The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good

Higher Education for the Public Good:Educating for the Public Good:Implications for Faculty, Students, Administratorsand CommunityA Report from the<strong>National</strong> Leadership Dialogue SeriesOxnard, CaliforniaMay 8-10, 2002K ELLO GG F O R U M O N H I G HER E D UCATIO N FO R THE P U BLIC G OOD610 E. UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 2339ANN ARBOR, MI 48109-1259TELEPHONE: 734-615-8882 • FAX: 734-615-9777WWW. KELLO GGFO R U M .OR G

<strong>The</strong> Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on Higher Education for the Public Good, supported bya generous grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, is affiliated with theCenter for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the Universityof Michigan’s School of Education. <strong>The</strong> mission of the Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong> is to“significantly increase awareness, understanding, commitment and actionrelative to the public service role of higher education in the United States.”Report prepared by Scott LondonCopyright©2002 Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong>on Higher Education for the Public Goodand Scott London

CONTENTSIntroduction 5Defining the Public Good 8Educating for the Public Good 12Promoting System-Wide Change 22List of Participants 25

Educating for the Public GoodINTRODUCTION<strong>The</strong> idea that colleges and universities have a public face, that they are stewardsof the common good, and that they are vital to the preservation of a free anddemocratic society is deeply rooted in American higher education. More thantwo centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that the purpose of a liberal education is topromote and safeguard the “publick happiness” and to “guard the sacred deposit of therights and liberties” of the people. This ideal was carried forward in the nineteenth centuryby the land-grant movement which brought many of America’s great public universitiesinto being. And it is reflected today in the mission statements of colleges and universitiesacross the country that stress the important link between higher education and the publicgood.But over the last half-century, the academy’s civic mission has been overshadowed by otherpressing demands, from expanding enrollment and strengthening academic disciplines topreparing students for the job market and, often enough, simply making ends meet. As theacademy has grown in scale, scope and prestige, it has also become a world unto itself,distant and disconnected from society at large. Today’s colleges and universities have theirown intellectual agenda, their own professional norms, and their own distinct culture. <strong>The</strong>gap between higher education and public life is reflected in the isolation of colleges anduniversities from their surrounding communities, in the decline of political participationand engagement among students, and in the erosion of civic commitment and confidence inthe professoriate.<strong>The</strong> loss of public purpose in the academy has been a source of some hand-wringing andsoul-searching in recent years. Studies and reports have been issued lamenting the dividebetween America’s academic and civic cultures. Cover stories and op-ed articles haveappeared with ominous titles like “Public Colleges, Broken Promises,” and “Saving HigherEducation’s Soul.” And a spate of scholarly works have emerged that point to a widespreadanxiety and insecurity of purpose in the profession. “Academics have done a poor job ofdefining themselves and their work to the public and often even to their own students,”writes Lawrence W. Levine in <strong>The</strong> Opening of the American Mind. “We have simply lost5

Higher Education for the Public Goodtrack of the overall point of the endeavor,” says Charles W. Anderson in Prescribing theLife of the Mind.What would it take for American higher education to revitalize its commitment tothe public good? Given the forces raised against the academy today — the spread ofmarketplace values, rapid advances in technology, sweeping demographic changes, andcompetition from new for-profit and “virtual” providers — is service, outreach, andengagement still a relevant and viable mission? And what practical steps might be takentoward restoring the bond between higher education and public life?<strong>The</strong>se questions served as the focus for a series of <strong>National</strong> Leadership Dialogues convenedby the Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on Higher Education for the Public Good in the spring of 2002.Over a six-week period, a group of distinguished academic leaders from across the countrycame together in Maryland, California, and Minnesota to reflect on the challenges andopportunities facing higher education today.<strong>The</strong> California gathering — the second in the series — was held at the Mandalay BeachResort in Oxnard, May 8-10, 2002. Hosted by Alexander Astin and Helen Astin,professors of education at the University of California, Los Angeles, the event broughttogether an impressive group of over sixty people, including college and universitypresidents, provosts, deans, faculty, graduate students andassociation representatives along with a handful of foundationexecutives and legislators.Whereas the first dialogue examined practical strategiesfor revitalizing the academy’s public service mission fromthe vantage point of two key stakeholders, the public andgovernment, the California dialogue focused on the role ofconstituencies within higher education — academic leaders,faculty, administrators, students, and others — in building andstrengthening a movement for change. <strong>The</strong> discussion began byexploring the idea of the public good. <strong>The</strong>n, in a series of sharplyfocused breakout sessions, participants explored how this ideacan be interpreted and applied by the different members of theacademic community. Finally, the group discussed how individual“<strong>The</strong> issues we arestruggling with in highereducation are problemsof consciousness . . . . Weneed to begin to examineand reflect on our sharedbeliefs in a very seriousand studied way.”— Alexander AstinProfessor, Higher EducationUCLAengagement efforts — within departments, institutions, and professional networks — can bebrought into alignment to promote broad change throughout the system of higher education.Alexander Astin noted at the outset of the gathering that while there are numerous reformefforts already underway in higher education, the academy still has a long way to go before6

Educating for the Public Goodit can claim to be genuinely committed to the task of renewing and revitalizing public life.Many of the most intractable problems in higher education stem from an academic cultureoverly preoccupied with the advancement of private interests at the expense of the publicgood, he said. What is needed is a willingness to embrace significant changes in practicallyall aspects of academic life, from curricula and teaching practices to reward systems andcommunity relations. Above all, it requires a willingness to reassess institutional valuesand beliefs. “<strong>The</strong> issues we are struggling with in higher education are problems ofconsciousness,” he told the group. <strong>The</strong>se problems are rooted in “the shared beliefs thatimplicitly drive so much of what we do in academia. It seems to me that we need to beginto examine and reflect on these shared beliefs in a very serious and studied way.”Helen Astin underscored the point, urging the group to reflect deeply about teaching,research, and service as a calling, not simply a profession. All too often, she said,academics discuss the need for change at the level of ideas but fail to engage their passions.Revitalizing the public service mission will require that academics think deeply about howtheir work fits into a broader social context. It will require honesty, open-mindedness and awillingness to embrace real change.7

