Higher Education and the New Society (review)

Reading Higher Education and the New Society by George Keller was bittersweet. Any text by Keller is sure to be erudite, well-written, and thoughtful. I was not disappointed; by page 3, Keller has referenced Bernard Bailyn, John Dewey, and Plato. His voice in the text is crisp and every sentence seems to have been worked over again and again until he was satisfied that it said what he wanted to say.

Keller has long been one of academe’s most thoughtful—and loving—critics. Academic Strategy (1983) was one of the top 10 best-selling books about higher education in the late 20th century. On a personal note, Keller had been equally loving, and equally critical, of my own writing and presentations throughout my academic career. Keller did not suffer fools gladly; and when he thought my ideas were weak or ill stated, I was sure to find out by way of a hand-written note or taking me aside at a conference for a quiet debriefing. “You have such a good mind,” I recall him telling me early in my career. “How could you have written something like this?”

Regardless of the size of the audience, whenever I saw George walk into the room, I grew nervous, hoping that I would not disappoint. I always got the sense from George that he criticized, not to point out that he was the smartest fellow in the room—although he usually was—or that he was simply trying to score pretentious academic points. He wanted my writing and ideas to improve, just as in his own writing he wanted higher education to improve.

George Keller died of leukemia in 2007, so this is the last text we will have by him. The short book has four chapters and is 188 pages. Those who know Keller’s work will not be surprised by the focus of the chapters. The first chapter provides a great many facts about the changing demographics of society; he also has worried about the changing nature of the family for over a generation. He points out how both of these points have impacted the university.

On the one hand he feels that students are less well prepared and, on the other, that colleges and universities have launched a cornucopia of multicultural initiatives. He seems to suggest that the past should be prologue to the future—when society was less coarse and the family was a more cohesive unit. His tone is neutral throughout the book—this is no polemic or settling of scores—and I admire a writer who lets the reader see how he or she has come to believe a particular point.

I disagree, of course, with his points. Keller’s facts certainly support his arguments, but I could also provide other facts to point out how 2010 cannot be, and should not be, 1950. Yes, the structure of the American family is not what it was a half century ago, but do we really want to retreat to a time when individuals of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation were not welcome in society and did not populate America’s campuses? The point is less to recreate what we once had, I suppose, then to make use of Keller’s argument and think about what might be new solutions.

Here, for example, is one of Keller’s clear and well-written sentences: “In the general culture there is a greater permissiveness, with violence, vulgarity, sacrileg[e], and disrespect more prevalent. For higher education, this individualism erodes the idea of a common core of learning for all students and makes a college education that includes character guidance nearly impossible” (p. 64). One can certainly understand Keller’s argument, but only a half century ago African Americans were not served in some restaurants in the nation’s capital. Even today two men who love one another face harassment, even violence, if their affection is discovered. Can we really...