It’s worth reaching back to the start of this century, to an
exchange between two academics in Canada, to see how meaningful improvement is
not coming to higher education so long as the university and college model remains
unchallenged. I do not mean challenge to some peculiarity of its players, positions,
policies, procedures, processes, or practices, but a winner-takes-all
contest. At any rate, improvement is not coming from academics who fail to see beyond the campuses
they cling to for validation and vacation, memory and mortgage; beyond the
peaks and valleys of unionists, trustees, capitalists, and politicians that
interfere with proper stewardship of higher education.
This must stop. Not by getting your version of your institution in a secure enough position to act as some paradigm for generations to come. It’s by doing exactly the opposite. It’s by recognizing that Oxford, Stanford, Melbourne, McGill, Peking and the rest are the price of an inheritance. They are instruments in a service and stewardship model. They are not higher education. They are not the only means of providing the teaching, researching and community servicing of higher education. They are not many things that they need to be in fulfillment of their social contract, but principally, they are not required.