Great post. Two points in particular that resonated.
1. These challenges are fundamentally problems of culture: One leading indicator of this, in my experience, is the difficulty of getting faculty and staff leaders in higher education to articulate the philosophical goals we are striving toward. These goals are rarely named explicitly, and their absence often goes unnoticed. In both higher education and healthcare (a space you and I both think about a lot), we tend to hear much more about functional goals. While these goals are important and well-intentioned, this emphasis highlights a deeper issue: without a shared set of foundational (often simple) values—or a clearly defined culture that we collectively inhabit and aim to cultivate—our outputs remain largely functional. That means publishing for the sake of publishing and promotion, launching new degree programs to generate new revenue streams, or initiating new offerings to keep pace with peer institutions. These are all understandable responses, but they bypass the more difficult, foundational questions and subsequent answers. Interestingly, those outside the academy often see this more clearly than those of us within it, where day-to-day demands dominate attention.
2. Precursory understanding is required for effective messaging: While students are the primary constituent of universities, I think higher ed leaders, and in particular faculty, can lose sight of how deeply universities are embedded within broader economic and social ecosystems. From being major employers to serving as community anchors (especially if there is an affiliated health system), most universities overlook our varied and expansive communal ties. Understanding how people in these ecosystems perceive the mission of the university must come before crafting messages about it.
I think you are making a good point here, John. I think the current administration's attack on higher ed is misguided, but I'm afraid the academy has mostly itself to blame for becoming a target. Too many faculty confuse scholarship with political activism and think that their expertise in their field gives them special political wisdom. It doesn't. One tragedy of the current situation is that the institutions most vulnerable to the disruption in higher ed are often small teaching colleges (like my own!) that mostly just plug along trying to educate students without being as caught up in all the politicization as many more elite schools that have more resources to weather a storm.
Tangentially, since you dropped the "common good" comment: just because we don't agree about a common good doesn't mean that there isn't one. But it isn't some Platonic form out there waiting to be discovered. It emerges as the outcome of well-designed and well-functioning political structures and process that take pluralism into account and make room for it. That pluralism is itself a part of the common good. My two cents. ; )
Thanks, Peter. I like your definition of a common good, which I usually refer to as either "common ground" or "our modest unity." The definite article preceding "common good" in most of its ordinary usages implies either a Platonic form or a universal truth. It sounds like we probably agree that while either may exist, neither is epistemically accessible to a supermajority of our country in the current moment.
On which institutions are most vulnerable in the current environment, it probably depends on how we're measuring vulnerability and risk. Large research universities with large medical centers and significant NIH funding will be facing significant cash flow challenges regardless of endowments.
I think we're probably pretty close. I haven't attempted to theorize it nearly as carefully as you have, but I think the main point I would emphasize is that the common good isn't something that exists *prior to* engaging in political deliberation. It can only emerge from a process that represents different interests and perspectives. But one might recognize in retrospect that a particular decision or policy had in fact reflected the common good.
As for vulnerable institutions: I guess we're all in trouble!
I think you're absolutely right that we could be a bit more self-reflective around our own culpability, although in this current moment, doing so surely feels a bit dangerous to many of us. But perhaps it's even more important for that reason.
I love the idea of leaning into the "rhythms and liturgies of the academic calendar." Rituals, even secular ones, can confer a kind of seriousness and value that is hard to acquire in other ways.
One thought I had on this topic is that the university could do more to publicize the work that teaching faculty do in the classroom. We bring an obvious added value to the university's mission, but too often our student-facing work is not highlighted in communication with the public. If the public knew more about us, our daily work, and even the scales of our compensation (an utter bargain for the university!), it might go some way to correcting the public misapprehension of what a professor's work life looks like. At the same time, the courses many of us teach--introductory courses, large lecture courses, writing-intensive courses, and practicum courses, among others--may in fact have the most immediately translatable public "value."
So so good. The attack on the academy by the Trump Administration is clearly wrong, but I do hope this leads to some self reflection on how the academy can improve both its culture, its broader impact (especially among communities who have been too often dismissed or belittled) and its need to continually communicate its value to the taxpayers/voters who are subsidizing so many areas of the academy.
Great post. Two points in particular that resonated.
