the pilcrow press: The university's point

Cross posted at Political Arguments.

Michael Green, of the University of Chicago Philosophy faculty, has posted a pointed retort to David Brooks's book review-cum-diatribe against universities, which appeared in today's New York Times. Since Green doesn't seem to have permanent links to his posts, I will quote it in toto.

more...

There's just no pleasing people

Was it so long ago that universities were criticized because of their hectoring, moralistic, "politically correct" attitudes?

Now they say we don't teach morality enough.
Highly educated young people are tutored, taught and monitored in all aspects of their lives, except the most important, which is character building. When it comes to this, most universities leave them alone. And they find themselves in a world of unprecedented ambiguity, where it's not clear if you're going out with the person you're having sex with, where it's not clear if anything can be said to be absolutely true.

In other words, we have constructed this great apparatus to fill their minds - with thousands of Ph.D.'s ready to serve. But when it comes to courage, which is the pre-eminent virtue since without it nothing else lasts, we often leave them with the gnawing sense that they really should develop it, though God knows how.

I'm going to pass on the assumption that the most important character traits are linked with sexuality, much less that courage is.

Universities, if they are doing a good job, do teach important character traits, but it's by example rather than by the book. Employees of universities do well if they are open-minded, honest, charitable towards those who disagree with them, sincere about what they believe, and, above all, accurate in their beliefs. Bernard Williams called these the virtues of truth. Well, he called the last two the virtues of truth; I suspect he would say that the others are related to the way we understand the value of truth in our historical circumstances.

Courage is related to the virtues of truth. One must be willing to say what one believes, even if it is unpopular. And one must be willing to abandon beliefs that are not true, even if doing so comes at a high personal cost. But the overlap is only partial.

Students looking to build character traits by observing us should not count on much more than that. Nor should parents, novelists, or op-ed writers.

If they do want more, they're going to get the values held by those who prize the virtues of truth above most other things. And I'm afraid that we tend to think that the range of choices that count as private and not subject even to informal social regulation is significantly broader than they might like. It's an interesting question why that is so. But there's little point in fighting it.

To return to my original question, I think that some of what is going on here is a tussle over "morality." Some people find the attitudes underlying traditional gender roles immoral; others think the opposite. Why both sides come crashing down on sexuality is a good question. (Well, race is usually tossed in there too by the campus left). But it's contentious to say that universities don't teach morality when what you really mean is that they don't teach the moral code that you accept.

Finally, there is a sense in which I agree with both criticisms of the culture in universities: it is overly moralistic in some realms and overly lax in others. I myself don't tend to describe the second problem as one of morality, but I recognize that others do. I don't find their usage objectionable, though I do find it different. I wonder how we move forward from here.

The exchange reminds me of several columns written by Stanley Fish for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Fish's message is in line with Max Weber's "Science as a Vocation"; the academic virtues and the political virtues are distinct, and the role of an academic qua scholar is not to use the classroom as a pulpit, but to research, publish, and instruct. Likewise, the University's role is to produce academic knowledge, not to indoctrinate its students in the "civic virtues", whatever those might be.

The corporate world looks to the university for its work force. Parents want the university to pick up the baton they may have dropped. Students demand that the university support the political cause of the moment. Conservatives believe that the university should refurbish and preserve the traditions of the past. Liberals and progressives would like to see those same traditions dismantled and replaced by better ones. Alumni wonder why the athletics teams aren't winning more. Politicians and trustees wonder why the professors aren't teaching more.

Each of these lobbies has its point, but it is not the university's point, which is, quite simply to produce and disseminate (through teaching and publication) academic knowledge and to train those who will take up that task in the future.

To the extent that a university falls away from this mission and allows nonacademic constituencies (some of which may be residing in its own buildings) to call its tune, it will compromise its integrity and forfeit the respect even of those who succeed in bending it to their wishes.

Stanley Fish, "The Same Old Song", The Chronicle of Higher Education (11 July 2003)

If you or your institution has a subscription to the Chronicle I encourage you to read these pieces.