Universities that lack a real sense of mission will lose their vaunted position in society, argues Brenda Gourley.
In The English - A Portrait of a People , Jeremy Paxman describes how he asked the bishop of Oxford what you had to believe in to belong to his church. "A look of slight bafflement crossed his face. 'An intriguing question,' he answered, as if it had not occurred to him before. You cannot imagine an orthodox rabbi or a Roman Catholic priest replying like that. When the bishop went on, he opened with an inevitable English preface, 'Well, it rather depends.'" That response reminded me of the predicament of the modern-day university. With the private sector devouring large sectors of the traditional market, with academics all at sea about what the "market" means, with the internet offering just about anything to anybody, anytime and anywhere, students are no longer something to be taken for granted.
With the mantra of "commercialisation" of knowledge making inroads in research, with more and more knowledge for sale, one has to wonder what distinguishes universities from any other private-sector purveyor of knowledge.
Universities still draw heavily on the public purse in most parts of the world and, as they have handled phenomenal growth in student numbers, one must give them credit for providing some service that is valued.
South Africa's minister of education, for example, is forthright about what he expects of universities - he includes in his list the need for intellectuals to be active and visible in public debate. He is scathing about private providers, which he refers to as "scavengers" picking off the low-cost, high-demand courses that have traditionally subsidised more expensive offerings at universities.
The minister expects the system to be more rational. If the universities cannot negotiate such rationality, he promises to do it for them - and he has the authority to do so (after due consultation). He warns that funding must, from necessity, fall. Finance, being the government's largest lever, makes this an obvious and easy way to bring the message home to universities.
Do universities hear this message? It depends where you are. Some countries and societies place much more value on university autonomy and on the free exchange of ideas than others. Some cultures place more emphasis on affordable higher education than others, and some societies place a high value on the role of social conscience that only an autonomous entity such as a university can play in a community. It also depends crucially on whether the university has carved out for itself a role where it is seen and understood to be contributing to the society that sustains it.
Do universities fulfil these large and idealistic expectations? Well, it rather depends. A large proportion of the world has only very limited freedom, its universities mostly cowed into submission. Although there are acts of heroism to be found, they are isolated rather than concerted. It does not seem to me that the voice of the university is such that it is a distinguishing feature.
Lest anyone think that I point anywhere else but home, it has to be said that, with a few outstanding exceptions, universities in South Africa throughout the dark days of apartheid were not shining examples of social conscience at work. When I see how women are treated in most of the world's universities, it is clear that social conscience is not the main preoccupation of most scholars.
I am not only concerned that universities hear the message, in the sense that they reflect on their survival as worthy institutions. I am concerned that the message, once heard, should prompt thinking about what shape that survival will take and which parameters they will not breach. What will they not teach? What knowledge will they not patent or sell? Are there any lines in the sand that they will not cross?
Management experts will tell you that an organisation does not really have a strategy unless it is clear what it will not do. I wonder if there are more than a handful of universities that really have a strategy. And if universities are so bereft in this respect, how is it that they can be defended against the kind of railings that we hear from government ministers?
The world is undergoing a paradigm shift in the business of knowledge creation and transmission. Universities have lost their competitive advantages as storers and disseminators of knowledge. The field is wide open. Unless universities can define for themselves a unique, competitive advantage, they may not survive this seismic shift beyond perhaps one generation. Brand-leaders such as Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard universities, and a few others with huge endowments, will - but not the run of the mill, the ordinary.
I am a hopeless idealist when it comes to universities and what they can and should stand for. I believe they play a vital role in a healthy and vibrant society. But I am concerned that they take their place in society for granted - and taking anything for granted (especially something important) is dangerous.
In a society that is increasingly disdainful of intellectualism, that places more and more emphasis on materialism, that selects as its leaders men and women painfully and patently not particularly well educated (even proudly not well educated), do not expect attacks on the ideals for which universities stand, do not expect universities and their role to be the subject of debate and argument.
The more likely scenario is that there will be no attacks, no debate at all. Our most important role will erode and wither away quietly. We will be indistinguishable from any other provider of an educational service. The tragedy is that hardly anyone will notice. "Well, it all depends."
Brenda Gourley is vice-chancellor of the University of Natal, Durban.