What Greater Freedom in a Higher Education System Produces: New Institutions, Institutional Deaths, and Some Long-Term Winners

I remember serving as an advisor on a fascinating master’s thesis that examined the origins of higher education in Texas. There is one historical bit of information that has stayed with me from that thesis. Before the Civil War, forty faith-informed colleges were started in Texas. Only two survived: Baylor University (1845) and the University of Mary-Hardin Baylor (1845).¹

We often forget that, similar to business, churches, or non-profits, a “freer market”² in higher education will result in multiple start-ups that do not make it and the death of older, poorly-functioning institutions. Thus, we need to think theologically about how we view institutional births and closings. It is helpful to start with institutional death.

Would There Have Been Institutional Deaths in the Garden?

Often, we think the death of any higher education institution is a major tragedy. We need to remember that while the death of an institution can be a tragedy, it is not a human with a soul. In fact, an interesting theological question is whether there would have been institutional deaths in a non-fallen world. Would learning about the intricacies of God’s creation still have involved the start of multiple institutions, with some ceasing to exist as we learned more about God’s creation and progressed in our knowledge (e.g., Bell Telephone to T-Mobile; Blockbuster to Netflix)?  I think the obvious answer would be yes. Even the non-fallen development of human civilization would still have involved the demise of old institutions, careers, and tasks no longer being needed.

We often are so afraid of institutional failure, we equate it with the fall, but I do not believe that association is a theologically correct one.  Even today, the development of human civilization has meant the demise of many professions and institutions in ways related more to our greater insight into God’s world and the technological development that follows than to sin.

Of course, we live east of Eden, so the question is merely an intellectual exercise. Today, we know that creating a business, church, non-profit, or university is difficult work that happens only in particular kinds of soil. When it comes to Christian higher education, we need to recognize what fosters the healthy birth and growth of such institutions in a country.

Christian Higher Education around the World

What factors are correlated with the birth and growth of CHE institutions? In my international study of Christian higher education, the major factor related to the existence of Christian higher education is how the government controls higher education.³ Governments have the power of life and death. In the cases of the French (1789), Russian (1917), and Chinese (1940s) revolutions, the death of Christian higher education came quickly.  In Australia, they never even allowed Christian universities to be born until a few decades ago.⁴ Other governments smother or disadvantage Christian higher education (such as the UK).

Once the government stops prohibiting, smothering, or heavily disadvantaging Christian higher education, institutional growth follows quickly. After the fall of communism in 1991, within two decades, Eastern Europe and Russia had over a dozen Christian universities.⁵ Likewise, once Kenya and Nigeria dropped their prohibition against private universities, Christians started over a dozen institutions in Kenya and over two dozen in Nigeria.⁶

Second, for a Christian institution to grow, there must be sufficient demand from college-age Christians in the region and the resources to build an institution.  We see these factors in the recent Australian case. Since Christian higher education had been suppressed, nine institutions began soon after the government allowed them to start. That being said, the demand is limited by low population and low church attendance.

Christian Higher Education in America: Only Some Seeds Survive and Bear Fruit

Moreover, we often fail to forget that although the United States has built the most successful system of private Christian higher education in the world, it did not come without institutional deaths—many of them. On page 28 of Donald G. Tewksbury’s The Founding of American Colleges and Universities before the Civil War, with Particular Reference to the Religious Influences Bearing upon the College Movement (1932) we find an interesting table titled, “Mortality of Colleges Founded before the Civil War in Sixteen States.”

One learns, for example, that in all but one of those states, every state had a college mortality rate of over 50%. Texas had one of the worst at 95%, but it was joined by Kansas, where only 1 of 20 institutions that started before the Civil War survived. In Ohio, only 17 out of 43 institutions survived, for a 60% death rate.

I think we need to remember this reality for a couple of reasons in the coming decades. First, we must recognize that institutional deaths are simply part of the price for the freedom that America allows when it comes to building institutions. It results in tremendous creativity and risk-taking taking but not every institution survives, especially if they are private.

Second, the demographic decline (it’s really not a cliff if one graphs it to include numerous prior decades—see Figure 1)

Figure 1. Total U.S. High School Graduates

Source: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Ed

means that more institutions will likely close in the coming decades. That does not mean Christian higher education is dying. It is simply part of the institutional realities a country with birth rates below 2.1 replacement rate (which is now virtually every country outside of Africa).

Third, sometimes Christians and Christian churches ask for the government to save them from these problems. That’s a mistake. In England, the government “solved” having too many small higher education institutions by forceful mergers that secularized many institutions.⁷ The leaders of the three institutions that formed Liverpool-Hope, one of the only serious Christian universities now remaining in England, saw the writing on the wall and were able to request a merger that maintained their Christian identity and mission. Most, however, did not make such anticipatory moves.

In contrast, Catholic leaders in Australia recognized the coming Walmartization of Christian higher education in Australia. Thus, the Catholic Church created a federated university, Australian Catholic University (ACU) out of seven smaller Catholic institutions. What is remarkable is that, in less than three and a half decades, ACU is now the largest English-speaking Catholic university in the world with over 34,000 students attending branches in Ballarat, Blacktown, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Rome (Italy), Strathfield, Sydney, and online.

The reality is that any closure of a business, church, non-profit, or university influences people in negative ways. They lose their livelihood, communities, and more. Only a certain number will survive. Yet, creativity and risk are how any institution starts. Moreover, how we steward smaller institutions can also result in the growth of Christian higher education if we have the eyes to see and imagine the possibilities (and have a little help from a government that recognizes the advantages of creativity and freedom in higher education). Of all people, Christian leaders in higher education should recognize these truths, live in light of God’s sovereignty, and not fear the future.

1. They were originally one institution but later split.  In addition, Southwestern University started in the 1840s as well, but had to close and did not reopen until 1871.
2. No market is really free. There are always government incentives and other restrictions and controls that influence the market (e.g., federally-funded student loans, federal grants, etc.). That being said, the American higher education market is one with some of the least restrictions compared to other countries, especially because it does not have a Ministry of Education that determines accreditation and is friendly to private institutions.
3. For one overview, see Joel C. Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer and Nick Lantinga, eds., Christian Higher Education: A Global Reconnaissance (Eerdmans, 2014).
4. Perry L. Glanzer, “The Recent Emergence of Australian Christian Higher Education Institutions: How They Operationalize Their Christian Identity,” Christian Higher Education 23, no. 4 (2024): 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2024.2336447.
5. Perry L. Glanzer, “Global Christian Higher Education from 1950 to 2020: An Updated Analysis,” International Journal of Christianity and Education 28, no. 2 (2024): 218-40
6. Glanzer, “Global Christian Higher Education from 1950 to 2020,”  https://doi.org/10.1177/20569971231196813.
7. Perry L. Glanzer, “Searching for the Soul of English Universities: An Analysis of Christian Higher Education in England,” British Journal of Educational Studies 56, no. 2 (June 2008): 163–3.https://www.jstor.org/stable/20479588