The Idea of a University: Constituted

A century and a half ago, a British scholar turned churchman articulated his idea of the purpose of higher education: John Henry Newman—in a series of discourses bridging philosophy, science, and religion—addressed to a lay audience and subsequently gathered into a book bearing the title The Idea of a University.

In the years since, higher education institutions have grown dramatically in size and ambition and thus in their impact on the cultures of the societies they serve. Those in the United States, viewed by many as the soul of the country’s culture, are currently facing criticism over a raft of contentious issues, from diverse quarters, and across a broad spectrum of opinion:

  • tenure policies;
  • requirements;
  • core curricula subjects;
  • student grades;
  • varsity athletics;
  • teaching and research;
  • freedom of expression; and
  • tuition charges well in excess of inflation.1

As a consequence, Newman’s reflections are currently receiving fresh consideration.2

As reflective as he was, and as Newman’s current redactors are, neither he nor they address in depth the question of how these issues are decided—how higher education institutions are ultimately structured to govern themselves or how best they are constituted. Left to others not necessarily concerned with the purpose of higher education, the answers to such questions vary widely. The governance structure of Roman Catholic institutions, and those with roots in religion, consists of a mix of denominational Canon Law and the incorporation laws of the States of their location. The governance structure of by far the largest in number, size and impact on the culture, consists of specific charters granted by such States—or simply State incorporation laws.

###

Lying at the heart of human activity are what philosophers have characterized, some as early as the Middle Ages, as “spontaneous orders” (Barry 1982, B.13–5). The most widely appreciated of these is the market, driven by prices, a quantitative means of exchange. Less appreciated, not as universal and slower to evolve, is culture in which language is the mode.

As Friedrich A. von Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty:

“We all know that, in pursuit of our individual aims, we are not likely to be successful unless we lay down for ourselves some general rules. . . . In ordering our day, in doing disagreeable but necessary tasks at once, in refraining from certain stimulants, or in suppressing certain impulses, we frequently find it necessary to make such practices an unconscious habit.” (Hayek 2011, 128)

In multiple references across all of his work, according to one commentator, culture is characterized as the “product of spontaneous evolution … fashioned by an invisible hand” (Boykin 2010, 20). Cited in The Constitution of Liberty with approval is the work of Alexis de Tocqueville (Hayek 2011, 111)—taking then as its title Tocqueville’s phrase “habits of the heart”—an influential book examining the contemporary culture of the United States (Bellah 1996, xlii n1).

Relentlessly shaping culture, Hayek suggested in the last chapter of The Constitution of Liberty, are the human activities of education and research (Hayek 2011, 498-516). These take many forms over many stages of life, at many levels of sophistication, and in the context of many human institutions: including family, community, church, and school.

As its title suggests, The Constitution of Liberty also addressed the question of how humans constitute organizations to pursue their activities. Fully appreciated is the significance of such organizations—and their role in influencing culture is readily acknowledged. Yet the ultimate direction they take is determined most by culture; they cannot be structured, try as humans may, to perpetuate from one generation to the next a fixed purpose; nor can they impart received wisdom that doesn’t ultimately evolve with the culture of the society in which they exist. Of political constitutions in particular, Hayek felt:

“… the mechanics of the separation of powers will limit intervention in market and cultural competition only where the evolved opinion in a society regarding justice demands limited government. Deliberate constitutional design can place opinion in a position to curtail intervention and leave room for competitive social processes, but constitutional planning is no substitute for evolved beliefs that limit government’s authority.” (Boykin 2010, 19)

Skeptical as he thus was of contrived solutions, Hayek nevertheless deeply respected those rooted in human experience, citing British Common Law as an example (Hayek 2011, 232-260). Derived from it was the contrivance known as the Magna Carta (236), which in time led to a contrivance he much admired, The Constitution of the United States (261-286) and the statement from which it sprang, The Declaration of Independence (530 n16). For political purposes, finally, he wasn’t above contriving a solution of his own (Boykin 2010, 22-27 “Hayek’s Ideal Constitution”).

