Seven Principles of Higher Education: A Primer

JohnJ. Furedy
ven is a lucky n u m b e r (and thankfully less than Luther's ninety-five). I pe that by distinguishing the interrelated principles below, it will be easier for critics to bring out specific r a t h e r than global objections to my a r g u m e n t s .

S~

1. The central mission of the academic community is epistemological-the search for truth.
Because I take a realist view o f epistemology (i.e., that there can be an increase in knowledge o f the world, but t h a t - - c o n t r a r y to naive r e a l i s m - - k n o w l e d g e is always fallible), I have f o r m u l a t e d the central mission as o n e w h e r e the academic c o m m u n i t y (comprising both faculty a n d students) is e n g a g e d n o t in establishing the truth, but r a t h e r in the search for truth. A l t h o u g h this search tends to be m o r e straightforward in the h a r d sciences t h a n in the humanities, there is the possibility o f e r r o r in all disciplines, a n d d i s a g r e e m e n t s are t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t e d even in the "hardest" o f sciences. (This sort o f hardscience dispute is exemplified, for instance, by Einstein's d i s a g r e e m e n t with such y o u n g e r colleagues as H e i s e n b e r g a n d Bohr, colleagues who a r g u e d for i n d e t e r m i n a c y in q u a n t u m physics.) To argue that the search for truth is the university's central mission is n o t to say that it is the only mission. Nor is it to suggest that m e m b e r s o f the acad e m i c c o m m u n i t y are motivated only by this central mission, a n d are n o t inf l u e n c e d by o t h e r factors such as greed, envy, fear, selfishness, a n d altruism.

2. Academic freedom should belong" equally to all members of the academic community.
A l t h o u g h there is a variety o f conceptualizations o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m , I suggest that its essence is the right o f all m e m b e r s o f the a c a d e m i c c o m m u n i t y to be evaluated in terms o f a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e , r a t h e r t h a n on the basis o f conformity with some ideology, or on the basis o f m e m b e r s h i p in s o m e design a t e d g r o u p (however deserving o f s u p p o r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s that g r o u p m a y be). To say this does n o t imply that the j u d g m e n t s o f a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e will always be sound. Far f r o m it.

JohnJ. Furedy is professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3 and former president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, the Canadian counterpart to the National Association of Scholars. This article is based on a paper delivered before a working conference on "Academic Issues in Canadian Institutions of Higher Education: Focus on Fundamentals" in June 1998. For editorial comments, the author is indebted to Professors Christine Furedy and Bradford P. Wilson. 44

Furedy

45

3. Academic power should vary with expertise in the relevant discipline or disciplines, and so cannot be egalitarian. H e r e I think of academic power as the a m o u n t o f influence an individual has in situations where there is an a c a d e m i c dispute a b o u t alternative a c t i o n s - for example, evaluating faculty or s t u d e n t work, or m a k i n g c h a n g e s in the curriculum. In contrast to academic f r e e d o m , a c a d e m i c power s h o u l d be unequal a n d roughly proportional to expertise in the relevant discipline or disciplines. Academic power tends to be c o r r e l a t e d with a c a d e m i c rank, but this correlation is far f r o m perfect. For example, over an issue involving expertise in chemistry, a full professor o f psychology should have less a c a d e m i c power than an u n d e r g r a d u a t e chemistry major, because the f o r m e r ' s e d u c a t i o n in chemistry likely ceased with high school. In this sense o f a c a d e m i c power, disciplinary expertise is m o r e i m p o r t a n t than a c a d e m i c rank. O n m o r e general aspects o f academic functions such as Ph.D. supervision, there is a greater correlation between power a n d rank, in that only m e m b e r s of the professoriate will typically have h a d the e x p e r i e n c e o f supervising Ph.D. research. Still, even in such cases, greater p o w e r does n o t necessarily imply that, in a dispute, the individual with m o r e expertise will always be right. T h e only implication is that, o t h e r things being equal, the individual with g r e a t e r academic power will be right m o r e often than the o n e with less power. Accordingly there is, quite properly, a h i e r a r c h y o f a c a d e m i c power. T h e n e x t two principles deal with two characteristics o f the h i e r a r c h y which, in the c u r r e n t j a r g o n , may be labeled as "elitism" a n d "non-inclusivity." 4. Appropriate elitism in the university is based on systematically assessed intellectual performance. P e r f o r m a n c e differences exist a m o n g all levels o f the a c a d e m i c c o m m u nity, although they are somewhat easier to m e a s u r e validly a m o n g introductory-level u n d e r g r a d u a t e students than they are a m o n g senior full professors. I do n o t suggest that the reasons for these individual differences are clear, or that they lie only in differences o f intellectual ability. But the fact is that there are p e r f o r m a n c e differences, a n d these t e n d to lead to status differences even a m o n g individuals who hold the same a c a d e m i c rank. Moreover, since levels o f productivity also shift within the same individual as a function o f time, it is to be e x p e c t e d that subtle, a n d sometimes m a r k e d , changes o f relative status will occur d u r i n g an individual's a c a d e m i c career. 5. Appropriate non-inclusiveness in the university is based on academic, disciplinerelated expertise. T h e r e are, in my view, at least two categories o f legitimate exclusion in acad e m i c decision-making: (a) exclusion of m e m b e r s o f the n o n - a c a d e m i c community [rich or p r o m i n e n t individuals, influential interest groups ( r e p r e s e n t e d today o n N o r t h American campuses by "officers" w h o are p u r p o r t e d l y e x p e r t

