I recently read an interesting book published more than forty-five years ago: The Idea of a Modern University. The volume contains the “fruits” of a two-day symposium held at Rockefeller University in February of 1972, organized by a group called UCRA (University Centers for Rational Alternatives). The book, conference and group are very much a product, or perhaps more accurately, a byproduct of their times.
Popular history categorizes the late 1960s and early 1970s as time of student protest and great experimentation at colleges and universities across the United States. It’s not an inaccurate description. By most accounts it was a period of significant change. It is important to realize, though, that change was neither championed nor supported across the higher education landscape. Academia has a larger and more inclusive tent than many realize. In periods of disruption, different voices and perspectives can sometimes coalesce into alternative views. The Idea of a Modern University is such an example.
As student protests in the 1960s roiled Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard, and other institutions, some faculty and administrators recognized reasons for student complaints and criticisms. For example, many believed that the curricula at institutions was rigid and did not fully reflect student interests. Students were often excluded from institutional decision-making processes at colleges. For many students and their supporters, the power and structure of higher education was complicit in unethical activities, such as the Vietnam War and suppressing student access. In addition, many questioned the university’s role in promoting civil rights for all citizens.
On the other hand, some faculty and administrators believed that the very integrity of higher education was under attack when students protested. These academicians worried that the university was imperiled and its independence undermined by calls for universal access, by demands for more topical relevance, and for efforts to open academic governance. They believed that the traditional role of a university, and the prerogatives and wisdom of the faculty, needed protection and affirmation. They worried that changes, sparked by student protests, would condone further extremism and violence.
Perhaps the most visible conservative group was created by Sidney
Hook. Joining him was Paul Kurtz and Miro Todorovich. Collectively they created UCRA, a voluntary organization. UCRA called for moderation in higher education and rejection of extremists and extremism. They sought to protect higher education from the “McCarthyism of the left.” Hook, a philosopher and public intellectual, was UCRA’s most influential member. A Marxist in his youth, Hook became a key anti-communist in academia and in the broader public sphere. Kurtz, the “father of secular humanism,” was a prolific philosopher who held numerous academic posts. Todorovich, a CUNY physics professor, was less well-known and a stalwart in UCRA for many years. UCRA promoted three key principles: a university must be committed to discussion and inquiry free from threats of violence or protests; any curtailment of that free inquiry is a threat to academic freedom; and the faculty must be consistently involved in the discussion and examination of new problems, issues and approaches.
By 1973 college campuses were calmer. Time Magazine noted then that UCRA had more than 3,000 members and that the organization played a key role in moderating student strikes and deciding what sort of protests colleges should permit. UCRA’s conferences and publications also reinforced traditional concepts like structured curricula. Hook argued that students did not have the knowledge or judgment to know what to study. He asserted that it was a university’s responsibility, led by the faculty, to promote values and priorities for students. This kind of approach was widely endorsed by the organization and its members.
The Idea of a Modern University opens a window to a time with different concerns and priorities. It gives a counter-narrative to the popular understanding of students running wild and higher education abandoning tradition. Many of the book’s contributors affirm rigor and academic standards. They voice worry about the decline of quality as higher education moved to increase access. More than a few contributors cite IQ statistics to emphasize that higher education cannot be for everyone. A recurring theme is the tension between the values promoted by the university and the values of democracy with a small “d.” The members of UCRA’s view is unapologetically elitist.
Some of the contributors note the poor ways in which universities are organized and governed, making higher education more susceptible to unwelcome influences. There is a common theme in many of the pieces that the true underlying values of a university are poorly understood and poorly communicated. These complaints probably sound familiar to many of us in higher education today. It is difficult to determine, though, if the symposium’s participants came together in a shared agreement on those values. What seemed to bind them is rejection of change and certainty in their wisdom.
A salient change, from the 1970s symposium to today, is the opening up the academy to student priorities. Current academic culture and practice prioritizes the student. That is antithetical to the way that UCRA believed higher education should operate.
There was great resistance, too, to affirmative action and attempts to diversity the faculty and staff in the 1972 symposium. Efforts by the federal government through Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) were viewed as grave threats to university values and academic freedom. One contributor reflected on the surprising increase in faculty unions. Another stressed ways that like-minded academicians could use the media to promote their views. On the whole, however, there is little evidence in the book of any deep interest in thinking through the business model of how universities are or could be funded, or of how universities might garner political support. The primary issues throughout The Idea of a Modern University are internal to academia and are examined through a philosophical lens.
One other fact about the symposium and book stood out to me – the tremendous lack of diversity when it comes to gender. All of the participants save two were men. There is no discussion in the book of expanding the cannon to women thinkers, of expanding the faculty or staff to more women, or even to considering any gender related issues. While the participants voice concerns about Black Studies and other “identity” subjects, they are indifferent or oblivious to issues of gender. If I were to think of most momentous changes in the past 45 years in higher education, I would put gender at the top of the list. More women have become faculty, staff and academic leaders. More women are attending and graduating from college. There is much more work to do – clearly – but the gains made across the higher education landscape when it comes to gender are momentous. The academy has been steadily making more and more progress understanding that inclusion has to be conscious of issues of gender and power.
The Idea of a Modern University is not a good book. The quality of the submissions varies widely. Some lack thoughtful content and feel as though they were quickly written in the moment. There’s nothing wrong with that, but one questions their inclusion in a book. They do, though, offer evidence of the range of participants at the symposium.
The book gives the reader important nuggets on how a few on the right envisioned a counter-attack to student protests and the democratization of higher education. Their arguments remain relevant today. The volume also makes clear that it’s very difficult to know whether or not today’s issues will matter in decades hence. Limiting participation exacerbates the challenges of forecasting. In contrast to the members of UCRA, I believe that inclusion in higher education is the way to proceed. If we invite many into the academy, to the table and into symposiums, people reflecting and representing a wide range of viewpoints, we will be in a better position to determine what will and will not not matter.
David Potash