Higher Education for the Public GoodDEFINING THE PUBLIC GOODGeorge Orwell once observed that words like “democracy,” “freedom,” and “justice”have come to mean so much in general that they have ceased to mean anythingin particular. He might have said the same about the term “public good,” aphrase that conjures up a range of wholesome associations but resists almost all attempts ata definition. <strong>The</strong> term was the focus of considerable discussion at each of the three <strong>National</strong>Leadership Dialogues, but especially at the Oxnard gathering. What does the “public good”mean, participants wondered, and is it useful in the context of higher education?<strong>The</strong>re was broad agreement from the outset that while America’s system of higher educationis founded on a long and rich tradition of public service, it has not done all it can inrecent years to respond to our nation’s most pressing social needs. Worse, current trends inthe academy suggest a move in the opposite direction. As higher education becomes moreclosely linked to for-profit activities and market forces, American colleges and universitiesare in danger of losing their privileged status as guardians of the public interest.But there are stirrings of change in the academy. Programs and initiatives aimed at renewingthe public purposes of higher education are beginning to emerge on many fronts andtake many forms, including diversity and access, volunteerism and service-learning, learningcommunities and leadership training, professional ethics and faculty development, capstonecourses and integrative studies, collaborative and problem-based learning. What theseefforts share is a commitment to civic and social responsibility, to serving and protectingthe common good.<strong>The</strong> term “public good” speaks to this responsibility. It implies a moral obligation on thepart of individuals and institutions to attend to social problems, either by doing good worksin the community or by directing academic resources toward applied research, communitybuildingand other forms of “engaged scholarship.” John Burkhardt, Director of the Kellogg<strong>Forum</strong> on Higher Education for the Public Good, spoke of this relationship in termsof a covenant, an agreement or promise that carries with it a profound moral responsibility.<strong>The</strong> term is a provocative and difficult one, he acknowledged, because of its moral andeven sacred overtones. But it captures the essential truth that at bottom colleges and univer-8

Educating for the Public Goodsities exist to advance the common good. <strong>The</strong> covenant is embodied not only in the corevalues of academic institutions, he said, it is also “rooted in a set of publicly held beliefsabout what higher education should and shouldn’t do.” It is the integrity of that relationshipthat is at stake today.For some participants, the public good is best expressed in terms of actual programs andpractices, such as citizenship education, community-based research, university partnerships,and other forms of outreach and engagement. <strong>The</strong> key, they stressed, is to anchorthe discussion not just in good intentions but also in good works.“I want to lay to rest thenotion that a few people,even with a lot of input,are going to define the‘public good.’ In someways ‘public good’cannot be defined. It’s avalue, not a definition.”— John BurkhardtDirector, Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong>on Higher Educationfor the Public GoodCalling for public service and social responsibility can breedcynicism on campus and tarnish the institution’s legitimacyin the community if it is not backed up by real commitments.“We have to prevent people from engaging in this type of workfrom a missionary point of view,” commented Lester Monts,Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs at the University ofMichigan. “I have seen some of the ill-effects of bad missionarywork.”Several participants insisted that the term “public good,” bydefinition, involves the public. <strong>The</strong> academy cannot presume tospeak or act on behalf of the public unless it plays some role indefining its own interests. Colleges and universities routinelystudy and survey the public, but rarely do they engage communitymembers, civic leaders, and other non-academics in sustained public work. Promotingthe public good therefore involves creating opportunities for substantive dialogue andcollaboration to take place between the institution and the community and for people tocome together to, as John Dedrick of the Kettering Foundation put it, “frame issues, makedecisions, and act on common problems.”Dialogue must also take place within the institutions of higher education. <strong>The</strong>odore Mitchell,president of Occidental College, commented that “while self-actualization is an importantpart of what colleges and universities are about in this country, we need, moredeliberately than we have been, to consciously create domains that are either neutral orcounter-hegemonic — where individuals can break out of role-defined identities and needs.What I’m talking about is the creation of a dialogue on each and every campus about thenature of the public good within our institutions. It demands that we talk about issues offairness, justice, and authenticity in relation to the language we use to express ourselves,and to the missions, however ill-defined, that we espouse.”Another dimension of the public good is the importance of understanding what it means to9