1. These challenges are fundamentally problems of culture: One leading indicator of this, in my experience, is the difficulty of getting faculty and staff leaders in higher education to articulate the philosophical goals we are striving toward. These goals are rarely named explicitly, and their absence often goes unnoticed. In both higher education and healthcare (a space you and I both think about a lot), we tend to hear much more about functional goals. While these goals are important and well-intentioned, this emphasis highlights a deeper issue: without a shared set of foundational (often simple) values—or a clearly defined culture that we collectively inhabit and aim to cultivate—our outputs remain largely functional. That means publishing for the sake of publishing and promotion, launching new degree programs to generate new revenue streams, or initiating new offerings to keep pace with peer institutions. These are all understandable responses, but they bypass the more difficult, foundational questions and subsequent answers. Interestingly, those outside the academy often see this more clearly than those of us within it, where day-to-day demands dominate attention.
2. Precursory understanding is required for effective messaging: While students are the primary constituent of universities, I think higher ed leaders, and in particular faculty, can lose sight of how deeply universities are embedded within broader economic and social ecosystems. From being major employers to serving as community anchors (especially if there is an affiliated health system), most universities overlook our varied and expansive communal ties. Understanding how people in these ecosystems perceive the mission of the university must come before crafting messages about it.
Thanks for clearly naming this.
excellent observations
I think you are making a good point here, John. I think the current administration's attack on higher ed is misguided, but I'm afraid the academy has mostly itself to blame for becoming a target. Too many faculty confuse scholarship with political activism and think that their expertise in their field gives them special political wisdom. It doesn't. One tragedy of the current situation is that the institutions most vulnerable to the disruption in higher ed are often small teaching colleges (like my own!) that mostly just plug along trying to educate students without being as caught up in all the politicization as many more elite schools that have more resources to weather a storm.
Tangentially, since you dropped the "common good" comment: just because we don't agree about a common good doesn't mean that there isn't one. But it isn't some Platonic form out there waiting to be discovered. It emerges as the outcome of well-designed and well-functioning political structures and process that take pluralism into account and make room for it. That pluralism is itself a part of the common good. My two cents. ; )
Thanks, Peter. I like your definition of a common good, which I usually refer to as either "common ground" or "our modest unity." The definite article preceding "common good" in most of its ordinary usages implies either a Platonic form or a universal truth. It sounds like we probably agree that while either may exist, neither is epistemically accessible to a supermajority of our country in the current moment.
On which institutions are most vulnerable in the current environment, it probably depends on how we're measuring vulnerability and risk. Large research universities with large medical centers and significant NIH funding will be facing significant cash flow challenges regardless of endowments.
I think we're probably pretty close. I haven't attempted to theorize it nearly as carefully as you have, but I think the main point I would emphasize is that the common good isn't something that exists *prior to* engaging in political deliberation. It can only emerge from a process that represents different interests and perspectives. But one might recognize in retrospect that a particular decision or policy had in fact reflected the common good.
As for vulnerable institutions: I guess we're all in trouble!
A few disconnected thoughts:
I think you're absolutely right that we could be a bit more self-reflective around our own culpability, although in this current moment, doing so surely feels a bit dangerous to many of us. But perhaps it's even more important for that reason.
I love the idea of leaning into the "rhythms and liturgies of the academic calendar." Rituals, even secular ones, can confer a kind of seriousness and value that is hard to acquire in other ways.
One thought I had on this topic is that the university could do more to publicize the work that teaching faculty do in the classroom. We bring an obvious added value to the university's mission, but too often our student-facing work is not highlighted in communication with the public. If the public knew more about us, our daily work, and even the scales of our compensation (an utter bargain for the university!), it might go some way to correcting the public misapprehension of what a professor's work life looks like. At the same time, the courses many of us teach--introductory courses, large lecture courses, writing-intensive courses, and practicum courses, among others--may in fact have the most immediately translatable public "value."
These are all great points.
So so good. The attack on the academy by the Trump Administration is clearly wrong, but I do hope this leads to some self reflection on how the academy can improve both its culture, its broader impact (especially among communities who have been too often dismissed or belittled) and its need to continually communicate its value to the taxpayers/voters who are subsidizing so many areas of the academy.