Issue 27-70 "Clark Kerr on Education 4 of 5"

Any are the national educational radio network presents Clark current

on education. I am.

Not the cook is currently the chairman and executive director of the Carnegie Commission on the future of

higher education. And past president of the University of California.

These programs are based upon lectures delivered by Dr. Kerr on the Indiana University

campus under the auspices of the Patent Foundation.

Now tonight my topic is the actual struggle over power.

I want to suggest that we have this struggle because of the loss of consensus on

campus. I don't want to set forth briefly

what are the peculiar features of our system of governance.

To indicate the pressures to change our system and then

to show I think what are the inherent

difficulties in change the inherent difficulties in trying to work out a theory

about how the campus should be governed. Because the problem is almost

impossibly complex in theory and it's difficult in practice.

Then I should like to suggest an approaching very complex

problem of governance that it's worth taking a look at functions and what can functions

indicate about governance and then turn to the question of what are the

alternatives really before us and set forth these alternatives.

A continuing slow decay of governance on our campuses. An

effort at suppression of the difficulties an

undertaking as there are some suggestions now here and in other

countries of desegregating are great universities and a

smaller component parts and then fourth a possibility of

building a new consensus as a basis for better governance

and we have by and large to do. And if we choose a new consensus some

suggestions I'd like to make as to how we might achieve it.

Turning now to the struggle over power.

She'd like to know that struggle is overpowering. Apparently very

difficult as compared with struggles over interests

which are much more likely to be subject to compromise. You talk about

power you tend to talk about principles you tend to talk about ideology.

You tend to think about exclusive power

and so it's difficult to handle I've seen this in the field of industrial

ations.

I saw something the developments in the 1930s as the trade unions came along

and began challenging management. It was often easy to settle the

money issues but extremely difficult to settle the issues

over management derogative it was and the rights of the trade unions.

And now in higher education we are moving from a period of debates and

struggles over interests to one over power. And it would be

expected that this would be a difficult period.

Now this is not the first struggle of our power in the history of Hargett case in the United States.

There was a major struggle after the Civil War when strong presidents came along

and gave leadership to the new universities as against the classical

colleges. The resent kind of a counter reaction after

World War 1 when faculties began seizing power back

from the strong presidents and then the other struggle which has been going on for more

than a century as a continuing struggle of students against in local

paratus. And we're seeing today the last remnants of that

particular struggle. But this new struggle this current one is I think

the most difficult one of all. And I think

we're having it particularly because the consensus which we've

had on the campus for about half a century consensus over what

we do and how it is done has been impaired and in some

cases ruptured. And why have we lost this sense of

consensus to begin with.

We've lost the sense of consensus in the surrounding society

and the disturbances in the surrounding society come in and help to break the consensus on the

campus.

Beyond that and more directly related to the campus

we're having more and more external authorities come in and

exercise their will over the campus. So rather than

being a academic enclave living largely to

itself and now finds more and more federal agencies and state

agencies and even community agencies wishing to exercise

influence or control. And so it becomes difficult for the

campus or two to expand the consensus of the campus to include

all these other elements than are involved in governance in

very sometimes and very detailed ways. Beyond that

we have the students becoming more activist than ever before in the past they

wanted to run extra curricular activities and now they wish to

enter the inner sanctum and help run the entire

university.

But I think something else has happened. For some the

students at least if one looks at student on rest historically

generally you'll find that the students were accepting the values of the

campus whether in Russia or Germany or Latin

America but they were challenging the values of the

surrounding society.

They thought the campus had high values in the surroundings society

today for the first time on a large scale. Students are

chanting challenging the values of the campus itself.

And then for the faculty is becoming divided

about the nature and purpose of the campus

almost as never before with a

growth of the descending Academy about which I talked last time

as against the older a view of objectivity for the

professor an independent action.

