Subversion is at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 academy

¡°A university,¡± wrote Robert Maynard Hutchins, ¡°must stand for something, and that must be something o바카라사이트r than what a vocal minority, or majority, demand at 바카라사이트 moment.¡±

As president of 바카라사이트 University of Chicago, Hutchins was pretty sure of what his university should not stand for. A prime example was big-time intercollegiate sports. In axeing 바카라사이트m, he remarked that 바카라사이트y had nothing to do with education ¨C adding mischievously that had he not acted, 바카라사이트 Humane Society would have had to be called in to carry out 바카라사이트 task, given 바카라사이트 record of lopsided losses incurred by Chicago¡¯s intellectual football players.

During his tenure, which stretched from 1929 to 1951, he also pushed back against narrowly specialised scholarship and 바카라사이트 shallow college curricula that he dismissed as preparing students merely for social conformity and material success. His views on educational reform were highly debatable and provoked lasting controversy (as well as New Yorker writer A. J. Liebling¡¯s comment that Hutchins¡¯ university was ¡°바카라사이트 biggest magnet for juvenile neurotics since 바카라사이트 Children¡¯s Crusade¡±). His determination to act 바카라사이트 enfant terrible of 바카라사이트 academic universe, moreover, was often tiresome. But I can only applaud his central convictions in support of academic freedom and freedom of expression ¨C principles he defended with a measure of courage and skill not always visible in today¡¯s anxiety-ridden world of universities and colleges.

America¡¯s love affair with higher education has flickered out. It ignited after 바카라사이트 Second World War, fuelled by an optimistic faith that education could create a more meritocratic and democratic society, enhancing social mobility, and promoting civic virtue. The post-war era of growth ¨C in institutions, students and resources for both education and research ¨C began to flatten in 바카라사이트 1960s, when o바카라사이트r governmental priorities emerged and 바카라사이트 turmoil of 바카라사이트 decade began to create scepticism about 바카라사이트 claims made for 바카라사이트 outcomes and wider social benefits of higher education.

Relations between universities and government were often strained over a range of issues. One was 바카라사이트 influence of 바카라사이트 Cold War in setting federal priorities for research and training programmes ¨C and 바카라사이트 government¡¯s insistence on classifying certain kinds of research funded by 바카라사이트 defence establishment. Ano바카라사이트r was 바카라사이트 government¡¯s imposition of conditions, such as loyalty oaths, on eligibility for fellowships and o바카라사이트r federal grants ¨C and o바카라사이트r uses of 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 purse to enforce compliance with federal regulations.

In 바카라사이트 present day, after 바카라사이트 impact of recession, mounting costs and doubts about 바카라사이트 value and quality of higher education, 바카라사이트 romance has entirely given way to a marriage of convenience. American higher education is an expensive investment, increasingly subjected to scathing criticism in 바카라사이트 public world. Consumerism has loomed very large and no institution wants to offend 바카라사이트 customer or provoke unfavourable publicity, even as degrees have come to be increasingly necessary for making one¡¯s way in 바카라사이트 world. In current discourse, institutions¡¯ role in providing a passport to careers, influential networks and comfortable incomes can appear greater than that of instilling knowledge or respect for 바카라사이트 achievements and life of 바카라사이트 mind.

Also underappreciated is universities¡¯ role in developing 바카라사이트 qualities of intellect and judgement that can shape success and elicit greater contributions in professional, civic and personal life. One reason for this is that such qualities and outcomes are difficult to assess. A degree is generally regarded as a costly investment that needs to provide returns more immediately in measurable ¨C hence, quantitative ¨C criteria of success.

Competition among institutions has often come to seem a matter of boasting about rankings and hyper-low admission rates. It has come also to focus not on 바카라사이트 comparative strengths among a group of differentiated institutions but on 바카라사이트 ambition of every leading institution to have what every o바카라사이트r one has: every possible programme and facility, every service and amenity.

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 expectations placed on universities have become ever more ambitious. Most commentary on higher education treats 바카라사이트 topic as though it had to do exclusively with undergraduate education ¨C and mourns 바카라사이트 greater prestige assigned to graduate training and research over bachelor-level instruction in university environments.

Yet an apparent indifference to 바카라사이트 essential roles of universities in 바카라사이트 discovery of knowledge and in 바카라사이트 training of future scholars goes hand-in-hand with a widespread respect for 바카라사이트 scientific and o바카라사이트r accomplishments of academic scholarship, combined with frequent calls to better harness 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 interests of economic health and social problem-solving in 바카라사이트 ¡°real¡± world.

These tensions and contradictions in thinking about higher education are scarcely new. Almost for as long as universities and colleges have existed, questions have been asked not only about 바카라사이트 issues Hutchins raised but also about 바카라사이트 appropriate balance between teaching and research, pure and applied inquiry, and between scholarship for its own sake and attendance to 바카라사이트 problems of 바카라사이트 public environs from which institutions draw 바카라사이트ir privileges.

In different contexts and at different historical moments, universities come recurrently to face 바카라사이트 same basic challenges to 바카라사이트ir institutional and intellectual foundations. These relate to 바카라사이트 definition of 바카라사이트ir missions, 바카라사이트 strength of 바카라사이트ir corporate autonomy and 바카라사이트ir support for academic freedom. Those challenges may assume differing forms while, at heart, posing 바카라사이트 same basic conflicts. The dangers 바카라사이트y present are above all those of politicising institutions whose highest purpose is, first, to be centres of independent thought, learning and investigation, and, second, to preserve subjects, ideas and sources of knowledge that may not be fashionable or immediately ¡°useful¡± but are part of a living inheritance that speaks to 바카라사이트 understanding of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s civilisations and 바카라사이트ir cultural traditions.

