The school’s bizarre de-congratulation of alumnus Russ Vought on his Trump administration appointment demonstrates how partial its ‘impartiality’ really is.
L ast week, Wheaton College extended a short-lived congratulations to Russ Vought for his confirmation as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Its 28-word message included a call to prayer and a photo of Russ’s beaming face.
As a Wheaton alumnus, I liked the post and moved on — as most normal people do.
But Vought’s smile and the evidently apolitical nature of the 28 words posted on Facebook and X were anything but normal for progressive alums. They unleashed a torrent of comments lambasting Wheaton for daring to associate with a mastermind of the infernal Project 2025. They demanded that the college remove the congratulatory post and beg for mercy.
Wheaton had several reasonable responses available to it. It could qualify that its statement was apolitical. It could remind the agitated alums that the college consistently recognizes achievements from those across the political spectrum. It could also just move on — as Ohio State did when it congratulated JD Vance for his electoral victory.
Its ultimate response eschewed all of these. In typical Wheaton fashion, the administration chose to blow everything up. Just a few hours after posting the statement, the college took it down and replaced it with a pitifully prostrate apology to the leftist mob. Ironically, this did produce an impartial and bipartisan outcome: Now conservatives and liberals were both upset.
Wheaton has long been keen to make everyone angry in the name of “not being political.” That strategy has been vaguely effective in the past. But it is increasingly ineffective on many alums — including me.
There’s just something awfully bizarre about taking down the Vought post. It signals that even associating with a conservative is an inherently political act. Wheaton could hire critical theory scholars, sponsor racially segregated awards ceremonies, invest in DEI student programming, and host chapel speakers who call Trump supporters racist. But it could never acknowledge a conservative. That would be political.
The college’s two-step public relations suicide comes as no surprise to those of us who know Wheaton well. But that doesn’t stop it from hurting. In truth, it just reminds conservative alums of the many, many failures in days long past that led us to this point of disillusionment. It reminds me, as a former student body vice president, of the countless meetings I spent placating racial justice viewpoints and trying desperately to cleanse myself of the stain of my conservatism in the eyes of my liberal peers.
As a student, I was uniquely vulnerable to their tactics. I carried a strong sense of right and wrong but also suffered from excessive self-doubt, as many young people do. When most of my peers and professors seemingly espoused a “liberalism-lite,” I began to operate on their framework. I had no choice. Failing to do so meant exclusion from the social game. It meant being labeled “racist,” “sexist,” or, worse, “mean.”
Throughout my time at Wheaton, I was told that staying silent and presentable made conservatives more appealing, that we would have a better shot of holding our own if we just held our tongues. Meanwhile, over the last ten years, liberals have conquered the college, bullying anyone who would dare to question their ideas. And look what they have to show for it: the nameless “Wheaton Library,” the chief intercultural engagement officer, new Jim Elliot chapel signs, race-selective student programs, diversity awards, far-left chapel speakers — and so much more.
Ultimately, to be “winsome” meant letting them win. Years later, Wheaton College wants nothing to do with my ideas and everything to do with theirs. I’m political, and they’re not. That’s what taking down the statement on Russ Vought meant. So I’m done playing the winsome game, as are many of the conservative alums I know.
Today’s Wheaton College is uniquely liberal. And I will not allow sloganeering or emotional bullying to prevent me from saying it. I say this not without the understanding that the leadership, President Ryken and others included, merits much respect for impressive personal character and intellect. But the system these leaders operate under suffers from a mortal weakness: It is suffocatingly partial.
The main reason for this is so simple, it’s honestly disappointing: the faculty. Wheaton’s faculty splits heavily left-wing. Aside from quite a few good apples, far too many vigorously push their agendas to the administration and, more important, to their students. Impressionable 18-year-olds walk into Wheaton’s classrooms ripe for the persuasion of some of the Left’s premier culture warriors. And because conservative views are treated as inherently regressive, barely defensible, or simply “too political” to bring up, students learn to think and act in a certain way.
Liberals are taught to be forthright and firm. Conservatives are taught to be nuanced and attentive. So Wheaton produces staunch liberals and complacent conservatives.
But this isn’t just happening at Wheaton. It’s happening all over the country. And unless conservatives stop giving ground, we’re going to lose. Wheaton demonstrates that all too well.
Wheaton College and many other “nonpartisan” institutions survived the progressive cultural pressures of recent years by slowly turning left. Conservatives tolerated it in the name of good intentions and winsomeness. We’ve since learned that these intentions and the Left’s sloganeering are just vehicles for gutting us and our values from major institutions. And once they’ve been hollowed out, these institutions don’t really want us for us. They want us for our resources, not our ideas, values, or input. When we’re no longer good for money, they’ll cut us loose, just as Wheaton did with Russ Vought.
Conservatives should no longer endure this treatment. If Wheaton will not accept us, will not treat us as equal to those with other political views, will not recognize our accomplishments as it does for others — then we have no choice but to return the favor.