Wells, Rowat, Hurtubise

A couple of weeks ago, Paul Wells wrote his first column for University Affairs. It was on the very specific and sore point on campuses these days: namely, what seems to be the Growing Estrangement Between Universities and Society. The point he makes, which I think is mostly correct, is that while at the start of the century Canadians (not just governments but citizens) really did seem to believe that the world ran through universities, that really hasn’t been true for a decade or perhaps slightly longer. 

It’s a vibes-y piece kind of piece: Wells doesn’t point to any data to back his observations. It put me in mind of a recent article by Kevin Carey and Sophie Nguyen from the New America Foundation with respect to a similar phenomenon in the United States, which is simply to say that Wells—like the American media—is simply wrong about the vibes. It may simply be that what is happening to universities is a reflection of a general societal loss of trust in institutions of all kinds. 

Wells really can only point to two specific “charges” against the sector. The first is that the perceived value of a four-year degree has fallen, to the irritation of parents and students alike. This actually isn’t true, as even a quick look at chapter 6 of The State of Post-Secondary Education 2024 shows. True, it’s harder for young people to launch these days because of housing costs, but that’s not exactly the fault of the universities (Ontario colleges, on the other hand…). And perhaps there is the related perception that it takes an extra year or two of a master’s program or some other kind of post-graduate credential to get a good start—something which is probably the case for about quarter of graduates but was always true for some of them. So…maybe? 

The other charge Wells makes is that Canadians feel looked down upon by universities. Basically, there are a significant number of Canadians—particularly but not exclusively older males—who are profoundly irritated by a critique of Canadian society which paints the country as systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, genocidal, whatever. And for reasons which are not entirely true but perhaps more true than some in universities would like to admit, this critique is seen as coming from universities’ humanities and social science departments. Again, this is a hard one to assess without data. Maybe this is a significant factor, and maybe it isn’t. Or, possibly, maybe it is, but the debate is being fed not by what people actually know about Canadian institutions, but what they are hearing about American ones through various media.

But it did occur to me that this is not the first time that Canadian universities have fretted about their place in society. I took a quick tour through the HESA Towers library stack to find a little volume entitled The University, Society and Government (full copy available here) . Published in 1970 and sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (now Universities Canada), and the two major student groupings in the country at the time (the Canadian Union of Students and the Union générale des étudiants du Québec), the volume does tend to focus more on relations with government than with society. For a document produced mainly by Ottawa organizations, it painted a radically decentralized vision for Canadian higher education, with essentially no role for Ottawa at all. 

But it is the section on relations with society rather than governments was what I found most intriguing. Broadly speaking, the piece makes two significant observations about universities. The first is that the nature of a university can and should vary according to the nature of the region and population it serves. Of course they do, to some extent, but I think I would argue that while there is no shortage of people wanting to argue in favour of “the university” there are remarkably few who like to talk at any length about “this university” (that is to say about the regional specificity of a given institution’s mandate) in anything other than the most superficial terms. I may have more to say about this next week, but for the moment, I think I would just say that this country’s diversity of settings is not matched by a concomitant and appropriate diversity of institutional forms.

The second observation is about the balance of “progressivism” and “conservatism” within the institution, which initially seems familiar. Amongst the authors’ little check list of relatively anodyne “conclusions” about the nature of the relationship between universities and society are the following nostrums:

(1) The co-existence of conservative and progressive elements within the university explains its internal tension. Both are inherent to it by nature and must be present.

(2) This internal tension is also the source of the dynamic relationship between the university and society in general, for in addition to serving the community, the university must at the same time act as a critic of society.

Oh, hey, doesn’t this sound like the present day? An argument about how universities are too far to the left of society and need to be more responsive to….

(3) The university is strongly drawn to the conservative pole; the progressive pole must be developed by creating a favorable environment and climate for it.

Wait, what?

(4) Only a tolerant attitude of society toward the university and a tolerant attitude between conservative and progressive elements within the university can ensure a favourable climate.

So this is an interesting historical reminder: back in the day, the progressive pole in higher education was mainly young (boomer) students, not the faculty. Today, the conservative pole in society—at least with respect to the “culture war” issues that seem to be annoying Canadians about universities—is those same, now-aging boomers either in the faculty or society at large. And now (as then) the conflict within universities and between universities and societies is simply a product of boomers being mad at universities for not catering to their views.

I suppose the question is: what are universities supposed to do about all this? Wells isn’t prescriptive, but perhaps I can take a stab at how institutions can regain public trust.

1) The feeling that young people aren’t getting ahead the way they used to isn’t really universities’ fault, but universities are getting blamed for it. They need to at least look like they care about being part of the solution. Catalyzing economic growth, helping students more in their early careers and lowering the cost of housing are all vitally necessary, and universities need to do more—and be seen to do more—to make all of this happen. 

2) Wait for the boomers to die off.

3) Ok, seriously: it wouldn’t kill universities (particularly but not exclusively departments of history) to engage in some tone self-policing when it comes to talking about Canada. Like every country in the entire world, the country has roots in injustice. It’s important to understand and face those injustices; but it’s equally important to point to better common futures. Endless raw critique grates. And yes, I know there’s not much institutions can do about how individual faculty members choose to talk about their work: but they do have agency when staging events. If universities don’t want endless headlines about topics that seem divisive, why not foster more formal discussions about topics and approaches that might unify?

I’m sure there are other possible conclusions to be drawn here, but that’s all I have for now.