Higher Education for the Public Goodbe members of a public. After all, there are many publics and the idea of public good oftendepends on which public is defining the good. Higher education has a critical role to play ingiving voice to those publics that are poor, weak, or marginalized. It also has a responsibilityto create publics by serving as a venue for dialogue, deliberation, and collective action.Some participants, frustrated by the lack of a commonly agreed definition, urged the Kellogg<strong>Forum</strong> to take the lead in articulating a general statement on the public good, one thatcould be endorsed by the academic community as a whole. But John Burkhardt sounded adifferent note. “I want to lay to rest the notion that a few people, even with a lot of input,are going to define the ‘public good,’” he said. “In some ways ‘public good’ cannot be defined.It’s a value, not a definition.” <strong>The</strong> challenge, he added, is not to define the term butto define the problem and how to address it. By shifting the conversation from the privatebenefits of a college degree to higher education’s broader contribution to society, we havealready turned a corner, he said. “If we think hard, exhaustively, creatively, collectivelyabout a movement to promote the public good of higher education, then we’ve alreadylaunched it.”Richard Couto, professor of leadership studies at the University of Richmond, echoed thepoint, calling the public good a “moral resource.” A moral resource is best understood as apursuit rather than an end-point, he said. <strong>The</strong> public good — like trust, kindness, compassionand other moral resources — are best realized in the pursuit. “That’s not to say weshould walk on false paths or fool’s errands, but there is something valuable in the processand we shouldn’t be deterred by the difficulty of achieving it. Those people pursuingit come closest to knowing it, and they are also the ones who can help others along in thejourney.”Framing the discussion of the public good in terms of a “pursuit” is helpful, said HarryBoyte, Co-Director of the Center for Democracy & Citizenship at the University of Minnesota,because, at bottom, process and outcome are two sides of the same coin. “I thinkone of the problems with the language of engagement is that to a certain extent it’s posedas an issue of good intentions and morality,” he said. “It’s seen as something ‘nice,’ somethingyou do off-time, an expression of the heart, but different from intellectual work.”In his view, the discussion about the civic mission of higher education needs to be aboutmore than responding to the forces of commercialization. “To me, it’s crazy to separate thenotion of young people wanting to go to college to get a job from the discussion of publicgood. It’s great when people want to go to college to get a job, and it’s good that they wantit to be a decent job. <strong>The</strong> question, and our responsibility, is to add: ‘What is the meaningof that job?’ ‘What is the end, the significance, the dignity and the worth of that job?’I want to see a conversation that integrates the discussion of ends and means, of work andproduct, and stop seeing these as separate.”10

Educating for the Public Good<strong>The</strong> Mission is the Star We Steer By<strong>The</strong>re was a time when our nation’s academic leaders spoke out on pressing socialissues and defended the public interest, said Frances Hesselbein, Chairman of theBoard of the Peter F. Drucker Foundation and former CEO of the Girls Scouts of America,in a keynote address. Academic leaders such as Derek Bok, <strong>The</strong>odore Hesburgh, and WilliamSloane Coffin put themselves — and sometimes their institutions — on the line forwhat they believed. “We didn’t have to agree with them,” she said, “but we knew whatthey believed. And they gave a voice to the sector.”But American higher education has fallen “strangely silent” on many questions of nationalimportance, she asserted. Where there was once a lively debate, there is now mostly silence.Where there was once a fellowship of engaged public intellectuals, there are now alot of insulated chief executives more concerned with day-to-day management issues thanquestions about the public good. While expert management is essential, she said, it mustalways be guided by some higher purpose. “<strong>The</strong> mission of our organization is the star westeer by.”<strong>The</strong> fact that more and more institutions of higher education are reaffirming their commitmentto the public good is a promising development, she said. <strong>The</strong> question is whetheracademic leaders have what it takes to mobilize their institutions around a commonvision, one that resonates with the entire campus community — faculty, administrators,staff, and students. <strong>The</strong> challenge for leaders will be to “communicate vision, demonstratecommitment, articulate values, and personally embody the principles of the organizationas they manage the enterprise.”In a world of accelerating change and uncertainty, and in the wake of the terrible eventsof September 11, we are faced with an entirely new set of challenges, she said. “<strong>The</strong> earlierbeliefs, credos, values, assumptions, and the ways and hows of leadership have beencast upon a screen of formidable dimensions.” Meeting the challenges of our moment inhistory is not an abstract question to be taken up in some breakout session or intellectualdebate, “it is a daily demand upon leaders at every level who are called to lead.” <strong>The</strong>questions they ask and the answers they give will determine whether their institutions arestill relevant and viable eight or ten years from now. “When the roll is called in 2010,”she declared, “we don’t know what the world is going to look like. But there is a smallwindow of possibility right now, and the actions of academic leaders today will go a longway toward shaping the society of tomorrow.”11

Higher Education for the Public GoodEDUCATING FOR THE PUBLIC GOODIn practical terms, the work of promoting the public good takes many differentforms. Leaders, administrators, faculty, students and other members of the academiccommunity each have different roles to play and embody the public service mission indifferent ways. In a series of breakout sessions, participants explored these responsibilitiesat some length. <strong>The</strong> small-group discussions were, as leadership consultant and facilitatorCarole Leland put it, “the essence of dialogue,” focusing as they did on practical strategiesfor mobilizing the various constituencies of higher education as well as the broader questionof how to transform the values and beliefs that stand in the way of a deeper commitment tosocial responsibility.LeadershipIn her after-dinner address, Frances Hesselbein set the tone for the gathering by callingon college and university presidents to “lead beyond the walls of the institution and builda healthy community that cares about all of its people.” It was a theme that resonatedthroughout the gathering. Participants agreed that leadership is critical since only it cangive consistent and sustained voice to the institution’s guiding sense of purpose. It is alsovital in spotlighting the important civic contributions of the institution and in buildingstrategic alliances in the community and beyond.This role is not limited to presidents and chancellors. “Leadership on this issue can comefrom many different places,” said Nancy Thomas, director of the Models for DemocracyProject at Portland State University’s Society for Values in Higher Education. “Forexample, I’ve seen a number of campuses create a ‘vice presidency for the mission.’ <strong>The</strong>seare people who create the discussions around ‘What are we doing here?’ ‘What are wedoing well?’ ‘How can we be doing better?’ and ‘How does it relate to our core values?’”William Tierney, director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at theUniversity of Southern California, agreed. Leaders have a privileged status, he said,insofar as they can work on ideas, not just programs and procedures. Faculty are on12

