The Role Of Higher Education

The Role of Higher Education

When writing about higher education in Malaysia, it is tempting to fall back on the usual complaints. These are:

• The stifling of students under the University and University Colleges Act

• The lack of academic freedom due to the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act

• Racially based policies having a detrimental effect on student and staff quality

• Politically appointed Vice Chancellors and the lack of university autonomy

Although these are all valid criticisms, they will not be specifically discussed in this article. Instead, we shall be exploring some of the broader ideas that surround the issue of higher education. It is hoped that through this brief journey into the philosophy of higher education, a clearer picture will map out the role of universities and a firmer ideological foundation will be laid for future discussions.

The question of university philosophy : Are universities for training the mind or training workers?

Historically the philosophy of universities differs from country to country. In England, they were formed to serve the professions with humanistic aspirations, beginning with the clergy and then developing to include law, medicine etc. The Germans on the other hand were influenced heavily by the enlightenment and the development of the mind, thus research became the main goal. America, being the young growing nation that it was, established universities to serve the nation.

What can be distilled from this is that there has always been conflicting views as to what purpose a university serves. What should its values be? Underlying this question is the constant tension between the epistemological philosophy of higher education and the political. Epistemologists value knowledge for its own sake. The Germans in particular were fond of “value free” research which, through strict methodology, produces the validation of knowledge. Political philosophy on the other hand, does not believe that universities ought to be value free. They instead have a role to play by providing the expertise to deal with societal problems. Proponents of both philosophies are of the opinion that universities are the best place to achieve their respective goals.

As with most conflicting theories there is always a third pragmatic way; Ralph Waldo Emerson in The American Scholar (1934) suggests that one mixes both. Theory by itself becomes detached from reality if not applied, and practical action without theory flounders without the necessary ideological groundings that theory provides.

This leads to another tension in opinions regarding the role of universities. Are they to be vocational teaching institutions or should they offer a liberal education? Vocational in this sense means the training of the professions, for example, engineers, architects and accountants. A liberal education conversely does not specifically prepare students for any one profession but instead trains the mind. A variety of subjects are taught with the purpose of instilling a discipline of thought which should empower the graduate to face the intellectual challenges offered by the world.

Again, there is no need to be pedantic and obsessive about this issue. A happy mix between the two is possible. The liberal arts are necessary, for they provide the breadth of education needed in policy makers and thinkers. However, these values can be inculcated even in professional courses so that the products of such courses are able to think beyond the practicalities of their chosen profession, and be in a position to expand improved new ideas, new theories and new ways of doing things.

In the words of Sterling McMurrin; “Today’s meaning of a liberal education, I believe, should be an education that ‘liberalizes” or frees a person – frees him from the bondage of ignorance, incompetence, bigotry, superstition, habit and irrationality.” There is no reason why such values cannot be incorporated into a professional education.

This pragmatist streak would appear to be the norm in universities today and it is submitted that this is desirable. What is imperative however, is not losing track of the fact that a balance of the schools of thoughts, epistemological and political, vocational and liberal, ought to be maintained in order to reap the best of both worlds.

Academic Freedom: A Prerequisite for Development

“To impose any straightjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges a

nd universities would imperil the future of the nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolute”.

Chief Justice Earl Warren

In 1974, the American Association of University Professors stated that when speaking of academic freedom, one means the autonomy that a scholar must have to teach and to research. And as pointed out in the quote above, such freedom is vital in the expanding of knowledge.

The basis of academic freedom is our human right to expression. However, it is also linked with the moral obligation of universities to expand knowledge in order to better understand the world we live in. In order to achieve this, an open atmosphere free from distrust and fear must be allowed to blossom within the campus. Such freedoms to enquire, and seek knowledge is not only meant for the academic staff but also for students.

Academic freedom is needed because without the frisson created from new knowledge and enquiry, societies will stagnate and stop developing. And such frisson can arise only where there is creativity and critical thought not hindered by political, religious and societal demands. It is possible that a university can import such creativity. Singapore for example, is famous for tempting the best academics into their universities, and this has led to strong faculties even in a nation which is fundamentally autocratic with little academic freedom. This is however not the best method of developing a university for the creativity was borne elsewhere and is therefore unsustainable as home grown ideas are stifled by laws and norms that do not encourage growth.

