So, an oligarch who controls major Russian gambling and automotive assets paid a six figure sum for a post-wedding party in the Bahamas as a gift to the son and daughter-in-law of the President of the United States. Do I have that right? If so, do the President and his family not see how bad this looks? Republicans (I'm one) would be up in arms if a gift like this were accepted by the immediate family of a Democrat serving as President of the United States. Even if we were to accept for the sake of argument the unlikely proposition that Umar Krelev is not buying influence, the appearance of impropriety is glaring. Is there no one in or near the President's family who will say, "no, this kind of thing is not appropriate--we'll pay for our own post-wedding party"?

Both of us are West Virginians. One of us teaches at Harvard, one at Princeton. One of us is Jewish, the other is Christian. We're friends who are deeply committed to the classic ideals of liberal arts education and profoundly concerned about the state of higher education today.

I offer some general thoughts here on civil discourse, civic friendship,and civil liberties. I'll have more specific things to say about the importance of these things, and how they are related, going forward.

As president of Vanderbilt University, Daniel Diermeier has become a powerful voice of reform in higher education. This week he and the chairman of Vanderbilt's board published this highly commendable statement of first principles. Although the document's plea for institutional neutrality won't align with the mission of religiously affiliated schools, it is appropriate and indeed highly desirable for public universities and non-religiously affiliated private institutions like Vanderbilt and Princeton.