The integrity of universities

There’s a very interesting (in my opinion) article by George Monbiot in the Guardian today. The article is called Oxford University won’t take funding from tobacco companies, but Shell’s OK. The basic premise is that universities should be acting for the common good, or as George Monbiot puts it

the need for a disinterested class of intellectuals which acts as a counterweight to prevailing mores.

I have to say that I agree completely with this. It has always surprised me how disinterested UK academics can be. I had always assumed that university academics had a role to play in defining what is acceptable in our societies. They are meant to be the intellectual members of our society; the people who think. If academics are reluctant to be involved in this, then who else is going to do it? This isn’t to say that everyone should bow to the views of academics, simply that academics should feel free to question what is accepted in our societies.

There are probably many reasons why UK academics are reluctant to engage in discussions about our society. One may simply be that academics have become very focused. They see themselves as experts in quite specific areas and so don’t see it as appropriate to engage in areas outside their expertise. There is some merit to this, but it is a bit disappointing – in my opinion. Another may be that there is now quite a lot of pressure on academics. Universities have become very bureaucratic and there is quite a strong publish-or-perish attitude. Academics don’t have much spare time to contemplate the merits – or lack thereof – of our societal mores. Universities have also become much more like businesses. The goal is to maximise teaching and research income and, hence, academics are discouraged from doing anything that doesn’t enhance a university’s ability to generate income.

Personally, I think the latter is the main reason why universities (in the UK) are no longer hotbeds of dissent. We are publicly funded and hence need to do what is expected of us. I’m often very critical, for example, of the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) and even though most seem to agree, the typical response is “we just have to do this”. Well, yes, but do we have to do it happily. If we think it is damaging what we regard as strengths of the UK Higher Education system, shouldn’t we be making it clear that we’re doing it under duress. There’s also this view that we have to do what is best for UK PLC (i.e., what will best help economic growth in the UK). In a sense, I agree with this. What I disagree with is how we’re influenced to do this. University research has, for many decades, had a very positive impact on economic growth. However, this didn’t happen because politicians told universities to do this. It’s because people recognised the significance of some piece of research and used it to develop something that had economic value. It’s also largely unpredictable. It’s certainly my view that telling us to start predicting the economic benefit of our research will do more harm than good.

The final thing I was going to say regards the main thrust of George Monbiot’s article. If there is increasing evidence that global warming is happening (as there is) and if there is evidence that such warming could lead to life-threatening climate change, shouldn’t the universities where this research is taking place act as though it’s important. Maybe universities shouldn’t be accepting funding from oil companies, if their own research indicates that we should significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels. I have heard some argue that we shouldn’t worry about the provenance of our funding as we’ll typically do good things with whatever money we can get. I think this is naive. The idea that one can take funding from oil companies without being influenced by the source of this funding seems highly unlikely.


8 thoughts on “The integrity of universities

  1. I have been wondering for some time, whether it would be an idea to fund universities by lotteries (not that I am a big fan of lotteries, but they are quite popular so eliminating them would be out of question). By doing so there will be some distance between academia and the government and also between academia and corporate interests.

    • I’d never thought of that. I guess my current view is that the political class no longer see themselves as public servants. They’ve bought into the idea that we can solve all problems through economic growth and that the only way to get this is to make the UK a place where people want to invest. Therefore, the higher education sector is something to be used so as to further improve economic growth. My gut feeling is that the solution is to convincingly show that neo-liberal thinking is simplistic and doesn’t really work. That we live in a social democracy and need to balance the needs of investors with the needs of society and that economic growth alone doesn’t guarantee prosperity for all (or for a majority). If one can convince people that this simplistic neo-liberal ideology is not optimal, maybe we can convince them of the intrinsic value of a strong higher education sector.

      • The problem with “neoliberalism” has nothing to do with real liberalism (Adam Smith and J.S. Mill), it’s actually social-Darwinism without racism. Classic liberalism knew that in order to prosper a society needed a strong government and a proper social institutions.

      • Indeed, that’s certainly my understanding. Many of the sources quoted by neo-liberals actually contradict much of what they say if properly analysed.

  2. Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » The integrity of universities

  3. V interesting post. As a fledgling public intellectual in Ireland, I can suggest a third reason – opportunity. It can be very difficult to get your articles and opinions accepted in the media, I have to fight quite hard for an occasional newspaper column, and harder still for radio interviews. There is a stong tendency for editors and journalists to stick with voices they have used before, whether those voices are insightful or not. It’s such a pity, I think almost every university houses several academics who could really contribute to public debate

    • Thanks. That’s an interesting possibility. I hadn’t really considered that. I seem to be surrounded by many academics who don’t seem all that bothered and who seem quite happy to just focus on their particular area (and, in a sense, are encouraged to do so). There could well be other areas where academics would be quite keen to engage more with these topics but just don’t get the opportunity to do so.

  4. Pingback: The role of universities! | To the left of centre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s