46

Academic Questions / Fall 2000

in "equity issues")] f r o m decisions relating to c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t a n d research directions in the university; (b) exclusion o f individual m e m b e r s o f the academic c o m m u n i t y f r o m decisions that r e q u i r e expertise (in a discipline or disciplines) that those individuals do n o t possess. Academics who do n o t have an expertise in physics s h o u l d n o t be involved in the question of w h e t h e r a particular candidate should have b e e n placed first in a j o b search c o n d u c t e d by a physics d e p a r t m e n t . While a d e p a r t m e n t should rely o n external e x p e r t assessors for advice, those assessors are quite p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d f r o m having voting fights in what should be, in the e n d , e a c h d e p a r t m e n t or division's decision in r e c o m m e n d i n g hiring a n d p r o m o t i o n . These sorts of legitimate exclusions n e e d to be distinguished f r o m exclusions based on such academically irrelevant factors as "race" (I think n o t only o f explicit legal discrimination against A m e r i c a n blacks up to the mid-sixties, especially in the South, but also earlier, m o r e subtly e n f o r c e d partial o r total quotas against Jews in North A m e r i c a n universities), a n d g e n d e r (where, again, discrimination was often n o t explicit, but was, nevertheless, e x t r e m e l y damaging to the university's academic f u n c t i o n i n g a n d to individual opportunities). 6. The evaluation of merit (or academic performance) can never be perfectly accurate, but it must be fair. Even so-called objective, multiple-choice tests o f i n t r o d u c t o r y u n d e r g r a d u ate p e r f o r m a n c e in the basics of a subject do n o t correlate perfectly with true academic merit. This is so in part because there are r a n d o m errors d u e to variations in individuals at the time the test is administered. But, m o r e importantly, it is so because no test can have p e r f e c t validity. In particular, small differences in test scores (say b e t w e e n an A- a n d a B+) that are o f considerable psychological significance for each s t u d e n t do n o t necessarily reflect real differences in academic merit. Essay and thesis evaluation o f a d v a n c e d u n d e r g r a d u a t e a n d g r a d u a t e work is m u c h m o r e subjective. Nevertheless, the assumption u n d e r l y i n g the whole grading enterprise is that there is a significant, t h o u g h far f r o m perfect, correlation between grades a n d true merit. If t h e r e is not, t h e n g r a d i n g has bec o m e arbitrary a n d without any g e n u i n e raison d~tre. T h e idea o f e x t e r n a l examining, w h e r e i n experts in the discipline who are u n c o n n e c t e d with the particular university act as examiners, has at its basis the m a i n t e n a n c e o f acad e m i c standards u n d e r conditions w h e r e t h e r e is a n e e d to p r o t e c t against gross instances of h u m a n e r r o r in the evaluation of very c o m p l e x essay- a n d thesis-based academic p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e rationale o f external e x a m i n i n g is n o t that it r e n d e r s the evaluation of a c a d e m i c m e r i t in students a precise a n d error-free process, but only that it prevents the commission o f such blatant errors. Still, even if the test-, essay-, a n d thesis-based grading were highly accurate, this would not g u a r a n t e e that it reflected true a c a d e m i c merit. We are all too

