Public vs. Private Universities: Analyzing Silber's Argument

Introduction: Silber's Core Claim

Silber's argument is that private universities and colleges — which he prefers to call "independent" — are really as much public as government-funded universities, since the public factor runs through all of their activities and manifestations. He goes on to praise the qualities of independent universities, showing how they demonstrate a strong record of diversity, how they contribute immensely to public education and professional training (in that, for instance, a majority of degrees are awarded to doctors, lawyers, and dentists), how they are careful and prudent in their operations, and, most of all, how so many of these independent institutions are becoming financially unviable and closing due to their inability to keep themselves afloat. Silber argues that in many ways they are more valuable to the public than state-sponsored universities are, and that it would therefore be worth the taxpayer's while to keep these universities operating.

Silber's primary fallacy — and the point on which his entire argument hinges — lies in the fact that he conflates and equivocates two distinct meanings of the word "private," or "public" for that matter.

The Equivocation Fallacy: Two Meanings of 'Public'

Silber argues that since private universities are "open to the public, serve public needs, and are gravely influenced by public deliberations" (158), they are therefore public institutions. However, this reasoning relies on two different connotations of the same word. The institutions may be "public" in the sense that they are affected by public opinion and open to a broad population — that is indisputably true — but the reality remains that they are private in that they are sponsored and controlled by private individuals or organizations, and students must often pay full tuition or receive privately funded scholarships to attend. These private institutions are private by the very premise that they are either for-profit enterprises or that they operate according to particular beliefs shared by a specific community.

A religious university — for instance, Brigham Young University, operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — refuses to teach content that contradicts its religious beliefs. In this way, it has established a university that abides by its own doctrinal standards rather than by broadly shared public values. In a different sphere, a for-profit online university such as Walden University chooses to remain private rather than government-owned because it functions as a business. Separating these strands reveals how many of Silber's conclusions fail on these very premises.

Private Purpose vs. Public Benefit

Silber's central argument — that the collapse of independent and private universities is a public concern — does not hold up under scrutiny. Because these institutions are either for-profit enterprises or mission-driven private organizations, their financial struggles are their own responsibility, and it is not the prerogative of taxpayers to ensure their survival. The independent colleges may benefit society, and that benefit may be genuine, but it is peripheral to their core purpose. Their primary concern is either to generate profit in a business sense or to transmit a particular set of teachings and values.

Here is another instance of Silber's fallacy: the fact that a private university may enroll a significant proportion of minority students does not necessarily demonstrate that the institution is remarkably tolerant or committed to diversity for its own sake. There are several alternative explanations. These students may be paying full fees to attend — as is the case at some non-traditional institutions, where students who lacked access to conventional universities turn to non-conventional ones. Alternatively, the university's philosophy may appeal to those minority communities, or some minority students may prefer to avoid the environment of a state-sponsored institution. These possibilities complicate any straightforward interpretation of enrollment figures as evidence of a public commitment to diversity. The National Center for Education Statistics provides extensive data on enrollment patterns that illustrate how complex these dynamics truly are.

Conclusion: Why Public Funding Belongs with Public Universities

State-sponsored universities place education as their first and foremost mission and center their entire operation on that construct. For that reason — and since they literally operate for the public rather than for private purposes — the regular taxpayer is quite understandably expected to help contribute toward their support. Private universities, whether for-profit or ideologically driven, have made a deliberate choice to remain outside the public sphere of governance and accountability. That choice carries with it the financial consequences of independence. Silber's argument, however well-intentioned, ultimately rests on an equivocation that cannot bear the weight of his conclusion. Recognizing the two distinct senses of "public" dismantles his case and reaffirms why public higher education institutions remain the proper and primary recipients of taxpayer funding.