January 2012
How the traditional university is under
attack from all sides
The epic battle waged between Gábor Lukácsand
the University of Manitoba, which ended last week,
has shone an unflattering light onto the state of academic integrity at our
universities.
Listening to most recent observers, one would
think that our universities need to be completely “reinvented” because
professors spend too much time either not teaching at all or at leastnot
teaching practical job skills.
But the Lukácscase shows what’s really wrong.
As universities become increasingly defined by
their administrations—as opposed to their faculty—the traditional values of
higher education come under assault from all sides: from management, from the
public, and even from the associations that represent professors themselves.
Lukács, recall, is the wunderkind mathematician
who sued his university when it granted a PhD to a student who had not completed
all the normal requirements, a decision, he felt, was an intolerable violation
of academic integrity. University officials defended the decision on the grounds
that the student’s documented “exam anxiety” constituted a disability and they
had a duty to accommodate.
Lukács’ lawsuit stalled when a court ruled he
had no legal standing in the case. Meanwhile, the university had suspended him
without pay because, they said, he had violated the privacy of the student in
question. Lukácsfiled a grievance protesting his suspension, and the whole mess
was finally resolved in a legal settlement that leavesLukácslooking for a new
job and the university looking, well, you be the judge. Here are the
difficulties I think have been highlighted by this saga.
One fundamental problem is the differing ways
responsibility is understood at universities today. Professors, by and large,
see the university as part of a noble tradition of higher education. They see
themselves as guardians of high intellectual standards. By virtue of their long
years of education, their records of scholarly publications, and their years of
teaching and service, they understand that they have earned the right to teach
and conduct research as they see fit.
And, for that matter, to decide who else has
accomplished enough to meet the high standards they themselves were held to.
That is generally demonstrated when students pass required exams.
Many administrators, on the other hand, see
their responsibilities in terms of meeting the legal requirements under which
their institutions operate. We might say that these differing views are
complementary, except that, as this case has shown, ultimately, administrators
have the power. In a battle between the idealist and the bureaucrat, the former
is usually right, but the latter usually wins.
Every university is different, of course, and
undoubtedly there must be universities where the priorities of administrators
mesh beautifully with the ideals of faculty. But few examples leap to mind. Take
a look at the ugly strike dragging on at Brandon University and you’ll see what
I mean.
That the court would not recognize the legal
standing of a professor contesting the awarding of a degree in his own program
shows the alarming extent to which universities are now viewed as private
enterprises, rather than the public institutions they used to be. Indeed, this
was a key element of the court’s ruling: that Lukacs was not affected by the
awarding of the degree.
But the fact is, if a university compromises its
integrity, we are all affected because we rely on universities to produce
graduates whose skills we can rely on. Put another way, the more we see
universities as private entities, the less we expect them to produce public
goods like broadly-educated citizens. More and more we see universities as
merely advanced job-training facilities.
At the end of the day, our economy may be
richer, but our civilization will be poorer.
It is sad that Lukacs’ only hope for justice was
as a member of a union. That there is still some forum for aggrieved academics
is heartening, but it’s unfortunate that this forum is the adversarial arena of
labour board star chambers. For one thing, these proceedings can drag on for
years. For another, they reinforce the destructive notion that professors are
merely employees who work at the university, rather than the professional
collective that fundamentally forms the university.
Taking university reform seriously means
addressing these problems. We must find and reward Deans and Presidents who
value intellectual integrity above all else and are willing to fight for it—to
fight bad laws when necessary. We need to restore the notion of universities as
powerful forces for the general welfare, not greenhouses for mindless cupidity.
And we need to put more power in the hands of professors so that they don’t have
to rely on the rusty machinery of the trade union.
Addressing these problems would be fixing the
university system in a way far more profound than asking profs to teach more or
focus more heavily on job training. Had the University of Manitoba been clearer
on its priorities, it would have put standards ahead ofaccommodation, and it
would have avoided a public-relations nightmare. And Gábor Lukács would, most
likely, still have a job.
Macleans, November 14, 2011.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
