|
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. |