Body and soul: the changing face of higher education

Tuesday March 24, 2009

Universities are failing in their duty to defend individual freedom and are becoming more like schools, says Dennis Hayes

Universities are not schools. Universities exist to pursue knowledge and understanding without fear or favour. Whether that is about the transmission of knowledge to new students, or the pursuit of new knowledge, it is their sole purpose.

Nowadays, universities’ websites list a whole series of social and political aims as part of their ‘mission’, and many omit the pursuit of knowledge altogether.

Some universities have always compromised their role by having, for example, a Christian ‘mission’. They pursued and protected souls through chaplaincies but, in reality, they imposed few if any values on students. In many such institutions there are continuing debates about the meaning and values of Christian ‘mission’ today.

If church universities have lost their way in times when traditional identities are fragile, it is not surprising that those without the supposed certainty of God, and that no longer have a secure belief in the pursuit of knowledge, are even more confused about their role.

Interference

Under New Labour’s political interference they have incorporated the political values of the last twelve years with enthusiasm. Universities now seek to be socially inclusive, green, sustainable, healthy, sober and safe places. To put it another way, universities are more like schools.

I am not normally sympathetic to the problems of university managers but they have a uniquely difficult job. The freedom of academics must seem to managers to be tantamount to anarchy in university life. They are required to employ free thinkers and free actors who undermine any imposed authority and not only in their narrow subject areas. Life is very difficult for administrators who have no source of moral authority other than those that support the pursuit of knowledge.

But their traditional petty authoritarianism has been given moral authority by the New Labour political values they espouse in their mission statements and the contemporary enthusiasm for banning anything you dislike or disagree with. If there is one clear legacy of New Labour that will continue even with a Conservative government it is a readiness to ban.

No matter how much individuals disliked smoking or smoke-filled rooms and bars, more should have been done to defend the rights of smokers – not least by smokers themselves – because the universal prohibition of smoking was the gateway and precursor of what will be ban after ban.

Prohibitions

GM foods, fast food and burgers, food that is not ‘fairtrade’, drinking, using and parking your car, and flying abroad are all present or future targets of university prohibitions and restrictions. The illusion we might have is that these are merely workplace restrictions but an email to staff from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Westminster opens up the possibility of more intrusive prohibitions.

Here is an extract from the Vice-Chancellor’s missive:

“The number of complaints regarding smoking outside University buildings is on the rise. Many people dislike having to breathe in smoke as they enter and exit University buildings, and the waste some smokers leave behind is becoming increasingly unsightly. With space at a premium, particularly in the West End, provision of smoking shelters and other such facilities is almost impossible – however, this is being investigated.

“In the meantime, I must remind staff that smoking outside the entrances to University buildings is unpleasant, unsightly, and unhealthy. It also damages the surrounding community’s perception of the University. I also ask all staff who encounter anyone ignoring ‘no smoking’ signs to point out the signs and politely request that they move on, as this is an issue we can only solve together. If you are a smoker and would like help quitting, the University regularly advertises support sessions and the NHS Smokefree service is also there to help.

“Graffiti: a small number of incidents of intolerant graffiti have come to light in recent weeks. I would like to nip this in the bud, and if you encounter anyone defacing the University, please do not turn a blind eye – call the University’s security team, and if you can identify the individual let the relevant Dean know’.”

Argument

The argument that ‘we can only solve this together’ whether smoking or ‘intolerant’ graffiti sounds collegiate but what has this to do with university life? It’s like asking school children to police litter dropping, or their parents’ smoking habits. Such requests to support ‘common’ values are not unique to Westminster, but occur daily in higher education.

In a thousand small ways new values are becoming more evident on campus than those that should be there. VCs should forget smoking, junk food and ‘sustainability’ and start defending core values such as academic freedom.

Memos and emails from VCs in defence of academic freedom do not appear to exist. If anyone knows of one I’m happy to receive it and will celebrate it! Interestingly, not a single VC has supported the AFAF statement of academic freedom, which is telling, although, after the recent round of VC ‘resignations’, I think they should rethink their indifference!

Snitches

Before anyone snitches on smokers and is intolerant with the intolerant they should consider where ‘working together’ in this way might go. Snitching on smokers in the streets, or at home? Many universities have health service contracts and it might be a future consideration not to offend the ‘health service community.’ What of intolerant views expressed in from of students in pubs and bars?

The GTCE has already suggested that teachers should be role models 24/7. Why should academics be allowed to be irresponsible? It may only be a matter of time before we see the 24/7 lecturer. Having forgotten their core value universities will drift towards being schools for grown-ups and academics will drift to being more like schoolteachers.

What academics have to learn, if they are not to end up as snitches, is to defend the civil rights of people whether we like what they do or not. It’s hard, but being an academic makes you a special sort of citizen, with a duty to defend academic freedom and free speech and every other freedom you can.

If academics, whose job embodies the freedom of intellectual inquiry, fail in their duty to defend other freedoms, then there is little hope for the rest of society.

Dennis Hayes is the founder of Academics For Academic Freedom (www.afaf.org.uk)