Educating for the Public Goodthe whole far too preoccupied with the demands of research and teaching to create andimplement institution-wide engagement efforts, he said. “Far too often, faculty get caughtup in the process rather than the idea.” A good leader will focus on issues, not procedures.<strong>The</strong>re are also opportunities for leaders in the field of moral leadership. <strong>The</strong>y can push forcourses in professional ethics, for example, or promote greater civility and cooperationon the part of faculty and administrators. When these types of“<strong>The</strong>re is no other wayto teach democracythan to model it.”— Richard CoutoProfessor of Leadership StudiesUniversity of Richmondefforts are determined and sustained, they not only improve moraleon campus but they model for students the importance of ethicalstandards and civic virtue.A recurring theme at the gathering revolved around the issue ofpolitical will. It was noted that chancellors, presidents, deans,provosts and department chairs have the power, but not always thecommitment, to create real change in the institution. AlexanderGonzalez, president of California State University, San Marcos,wryly noted that an unspoken axiom on many campuses is: “If you want something to fail,leave it to the president.”“Change needs to be driven,” said Ted Howard, executive director of the DemocracyCollaborative at the University of Maryland. “It would be nice if we all just did the rightthing according to our view of what the right thing is. But this is an issue of power andpolitical will.”<strong>The</strong> key question is whether leadership on this issue is likely to emerge. A number ofrecent initiatives, including Campus Compact’s Presidents’ Declaration on the CivicResponsibility of Higher Education (with more than 450 signatories to date) and the workof the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, suggest amove in the right direction. But efforts of this kind may not be enough to break the force ofcountervailing trends, such as the spread of bottom-line thinking and the relentless pursuitof high rankings and good publicity.Faculty<strong>The</strong> professoriate plays a critical role in shaping the culture of American higher education.Faculty not only teach the courses and manage the curricula that shape student learning,but they define the questions that guide academic research and determine how and to whatextent that research is applied to meeting the needs of society. Many felt that the firststep in infusing the teaching, research, and service mission with a greater commitment to13

Higher Education for the Public Goodthe public good involves addressing some of the systemic problems in the academy thateffectively discourage faculty engagement. <strong>The</strong>se include the rules governing promotionand tenure, the narrow range of what is considered acceptable scholarly work, thedisconnection between the classroom and the community, and the prevalence of pedagogiesthat work against the broad purposes of citizenship education.A more immediate challenge, however, is the pervasive anxiety and insecurity of purposein the professoriate — especially at large research universities. Reporting on a study heEducating the Whole PersonIn a set of informal remarks, California State Senator John Vasconcellos observed thatwe are living in an age of chaos and uncertainty, a time marked by economic upheaval,demographic change and political instability on the one hand, and technological innovationand breakthrough insights into the nature and complexity of the human mind on theother.“If we are going to prepare people to live in a world of profound change,” he said,“we have to imagine and design an education that recognizes the whole person — body,mind, emotions, spirituality, sexuality, all of it together.”Educating for social responsibility must begin with “a commitment to the full humanbeing,” he said. “That is at the heart of the public good, because the more whole I am inmyself the more I am able to contribute to the public good.”This is what humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow had in mind when he referredto “democratic character structure,” Vasconcellos pointed out. “A person has to integratehis body, mind and emotions so that they are fully valued, appreciated and liberated beforehe is able to realize his democratic character structure. A person who can learn to dothat will spontaneously engage in society and live democratically.”Society needs institutions that allow individuals to integrate the various aspects ofthemselves, he said. “If you don’t find those experiences at home, at school, at church,in the university, then you walk out into the world as nothing more than an economicmachine.”Educating the whole person is best done by example, he added. “We don’t teach bypreaching; we teach by inspiring.”“I want to challenge you as leaders in higher education to help prepare students forthe twenty-first century — to help them become embodied, passionate, full human beings.I want to encourage you to be out there on the frontier helping society find its way in atime of chaos and change.”14

Educating for the Public Goodcarried out at the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s, Harry Boyte noted that manysenior faculty members feel increasingly disengaged from the real problems of society.A generation ago, he said, the University of Minnesota had a vibrant sense of itself asa great public and land-grant institution. Professors routinely took their work out intothe community and there was a lively culture of collaboration and open discussion inthe academic departments. But that public spirit has beengradually hollowed out over the last thirty years, he observed.“<strong>The</strong> big worry I have isthat many early-careerand aspiring faculty aregoing to decide that theacademy is not where theycan live out their passionsand their commitment tothe public good.”— Ann AustinProfessor of Higher EducationMichigan State UniversityOne of the most striking themes in the interviews was how“radically detached” academic culture had become fromsociety at large, Boyte said. “Again and again, we heard aconcern about isolation, about the competitive culture, andabout the spread of marketplace values — the idea of thestudent as customer and the notion that the university’s publicservice mission is largely a commercial one. We found almostuniformly that people wanted more public relevance. But thenorms in our institutions are silencing.”According to Ann Austin, professor of higher education atMichigan State University, this concern is also shared byearly-career and aspiring faculty. Her research shows that graduate students and newlymintedprofessors tend to be impelled by a strong sense of social responsibility. “<strong>The</strong>re isa vibrancy about the kind of work they wish to be able to do,” she said. “In interviews thatcolleagues and I have done, we hear them explicitly saying, ‘I do this out of passion.’ <strong>The</strong>yoften link that to a desire to contribute to the larger good — to address public issues andsocial problems. <strong>The</strong>y also have a desire to be part of a community with other people whoshare these passions. This is happening across disciplines.”What many young professors find, however, is that the academy does not reward themfor the sort of teaching and research they want to do. <strong>The</strong> norms of scholarship and thestructures governing promotion and tenure effectively discourage them from engaging inresearch and teaching that is collaborative, student-centered, community-based, projectoriented,or cross-disciplinary. “<strong>The</strong> big worry I have,” Austin said, “is that many earlycareerand aspiring faculty are going to decide that the academy is not where they can liveout their passions and will simply leave.”A further challenge is that many faculty subscribe to outdated ideas about teaching andlearning. <strong>The</strong> traditional lecture — where the professor plays the role of “sage on stage”— is still the pedagogy of choice in most American classrooms. John O’Connor, visitingscholar at the American Association for Higher Education, spoke about “the gap between15

