The following review, by Alan Rudrum, appeared in the, CAUT Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 8 (December 1984), page 10.

Edward Shils, The Academic Ethic, 104 pp., University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1983.

Though attributed to a single author, this is the report of a study-group on the responsibilities and ethics of the academic profession. It deserves to be read in conjunction with The Great Brain Robbery. Stylistically, two books could scarcely differ more, but both touch upon problems ignored within the universities for too long. Quiet, modest and impersonal in tone as this work is, platitudinous as its ethical reflections may appear, some of its observations and recommendations would have consequences akin to radical surgery were they followed. The state that some universities (or, perhaps more fairly, some departments) are now in is not merely due to fickleness in government funding; it is also self-inflicted, and if regeneration is desired this book should be read by administrators and academics alike. It ought to be studied within Faculties and Departments, and local history evaluated in its light. This may well be a pious hope; the frank evaluation of local history is rarely a priority in universities. Caplow and McGee (The Academic Marketplace,1958) wrote of " a tradition of secrecy, ignorance and self-deception ...remarkable in a social group wedded to the forms of truth", and Sir Walter Moberley, (The Crisis in the University,1949) found it necessary to stress that "academic patriotism... does not exclude, but rather impels, a clear recognition and searching diagnosis of ailments".

Shils begins at the beginning, with the fundamental obligation of scholars to the truth : "if truth, objectivity and rational argument are myths there is no point in teaching and research and no point in taking any particular care in such more specific tasks as making academic appointments, giving expert advice and so on". This may seem obvious, but Shils thinks not: "there is abroad today .a desire.... to derogate or even to dissolve the idea that truths can be discovered and taught". It may not be surprising, then, that the obligation to truth has not always been recognized or that academics sometimes forget "that the cultivation of truth in all the fields in which they study and teach and the respect for truth in their practical activities are essential to and distinctive of their calling" (p. 4) .  

This restatement of fundamentals is followed by historical analysis (of the new situation of universities and its challenge to the academic ethic) and two chapters on the academic obligations of university teachers and their obligations to their "environing society". The topics raised are too multifarious for brief summary; any experienced university teacher who cares about his or her institution and profession will find that most of the matters discussed have been objects of concern at one time or another.

Occasionally one registers disagreement, as at the statement that "the great weight laid on achievement in research as evidence of success in the academic career has been associated with an increased indifference to the affairs of one's university... to the detriment of academic citizenship." Sometimes this is true; sometimes it is merely propaganda put out by less active researchers. In more than one department, good scholars have been deliberately excluded from the decision-making process because their complicity in the agenda of the ruling junta was less than total. One might consider the ideal set forth here and the kind of thing that sometimes happens in practice. Shils writes: "It is the high quality of achievement ...which gives to a good university the tone which brings out the best in its teaching and research and which communicates itself to its students. Mutual trust, mutual respect, solicitousness for younger members and the like are all indispensable but they cannot compensate for the absence of rigour in the choice of new members for the academic staff of a university... the decisions to discontinue, re-appoint or promote ..must apply the same standards as are appropriate to the appointment of new members"(p.62). That Shils knows what has sometimes happened in practice is indicated at p. 65, where he says that in every university there are some departments that are weaker than is justifiable, that curative vigilance cannot undo past errors and is in any case unlikely unless universities enforce the rule that "academics who have been careless in the application of stringent criteria in making or recommending appointments are not entitled to participate in decisions regarding appointments". That is, until the situation is reversed which' presently prevails in weak departments in universities which constitute their) hiring and tenure committees by popularity-poll. (As I wrote above, there are recommendations here which would amount to radical surgery if followed!) He suggests indeed that the right of weak departments to propose appointments should be suspended. However, Shils recognizes (p.66) that this could only be done "where ... academic citizenship is stronger than the desire to let sleeping dogs lie". Yes indeed.