The undemocratic structures, the education methods the university employs, and the refusal of the university to make decisions it deems too political, show us that the university is an institution which is widely impacted by the world around it. That the ivory tower of education and research is not only undesirable, but also impossible.
In earlier pieces, you have read about the university’s stance towards Israeli universities, and how the board refuses to cut any ties with universities complicit in genocide. You have read about the undemocratic structures of the university, which smother opposition while trying to create a facade of student and worker determination. You have also read about the connections between capitalism and imperialism. Hopefully, this piece will tie the threads of the earlier articles together, by showing the ways our society, government and economic system shape educational institutions.1
The function of our university
First and foremost, we must see that the university is not merely a place of learning and research. If it was, then our education would be radically different. We would not be bound by faculties, curriculums, and tuition. If the university was a place of learning and research, the university would be open to all who want to learn. Although grades and diplomas could still exist, these would not be the end goal of going to university. These would only be an end goal for certain courses, and those who want to pursue certain goals or careers for which examination is strictly necessary.
Rather, the university is a place where one gets prepared for their further career. Whether that be in academia or in the ‘regular’ workforce, the goal is preparing students for reproduction of the information and skills that were deposited in the students’ brain. We see this clearly in the way we receive education and how students are graded. Instead of engaging in dialogue and discovering what it is students want to learn, the curriculum is almost solely set up by professors, with very little student input. And although students can write critical, creative answers on their exam or in their paper, the grading itself is done through a rubric. Students need to mention ‘X’ for a point, mention ‘Y’ for another point and ‘Z’ for two more points. All else is just excess spillage. Sometimes students even get less points if they include more than strictly necessary.
Even in academia, we see how the university focuses on publications and citations, rather than on research in itself. The pressure academics experience is extremely high, partly due to low funding, but also due to the need to publish and receive citations. The numbers reflect this. According to ICTU, 72% of academic personnel perceive the work pressure to be high or very high in 2020, and we can only imagine this to be higher among those in PhD positions.
Money, money, money
We might ask ourselves why this is the case. Because is it not in the best interest of students and teachers to create a space for learning and research, instead of results and publications? The answer is that it is due to that which makes the world go round and which is simultaneously the figurative root of all evil: money. Both through university funding and through external factors, the pressure goes up, and the learning and research goes down. We will not be diving deeply into those external factors, but suffice to say that the pressures of today’s society, such as making money and ‘climbing the ladder’ also severely impact the pressure students and employees face. However, special interest will be paid to the way universities receive funding, and how this affects students and employees.
In the past, the funding for universities worked differently than it does today. Then, universities received a set amount of money per student. Although this could have resulted in a nation-wide funding shortage and thus high work pressure, the fact of the matter was that funding was adequate. This decreased the pressure for students, for universities had no incentive to push students, as they received funding per student enrolled. Rather, the focus was on retaining students, which, although not desirable, is much better than today. Students were able to calmly learn and study, and the rush they experience today was rare.
Until 1993, when the way the university receive funding was changed to the way it is today. Nowadays, universities receive funding through a national pool of money. The size of this pool is decided by the government, and depending on the number of students enrolled at a certain university during their nominal study duration and diploma’s given out by that same university, it receives a fraction of the pool. Due to this, not all universities receive the same amount of funding per student. This has a number of disastrous consequences. Firstly, the funding pool as a whole no longer grows when there are more students. This makes the funding for workers as a whole go down, resulting in more selective recruitment and thus higher pressure for workers. Secondly, since universities only receive money as long as a student is within their ‘regular’ study duration, the universities have an incentive to push students through their study, resulting in higher pressure for students. Thirdly, universities now compete amongst each other for students, due to which universities now have to advertise themselves and are more and more business-like. The ultimate result is that the university is turned into a diploma and citation factory, where perfect students are quick customers, and perfect academic employees are publication machines.
Democratic decay
When we see the way funding impacts the university and education, we can also clearly see why the democratic structures of the university are like that: undemocratic. We know that, if the university was democratic, students and employees would work together to reduce pressure. If the university was democratic, we could take concrete steps towards a curriculum based on inquiry, instead of reproduction. If the university was democratic, then our universities would come to a standstill as students and workers used their rights to fight for a fairer work and learning environment.
The government knows this. It is why they, after students fought for the right to democratic universities in 1969, decided to once again constrain democratic structures at the university in 1997. Universities were too inefficient, and cost too much, according to the government at that time, and the strong, democratic councils were said to be ‘part of the problem’. The student’s and worker’s councils were turned from determination into co-determination, and the influence of students and workers was constrained. Through these reforms, and through the way the university was to receive funding, the university was turned into a business. No longer would decisions be made because of enquiry, education, or ethics. Instead, market forces would dictate decisions. It is why universities pump millions into promotion. It is why ‘bad press’ is the nightmare of any university executive board. And it is also why it seems so hard for the executive boards of so many universities to cut ties with Israeli universities. Because the aftermath, which would play out in the national media, could lead to ‘bad press’, ‘scare away students’ or could risk future funding.
We should therefore turn to history to see how students won the fight for democratic structures. Through occupations and demonstrations, they forced concessions by the government and were able to change their universities for the better. Today, this could happen once more, and the consequences would be great. We could cut ties with Israeli universities, we could make all financial streams transparent, and we could ban fascist groups from campus.
However, our fight is twofold. We should not only try to democratize our university, we should also try to democratize our whole economy. Otherwise, it would only be a matter of time before the government decides to repeal the democratic rights of university councils, just like in 1997. Therefore, it is not just democratization of the university that is needed. What is needed is a democratization of the whole economy. Because then, and only then, could the university truly be a place of learning and research. Then the idea that going to university is an investment instead of a learning opportunity, could be eliminated. Then the university could not just be a ‘great expense’ on the state’s budget, but it would be a place where the whole population could come to enjoy the wealth of information science has to offer.
Footnotes:
1: This article was originally published in a bundle with multiple articles from other organisations. These articles have not been incorporated into this website.