Now just very briefly on the nature of the system that

has come along historically in the United States and I'll just list what

I think are the major characteristics of our system I won't give you the reasons why they developed I think were

good reasons for each one. But there are four distinguishing

characteristics of our governance system in this country. First of

all the importance of the Board of Trustees boards of trustees or

regents are almost unknown around the world. Something similar

exists in a few countries and nowhere else are boards of

trustees so important. Second the

president in the United States or the chancellor the head of the campus

of the university has a good deal more authority than is true of

counterparts around the world vice chancellors in the British system or Rector's in Latin

America and France etc.. Third we have integrated

campuses which is not true all around the world. Our

campuses tend to be much more integrated physically and academically

in some countries as in France the really the University of Paris is

broken up into faculties are hardly can be said to be a University of Paris

Oxford in Cambridge and some of the other British universities are broken into colleges

in countries like Germany and Japan what is really important is the chair of the

the full professor holds the one chair in that particular field and the

campus is really a series of chairs quite independent from each other.

There was a time when a student from Oxford or Cambridge would be

asked what college he went to not what university he went to.

In France you'd be asked what faculty did you study in. In Germany

the question was Who was your professor. The United

States. What was your campus. We have a more integrated campus than elsewhere

and then for that we have more influence from external but

non-governmental forces than anyplace else from alumni

representatives of agriculture and industry and so forth.

Now most places around the world. Higher education is either run by the

government as in Russia and to a lesser extent in France

or by the faculty as in Oxford and Cambridge before the growing power

of the university grants committee or by the government and the

faculty somehow together as in Germany. So our

system is a peculiar one. Now when the pressures to

change governments and some of these pressures are quite contrary

from the States there is pressure for a much more advanced planning than ever

before for more central coordination

advance planning is hard for faculties to undertake generally to react better to our current

problem than they do looking 10 or 20 or 40 years ahead.

And it also means central coordination that the campus has less of its autonomy.

The federal government coming in as we've talked about before one quarter of all

the money now from Washington and higher education has had to be

reorganized to deal with the federal government.

The students demanding participation and faculties in

the lesser institutions not the great ones also demanding

more authority in the course of these pressures from these terrible sources. There

has been a clear loss of authority to trustees and to

administrate Horace particularly presidents. There is also I think for a

faculties have been strong as at the great universities some loss of

authority for the organized faculty know what some notions

can there be and what theory can one follow about solutions.

I'd like to suggest that the university campus is more complicated

in terms of governance than any other institution

I think known to man at least known to me. There are all these

different forms we see on a campus and one at the same time

parts of a campus are run like a guild where the

master is the professors train the apprentices the students

and many faculty members while they wouldn't use the term guild to look upon

themselves as masters of medieval guilds.

The campus isn't part run like a marketplace. Students choose the

campus to which they want to go within the campus they choose the courses they

want and the professors they'd like to take.

It's a market. The campus in part as a

representative democracy. There are places where the rule of one man

one vote holds the campus is also

a kind of free anarchic society where in many

many areas of contact of Conduct people do just as they please

without any rules at all. It's also a collective

bargaining situation not only formally when trade unions come

in but in a way there is a lot of collective bargaining all the time a

department chairman and deans in a way are the business agents for

the groups they represent. A capice is also made up of a

series of independent entrepreneurs

running their own businesses getting their own projects out of Washington or a

foundation having their consultancies writing their

textbooks for sale. The campus in some regard is

a corporation with property and investments and a permanent

life. The campus is also a bureaucracy

with rules to be enforced and applied equally to all

the campus is also in no way an agent of the state or it is a state supported

campus that uses state money and it provides services to

many elements within the state. So what's all these things and some

more and how do you put them together in a sensible way when

all of a sudden governance is a challenge. So

you look then for an organizing principle among all these forms and what

isn't.

I do not believe that any one form of governance can be

dominant on a university campus in this mixed and confusing situation.

