Columbia University has had some bumpy patches lately to say
the least. Specifically they seem to focus on its identity as a University as a
center of “free speech” rather than an instruction of learning. Is Columbia nothing
more than a site for unfettered protests against whatever is the current mode,
or is it an entity for education, and education in such matters that are
meaningful and productive for the advancement of humanity? So let’s start with
the question; what is a University? I use Newman’s definition to start[1]:
The view taken of a University in these Discourses is the
following:—That it is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies
that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral; and, on the
other, that it is the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the
advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do
not see why a University should have students; if religious training, I do not
see how it can be the seat of literature and science.
This definition, now some hundred years old, is highly
defective in today’s world. For an essential element of a University is the
extension of knowledge. It is not simple the reiteration of what is known, but
the extension of what can be known. Thus science is itself an unending search
for new understanding. It is often done in some form of dialectic, an
intellectual battle over understanding. One need only look at the discovery of
DNA and its functions as the source of life. At the same time as Watson and
Crick had been working on their world view of DNA as an agent, many others
looked towards proteins, not the messy side substance of DNA. Without the
intellectual battles we would not have science. The universities are excellent intellectual
battle grounds for such developments. Yet one must remember that they are not
the sole keepers of such a process. In fact the “amateur”, those outside the
hallowed walls of the university, contribute often equally if not more so. One
need look no farther than Einstein and his marvelous year of 1905.
Thus a University must deal with the past, present , and
future. It must take the past and understand it and explain it to students. It
must take the present and interpret it for its strengths and weaknesses. It
must also prepare for the future by extending the present, through research and
educating the next generation. Oftentimes the key process that a University
must engender is the ability to ask the right question. For many advancements
were based upon the asking of the right question.
How does this set of understandings impact the current state
of instability at Columbia. I will try to place this in some person historical
context as a means to best demonstrate a person metric for my opinion. Over the
past sixty five years I have had a mixed set of relations with Columbia
University. Some good, some not so good. But my personal experience in a sense
provides for a glimpse at its seeds of destruction as well as seed for
regrowth.
In 1960 I applied to Columbia to study Mathematics. I
received a four page single space letter from Dean Donald Barr, father of the
former Attorney William Barr. The Dean wrote that I should consider
alternatives since I was Catholic and Columbia was not a place for Catholics.
Specifically it would challenge my beliefs and make my university experience
too challenging. Fortunately MIT did not ask about my religion. MIT only looked
at my NY State Regents scores, my SATs, and that was that. I suspect I would not
be allowed into MIT today due to not being Catholic but my gender and race
delimits my chances. Not to mention my current age.
I explored Columbia and read many books by Prof Hofstadter
who was in the History Department at Columbia in the 30s to 60s. Hofstadter was
a belligerent anti-Catholic, his writing boil with his vitriolic views of the
religion and its adherents. I could see why being a Catholic would disqualify
be in the eyes of the faculty. Columbia was a rats nest of Communists in the
30s and yet strangely became a center for Naval Officers training in the 40s. All
one need do is read William Barrett’s book, The Truants, to see the 30s and the
Communist intrigues.
In the mid-60s, Fall of 1964, I was asked by some friends to
go down to Columbia to an anti-War protest. Since I was on my way home anyhow I
went but getting near the campus the rioting was extreme. My first thought was
that I may get arrested by my father who was on the NY Police force, not
something I wanted so I got on the subway and went home. But the rioting and
anger was visceral, one could fell it. I gathered this was a first for Columbia
and they could not handle it well.
In the early 90s I was asked to join the Faculty of the
Business School for a year and as a Visiting Professor I taught courses. It was
a peaceful period and the campus was open and free flowing. The students were
in my opinion somewhat marginal, but then again I was experienced in MIT EECS
students, intellectually many levels above these business students.
In the last decade I have been on some advisory boards at
the Columbia’s Medical Center. A different world located in a different place.
My peers were all successful and well respected individuals and we were apart
from the campus. The Medical campus is up at 168th St whereas the University
one is down at 121st St. A world of difference. Medicine, like
science and engineering, have end products. The health of the patient, the
validity of the experiment, the stability of a bridge. There may be debates as
to how best care for a patient, but the end point is patient recovery, not some
ethereal debating club.
