The Challenge of the Invisible Contract
The public has doubts.
Politicians are happy to provide answers.
That’s not good news for higher education leaders.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is getting a lot of ink, clicks, and political points by seeking to shake up higher education in his state by attacking “woke” universities and faculty, seeking to change tenure laws, preventing diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts, and installing a new board at a small state school that quickly fired one president and hired another in an attempt to turn it into Florida version of the conservative Hillsdale College.
The immediate reaction from the higher education community is that this threatens faculty academic freedom and institutional autonomy—two of the highest values in higher education.
Which, in this case, is probably true. However, faculty, academic leaders, and the influential American Association of University Professors cry academic freedom anytime a college or university seeks to change and institutional autonomy when the public seeks more accountability.
Crying wolf one too many times has hurt their cause.
DeSantis is not the first governor to influence higher education, nor will he be the last. He is just the most aggressive and vocal about it as he considers a presidential run.
While it is easy to dismiss that as part of the ranging culture war and naked political opportunism, it points to two larger issues.
Make it Better!
For first-generation students, students of color, and working adults, higher education is not designed for or welcoming to them; many conservatives see higher education as an arm of the Democratic party, and institutions don’t seem to care about price or student debt, among other complaints.
Reforms will be forced upon institutions through the political process if schools do not start doing a better job of responding to the public’s concerns.
Explaining to people that they are mistaken and, in fact, your college or university is great would not be a good place to start.
The Trust is Broken
The implied social contract between higher education and the public is broken.
When public colleges and universities were founded, the social contract was something like this, “We, the taxpayers, will give you money and leave you mostly to your own devices as long as you provide opportunities for our young people for careers that our community needs. And don’t charge too much.”
The understanding was that a community could not thrive without teachers, ministers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. The community created higher education institutions to serve the public by providing education to citizens.
As the needs of the community and the country grew, the mission of higher education adapted and grew, which began to include research.
The organizing principle was to produce needed professionals for the community.
However, over the years, colleges and universities have drifted away from this service as their main orientation to focus on self-preservation, furthering their interests, becoming the “academe,” status-seeking, and maintaining the status quo.
The way many colleges and universities (public and private) see the social contract is, “You give us money, you leave us alone, we know what we are doing—you don’t.”
And, of course, reserving the right to howl oversight on how they use tax dollars is excessive and burdensome.
Forgive me if I think that colleges and universities are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
Get Out in Front of It
The fight between incumbents and reformers to define a new social contract is underway.
Part of the debate will be around defining the role of a college or university and who gets to determine what that role is.
Right now, college administrators and faculty argue it is up to them to make that choice. Public institutions point to the legislation that enables them to operate and say they are within those parameters, “so what’s the problem?” Private colleges and universities think, “Hey, we are private. Leave us alone.”
Neither is a strong public position, as both types of institutions require generous government subsidies.
In an admittedly gross overgeneralization, the public mostly sees a college or a university as a credential-granting agency. Those credentials are needed to get a job.
Others would argue that a college or university needs to be a secular monastery. Like a national park, a college or university should be outside the demands and rhythms of a volatile market economy.
I would suggest, at their best, colleges and universities are both. Many do a good job balancing those demands.
Far too many do not, and they don’t seem to care.
Then again, maybe higher education will just be hated like airlines. People complain, but they still fly. What choice do they have?
“Hello, Governor DeSantis?”
A New Social Contract
I do think we need a new social contract.
As it turns out, I have one.
It would be along these lines:
In exchange for public money in the form of direct investment via the local, state, and federal governments in the form of grants, federally subsided student loans, and tax-free status; and in exchange for direct support and awards from individuals, philanthropies, professional organizations, and others; you will focus on 1) providing education opportunities for students that reflect state demographics; 2) meet the higher education needs of working adults, underserved populations, and first-generation college students, while keeping tuition reasonable; 3) serve the needs of the community through partnerships with k-12, other colleges and universities, business, and government agencies and; 4) public research universities should focus a significant portion to a majority of their research portfolio to addressing local and regional community challenges.
Basically, it focuses on students and service, FS2, if you prefer. The goal here is to bring the focus of higher education away from the academic arms race back to its intended purpose to meet the community's needs.
Now, you can drive a truck through, “reasonable,” “partnerships,” “significant to a majority,” and “community challenges.” How do you decide what those things even mean? How are they changed or adapted over the years? Or, worse, how do you measure it and hold people accountable to those standards?
Fair enough.
Anything more specific is not adaptable to changing needs; anything vaguer is worthless.
The particulars should be debated and decided upon between the public and higher education leaders on an institution-by-institution basis.
Agree or disagree with my proposal, have one of your own, or think that things are fine the way they are; the fight over a new social contract will be messy and long.
Sadly, as we desperately need change in higher education, incumbents and beneficiaries of the status quo —and there are many in higher education, business, nonprofits, and government—have the advantage.