Higher Education for the Public GoodPortrait of an Engaged InstitutionMaricopa Community Colleges<strong>The</strong> Maricopa Community Colleges of Arizona have taken civic engagement beyondindividual programs and projects and made it an integral part of their institutionalculture. Paul Elsner, Maricopa’s Chancellor Emeritus, traced the effort back the early1980s when the Campus Compact movement started to gain momentum. Given that themodels and examples most often cited by Campus Compact applied only to four-yearuniversities, he said, the challenge for Maricopa was to make these ideas relevant within acommunity college context. “It was a tough sell. We wrestled for a long time with how toget a consensual vocabulary and develop a framework.”An important milestone in the process, he said, was the publication of Habits ofthe Heart, Robert Bellah and his colleagues’ study of civic life in late twentieth-centuryAmerica. <strong>The</strong> book stimulated a wide-ranging discussion at Maricopa about the meaningof service and citizenship in a changing society. Over time, these discussions evolved intoa comprehensive plan to implement social responsibility and service-learning throughoutthe institution, one based on “volunteer service and civic responsibility as not just an episodicexperience for students, but as a long-term behavioral construct.”One college in the Maricopa system made volunteerism a centerpiece of its institutionalmission, Elsner pointed out. “Rather than creating a marginalized structure forachieving this goal, they incorporated it into the whole panoply of student services,activities, functions, and structures,” he said. “<strong>The</strong> entire student activities program movedtoward the support of faculty in making carefully assessed appointments and assignmentsso that students landed in the right volunteer arrangement, one that is consistent with theirinterests and their developmental stages.”An important lesson from this work, Elsner observed, is that the president or CEOmust take the lead and “walk the talk.” Given the challenges facing leaders today, this isexceedingly hard at most institutions. “<strong>The</strong> first thing a CEO is expected to do when hecomes on board is start a capital drive,” he said. “We are drawn away from public purposesall the time.” Another lesson is that programs have to be organized in an open andflexible fashion with the necessary infrastructure to support the mission. In short, civicengagement has to be infused into everyday routines and practices. “What you want,” hestressed, “is wall-to-wall commitment within the institution.”16

Educating for the Public Goodmethod and manner.” Today, he said, we know a great deal about how the human mindworks, but we don’t apply that knowledge in the classroom. “We know a lot about howpeople learn, but it doesn’t seem to affect how we go about teaching.”Participants agreed that if the goal of higher education is to inculcate civic values andpractices and foster a stronger sense of social responsibility, then what is needed is acurriculum that teaches democracy in a democratic fashion, one that promotes dialecticalthinking and knowledge-in-use rather than simply knowledge-acquisition, one thatrespects and incorporates a diversity of perspectives, one that embraces multiple types ofintelligence, and one that is participatory and engages students in the types of issues andchallenges they are likely to encounter in the real world.<strong>The</strong> goal of citizenship education, observed Richard Couto, should be to remake theclassroom into a learning community. “<strong>The</strong>re is no other way to teach democracy than tomodel it. Students should know each other’s names. <strong>The</strong>re needs to be as much emphasison group process as on group product. And there should be permeable boundaries betweenthe classroom and the community.”StudentsA flurry of studies and reports have appeared over the last decade bemoaning the low ratesof political engagement among students. Evidence shows that students are increasinglycynical about government and wary of politicians. <strong>The</strong>ir voting rates are at or nearrecord lows. And their interest in traditional forms of political activism — participating inorganized demonstrations, volunteering in political campaigns, or joining issues-relatedorganizations — is on the decline.<strong>The</strong> annual Freshman Surveys conducted by UCLA’s Cooperative Institutional ResearchProgram show that volunteerism and community service among students have increasedin recent years. Yet it appears, somewhat counter-intuitively, that volunteering in thecommunity does not necessarily contribute to greater political awareness or participation. Infact, it sometimes has the opposite effect by reinforcing students’ feelings of powerlessnessand indignation in the face of persistent social problems.<strong>The</strong> question is whether higher education bears some responsibility for the pervasiveanxiety and disaffection among students. What role might institutions play in reversingcurrent trends and re-engaging students? And to what extent can students be included asequal participants in the academy’s civic engagement efforts?17

Higher Education for the Public GoodMany participants felt that the first step in renewing higher education’s commitment to thepublic good has to be to openly acknowledge that it has not done all it can to educate forsocial responsibility. Worse, it has often discouraged engagement by emphasizing academicexcellence at the expense of other essential qualities, such as civic responsibility, ethicalawareness, and concern for the interests of others. “Studentsoften come in with the fire in the belly,” as UCLA’s <strong>The</strong>reseEyermann put it, “but too often we beat it out of them to thepoint where they become interested only in what they need toknow for their next exam.”“If students could be apart of the conversation,it could be a real transformationalexperiencefor them. And it wouldbe extraordinarily goodfor the movement.”<strong>The</strong> discussion benefited from the input of several graduatestudents who spoke at first hand about the difficulty of bridgingacademic work and service to the community. Jodi Anderson,a doctoral candidate at UCLA, reflected on her experience asan undergraduate at a large research university saying that thecurriculum left little room for the integration of civic engagementor political participation. While she sought out opportunitiesfor community service on her own, she said, it was a challengeto find faculty who were committed to it and harder still to incorporate or build uponthe service experience in her academic work. “For a lot of students, especially at theundergraduate level, service is a way to connect what goes on in the classroom to the kindsof issues they really care about. But when it’s disconnected from their academic work, itsends a message about the priorities of an institution.”— Ted HowardExecutive Director<strong>The</strong> Democracy CollaborativeEstella Zamano-Gutierrez, also a doctoral candidate at UCLA, emphasized thatdisengagement is a natural outgrowth of an education system structured around contentrather than process. In her experience, undergraduate teaching is focused almost entirelyaround the dissemination of knowledge rather than the production of knowledge. Ifinstitutions are serious about engagement, she said, they need to provide students withopportunities to actively participate through deliberation, networking, and communitybuildingon campus. That requires public spaces and “lateral commitments” within thecommunity.According to several participants, studies and reports pointing to a decline of studentengagement are misleading because they ignore non-traditional forms of civic and politicalparticipation. Elaine Ikeda, executive director of California Campus Compact, cited arecent report, “<strong>The</strong> New Student Politics,” that vividly illustrates this misperception.According to a group of 33 juniors and seniors who participated in the Wingspread Summiton Student Civic Engagement,18

