From the Southwest Ledger
By James Finck, Ph.d. on Tuesday, March 17, 2026
One of the lessons I try to teach my students through history is the idea of unintended consequences. A good example comes from the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who had a deep hatred of banks, especially the Second Bank of the United States.
His disdain was not irrational. He believed the Bank represented government overreach and had personally experienced financial hardship earlier in life when dealings with banks nearly ruined him.
When Jackson became president, he vowed to destroy the Bank.
During his second term, he ordered his treasury secretary to remove all federal deposits from it. The secretary warned him that removing the money could cause serious economic problems, but Jackson believed he was doing the right thing. The Bank was very unpopular among his supporters, and Jackson had the authority to act. However, the unintended consequence was the Panic of 1837, the worst economic depression of the century.
Sometimes having the power to act and doing the popular thing for what seems like the right reason comes with consequences. I believe that is what is happening in Oklahoma right now with the attacks against colleges and universities.
Attacking higher education is popular now, especially in conservative states.
Universities are often portrayed as liberal institutions that indoctrinate students, teach them to hate America, and saddle them with severe debt without guaranteeing employment.
Trust me, I understand those concerns, probably more than most. Wanting to reform the system is understandable.
But if the process of reform ends up destroying Oklahoma’s higher education system, the repercussions for our state will be severe.
The new funding model for higher education and the push to remove tenure may be popular, but they will not fix the underlying problems. Like Jackson’s attack on the Bank, they have a greater chance of causing harm than good.
I recently wrote an entire column about the purpose of tenure, so I will not repeat that argument here. But I will share one observation. I am on a hiring committee. The first question a candidate asked was whether Oklahoma planned to eliminate tenure. That was the very first question. If tenure disappears, Oklahoma will struggle to hire quality faculty at any level. Our research institutions will face the greatest challenge. These universities produce most of the scholarship in the state, and if their ideas are not protected, faculty will either stop producing or leave for states where they can do their work freely.
The idea behind removing tenure is to stop the supposed “brainwashing” of our youth. While it is true that universities often lean left politically, eliminating tenure will affect those on the right as well. Voices like mine could be silenced, too. Because academia tends to lean left, much of university leadership does as well. The question becomes: whose voices will be silenced first?
When it comes to the new funding models, I am the first to say that performance matters. However, this system affects smaller universities in a disproportionate way. The loss of a few students at a large university will hardly be noticed, but that same loss at a smaller institution could threaten its very existence. The fear is that these changes may even be intentional. At times, it feels as if some people at the Capitol would be perfectly satisfied if only the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University remained.
But what would that mean for Oklahoma?
You cannot complain about the cost of college while shutting down the more affordable options. OU and OSU are outstanding institutions, but they are not for everyone. Many students feel lost in such large environments.
Students who transfer into schools like mine often say they struggled to connect at those larger universities but feel more at home in a smaller setting. There is a significant difference between participating in a discussion in a 60-person class and sitting in a lecture hall with 500 students. Some students thrive in large settings, and that option should exist. But others do not, and they deserve alternatives.
Other students choose the small universities because they are more affordable and if closer, they can live at home to save money. Without the regional universities, many of these students will never receive a college education. That hurts Oklahoma.
If we truly care about students and education, we should preserve those options.
Consider for a moment the consequences of these policies and what the loss of regional universities would mean for their communities.
Think about towns like Lawton, Chickasha, Ada, Alva, and Weatherford. These communities would first lose hundreds of jobs, not just professors, but staff members as well. Universities often are among the largest employers in these towns.
Local businesses would lose both employees and customers. Cultural life would suffer as well. At the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, we host numerous cultural activities for the people of Chickasha and the surrounding region, from plays and concerts to guest speakers. Before losing funding, I organized a Civil War symposium that filled the theater and attracted visitors from across our state.
Our athletic teams are supported by the community, and events bring people together. Even high-quality newspaper columns, like the one you are reading now, could disappear.
USAO is part of Chickasha in the same way these other universities are part of their communities. Those towns would not be the same without them.
While the funding changes may not hurt the largest schools as much, the tenure issue certainly will. What happens if those institutions become shells of themselves? What major businesses will invest in our state then? Oklahoma has already lost major companies in recent months. Others may hesitate to commit to a state without a thriving university system or a strong college atmosphere to attract talent.
Consider the research that could disappear if universities like OU and OSU lose their world-class faculty.
Fields such as energy, aerospace, agriculture, and medicine often begin with research conducted at universities. These are industries in which Oklahoma can lead the nation, but they will move elsewhere if our universities cannot support them or if we stop producing qualified graduates.
Is all of this worth sacrificing simply because some faculty members politically lean to the left?
I can only speak for my own institution, but our faculty are dedicated educators who care deeply about their students and are doing their best to prepare them for the future, regardless of their political views.
Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
If you disagree with the direction of higher education, then pursue reforms, but reforms that improve the system rather than destroy it. If you believe fields like gender studies are not preparing your children for careers, encourage them to pursue other fields.
Those majors will disappear on their own if there are no students. That is how free markets work. But closing institutions remove opportunities rather than expanding them.
Conservatism traditionally has valued choice and accountability, not heavy handed government control.
Jackson had good reasons to distrust the Bank, just as many Oklahomans have legitimate frustrations with higher education. Yet even though Jackson believed destroying the Bank was justified, his actions produced serious unintended consequences for the nation.
I simply ask that we consider the consequences today. What would Oklahoma look like without its regional universities? What would happen if OU and OSU lost their ability to remain competitive in the global academic and research environment?
To me, that is not the Oklahoma we want.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com.
https://www.southwestledger.news/opinion/unintended-consequences-attacking-higher-education
Historically Speaking 