Furedy

47

familiar with individuals who received excellent grades as u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , but who failed in graduate school. A n d we know students with relatively p o o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e grades who have later t u r n e d out to be excellent academics. F u r t h e r m o r e , there are h o n e s t d i s a g r e e m e n t s a m o n g faculty c o n c e r n i n g the relative academic merits o f individual students. High-level intellectual activity, like all o t h e r high-level activities, c a n n o t be j u d g e d with infallibility, b u t that does not m e a n that it c a n n o t be j u d g e d at all. T h e evaluation of academic p e r f o r m a n c e in faculty is even m o r e complex, w h e t h e r this be at the hiring, tenure-granting, a n d p r o m o t i o n stages, the yearly formal evaluations (for m e r i t increases), or the informal evaluations involved, for instance, in deciding the allocation o f facilities, t e a c h i n g loads, a n d awards. Quasi-objective indicators such as citation counts, impact counts, a n d publications in high-quality j o u r n a l s are useful in these evaluative decisions, but it is c o m m o n knowledge that sole reliance on these measures can lead to gross distortions, especially w h e n it c o m e s to c o m p a r i n g individuals r a t h e r t h a n large departments. Yet it is essential for the healthy f u n c t i o n i n g o f any university that these sorts o f evaluations are carried o u t conscientiously, a n d that the results of the evaluations n o t be arbitrary. O n e way o f summarizing the claim about j u d g m e n t s o f a c a d e m i c perform a n c e is to state that it is reasonable to insist that the j u d g m e n t s be fair. This in t u r n implies that the j u d g m e n t s n o t be politicized (by c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f ideology or identity politics), a n d that they be r e n d e r e d by those who are c o m p e t e n t , because o f a b a c k g r o u n d in the relevant a c a d e m i c disciplines, to m a k e them. Fairness applies to j u d g m e n t s o f p e r f o r m a n c e at all levels in the a c a d e m i c community. It is in this sense that academic f r e e d o m , like justice in society, should be equal and indivisible. W h e n an u n d e r g r a d u a t e ' s essay gets downg r a d e d because the opinions expressed are " u n c o m f o r t a b l e " or "offensive" (i.e., contrary to the prevailing ideology), or a c o m p e t i t i o n for an a c a d e m i c scholarship is won even in part because the w i n n e r belongs to a designated group, or a new faculty m e m b e r is h i r e d mainly because o f g e n d e r or race, or a senior faculty m e m b e r ' s p r o m o t i o n is d e n i e d partly o n the g r o u n d s o f gend e r or race, justice has b e e n d e n i e d . T h e a c a d e m i c c o m m u n i t y as a whole should be c o n c e r n e d , not only the individuals or "collectivities" affected. 7. Not even the most powerful administrator should, qua administrator, make academic decisions. T h e basis for this exclusionary principle rests o n the distinction b e t w e e n the academic and o t h e r staffin the university. T h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f the university's academic c o m m u n i t y (faculty a n d students) has to be viewed as primary, a n d all o t h e r work that is necessary for that f u n c t i o n i n g is secondary. O n e way o f putting this is to say that all administrative functions (from those of the cleaning staff to those o f the university's president) have to be viewed as serving the

48

Academic Questions / Fall 2000

f u n d a m e n t a l academic function. Sometimes, as in the case o f d e a n s who are still actively e n g a g e d in teaching a n d research, the same p e r s o n m a y p e r f o r m both administrative a n d a c a d e m i c functions, so the distinction has to be applied to roles r a t h e r than people. Still, in most cases, it is possible to classify individuals in terms of w h e t h e r they are, or are not, m e m b e r s of the a c a d e m i c community. Obviously, administrators are hierarchically r a n k e d in terms b o t h o f salary and o f control over the university. A n d in terms o f control, the p r e s i d e n t properly has m o r e than any o t h e r individual. Nevertheless, even the p r e s i d e n t must answer, in the end, to concerns about the academic r e p u t a t i o n o f the institution. H e n c e the president, as president, should m a k e only administrative r a t h e r than academic j u d g m e n t s . For example, a p r e s i d e n t may properly reverse on procedural grounds a t e n u r e decision m a d e by the relevant a c a d e m i c bodies. But a p r e s i d e n t may n o t reverse a t e n u r e decision because o f his personal view o f the t e n u r e candidate's academic merit.