I think what we have to have is what we've had in the past. A mixed form of

governance rather than one clear cut solution. And then the

question comes up what kind of a mixture. And I'd like to

suggest two ways of looking at this question one by taking a

look at functions and then second what seems to work elsewhere

on the functional approach.

I'd like to say that I think of when you started working with the

actual problems of governance. That the best way to go

out it is to take each of the many functions of the campus

break them down into their component parts and then see who has a legitimate

interest in this function and who has real competence

to make decisions about it and go out in a very pragmatic way.

I think the approach in France saying that the student should have one half of

everything is just absolutely wrong. And the coming

approach in Germany to give them one third of everything make them more

pragmatic lawyers to say in some areas students ought to have 100 percent and

perhaps some other places zero. And I believe if one goes at it

not from an ideological point of view but rather from this functional point

of view it's possible as is proving true in some campuses around the nation

to reach agreements area by area which fit that particular moment

of time. And out of looking at all of this

I come up with these two major suggestions. I'm

quite convinced that students need to be more involved in the

governance of the campus and particularly in two areas

one in the development of the curriculum at the departmental level.

They certainly have great interest and they have some competence

and second in the development of the community life of the campus

and some campuses have almost no community life at all developing the

kind helping to develop the kind of community in which they wish to live. And some of the most

important years of their lives. And then the second

suggestion I have is this that about governance that

we have on most of our campuses. No place to get together.

Representatives of all the major segments to talk about the most important

problems and I'd like to see they're established

on a good many campuses at least advisory councils and I

underline the word advisory composed of students

faculty and administrators Trustees and Alumni to

talk about things which are of concern to all of them.

Like rules on dissent to make rules on dissent work effectively.

I think it takes a good deal of discussion within the total community on

institutional autonomy how much should be kept and how much given up

on a question like the continuity and integrity of operations.

What's the position of the whole community on keeping classes

going and the work of the university going against destructive efforts.

Or the question of governance itself. Who should have what

authority. It seems to me whether governance now in

dispute that there needs to be some kind of a council

for these major matters can be discussed not turning then to

the alternatives with which we're faced. One is continue to decay

and we now have somebody Kay. Unrest and dissension on

campus about governance as well as other matters. We have not gone as far as in

Japan. I don't think we will but one third

of all the universities in Japan today are either totally are

largely closed including the two most famous the

great imperial universities of Tokyo and Kioto.

A second is suppression of dissent of the policy followed at

San Francisco State where you centralize authority

in order to fight internal opponents. The

third is to desegregate the university. This is being

discussed. Some of the United States. A good deal of discussion in France at the

present time point out the research institutes pulled out the

service bureaus pulled out the professional schools fast

pulled out the residence halls and the bookstores keep them all in the same

area but gave each one a separate form of governance.

So if there's trouble that's more likely to be confined in one place and not

spread throughout the institution and also by it also by

disaggregating it you've got yourself a simpler problem of governance

and you can work out more specific forms. The fourth

possibility is to get a new consensus and I'd like to turn to that and

for just a few moments now and indicate what I think are

some directions of possible movement if we

are going to try to get a new consensus on the campus.

First I think we ought to give careful consideration to advisory

councils bringing in all major elements of a campus

to be concerned with a policy of policies about matters of universal

interest. I think out of that we might get a new consensus.

I think also as I just said that students ought to be brought into

governance more where they have an interest and competence. I feel

that student government should be strengthened in every possible way. So there is a

chance to get a majority view of the students a considered majority view

as well as minority confrontations. I feel

that for the sake of governance and the whole university we have to

protect our corporate political neutrality otherwise the university

will be torn apart inside and outside.

I think we should accept. The British pattern

of dealing with staff associations where they're organized and I

know this is becoming a problem on many campuses in the United States where their staff

associations to bargain about salaries and conditions.

I think that we should accept the rise of these staff associations. We wanted to

undertake bargaining with them. I don't see how the campus can

be exempt from collective bargaining when it spreads throughout all the rest of

society. I would say however that his staff

associations come in every effort ought to be made not to

reduce the academic authority of the faculty sentence

next. I think it's important to retain the

authority of the president or the Chancellor of the campus.

