In case you haven’t
noticed, there have been a lot of changes in higher education in this century,
especially since the economic downturn in 2008. In a lot of cases this involved
trends already in place well before then, but which have been amplified in
recent years –and, as is often the case, have been connected to the political
landscape.
As states have
significantly decreased the funding they give to public universities –while costs
have continued to rise –those universities have been looking for money
elsewhere. Much of this comes in rising tuition –and studies have shown that
the biggest increase in cost that those students are paying for is the
ballooning cost of administration (certainly not faculty, as there has been a
growing trend of relying on adjuncts with low wages and no benefits.)
All of this has made
academia more vulnerable to the trend of neoliberal corporatization and
outsourcing (much like public schools have been experiencing in this country.)
Which brings us to the political component (and after all, can you talk about
money without talking about politics, and vice versa?) The 2010 midterm
elections saw a national wave of conservative Republicans dominating state
legislatures across the U.S., often aligned with governors of the same
political bent –and that particular bent is one that bends away from
traditional support of public institutions and bend toward privatization, to
the benefit of businesses and, in the case of academia, the detriment of the
mission of higher education.
This can best be
demonstrated by taking a look at what Scott Walker has tried to do, with quite a
bit of success, in Wisconsin, by attacking public unions and the concept of
tenure. He infamously tried to rewrite the university’s mission statement,
eliminating all that silly stuff about searching for truth, engaging the
public, and improving the human condition, and instead sum the whole thing up
by saying “meet the state’s workforce needs.” As if a university is the same
thing as a technical training school, and not a place to engage with ideas.
This bodes ill in general,
because the same things are happening around the country. State governments are
initiating changes that will benefit entrepreneurs, under the guise of saving
money, while weakening principles like academic freedom and shared governance.
The same sorts of things are happening on the individual campus level, with it
becoming more and more common for administrators to implement rapid change from
the top down rather than go through the traditional processes of consulting
with faculty about education. As I recently heard one administrator say, when
you’re trying to get something done too much dialogue slows down the process.
And that is the crux of the
matter. The old way of doing things: go through the necessary procedures of faculty
discussing the issues –having first been informed of said issues –and then
making a recommendation, which is either seriously considered by administration
or, on many campuses, is part of the administrative process. The new way of
doing things: administration making changes, with nominal or no faculty input
(and sometimes nominal or no faculty knowledge), and then announcing said
change.
Proponents of this new
paradigm say it is essential in our new, modern circumstances. Universities
have to be quick on their feet, immediately responding to new opportunities,
especially if those opportunities bring in funding. And dialogue just slows
things down, and results in the risk of missing lucrative opportunities. Is
there a link in the chain of faculty involvement that might prove weak in
regard to the opportunity being seized? Then bypass that link. Maybe the whole
chain. We have to be mobile, agile, and adaptable.
Know what that sounds like?
A successful business model. A model in which profits are produced for the
shareholders, which is the primary (and practically the only) purpose of the
venture. The problem is, higher ed –although requiring funding to survive –is not
a business venture, or it shouldn’t be. It is about human capital, not economic capital. It is an intellectual investment in the
future of our country –not to produce docile workers with proper credentials,
but to produce dynamic and innovative thinkers, and informed and engaged
citizens, who have been taught to challenge the status quo in order to improve
it. And this requires academic freedom for their professors to guide them in
those pursuits. And academic freedom requires shared governance to ensure that
the true purpose of the university –interaction between faculty and students
that stimulates intellectual growth –does not take second place to economic
concerns or to making the process easier (or more maneuverable.) Democracy
itself, after all, is neither facile nor agile. It is unwieldy by design and by
necessity. The lack of it might make the trains run on time, but that is not
the real goal.
Proponents of this new
model would say this trend is irreversible and it would be foolish (and naïve) to
try to resist it. "It's gone, and it's not coming back." "We
can't beat 'em, we have to join 'em." So essentially: here is the program,
jump on it. Or for you fellow Star Trek fans: You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.
Here's my problem with
that. As a historian, I know that there have been countless changes made -and
trends reversed -by large numbers of people uniting in opposition. Things no
one would have thought possible. The end of slavery and segregation. The female
franchise. Heck, the eight-hour workday. All those things and many more
-including the protection of academic freedom a little over a century ago
-required pushing back against a wave that seemed irresistible. If you resist
and you're the only person that does -yeah, that's not going to work out so
well for you. But if a lot of people do, together, no trend is inevitable. In
fact, this very "trend" they keep talking about was carefully
engineered and given long-range execution due to careful, deliberate planning
of conservative groups beginning in the 1970s.
This is not to say that
universities don’t need funding and enrollment. But the very national situation
that necessitates putting more emphasis on those things than we used to can be
reversed –but we have to work together and try, on all levels. When someone
tells you, "A change is occurring, it will limit your power, resistance is
futile," it is a sure sign you need to organize some resistance. And start
thinking about the ways this allegedly irresistible trend stands to benefit the
people telling you not to oppose it. Maybe it makes their lives easier. Is that
what we are here for?