While different in purpose from political institutions, those organized to educate the rising generations of a society are as worthy of the same consideration, if not more. At the apex of such institutions stand those engaged in higher education and advanced research (Hayek 2011, 498-516). Given the crescendo of criticism those serving US society currently face, over a raft of contentious issues, from diverse quarters, across a broad spectrum of opinion, a program is proposed to consider and resolve the following three issues:

  • the Purpose of such institutions;
  • the Governance Structure best suited to fulfill this Purpose; and
  • the Public Trust measures best suited to assure such Purpose and Governance Structure.

PURPOSE

To articulate the Purpose, a single colloquium by invitation is envisioned. Numbering 20 to 25 individuals concerned with this question, the participants would be drawn from a wide range of constituencies: current and former academics and administrators; prominent donors; and experienced trustees.

They would be asked to consider:

Having considered such materials, they would be expected to issue a preliminary declaration of Purpose.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

To recommend the Governance Structure, a series of three colloquia by invitation is envisioned, followed initially by a convention by invitation, then one open to the public, and finally, in conclusion, a second by invitation.

Numbering 20 to 25 individuals, as in the colloquium on Purpose, the participants in the three colloquia would be drawn from the same wide range of constituencies. Included now would be individuals concerned with both the Purpose of higher education institutions and the Governance Structure of them and equivalent institutions, organized for business, philanthropic, cultural, and religious purposes—and how such institutions are constituted.

In the initial three colloquia, participants would be asked to consider in sequence:

  • a selection of charters and state corporation laws governing higher education institutions, from their earliest founding in the Middle Ages (Berman 1983, 123-7) to those of the United States, ranging from Harvard(currently undergoing reorganization: Report of Governance Review Committee, Harvard Gazette Q&A, News Release, The Corporation’s 360-Year Tune-up, Faust Issues Call for Corporation Nominations); Dartmouth (its recent reorganization, resulting in alumni concern and concerted litigation); and Boston College (reorganized ~20 years ago) to the University of Virginia (currently subject to heavy cutbacks in State support); MIT and its sister land grant colleges of the 19th century; and such recently founded institutions as Strathmore University and Universidad Francisco Marroquin, to include the reflections of Harold J. Berman (Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition); Charles W. Eliot (University Administration); Michael Oakeshott (The Voice of Liberal Learning) and such other classic observers as: J. McKeen Cattell; Russell Kirk; A. Lawrence Lowell; and Thorstein Veblen;
  • a selection of readings on the origins of both higher education institutions (Berman 1983, 205-221, 237-9, 244-5) and those organized for political purposes (Lutz 1988; Nelson 2011; Pocock 2003), together with a selection of corporate charters and state incorporation laws governing corporations organized in contemporary times for business, philanthropic, cultural and religious purposes; and
  • a selection of studies, reports, and comments on the current practices and structures of higher education institutions, to include:
    • the ways governing boards are selected: alumni and other group elections; gubernatorial appointments; self-perpetuation;
    • the qualifications of the candidates considered: range of business and professional experience; prominent donors; academic achievement; constituencies represented, i.e. alumni, community representatives, parents of current students and recent graduates;
    • the personal issues faced: board training; decision-making transparency; liability and compensation;
    • the ways operating decisions are made: faculty appointments; curriculum policies; program options; funding options; campus affairs; student charges;

based on the work of such organizations as the American Association of Colleges and Universities; the American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, to include the reflections of Eric.D. Hirsch, Jr., (The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools), reviewed in City Journal; Louis Menand (The Marketplace of Ideas), reviewed in the WSJ, excerpted in Harvard Magazine under title: “The Ph.D. Problem”); Paul E. Peterson, (Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning); and such other contemporary observers of educational institutions at all levels as: Martin Anderson; Derek Bok; José Cabranes; Richard P. Chait; Stanley Fish; Robert George; Richard Huber; and Benno Schmidt.

At the conclusion of the three colloquia, a private convention of the participants is envisioned to draft a preliminary set of Governance Structure instruments, to consist of:

  • a model higher education charter/articles of incorporation and bylaws; and
  • a model state University Governance Corporation Act, comparable to the Model Business Corporation Act of the American Bar Association.

Envisioned then, is a convention open to the public to enable concerned individuals and representatives of higher education institutions to offer their input on and propose amendments to both the preliminary declaration of Purpose and the set of Governance Structure instruments.

