There have been dramatic changes occurring in higher
education over the last decade. For instance, colleges and universities have
expanded online programs to appeal to non-traditional students. Even though
these programs have been initiated with little public discussion, it is
laudable that they target students who work full time, cannot afford attending
a campus, are raising children, or are older than students who enter college
directly from high school. In addition to the non-traditional students, appeals
are made to youth to pursue degrees at home. For example, the television
commercial showing a young woman in her pajamas declaring that she is taking a
course online is one kind of metaphor for this trajectory.
In addition, powerful and wealthy lobby groups have sought
to transform higher education in ways that promote their political agendas and
ideologies. They have pressured universities, public and private, to downsize
or eliminate certain academic programs, particularly in the liberal arts. Media education commentators and these same
special interests have advocated universities to further prioritize so-called
STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), mostly at the
expense of the humanities and social sciences.
To facilitate the transformation of higher education wealthy
individuals, such as the Koch Brothers, have bankrolled the hiring of certain
faculty or the construction of certain research and instructional programs that
promote so-called “free market’ economics.
Also, in an increasingly competitive market for students,
universities have built upscale dormitories that include exercise facilities,
high-end food courts, and high-tech classroom buildings, all to increase
enrollment. Increasingly simplistic metrics are being used to determine student
wants and needs, performance potential, and post- graduate job satisfaction.
Academic programs “infantilize” students and professors by monitoring greater
facets of the instructional process.
Furthermore, with a forty-year downward trajectory of
support for public higher education, universities have been shifting more
toward contract research: high tech military research and corporate funding for
new generations of commercial products in agriculture, technology,
transportation, and drugs. Some universities have prioritized research that
would lead to commercial success.
These trends are not surprising given the truism that the
educational process since the industrial revolution, particularly higher
education, has always served the needs and interests of dominant sectors of the
economy. During the 1960s Clark Kerr, President, University of California,
argued that the “multiversity” was needed to support American capitalism and to
aid in the development of US national security in a world threatened by
international communism.
However, there also is a long tradition in higher education
that contradicts the view that institutions should just serve the interests of economic
and political elites. Universities have promoted the study of the humanities,
have stimulated the development of curricula that connect scientific theory to
human beings and nature, and have encouraged discussions about how to create
more just and humane societies. To protect this more hallowed conception of the
university, faculty, through collective action, were able to popularize and
institutionalize the idea of “academic freedom.” Academic freedom defended the
right to free and unbridled debate on issues of relevance to scholarship and
public discourse. In addition, to academic freedom, the American Association of
University Professors and other organizations of educators have called for “shared
governance,” arguing that the faculty should have a right and an obligation to
participate in decisions about the educational and research activities of the
university.
From time to time, the model of the university promoted by
economic elites, boards of trustees at universities, and many university
administrators has clashed with the ideal of the university as a place where
more fundamental societal issues are discussed and debated. Recently, boards of
trustees and university presidents have been making decisions of import to educational
and research, like those suggested above, without faculty discussions. Shared
governance is being replaced by non-transparent decision-making by the few.
Two examples from Purdue University are illustrative: Purdue
University’s unsuccessful bid to help manage the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory
and the purchase and incorporation of the online Kaplan University into Purdue
Global University. In both cases, it was declared after the fact that
transparency, that is having an open conversation about the strengths and
weaknesses of the university commitments, would violate the secrecy that was
necessary during critical negotiations with government bodies or corporations. While
this may be correct it is also possible that the Purdue decision-makers knew that
the commitments they were ready to embark upon might be opposed by many faculty
and students.
In the Los Alamos case, Purdue was to partner with the
Bechtel Corporation which had been a co-manager of the nuclear facility. The National
Laboratory announced it was opening a bid for a new contract because under
Bechtel’s management health and safety at the nuclear site had been compromised
(See Rebecca Moss, “Two Leading Bidders for Lucrative Los Alamos Lab Contract
Have Checkered Safety Records,” Pro
Publica, May 8, 2018). Also, data had
shown that Bechtel, a leading global engineering firm, had incurred criticisms
for contracted work around the world, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Bolivia
(See Matthew Brunwasser, “Steamrolled,” Foreign
Policy, January 30, 2015). Moreover, the Los Alamos bid would require
serious conversation about the use of nuclear power as an energy source,
building new generations of nuclear weapons, and the growth and expansion of
nuclear weapons programs around the world. Discussions in the university
community about whether Purdue University should bid on the Los Alamos contract
would have been important for the intellectual integrity and the public face of
the university.
The belated public announcement of Purdue’s acquisition of
the Kaplan online university became controversial in part because there had
been media reports in recent years of Kaplan’s failures in educational
performance and job placement, coupled with the generation of enormous student
debt incurred by Kaplan students. But these issues were not part of discussions
raised in the university community until after the Kaplan/Purdue connection was
announced. And there was little opportunity to discuss the efficacy of online
education, the appropriate mix of online and on-campus combinations (so-called
blended programs) and whether the state of Indiana should support the new
Purdue Global or allocate resources to make regional campuses and technical
colleges more user friendly for non-traditional students (See Doug Lederman,
“Online Options give Adults Access, But Outcomes Lag,” Inside Higher Education, June 20, 2018.)
Since there was no
full airing of the issues around Kaplan, online education, blended education,
the appropriate consumers of new educational programs, and who the faculty
teaching in online programs would be, confusion and skepticism remain (except
for statements from the Purdue Administration and members of the Board of
Trustees celebrating this new venture).
Nancy MacLean, in Democracy
in Chains, argues that special interests advocate a whole host of public
policies, about privatizing public institutions, deregulating the economy, and
downsizing social safety nets, which are not popular with majorities of people.
So, she says, their advocates, have contrived to circumvent democratic input
and thus eliminate opposition.
In sum, higher education in recent years has experienced a
substantial shift from transparency and shared governance with faculty and
students to non-transparency in decision-making. In addition, decisions are
made about trends in higher education with declining input from the public. Non-transparency breeds discontent among
faculty, public cynicism, and a growing awareness that higher education is less
about the public good and more about private aggrandizement.