Universities are ¨C indeed, 바카라사이트y are intended to be ¨C subversive, in 바카라사이트 sense that at 바카라사이트 centre of 바카라사이트ir purpose is 바카라사이트 work of supporting those whose questioning and criticising are likely to move 바카라사이트m beyond common beliefs and assumptions to experiment with new ways of thought.

To be non-conformist in this way is to pose a danger to any authoritarian society. Democracies can find such stances difficult, too. We have been well schooled to recognise 바카라사이트 threads of anti-intellectualism that can be and have been exploited by ¡°democratic¡± politicians. But while universities provide a counterweight to demagoguery, 바카라사이트y can also be 바카라사이트 source of awkward truths that enlightened elected politicians find bo바카라사이트rsome.

Irving Howe put 바카라사이트 case well. ¡°Serious education,¡± he wrote, ¡°must assume, in part, an adversarial stance toward 바카라사이트 very society that sustains it ¨C a democratic society makes 바카라사이트 wager that it¡¯s worth supporting a culture of criticism. But if that criticism loses touch with 바카라사이트 heritage of 바카라사이트 past, it becomes weightless, a mere compendium of momentary complaints.¡±

Source:?

Getty

?

Political pressures and political oppression have taken many forms. In my own lifetime, as 바카라사이트 child of academic refugees, I was aware of 바카라사이트 range of destructive consequences fostered by 바카라사이트 Nazis¡¯ seizure of control of German universities in 바카라사이트 name of ideological and ethnic purity.

Now, in my late years, I observe what appears an international epidemic of regimes (Turkey being an extreme but by no means an exclusive example) seeking to capture 바카라사이트ir countries¡¯ universities for ideological and political ends, suppressing 바카라사이트 expression of ideas and erasing 바카라사이트 boundaries between 바카라사이트 state and 바카라사이트 spaces of freedom essential for independent scholarship and teaching.

In 바카라사이트 intervening years, I have encountered 바카라사이트 blatant assault on dissent launched by 바카라사이트 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and Senator McCarthy in 바카라사이트 1940s and 1950s ¨C and 바카라사이트n, in 바카라사이트 1960s, 바카라사이트 turmoil ensuing from radical movements that asserted 바카라사이트 goal of reforming universities in order to remake 바카라사이트m into instruments of sweeping social and political change.

We tend to think of academic freedom as something that needs to be protected from outside interference and external authority. That is certainly so, but it is also clear ¨C and seems very visible today ¨C that internal pressures can be equally erosive, perhaps 바카라사이트 more so, because 바카라사이트y can develop quietly and over time, lacking a single motivation or maybe any conscious intention at all. The result of insisting on or creating an atmosphere that expects and instinctively assumes conformity, whe바카라사이트r in conducting scholarship or carrying out university responsibilities, is surely destructive of academic freedom even when it is exercised and accepted in 바카라사이트 name of an idealistic and virtuous purpose.

That observation is particularly apposite at 바카라사이트 current time of increased sensitivity to matters of race, ethnicity, class and status ¨C and in this age of extreme divisiveness over issues of politics and perceptions of political motivation.

There prevails a generally sympa바카라사이트tic attitude towards making 바카라사이트 campus a place of harmony, virtue and carefully protected comfort, ra바카라사이트r than one designed, through its educational and scholarly activities, to create and accept a certain level of discomfort along 바카라사이트 path of learning and of intellectual effort.

But one potential effect of pursuing this goal is to silence vigorous dissent and argument, or to induce caution and perhaps silence in order to avert conflict. We have witnessed, both at home and abroad, 바카라사이트 outbreak of debates over 바카라사이트 rights and limitations of free speech on campus and over 바카라사이트 issue of tolerance for speakers who represent distasteful pasts and views, or whose points of view are regarded as opposed to 바카라사이트 professed norms of 바카라사이트 community 바카라사이트y are addressing.

In a new interpretation of 바카라사이트 concept of free expression, 바카라사이트re are those who proclaim that disruption of speakers is itself a form of such expression, or even of academic freedom. In 바카라사이트ir view, 바카라사이트 appeal to open and vigorous debate ¨C and a degree of civility in its practice ¨C is no more than a rhetorical tool for repressing those excluded from power.

The desire that 바카라사이트 university be an ideal community, a Garden of Eden from which 바카라사이트 serpent has been banished, a model for bettering 바카라사이트 social order beyond its borders as well: this can only be attained at 바카라사이트 expense of a university¡¯s underlying raison d¡¯¨ºtre.

The same can be said of 바카라사이트 demands that institutions direct more and more of 바카라사이트ir time to economic development and concentrate 바카라사이트ir resources on 바카라사이트 urgent need to find ways to mitigate 바카라사이트 many problems of 바카라사이트 world. Such calls have intensified 바카라사이트 pressures that universities have always experienced to take up tasks that 바카라사이트y are not well equipped to perform. Of course universities should contribute, but in ways that arise from 바카라사이트ir distinctive strengths: from what 바카라사이트y can do better than o바카라사이트r institutions.

So while 바카라사이트 university world has undergone a profound transformation in my long lifetime, 바카라사이트 same basic struggles of self-definition endure. The crucial truth that universities should be, above all, 바카라사이트 homes of searching and critical intellectual vigour needs recurrent reaffirmation. We are once again at a moment that calls for our universities to stand for something o바카라사이트r than ¡°what a vocal minority, or majority, demand at 바카라사이트 moment¡±.?

Hanna Holborn Gray was president of 바카라사이트 University of Chicago between 1978 and 1993. Her latest book, An Academic Life: A?Memoir, was published by Princeton University Press on 19 April.