Why are universities in a battle against populism?

Universities and colleges in the United States are being accused of moving away from the so-called ‘American dream’ of social mobility, a panel discussion at the Worldviews on Media and Higher Education Conference held at the University of Toronto, Canada, has heard.

The focus of this debate were the questions: ‘What is the civic education mission of universities, colleges and the media in the 21st century, and how is this playing out in the United States?’

Held at the university’s Innis College and entitled ‘Cognitive Dissonance: The response of higher education and media to the clash of democratic and populist values’, the discussion centred primarily on the situation in American universities, colleges and the media.

However, the implications were clear for others working in higher education and the media around the globe.

According to Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, there is a growing mistrust of colleges and universities in her country, with accusations of irrelevance and illegitimacy being lodged against educators by those who are experiencing what she categorised as a decoupling of higher education from the American dream.

“There is a sense that higher education is too expensive, too difficult to access and doesn’t teach people 21st century skills,” Pasquerella said. “And then there are those who believe that we are, on our campuses, bastions of liberal progressivism, that are preparing the next generation of ‘snowflakes’ who will melt at the slightest abrasion of their sensibilities.”

Anti-intellectual populists

Pasquerella noted the growing influence of anti-intellectual populists who are assailing higher education in the US.

“This is perpetuated and enhanced by the fact that we have legislators who have bought into this narrative about academe as being ineffective, as the ‘ivory tower’.”

And, she added, the ramifications of these views among populist legislators are clearly visible in cuts to funding of American education institutions.

Tom Nichols, professor of national security affairs at the US Naval War College, agreed that education was moving away from the ability of American graduates to set their own path in life, and this is not an academic talking point.

“I am actually grieving this disruption between the public and liberal education because I was a beneficiary of the mobility that higher education provides,” he said, recalling his working-class background.

‘Unrealistic’ expectations

However, while Nichols feels strongly about the civic education mission of universities and colleges, he also believes Americans have developed an unrealistic sense of what higher education will provide in terms of later material benefits.

“One of things that I think is a challenge is the unintended consequence of universalising the idea of college education – I think that has actually backfired.”

He said the belief that everyone should attend post-secondary institutions and then see a rise in income and standard of living was a mistake.

“I think everyone should have access,” countered Nermeen Shaikh, co-host and news producer at New York City-based Democracy Now!

“I think the problem is not so much that everyone was promised a life that failed to materialise as a result of college education,” the journalist and author told the audience. “To me what a university can do and does is allow for each individual’s potential to be realised. It allows whatever potential each individual has to flourish once they leave university.”

Crippled with debt

Shaikh went on to say that a bigger issue is the financial obstacles facing individuals in the United States today. “It’s so completely out of reach for so many people,” she said, leaving some students crippled with debts, while others are simply put off continuing their education beyond secondary school by the economic constraints.

Sophia Rosenfeld, Walter H Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, pivoted the conversation slightly by telling the audience that it’s important to remember that this conflict between higher education and populists is nothing new in America.

She recounted the presidential race of 1828 in which Andrew Jackson tarred his opponent, John Quincy Adams, as a ‘Harvard man’, an epithet for being an elitist. (Jackson won the election.)

Unfortunately, she said this history is sometimes forgotten in the modern clash between populists and educators. “Populism and democracy are not necessarily at odds,” said Rosenfeld. But universities have been slow to grasp the situation.

Open to populist sensibilities

She feels higher education today is “less good generally at dealing with populist currents, because they just seem so alien in some ways to what universities think they are about”. Rosenfeld said one way to address things is by imagining institutions as more porous places that do not just proclaim what is true but involve the public more directly.

The panel generally agreed that institutions such as higher education and the media must become more open to populist sensibilities if they are to address these apparent problems of cognitive dissonance.

However, Nichols cautioned that “many of the criticisms [of higher education] are made by people who are devoted to mobilising people who don’t have a strong sense of civic education and they’re attacking the universities precisely because they want to promote the civic mission”.

“What’s required is that we become a more visible force in the lives of those who are most marginalised and disenfranchised,” said Pasquerella. And to reaffirm the notion that “colleges and universities have civic missions where we not only educate people to be free, but we free them to be educable by serving as a visible force in their lives”.