In Malaysia academic freedom has been limited for years, not just by laws specifically aimed at academia but laws restricting free speech in general. There is the added insult for Malaysian academics however in the form of the “Oath of Allegiance” to King, country and government that all public university lecturers must sign.

This type of loyalty test has long been discredited in developed nations as being not only an affront to academic freedom but also a short sighted and obtuse waste of time. In his article entitled “Who is Loyal to America” Commager H.S said “Disloyalty test are not only futile in pplication, they are pernicious in their consequences. They distract attention from activities that are really disloyal, and silence criticism inspired by true loyalty.”

But it must be remembered that such freedom comes with a price and that is credibility. Academic work must be able to stand up to the scrutiny of peers and the harsh demands of methodology in order to be accepted as valid. Accuracy, originality, stringent methodology, these are the values that must run through an academic’s work if it is to be accepted. This academic rigour however, should be the primary limitation on academic freedom.

Let those who understand decide - The Issue of Academic Autonomy

Academic autonomy means the freedom of universities to govern themselves. This is not limited to the university as a whole, but autonomy should also be practiced by the different faculties. Harvard University, consistently over the last few years regarded as the best university in the world, is very proud of its tradition of autonomy throughout its entire campus.

This autonomy is important because of the very diverse nature of universities. The Faculty of Science is very different from the Faculty of Arts. And the needs of the Department of Geography within the Faculty of Arts are very different from their fellow Department of English. Academia is varied and specialised, it is only logical that the specialists themselves know how best to ensure their standards are met. Autonomy should be practised in the creation of academic programmes, curriculum, admissions, staffing, examinations and standards.

Of course autonomy like most things in life is not absolute. The economic and political realities of the world mean that universities are under the influence of factors other than themselves. It is understandable for example for public universities to be influenced to some extent by government policies and nation building needs; after all their funds come from public coffers. However, such influences must be kept to a minimum and be asserted judiciously. It is one thing to suggest certain courses be conducted, it is quite another to dictate content.

Structurally a university is also subject to the scrutiny of the Board or Council. This is a body consisting of laymen who decide broad policy matters and directions for the university. In countries where universities are free from governmental interference, it is one of the jobs of this body to search for and select the Vice Chancellor. A most important and influential role indeed for the Vice Chancellor more often than not sets the tone for the governance and development of a university. The Board or Council provides a healthy check to complete university autonomy and being made of laymen, it is also a connection to the world which is important for universities left utterly unaccountable will run the risk of being detached from the society within which it exists.

The Case for Academic Diversity

In the context of this essay academic diversity means the diverse types of academic institutions. There is a tendency to speak only of universities when discussing higher education and this is not helpful. Higher education means education beyond school and this includes universities, university colleges, polytechnics, community colleges and technical vocational centres.

All have a role to play and all have to be given the necessary attention in order to provide a holistic system of higher education in a country. Such diversity is important also because each different institution has a specific role to play and if these roles are mixed up, then it is unlikely that they will be able to fulfil their potential.

A university for example is an elitist institution where only the most academically inclined should be accepted. Teaching is minimal and faculty will have the time to research. University colleges on the other hand can play more of a teaching role, so too with polytechnics. Polytechnics and vocational institutions also do not have the epistemological burden of universities and therefore can focus solely on the practical. Diversity also allows for upward mobility where one can slowly climb the ladder of the different type of institutions to improve oneself.

I suggest that the greatest role that diversity plays is ensuring that limited resources are not wasted. There is no point pouring money and effort to provide a university education to those who are simply not up to it. By focussing on their respective roles, higher education institutions will be able to fulfil that role to their fullest potential.

The Way Forward

In the quest for sound higher education, the elements examined above, a strong philosophical foundation, academic freedom, institutional autonomy and diversity ought to be present. They are interrelated of course. To illustrate; a university needs autonomy to avoid being ordered to play the role of a polytechnic, it needs a clear philosophy to base its decisions upon and academic freedom to allow their faculties to achieve whatever goals are set.

Keeping this in mind, one has to ask if the Malaysian higher education system has the necessary ingredients above to truly develop. Only by understanding these issues, can we critically evaluate the current practices of the government and of the universities themselves. And only then can we properly chart a course for the future.