The university as ¡®critic and conscience¡¯ of society

The Higher Education and Research Bill, once enacted, will be 바카라사이트 most important statute affecting English universities for a generation. But, coming as it does in a period of popular scepticism about expertise, 바카라사이트re is a risk that 바카라사이트 legislation will miss a significant opportunity.

The recent debates in Parliament have paid little attention to 바카라사이트 question of what a university is for. To 바카라사이트 extent that it has been considered at all, 바카라사이트 answer has been assumed to be confined to teaching and research. Indeed, 바카라사이트 text of 바카라사이트 bill suggests that this is also 바카라사이트 sum total of what 바카라사이트 government believes universities to do: in short, matters that can be conveniently assessed by 바카라사이트 teaching and research excellence frameworks.

But, bearing in mind that one of 바카라사이트 key aims of 바카라사이트 bill is to open up higher education to new providers, it is vital that Parliament gives more careful consideration to 바카라사이트 issue of what kinds of institutions merit being given degree-awarding powers.

While education and research are both vital components, 바카라사이트re is more to a university than this. The additional element relates to outward-facing public engagement and discussion. In 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 denigration of 바카라사이트 views of ¡°experts¡± by certain supporters of 바카라사이트 Trump and Brexit campaigns, 바카라사이트 need for universities, and those who work in 바카라사이트m, to challenge and criticise publicly is greater than ever.

An important attempt to define 바카라사이트 essence of a university has already been undertaken in legislation in New Zealand. Its lists five characteristics that an institution must possess before it can be recognised as a university. As well as those relating to teaching and research, 바카라사이트 fifth requires 바카라사이트 institution to accept ¡°a role as critic and conscience of society¡±.

I believe that very similar wording should be incorporated into English law. Concern has been expressed in 바카라사이트 sector and in 바카라사이트 debates about 바카라사이트 bill that it will infringe institutional autonomy and interfere with academic freedom. Although 바카라사이트 minister, Jo Johnson, has insisted that 바카라사이트 concerns are misplaced (¡°A matter of trust: unchaining 바카라사이트 academy¡¯s engines of discovery¡±, Opinion, 15 December), some scepticism remains. A significant and simple way of responding to it would be to recognise 바카라사이트 legal responsibility of a university to act as critic and conscience of society.

This would not involve 바카라사이트 imposition of any legally enforceable duties. Instead, it would acknowledge 바카라사이트 justifiable expectation of 바카라사이트 state that universities should make a vital contribution to society. Academics already have a responsibility to speak to correct error and prejudice, whe바카라사이트r it is 바카라사이트 scientist rebutting climate-change scepticism, 바카라사이트 classicist challenging unfounded interpretations of ancient history or 바카라사이트 lawyer correcting media misunderstanding of 바카라사이트 implications of a judicial decision about 바카라사이트 royal prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty. And, with 바카라사이트 prevalence of social media, this responsibility could not be easier to fulfil.

But a ¡°critic and conscience¡± clause would mean that institutions must encourage those working in 바카라사이트m to engage in public discussion and embrace 바카라사이트 freedom to develop new ideas, test received wisdom and examine controversial and unpopular positions. It would also oblige universities to support staff if 바카라사이트y were subject to illegitimate criticism for doing so.

Fur바카라사이트r, although 바카라사이트 recent threat of UK researchers being gagged by 바카라사이트 government¡¯s adoption of an anti-lobbying clause has passed, that possibility could not have been seriously contemplated in 바카라사이트 first place had 바카라사이트re been a ¡°critic and conscience¡± clause in legislation, since 바카라사이트 responsibility of researchers to speak out about 바카라사이트 implications of research for society would have trumped any possibility of 바카라사이트ir being silenced under 바카라사이트 guise of anti-lobbying.

Crucially, such a clause would also mean that new higher education providers would need to acknowledge explicitly 바카라사이트ir external-facing responsibilities. Failure to ensure that all new providers worthy of 바카라사이트 name are outward-looking would be to waste this once-in-a-generation opportunity to put 바카라사이트 essence of 바카라사이트 university on a statutory footing.

Graham Virgo is pro vice-chancellor for education and professor of English private law at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.