Thus my sixty five year journey in and around Columbia has
provided me a window on understanding some of its inherent weaknesses. Or
possibly its fatal flaws. Much of these weaknesses are of its own making. But I
have seen the good and bad at Columbia. The good in its providing essential
health services to those in need. The bad, allowing students, faculty, and
third parties a battle field to assert their threats and attacks on their
selected enemies.
Now Columbia has had a long history of extreme left wing
politics. Allowing riots on campus, and even facilitating outright hostile
prejudice to certain classes of people. The current problems at Columbia are
not new but in my opinion merely an extension of its long culture of social
extremism. But the problems can be mitigated if not totally avoided by good
leadership. Thus my personal journey through Columbia let me see what happens
with weak if not just down right incompetent leadership. Leadership starts at
the top.
This then begs the question; what is the function of the
President? Secondly; what is the function of the Federal Government. Clearly if
the Federal Government had no presence on campus, meaning had no funding of the
work, and the Federal Laws were inapplicable, then the Government would have to
stand aside and allow local authorities deal with issues. Yet over the past
eighty some years the Universities has become more reliant on the Federal
Government to the extent that if there were no funding then there would be no
University. Part of that reason is that Universities in general have exploded
in Administrative overhead. Thus the Federal Government can elicit forms of
control as a quid pro quo. It is hardly unexpected. In fact most large
universities have Washington DC offices as well as lobbyists. Thus it cannot be
said that they fail to grasp the concern.
The other issue is; what is the function of a President of a
university. In my opinion and in my experience the President has three
functions. First, raise money! That means keeping donors, mostly alumni/ae
happy. Second make sure the university stays in good stead with research
funders such as Government and industry. The key element here is not to bite
the hand that feeds you. Keep the Government and industry happy. Third, tuition
and education. Here the interest is to make the product that the buyers are
willing to pay for. Namely an education that benefits them in life and en
environment conducive to a successful learning experience. That means a safe
and supportive campus environment and courses that will benefit the student in
our society.
For the most part, Presidents are focused outwards They must
in many ways be neutral, but provide leadership, reflect the values of the
institution. The latter means in my experience that Presidents must understand
deeply their institution. In my experience at MIT the best President were
individuals who had spent their career at the Institute. The poorest ones were
outside hires who were in many ways clueless about the Institute and its ways.
I see that this applies broadly to many universities.
The President must focus on the three sources of revenue.
Failure to do so means a collapse in the near term. Moreover the President
cannot be run amok by the faculty or politically motivated third parties. The
Faculty is there to teach, not proselytize. In the NY Times the writer notes[2]:
A spokeswoman for the Department
of Education, one of three federal agencies named in the letter to Columbia,
did not respond to questions about the rationale for the receivership. In a
letter to the university on Wednesday, Columbia’s interim president, …, seemed
to acknowledge the growing concern over how the school might respond.
“Legitimate questions about our practices and progress can be asked, and we
will answer them,” … wrote. “But we
will never compromise our values of pedagogical independence, our commitment to
academic freedom or our obligation to follow the law.”
One should ask what does pedagogical independence mean? Does
it mean that the Faculty can do whatever they want? Does that conflict with the
duties of a President. If it aggravates the alumni, the funders, and if it creates
a hostile environment at the university, then what? The Faculty are employees
of the university. They are not the owners, they are not the management. They
are there to provide a useful education to the students. Academic freedom is
just a crutch for pedagogical independence. The faculty have a duty of care, to
educate in a safe, non-hostile, and open environment. The faculty provides a
service. They are paid for that service. A mechanical engineering professor is
obliged to teach that subject, to perform research in that area. If the
professor has certain political views, then there is a time and place for that,
not so as to interfere with the students, AKA the customer. If an oncology
attending is dealing with residents, then the focus is on oncology not some
social imperative.
In summary, a President of a University has affirmative duties
to a wide audience, not just to the Faculty. The Faculty has a duty to the
University and to the students. But recent events seems to indicate that at
Columbia there may be second thoughts[3].
Specifically as noted in the Times:
Columbia’s interim president, …,
said in a letter Friday afternoon that the university’s response was part of
its effort to “make every student, faculty and staff member safe and welcome on
our campus.” “The way Columbia and Columbians have been portrayed is hard to
reckon with,” Dr. Armstrong said. “We have challenges, yes, but they do not
define us.” She added: At all times, we
are guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open
inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make.”
It is not clear that these words are fully understood. Perhaps it requires the stick before the carrot. But the issue of academic freedom and free speech should not exclude safety and be of equal merit for any speaker.
Posts
