I became a professor, and then an administrator, because of my experience as an undergraduate at the University of the Witwatersrand in apartheid-era South Africa in the mid-1970s. The university was then still comparatively young, and still very much linked to the history of mining and technology in the region, so education for economic growth remained a fundamental part of the institutional mission. But the country had by then been a quarter of a century in the sway of apartheid, so onto that economic motive was grafted a powerful commitment to the promotion of social justice and to the formation of young people with a capacity to advance democratic principles. I was proud of the university鈥檚 unrelenting opposition to injustice, and of its leaders who insisted upon the values a university should stand for.
A critical question then, as now, is whether those values鈥 as laid out in the Magna Charta Universitatum of 1988, for example鈥攎ake it necessary in certain circumstances for universities to take a political position? And do academic freedom and institutional autonomy imply politics of a certain kind? Some years ago Martha Nussbaum argued that they do, or rather that those freedoms are inextricably connected to democracy and that they imply or even require a shift from education for economic growth to education for human development: 鈥淭he sort of democracy it favors will鈥 be one with a strong role for fundamental rights that cannot be taken away from people by majority whim鈥攊t will thus favor strong protections for political liberty; the freedoms of speech, association and religious exercise; and fundamental entitlements in yet other areas such as education and health.鈥漑1]
The revised Magna Charta Universitatum of 2020 proceeds on the assumption that this is largely true. The document begins by acknowledging that 鈥淭he principles laid out in were in 1988, and they are the necessary precondition for human advancement through enquiry, analysis and sound action.鈥漑2] It goes on to take note of the changing global landscape that is the subject of this issue of IAU Horizons, and to assert that in current circumstances universities have not only rights but also responsibilities: 鈥淯niversities acknowledge that they have a responsibility to engage with and respond to the aspirations and challenges of the world and to the communities they serve, to benefit humanity and contribute to sustainability. Intellectual and moral autonomy is the hallmark of any university and a precondition for the fulfilment of its responsibilities to society. That independence needs to be recognised and protected by governments and society at large, and defended vigorously by institutions themselves.鈥
Although the document allows that 鈥渦niversities upholding these principles could take many forms under the combined influence of culture, geography and history,鈥 there is no doubt that adherence to the principles articulated in 1988 is now understood to imply an engagement with society and history that is quite specific. Human development is central to the mission of higher education, and by cultivating in individuals the capacity to respond to and engage with the challenges that face the world, universities play a key role in building just, equitable, fulfilling and sustainable communities.
While, as in my South African example, universities have always on occasions been driven by circumstance to a more forthright engagement with their society and with history, the orthodoxy of our situation fifty years later is that we now understand academic values to be fulfilled and university obligations to be discharged largely鈥攊f not only鈥攂y their social and environmental impact. If Nussbaum鈥檚 contention proves true, the consequence of basic academic values fully lived and enacted will be societies increasingly just and equitable, and a planet less in jeopardy. The problem, however, is that universities鈥 engagement with the world is not possible entirely on their own terms; the world of politics and contention comes to higher education with terms of its own, some of which the academy cannot or should not ever accept.
It is not as if universities ever existed or functioned outside of history: they were always implicated. But now they increasingly acknowledge their responsibilities towards society and history, and that is a good thing; but it also means they are increasingly at risk and subject to attack, undue influence, and interference. In the current global climate universities remain a critical force for good, but their leaders must be principled and clear-sighted, yet also pragmatic and careful negotiators.
Originally published in the
[1] Martha Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), pp. 24-25.
[2]