Contemporary Threats to the Seven Principles: Corporatism and Political Correctness

Underlying the view advanced in the seven principles above is the n o t i o n o f disinterested enquiry, the idea that it is valuable for a society to have s o m e people e n g a g e d in considering problems for their own sakes, r a t h e r t h a n conc e r n i n g themselves only with utilitarian matters. Although most people, including m a n y in the universities, now pay only lip service to disinterested enquiry, and m a n y disparage "the ivory tower" o r the "merely academic" way o f looking at things, it is the c o n c e p t o f disinterestedness that distinguishes a free, civilized society f r o m a totalitarian, barbaric one. It is only in the f o r m e r sort o f society that independent c o m m i t t e e s o f enquiry are set up to investigate controversial issues. If it is shown that any m e m b e r o f such a c o m m i t t e e is e i t h e r i n e x p e r t or has a vested interest (i.e., c a n n o t be disinterested), there is a political price to pay. T h a t political price could n o t exist were there n o t general ( t h o u g h i n c o m p l e t e ) a c c e p t a n c e o f the c o n c e p t o f disinterestedness a n d o f expertise. T h e latter can only be genuinely obtained in institutions that study problems r a t h e r t h a n p r e j u d g e solutions on the basis o f some ideology. O f course, universities e n g a g e in practical as well as reflective activities. To raise funds to support enquiry, moreover, a monkish, " o t h e r worldly" attitude is inappropriate. Galileo recognized this w h e n he e m p h a s i z e d to his wealthy p a t r o n n o t the telescope's power to resolve the moons-of-Jupiter question, but its potential to provide earlier w a r n i n g o f the a p p r o a c h o f e n e m y fleets. Nevertheless, just as the early successful e n q u i r e r s focused o n the basic-research problems being considered, so the c o n c e p t u a l core o f any university should be the arts a n d sciences. Even t h o u g h units like e n g i n e e r i n g , medicine, a n d law may bring in m o r e external funds, contribute to the university's

F~e~

49

reputation, a n d p e r f o r m i m p o r t a n t functions, these professional sectors are based o n the arts a n d sciences. T h e y are c o n s i d e r e d to be g e n u i n e professions partly because, unlike p s e u d o professions such as palmistry, they have an arts a n d / o r sciences disciplinary core. T h e y apply valid ( t h o u g h never perfectly accurate) a c a d e m i c standards o f evaluation, and, h e n c e , possess a c a d e m i c respectability. Professional faculties within a university are particularly vulnerable to imp r o p e r or ill-considered pressures f r o m corporatism. T h e indirect effects o f corporatism on the arts a n d sciences may, nevertheless, be equally serious. To the e x t e n t that a university b e c o m e s a b r a n c h o f business, it loses its epistemological soul. In the end, both the professional a n d the basic disciplines suffer f r o m such a loss o f academic morale. This is not to suggest that universities s h o u l d cut their ties to c o r p o r a t e entities. If academic institutions are to m e e t the n e e d s o f society, a n d to survive, they must try to attract c o r p o r a t e a n d private support. However, it m u s t be recognized that, to the e x t e n t that a university is an academic, enquiryo r i e n t e d institution, there will be situations w h e r e there is a conflict b e t w e e n academic and corporate aims. For example, such aims may include p r o m o t ing certain disciplines over others, or even certain a p p r o a c h e s within a discipline over o t h e r approaches. W h e n such a conflict o f interest is latent, it is the university's, not the donor's responsibility to see that the conflict is identified, a n d that it is resolved in favor o f the university's central e n q u i r y function. Often w h e n this is done, the d o n o r s are a m o n g the first to welcome the resolution, because they, too, are c o n c e r n e d about the a c a d e m i c status o f the university in question. T h e o t h e r potentially anti-epistemological force is that o f political correctness (PC). This is a f o r m o f social e n g i n e e r i n g in that the goal is to foster equality of o u t c o m e , rather t h a n equality of opportunity. In its most e x t r e m e form, PC views the university as just a n o t h e r part o f society in which equality, or "equity," must be achieved. T h e r e are situations w h e r e PC-originated changes i n t e r f e r e with a c a d e m i c functioning. O n e r a t h e r c o m p l e x area is that o f special services, w h e r e students are diagnosed as having a m e n t a l disability (the most p o p u l a r c u r r e n t label is "learning disability" or LD), a n d are t h e n given m o r e favorable conditions for tests w h e r e they are c o m p e t i n g against their peers. T h e p r o b l e m is especially severe in tests that stress speed r a t h e r than power. Math exams are probably the clearest examples: most m a t h exams are n o t c o m p l e t e d in the time allotted by even the best students. T h e practice o f awarding extra time for such s p e e d - d o m i n a t e d tests, w h e r e the a m o u n t o f time awarded is determ i n e d by clinicians who are i g n o r a n t o f the material being tested, is potentially unfair to the LD student's c o m p e t i n g peers. In the sense of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m that I have used h e r e (the right to be evaluated solely in terms o f academic p e r f o r m a n c e ) , this practice constitutes an a b r o g a t i o n o f the aca-

