xi] These factors combined to create an academic environment that, while intellectually rigorous, was also resistant to varied perspectives and alternative forms of knowledge production.
The impact of colonialism on education left another indelible legacy, particularly evident in ways European powers established educational systems in their colonies. Schools and universities were set up to assimilate Indigenous populations and instill external values, often erasing local cultures and languages. This cultural imposition complimented the physical occupation of Indigenous lands, an issue still resonant in contemporary debates about the decolonization of educational spaces and curricula.[xii] Efforts to reintegrate Indigenous knowledge systems into the national curriculum are ongoing in countries like Canada and Australia but need more institutional support.[xiii] The result is a continuation of assimilationist practices that not only minoritize Indigenous knowledge while mirroring broader patterns of subjugation and bias. Repercussions continue to reverberate today in tendencies toward curricular misalignment, underrepresentation, and persistent achievement differentials.
The lecture-based teaching model that evolved from this history situates the professor at the center of instruction, an intellectual authority who imparts knowledge to passive students.[xiv] As introduced in Chapter 3, this model has been criticized for stifling more dynamic interactions in the classroom, where knowledge could instead be co-constructed through dialogue and debate. [xv] Rather than building self-perceptions of subjective agency in the consciousness of learners, the figure of the lecturing teacher, effectively rendering students as inanimate objects devoid of agency. In this way, passive instruction creates a dynamic of discipline and control in which where power is exercised via observation and direction much like the industrial factory floor or more carceral contexts.[xvi] Such methods further reinforce inequity by favoring students who best navigate this form of learning, a characteristic correlated to higher socioeconomic status.
Traditional teacher-centered educational approaches no longer make sense for many reasons. Research shows that broad diversity in perspectives and teaching methods enhances overall student engagement and learning outcomes, while better equipping all students to thrive in a multicultural, globalized society.[xvii] But institutional inertia and the often slow pace of change can hamper such efforts. This often exacerbates class stratification as institutions fail to provide equitable opportunities for all students. The situation has to change. With growing recognition of higher education’s shortcomings, there is a compelling need to reevaluate and reform educational practices that for too long have informed traditional teaching methods and curricula. This will take more than a superficial addition of diverse content. It will mean fundamentally rethinking pedagogical strategies to embrace equity and inclusion.