Educating for the Public Good<strong>The</strong> manner in which we engage in our democracy goes beyond, well beyond,the traditional measurements that statisticians like to measure us by, mostnotably voting. Indeed, student civic engagement has multiple manifestationsincluding: personal reflection/inner development, thinking, reading, silentprotest, dialogue and relationship building, sharing knowledge, projectmanagement, and formal organization that brings people together. Cultural andspiritual forms of expression are included here, as are other forms of expressionthrough the arts such as guerrilla theater, music, coffee houses, poetry, andalternative newspapers.According to Ikeda, students often see themselves as misunderstood by those who measurestudent engagement by conventional standards that do not necessarily reflect their own viewof civic and political participation. <strong>The</strong>y also have thoughts and ideas about how highereducation needs to change to better accommodate their desire to work for social change.This suggests that the effort to re-engage students has to begin by learning more about howthey understand social responsibility, what concerns they have, and how they wish to beinvolved.<strong>The</strong>re was widespread agreement on this point. “We need to incorporate the voices ofstudents as part of this effort,” asserted Jon Dalton, professor of educational leadershipat Florida State University. “Students want to have a stronger voice. Too often they areinvited in like china — we want to show them off, but we don’t want to listen too much.We need to find ways to really get the voices and the energy and the idealism that studentsbring.” Ted Howard concurred. “If students could be a part of the conversation,” he said,“it could be a real transformational experience for them. And it would be extraordinarilygood for the movement.”Outside ConstituenciesWhile the breakout sessions focused mainly on the roles of leaders, faculty, and students,there was also some discussion of how outside constituencies, such as governing boardsand professional associations, can stimulate and support civic engagement efforts in highereducation.Trustees have an especially critical role to play since they control the mission, theprograms, and the resources of their respective institutions. Indirectly, they also shapeinstitutional culture by defining the proper role of university presidents. Yet few trusteesactually acknowledge their responsibility as stewards of the public good.19

Higher Education for the Public GoodMerrill Schwartz, Director of Special Projects at the Association of Governing Boardsof Universities and Colleges, noted that the trustees she works with often have a highlydevelopedsense of social responsibility, but it rarely informs their work on governingboards. “You would think that we talk about the public good all the time since theseare the people who literally hold the trust for the public,” she said. “But we don’t haveconversations like this very often.”In her view, the idea of modeling the arts of democracy applies not only to academic affairsbut to the work of governing boards. “Board meetings are not exactly models of democracyand respectful dialogue,” she said. “<strong>The</strong>re is a lot that could be done to train chairs andprovide direction so that boards are more inclusive, so that the selection of trustees reflectsthe community, and so that they conduct themselves more democratically.”As the discussion turned to the role of professional associations, there was a generalperception that they see themselves largely as advocates of private interests — theprofessional needs of their members — rather than guardians of the public good. While anumber of associations have convened conferences on such topics as public accountabilityand social responsibility, they have not made a serious and systematic effort to push forcivic renewal in the academy.For some participants, the failure of associations to play a more active role epitomizes theinsular and self-referential culture of the academic world. David Ray, director of the Ford/UNCF Service Learning Network at the United Negro College Fund, acknowledged that,contrary to conventional wisdom, the important decisions in higher education are rarelymade in Washington. “When I arrived at One Dupont Circle fresh out of graduate school,”he recalled, “I thought, ‘This is where things happen in higher ed.’ But I remember theshock when I realized that nothing really happens there at One Dupont Circle.”Participants agreed that professional associations, like governing boards, need to see theirwork in a larger public context, explore how the expertise and skills of their members canbe applied toward addressing broad social purposes, and embrace democratic habits andpractices — deliberation, reflection, collaboration — in the disciplines and within their owninstitutions.20

Educating for the Public GoodEducating for Conscience and Communitydirected a project for the American Council on Education where I went around theI country and listened to communities. We brought together community organizers,politicians, police officers, business leaders, and so forth, and asked them:• What personal qualities are we striving to cultivate in our students?• What kinds of curricula and pedagogy are most effective?• What are we currently doing right?• What changes in institutional policies and practices are most likely to facilitateour public service mission?What I heard consistently was that higher education is doing a great job educatingdoctors, lawyers, engineers, occupational therapists and other members of the professions.But it’s doing too little to nurture souls and to cultivate successors. People in communitieswere deeply concerned that we are not educating people who are going to stepinto their shoes — future teachers, superintendents, fire-fighters, and other keepers andbuilders of our civic infrastructure.Through the “Listening to Communities” project, I developed a mantra for myself.It says that higher education’s role should be to educate for conscience and community.By conscience, I mean ethical choices, moral intelligence, reflective practices, spirituality,integrated ways of being, and wisdom. We should be educating for wise and ethicalleadership, and for engaged, responsible, and principled citizenship.To do that, we need to build communities. It’s our responsibility to create on ourcampuses little models of community — communities of discourse and communities ofcollaborative action — so that our students can practice the arts of democracy and beready when they graduate to go out into the big world in a more skilled way.<strong>The</strong> community must become central to the way we teach and learn. And collegesand universities should be places where values are explicitly and easily discussed, andwhere there is consistency between the values stated and the values played out.— Nancy ThomasDirector, Models for Democracy ProjectSociety for Values in Higher EducationPortland State University21