And for this reason we're going through a period of change rapid changes after

the Civil War. If that changes to be successful

it's going to take strong executive leadership

in the academic world. If you look at history almost

all the successful changes have come about with

executive leadership. Without it they die. These

changes die in committees and squabbles back and forth. And

so if we need changes I think we have to have executive leadership

and know that some of you may be quite opposed to this idea. I

also think that the style of presidents needs to change somewhat.

They have in recent times with the emphasis upon dealing in the state capital and in

Washington and foundations and so forth intended for

the president to handle the external relations and they have the internal

relations to deans and vice presidents. I think

presidents and the current situation need to turn their attention to the

internal problems of the campus become more visible on the

campus and they need to become more like mayors

and less like the corporation heads which a good many of them tended

to become. Beyond that I think we need to

create mechanisms for fast action

fast consultation on campus to meet confrontations

which won't wait. Beyond that I think we have to turn our

back clearly on violence as a matter of the policy

of the academic community but to make that effective.

I think there have to be academic penalties put on people

who undertake violence. Violence is not going to be sustained on the

American campus. It's either going to be handled

reduced internally with academic penalties or campus after

campus as happened to the University of California Berkeley last

spring is going to be turned over to the politicians and the police to

run. Next I think we

need to pour a lot more resources into the undergraduate students as in

Britain and particularly to lower division students.

That's where you have the most dissatisfaction the highest dropout

rate. And it's significant that in every study I've seen of student unrest

and dissent that it is the new students just coming in and feeling

neglected. Who are the ones who are most active in dissent against the university.

I think sometimes with good reason we tend to neglect them until they're far down the

road. We ought to be out there welcoming in them and giving them our best

service. I think we ought to consciously try to create as many options as possible

for students. On the big campuses cluster colleges as

diverse as possible a variety of academic programs so they can

choose among a variety of living arrangements

opportunities for them to drop in and drop out. And then I think we have to

give more attention and we have to size that had not become too

excessive to rate our growth and not be too traumatic

to internal structure that and not be too monolithic and

faced with confrontation. I think one answer is decentralization

with the centralization you can have faster action and also more progress

more pragmatic action with heavy centralization.

There are delays and matters tend to become more matters of ideology

and then beyond that I think we have to be more concerned with protecting and this is

my final point. We're preserving the

autonomy of the campus the academic world has been organized through the

American Association of University Professors to a lesser extent through the American

Civil Liberties Union to protect the freedom of the individual

professor from the domination by the trustees and by the president.

But that's not where the problems are anymore.

It seems to me there are greater problems now lie in the reduction of the

autonomy and integrity of the campus to external authority

and the introduction of violence and coercion and

sometimes undue dominance within it seems to me

that the AUP and the ACLU with their long

experience their high status ought to undertake some newer

obligations to draw the new lines necessary to

protect the campus from the new types of external and internal

attacks. And it seems to me that they could perform an

immense service to higher education by turning their attention in these directions.

Now let me say in conclusion and I'm all for better governance.

I don't want to suggest that having better governance on the campus is going to assure trend quality.

We live in a troubled society and so long as it's troubled the campus is going to be troubled.

But it seems to me that with better governance the problems which are inevitable and after

all dissent is not only inevitable but desirable. The problem is what you

rise with are going to be easier to handle with better governance.

They won't be so destructive they won't spread so rapidly through the

entire institution and thus they will not leave so often to

outside interference. But even at the best I

think we have to expect that kept us for a very long time to come

to be the major center of dissent and unrest in American society.

Clark around education is a series of programs based upon lectures delivered on the Bloomington

topis of Indiana University under the auspices of the Patent Foundation.

Clocker on education was produced by Carl Hirsch for WFIU radio

service of Indiana University.

This is NPR. The national educational radio network.