50

Academic Questions / Fall 2000

demic f r e e d o m of the competing peers. Moreover, the practice may weaken the academic standards for performance evaluation, and, hence, damage the reputation of the university. The topic of special services is too complex for detailed discussion here, but the guiding principle is clear: Allowances should be made for disabilities, whether physical or mental, unless there is an obvious relationship between the disability (e.g., hand tremors) and one's ability to master a discipline (e.g., a laboratory course in physiological psychology that requires the student to operate on animals). No principles can be unambiguously applied in all cases. This does not mean, however, that an unprincipled approach should be taken to the evaluative function of the university. A m o r e blatant form of PC i n t e r f e r e n c e with academic functioning has been the proliferation of speech codes, now universal on Canadian campuses. (The fact that they are not called such is irrelevant--any d o c u m e n t that restricts offensive or "harassing" speech as well as acts is a speech code.) They constitute an illegitimate attack on enquiry. O f serious concern is the c u r r e n t institutional attitude on the question of who is most c o m p e t e n t to evaluate the application of these speech codes. Contrary to current institutional wisdom, most "equity officers" are completely unqualified to r e n d e r this sort of discipline-related judgment. In 1998, the Council of Ontario Universities ( C O U ) - - a group of senior academic administrators that runs the over thirty universities in Ontario and formulates general academic policies--passed the astounding motion that in all academic matters, "equity issues" should be a consideration. In one sense, this is a rather weak statement, but given the breadth of the term "equity issues" and the propensity of the growing equity bureaucracy on a campus to expand its influence and activities, this could be a considerable threat to the university's academic functioning. The motion at least suggests that in the evaluation of faculty and students, the question of race and sex should be taken into consideration. Moreover, equity officers are encouraged by the COU statement to c o m m e n t on curricular matters about which they are not qualified to make judgments. In some respects, and in the long run, the COU's motion has potential to be m o r e damaging than the acceptance of speech codes. Moreover, the COU's resolution invites abuse of a m u c h m o r e subtle sort. Once one grants the principle that equity officers have the right and responsibility to vet curricula for, say, evidence of "systemic racism," faculty (and their students) come u n d e r implicit pressure to modify their enquiry in ways unrelated to the problems of the discipline. Most such modification (either through the omission of controversial topics, or through restricting consideration to only those interpretations that are not offensive) will occur in subtle form. But this sort of self-censorship has a significant long-term effect on the epistemological enterprise and is in direct contradiction with the Socratic prin-

Furedy

51

ciple that all assumptions are o p e n to examination. This is the m o s t serious c o n s e q u e n c e o f the culture o f c o m f o r t i m p o s e d by PC on N o r t h A m e r i c a n campuses. Proposals for the university, w h e t h e r they are m a d e by c o r p o r a t e , PC, or o t h e r interests, must be e x a m i n e d o n their merits, on their relation to the central epistemological enterprise that f u n d a m e n t a l l y distinguishes universities f r o m o t h e r institutions. In that c o n t i n u i n g examination, it must be r e c o g n i z e d that organizations inevitably have some i n c o m p a t i b l e goals. Sometimes, i n d e e d , conflicts b e t w e e n goals o c c u r n o t only within the same organization, b u t also within the same person. It is u p to the academic c o m m u n i t y (faculty a n d students) to e x a m i n e each policy in the light of the c o m m u n i t y ' s central m i s s i o n - - t h e search for truth.

The following is excerpted from a letter with which the executive board o f the American Anthropological Association suggested that its members should complain to the trustees o f the University o f Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The Illinois trustees had persisted in using "Chief Illiniwek" as the university's athletic mascot.

We, the members of the American Anthropological Association, call upon all educators and administrators of educational institutions to stop promoting the stereotypical representation of American Indian people through the use of sports mascots. The persistence of such officially sanctioned, stereotypical presentations humiliates American Indian people, trivializes the scholarship of anthropologists, undermines the learning environment for all students, and seriously compromises efforts to promote diversity on school and college campuses.