Higher Education for the Public GoodPROMOTING SYSTEM-WIDE CHANGESome of the most spirited discussion at the Oxnard dialogue revolved around theneed for a strategic approach that operates at many levels and aims to transform thesystem of higher education as a whole. John Burkhardt made the point early on thatmany foundations and policymakers have soured on the “Johnny Appleseed approach” ofpromoting change one institution at a time because, as he put it, “it simply doesn’t work.”Creating change requires a deliberate and coherent effort on the part of all the elementsof higher education — presidents and administrators, faculty and students, trustees andalumni. “<strong>The</strong>re needs to be some meaning created at the systems level that complementsinnovation at the institutional level.”Joseph Aguerrebere, deputy director of the Ford Foundation, agreed. <strong>The</strong> challenge, hesaid, is “how to work together in a much smarter fashion so that it’s not just an assemblageof individuals who have altruistic wishes to do the right thing.” <strong>The</strong> internal and externalpressures facing higher education today require systemic thinking and a coherent responseon the part of the academy as a whole. In practical terms, that means thinking aboutstrategic partnerships, legislative action, and forms of public accountability. It also meanstaking a long view — “staying with it for a while and not wavering.”While many in the group reiterated the importance of “collective work” and “creating acritical mass,” some participants cautioned against using “top-down” strategies. JeannieOakes, professor of education and director of the Institute for Democracy, Education &Access at UCLA, argued for a more decentralized, grassroots approach. <strong>The</strong> strengthof colleges and universities as instruments of public service, she said, is that they are bynature “idiosyncratic, opportunistic, and differentiated.”According to Oakes, the impulse to infuse higher education with a greater commitment tothe public good is by nature counter-cultural, counter-structural, and counter-political. It iscounter-cultural in the sense that it challenges the norms of individualism, competition, andseparation that have prevailed in American higher education for the better part of a century.It is counter-structural because it takes issue with the academy’s traditional way of rankingand sorting people. “From the admissions process all the way through post-doctoral study,22

Educating for the Public Goodthe process is about social stratification,” she stated. “It’s very contradictory to comingtogether as a community to serve the public good.” And it is counter-political in the sensethat it stands on the side of those who have the least power. “It puts us in opposition tothose with privilege,” she said. “If we take all this seriously, we’re talking about somethingthat is counter-cultural, counter-structural, and counter-political, which makes it almostimpossible for a college or university president to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to do thissystemically.’”<strong>The</strong> point was well-taken. Still, many felt that there must be some way to align individualand institutional efforts with a broader movement for change in the academy. Besides, theysaid, the phrase “systems thinking” suggests a false dichotomy between individual andcollective effort — they are two aspects of the same process. In a well-timed intervention,William Reckmyer, a systems theorist and professor of anthropology at San José StateUniversity, explained that one of the essential characteristics of systems is that they areself-organizing. “If you look at the way the universe has evolved,” he said, “you see thatfrom the sub-atomic level to the natural level it has come about not through some granddesign where everything was put in place, but rather by lots of entrepreneurial activitiesand lots of different species developing different niches.” <strong>The</strong> metaphor is a good one, henoted, because it suggests that individual efforts — no matter how differentiated — cancreate system-wide change when they are guided by a common impulse. “If it’s totallyidiosyncratic, we’re in trouble. If it’s at the other extreme,“How do we work togetherin a much smarterfashion, so that it’s notjust an assemblage ofindividuals who havealtruistic wishes to do theright thing?”— Joseph AguerrebereDeputy Director, Ford Foundationwhere everybody is doing exactly the same thing, we’re alsoin trouble. <strong>The</strong> key is to encourage as much self-organizationas possible, but make sure that there is some commondirection, a common framework, and some common values.”Another recurring theme revolved around the need for amore compelling articulation of the problem at the heart ofthe movement, one that resonates with academics and nonacademicsalike. According to Frank Gilliam, Vice Chancellorfor Community Partnerships at UCLA, those who share apassion for this work need to frame the movement in a waythat the public can understand and support. In a speech overlunch, he presented an overview of strategic frame analysis, an emerging field of studyaimed at examining how unquestioned assumptions and ways of looking at the world shapethe public’s understanding of policy issues. <strong>The</strong> research shows that people make sense ofnew information largely on the basis of pre-established interpretive frameworks, he noted.<strong>The</strong>se frames are like mental shortcuts that save people the trouble of repeatedly figuringthings out anew. But frames are usually resistant to change and can lock people into setways of understanding public issues. As Gilliam put it, “if the facts don’t fit the frame,23

Higher Education for the Public Goodpeople reject the facts — but not the frame.”According to Gilliam, the effort advance a new set of ideas — in this case, the pressingneed for civic engagement and social responsibility in higher education — has to begin notby marshalling arguments and facts but rather by “transforming the master frame.” “If youcan shift people to a different frame of understanding, you can move collective action.”An essential first step in mobilizing support, he said, is to identify how people inside andoutside the academy relate to the concept of the public good and then consider how the ideacan be reframed so that it resonates with their core values and concerns.A Five-Point AgendaI believe there are five things that can make our efforts more powerful: research, networking,learning from the community, training new scholars, and communication.• Research. We need to know, in the most practical terms, what sort of communitypartnerships and civic engagement efforts really make a difference. <strong>The</strong>re isa lot of activity going on around the country. But I think a lot of us lack informationabout what works and what doesn’t.• Networking. We need to build more active and functioning networks. <strong>The</strong>reare faculty all over the country who want to link up, who want to get active,who want to exchange information. <strong>The</strong>y feel isolated in their institutions. <strong>The</strong>ywant to be part of something bigger nationally.• Learning from the community. We need to begin to open ourselves up so wecan learn from the outside world. Scholars and activists need to learn from oneanother, work together, and build ongoing relationships.• Training. We need to train the next generation of scholars to do research that isconsistent with the engaged university concept.• Communication. We need to build the idea of the engaged university as an“idea whose time has come.” <strong>The</strong>re is something possible beyond what existsnow. We need to communicate that vision.— Ted HowardExecutive Director, <strong>The</strong> Democracy CollaborativeUniversity of Maryland24