Envisioned finally, is a second convention of the participants of the first convention to issue a definitive declaration of Purpose and set of Governance Structure instruments.

PUBLIC TRUST

To assure the Public Trust, a campaign of conferences, public meetings, and other forms of communication would then follow. It would include:

  • a call to the trustees of higher education institutions across the country to pledge to examine the Purpose and Governance Structure of their respective institutions;
  • the publication of essays and training manuals to inform them, the alumni of such institutions, public policymakers, and the general public seeking guidance on these two matters, comparable to the Federalist Papers; and
  • the sponsorship of conferences and public meetings to enable such individuals to assure such institutions are meeting the desired Purpose and have adopted a Governance Structure suited to it.

Imprinted on the collective mind of the society, thus, would be a “canon” from which the citizens of the society would draw to keep reinvigorating the purpose of its culture and the governance structures of its institutions. Ironically, that same “canon,” properly observed, would give higher education institutions a sturdy defense of their independence from outside political pressure.

______________________________

Footnote 1:

Arum, Richard, Roksa, Josipa. 2011, Academically Adrift, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bowen, William G., Chingos, Matthew M., McPherson, Michael S. 2011,  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Christensen, Clayton M., Horn, Michael B. “Colleges in Crisis,” Harvard Magazine (July-August 2011): 41-3.

Collini, Stefan. 2012, Kindle Edition: Penguin.

Folbre, Nancy. 2010, Saving State U: Why We Must Fix Public Higher Education,New York: New Press.

Ginsberg, Benjamin. 2011, The Fall of the Faculty, New York: Oxford University Press; WSJ review.

Grafton, Anthony. The New York Review of Books (November 24, 2011).

Gray, Hanna Holborn. 2011, Searching for Utopia: Universities and Their Histories, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hacker, Andrew, Dreifus, Claudia. 2010-2011, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hirsch, E. D. 2010, The Making of Americans: Democracy and Our Schools, New Haven: Yale University Press; City Journal review.

Klein, Joel I., Rice, Condoleeza (chairs). 2012, U.S. Education Reform and National Security, New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

Konnikova, Maria. The Big Idea (November 10, 2011, 12:16PM).

Kronman, Anthony T. 2008, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mansfield, Harvey C. “The Bradley Prize and a Critique of Harvard,” Harvard Magazine (5.19.11); “Have It Your Way,” WSJ (Nov 16, 2008): A18.

Menand, Louis. 2010, The Marketplace of Ideas, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., WSJreview; “The Ph.D. Problem,” Harvard Magazine (November-December 2009): 28-31,91.

Newfield, Christopher. 2011, Unmaking the Public University: The Forty-Year Assaulton the Middle Class, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nielsen, Michael. 2011, Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press, WSJ adaptation.

Peterson, Paul E. 2010, Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 2011, Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee, The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

Robinson, Marilynne, “Reclaiming a Sense of the Sacred,” The Chronicle Review (February 12, 2012).

Sommer, John W. (editor). 1994, Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Williams, Jeffery J. “Deconstructing Academe,” The Chronicle Review (February 19, 2012).

Footnote 2:

Culler, Arthur Dwight. 1955,The Imperial Intellect: A Study of Newman’s Educational Ideal, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1992, The Idea of the University: A Reexamination, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Scruton, Roger. “The Idea of a University,” The American Spectator (September 2010).

Turner, Frank M. (editor). 1996, The Idea of a University: John Henry Newman, New Have: Yale University Press.

References:

Barry, Norman. 1982, “The Tradition of Spontaneous Order,” Literature of Liberty. Vol. v, no. 2, pp. 7-58. Arlington, VA: Institute for Humane Studies.

Bellah, Robert N. et al. 1996, Habits of the Heart, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berman, Harold J. 1983, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boykin, Scott A. “Hayek on Spontaneous Order and Constitutional Design,” The Independent Review, 15, no. 1 (Summer 2010): 19-34.

von Hayek, Friedrich A. 2011, The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lutz, Donald S. 1988, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

Nelson, Eric. 2011, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pocock, John G.A. 2003, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stanley Stillman

Date:  15 May 2012