A university cancels a public lecture by an outspoken academic due to political pressure. A job offer at a prestigious research institute is rescinded in response to the opposition of a large, corporate sponsor. Police arrest demonstrators at a debate on one the flashpoints of regional geo-politics. A decision with far-reaching academic implications is taken with only perfunctory reference to collegial governance. A university’s strategic plan uses the corporate sector as a model, with the aim of maximizing growth, marketability and profit.
A university cancels a public lecture by an outspoken academic due to political pressure. A job offer at a prestigious research institute is rescinded in response to the opposition of a large, corporate sponsor. Police arrest demonstrators at a debate on one the flashpoints of regional geo-politics. A decision with far-reaching academic implications is taken with only perfunctory reference to collegial governance. A university’s strategic plan uses the corporate sector as a model, with the aim of maximizing growth, marketability and profit.
Isolated incidents at North American universities? Hardly.
They point to pervasive trends affecting intellectual independence and academic freedom, autonomy and governance, and ultimately the goal and purpose of higher education.
And these trends raise troubling question about the degree to which higher education been redefined as a commodity like any other, to be bought and sold in the marketplace. Has the mission of the university as a democratizing force and a public good all but disappeared? Are universities increasingly becoming charity-needing institutions dependent on corporate largesse and private funding? And if this is the case, are these trends simply “the way of the world” and irreversible, or are there viable alternatives that might be pursued?
These are the concerns that the “Challenging the Academy” issue of Academic Matters embraces. Two prominent writers – one from the U.S, the other from Canada – apply their extensive experience, research and knowledge to an analysis of current directions in education today.
The articles by Bill Ayers and Joel Westheimer forcefully argue that public education at all levels is under attack, with far-reaching implications. An emphasis on skills training and workforce preparation, the perception of education as a private benefit, the commercialization of knowledge and a consumerist mentality indicate more than the loss of a public-focused and community-oriented conception of education.
Moreover, writes Westheimer, “the elimination of critical thinking and a culture of criticism; the weakening of intellectual independence and democratic faculty governance; and the promotion of a meritocracy myth that drives the work of graduate students, junior and senior faculty alike” is not just a threat to the ideal of a liberal democratic education.
These interwoven trends represents a crisis in democracy itself – a crisis that needs an urgent response. What would that response look like in the university setting? Above all, they argue, it would need to be collective and imaginative, embracing a democratic model of engagement and participation.
Collegial governance would not be pro forma but would see those immersed in scholarship and research take leadership roles in administration. A hierarchical and corporate model of governance would be abandoned.
The mission of the university – creating knowledge and promoting learning which served the public interest – would become central.
Curriculum that focused on narrow workforce preparation, and research agendas which were limited to the commercialization of knowledge for private industry, would be replaced by a new emphasis on education for citizenship and community benefit.
A utopian aspiration, especially in the current environment? Perhaps.
In his penetrating analysis of the university, renowned Australian academic Simon Marginson observes that “unless the university provides knowledge-creation and mobilization for powerful elites, it would lose an essential part of its social base. Private goods are a condition of the public good role and vice versa.” He also notes that “if the university were to tip over into being fully capitalist, it will have less to offer capitalism. … If it taught only observable skills rewarded in labour markets and ceased to supply liberal education and disciplinary knowledge, it would weaken conditions of production in all sectors of the economy, reduce social literacy, and render elites less competent.”
But, on the other hand, argues Marginson, “a university that served no private purposes, or fragmented its concentrations of expertise, or cut its ties with society to preserve its identity, would not last.”
Essentially, Marginson’s article points to the difficulties faced by the type of democratization envisoned by Ayers and Westheimer. All three authors, and the other contributors to this “Challenging the Academy” issue, however, would readily admit that the road ahead is circuitous. It will require ingenuity in negotiating preferred directions.
Mark Rosenfeld is editor-in-chief of Academic Matters and associate executive director of OCUFA.