Educating for the Public GoodPARTICIPANTSJoseph AguerrebereDeputy DirectorFord FoundationBarbara McFadden AllenDirector, Committee onInstitutional CooperationUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-ChampaignJodi AndersonGraduate StudentHigher Education andOrganizational Change &Higher EducationResearch InstituteUniversity of California,Los AngelesAlexander W. AstinProfessor, Higher EducationUniversity of California,Los AngelesHelen S. AstinProfessor, Higher EducationUniversity of California,Los AngelesAnn AustinProfessor, Higher EducationMichigan State UniversityDaniel BernstinePresidentPortland State UniversityHarry C. BoyteCo-Director, Center forDemocracy & CitizenshipUniversity of MinnesotaJohn BurkhardtProfessor, Higher EducationDirector, Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong>on Higher Education for thePublic GoodUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborJami CamburnProject Administrator,Kellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on HigherEducation for the Public GoodRobert L. CaretPresidentSan José State UniversityTony ChambersAssociate DirectorKellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on HigherEducation for the Public GoodUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborRoger ClarkDirector EmeritusCommittee on InstitutionalCooperationUniversity of Illinois,Urbana-ChampaignRichard CoutoProfessor, Jepson School ofLeadership StudiesUniversity of RichmondJon DaltonProfessor, EducationalLeadershipFlorida State UniversityTracy DavisGraduate StudentHigher Education andOrganizational Change &University of California,Los AngelesJohn R. DedrickProgram OfficerKettering FoundationTim EatmanPostdoctoral Scholar,Higher EducationUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborPaul ElsnerChancellor EmeritusMaricopa Community College<strong>The</strong>rese S. EyermannExecutive Assistant toExecutive Vice ChancellorUniversity of California,Los Angeles25

Higher Education for the Public GoodFrank GilliamVice Chancellor forCommunity PartnershipsUniversity of California,Los AngelesAlexander GonzalezPresidentCalifornia State University,San MarcosJuan C. GonzalezVice President forStudent AffairsGeorgetown UniversityCarie GoralGraduate StudentCenter for the Study of Higherand Postsecondary EducationUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborGeorge GraingerGrant OfficerHouston EndowmentEstella Gutierrez-ZamanoGraduate StudentHigher Educationand Organizational ChangeHigher Education ResearchInstituteUniversity of California,Los AngelesWilliam HarveyVice President & Director,Office of Minorities inHigher EducationAmerican Council onEducationKaren HaynesPresident, University ofHouston-VictoriaFrances HesselbeinChairman of the BoardPeter F. Drucker FoundationTed HowardExecutive Director,Democracy CollaborativeUniversity of MarylandSylvia HurtadoProfessor & Director, Centerfor the Study of Higher andPostsecondary EducationUniversity of MichiganElaine IkedaExecutive DirectorCalifornia Campus CompactPatricia M. KingProfessor, Higher EducationUniversity of MichiganCatherine A. LaceySenior Program OfficerSpencer FoundationJanet H. LawrenceProfessor, Higher EducationUniversity of MichiganCarole LelandLeadership ConsultantXu LiGraduate StudentCenter for the Study of Higherand Postsecondary EducationUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborRay LouVice Chancellor forAcademic AffairsUniversity ofWashington-BothellMagdalena MartinezGraduate StudentKellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on HigherEducation for the Public GoodUniversity of Michigan,Ann ArborMelissa A. MazmanianGraduate StudentInformation Economics,Management and PolicyUniversity of Michigan,Ann Arbor<strong>The</strong>odore MitchellPresidentOccidental CollegeLester MontsSenior Vice Provost forAcademic AffairsUniversity of MichiganChristine N. NaviaGraduate StudentKellogg <strong>Forum</strong> on HigherEducation for the Public GoodUniversity of MichiganJeannie OakesProfessor of Educationand Director, Institutefor Democracy,Education & AccessUniversity of California,Los AngelesJohn O’ConnorVisiting ScholarAmerican Association forHigher EducationRobert W. PearcePresidentMount Mercy College26

Educating for the Public GoodMarvin PetersonProfessor, Higher EducationUniversity of MichiganDavid RayDirector, Ford/UNCF ServiceLearning NetworkUnited Negro College FundWilliam ReckmeyerProfessor, AnthropologySan José State UniversityYolanda RobinsonProfessor, EducationPepperdine UniversityVictor SaenzGraduate StudentHigher Education andOrganizational ChangeUniversity of California,Los AngelesMerrill SchwartzDirector of Special ProjectsAssociation of GoverningBoards of Universities andCollegesSaundra TaylorVice President forCampus LifeUniversity of ArizonaNancy ThomasDirector, Models forDemocracy Project, Societyfor Values in Higher EducationPortland State UniversityWilliam TierneyDirector, Center for HigherEducation Policy AnalysisUniversity of SouthernCaliforniaWilliam TrentProfessor, EducationalPolicy StudiesUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-ChampaignJohn VasconcellosSenatorCalifornia Legislature,Senate District 13Heather WathingtonDirector of Programs, Officeof Diversity, Equity, andGlobal LearningAmerican Association ofColleges & UniversitiesElizabeth ZoltanDean of Business andSocial SciencesFoothill College27