The Politics of Higher Education Reconciling Autonomy and the Public Interest

18 THE POLITICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION RECONCILING AUTONOMY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST Daniel Carl Levy Institute for Social and Policy Studies Yale University Probably no major social institution lays the same venerable claim to autonomy as the university. Considerable legitimacy is traditionally accor­ ded to the idea of a relatively self-oriented university, a university as­ sumed to serve the public interest indirectly by serving itself directly. Increasingly, however, that idea is slipping into disrepute. The University, it is argued, has a direct responsibility to serve the public interest expli­ citly. Obviously such generalizations are valid only in matters of degree, frequently exaggerated. Most universities, historically, have been held to some measure of direct public accountability (some to great accountability), and most, at present, are still accorded more autonomy than are most other major social institutions. But it is this marked shift toward more direct accountability which has led to significant structural changes in the univer­ sity's relationship with its environment— and to heightened interest in the politics of higher education. Analysis of the university and the public in­ terest therefore suggests a useful focus around which to undertake a broad review of the politics of higher education literature.1 Such analysis may help provide a coherent assessment of where the literature stands, and where, if anywhere, it may be directed. Before launching more substantively into this analysis, it seems worth­ while to reflect briefly on some conceptual problems involved in undertaking it. As various review articles have argued, most issues in the politics of higher education have received very insufficient attention.2 One of the most powerful explanations for this neglect is that higher education has affected an apolitical posture. Dwight Waldo writes wryly of the fortuitous coinci­ dence that university policies naturally happen to coincide with the public interest.3 The lofty academic enterprise need not be compromised by such realpolitik concepts as power and conflict. This bias logically stifles the study of extra-institutional even more than intra-institutional policies, as the former more readily drag research into the dirty arena of partisan poli­ tics. 4 Within political science, the study of higher education was (until recently) generally left to the sub-discipline of public administration, nat­ urally focusing more on management than conflict. And those few works which did deal with campus-environment relations tended to study environmental, es­ pecially governmental, influences as artificial "infringements."5 Thus there has been interest in violations of academic freedom and in the relationship between partisan political influences and student activism.® Likewise, org­ anizational theory, as it finally has turned to "open-systems" perspectives generally maintains the "organizational bias" that the environment's influ­ ences are infringements.7 Of course, this conceptual distinction between intra-university gover­ nance and extra-university relationships is a somewhat artificial one. A few recent studies have sought to transcend the dichotomy.® Others have held to the more traditional posture, not without merit as long as the separation is used for heuristic purposes and substantive overlap is acknowledged.9 Most importantly, we need more study of external penetration of ostensibly intra­ university structures and of university penetration of ostensibly external structures. Kogan describes Great Britain's renowned University Grants Com­ mittee (a predominantly professor-comprised body which distributes government finances to universities) as "a curious mixture of interest group and part of government."10 Even if we do view intra- and extra-university structures as analytically distinct, we should explore the links between them, e .g . , does strong university administrative authority over departments forestall govern­ ment involvement? Still, at least it can be reported that research on both the more intra- and more extra-university dimensions has recently increased in quantity and quality.H 19 Another important conceptual distinction not adequately considered in the literature is that between "external" and "government" influences. While government unquestionably is the principal ascending actor in changing power relationships, there are, as we will discuss, multiple pathways to extra-uni­ versity influence or representation of the public interest. Similarly, the literature must become more careful to distinguish between "universities" and "higher education."12 The search for adequate terminology can become cumber­ some (post-secondary, tertiary, further, continuing— or "other...