International appeal for the protection of academic independence

flattr this!

A group of Swiss aca­d­e­mics have recently launched a peti­tion to call for the pro­tec­tion of aca­d­e­mic inde­pen­dence. Per­son­ally I think it’s gone well past the point where pro­tec­tion is the appo­site term, given the extent to which the func­tion of Uni­ver­si­ties has been eroded over the last 4 decades. But we have to start some­where. Please read their peti­tion below and sign at the rel­e­vant web page for yourself:

(Eng­lish) http://zuercher-appell.ch/index_en.php

(Deutsch) http://zuercher-appell.ch/index.php

(Français) http://zuercher-appell.ch/index_fr.php

(Ital­iano) http://zuercher-appell.ch/index_it.php

Inter­na­tional Appeal for the pro­tec­tion of aca­d­e­mic independence

Now that coop­er­a­tion between the pri­vate sec­tor and pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties has all but become the norm, in Europe as else­where, it is time to ask some basic ques­tions: What is a uni­ver­sity? And what is its role in society?

Uni­ver­si­ties grew out of the idea of estab­lish­ing a place where free­dom of research, edu­ca­tion and schol­ar­ship is pro­tected and beyond venal influ­ence. They serve the com­mon good and in turn are sup­ported by the com­mu­nity. Directly linked to this found­ing idea is the aca­d­e­mic ethos that pre­serves the insti­tu­tion of the uni­ver­sity as a spe­cial place, free from polit­i­cal, ide­o­log­i­cal and com­mer­cial inter­ests. Free­dom of teach­ing and research is pro­tected by the Swiss Constitution.

Against this back­ground, it is self-evident that a pub­lic uni­ver­sity should nei­ther coop­er­ate with nor accept spon­sor­ship from insti­tu­tions asso­ci­ated with pub­lic scan­dal or uneth­i­cal con­duct. That is dam­ag­ing to the aca­d­e­mic rep­u­ta­tion of any uni­ver­sity. And it impinges upon the inde­pen­dence of the schol­ars con­cerned, par­tic­u­larly those directly funded by such insti­tu­tions, under­min­ing their sta­tus as guar­an­tors of inde­pen­dence and ethically-minded scholarship.

The Uni­ver­sity of Zurich was born of this same spirit of inde­pen­dent think­ing in 1833. It is “the first uni­ver­sity in Europe to be founded by a demo­c­ra­tic state instead of by either a monarch or the church”. This proud claim stands to this day on the university’s web­site. The ques­tion is: are today’s uni­ver­si­ties still suf­fi­ciently inde­pen­dent in an age of coop­er­a­tion and sponsorship?

In April 2012, the Exec­u­tive Board of the Uni­ver­sity of Zurich con­cluded a coop­er­a­tion agree­ment, in cam­era, with the top man­age­ment of UBS (Union Bank of Switzer­land). The agree­ment entails spon­sor­ing of the uni­ver­sity by UBS to the tune of 100 mil­lion Swiss francs and the estab­lish­ment of a “UBS Inter­na­tional Cen­tre of Eco­nom­ics in Soci­ety” within the scope of the uni­ver­sity. Nei­ther the pub­lic nor the research and teach­ing staff were asked their opin­ion. The agree­ment between the uni­ver­sity and UBS was con­cluded secretly in the spring of 2012.

This pro­ce­dure brings the issue of spon­sor­ship into sharp focus. The Exec­u­tive Board of the Uni­ver­sity con­cedes that the bank is using the uni­ver­sity as a plat­form to fur­ther its inter­ests. How­ever, UBS is a par­tic­u­lar case of a busi­ness that has been shown in the past to have engaged in uneth­i­cal prac­tices. The fact that the bank was able to place its logo at the Uni­ver­sity of Zurich has noth­ing to do with schol­ar­ship and every­thing to do with marketing.

It is a glar­ing exam­ple of the prob­lem­atic nature of aca­d­e­mic spon­sor­ship. But there are many more instances, in other Euro­pean coun­tries, of ques­tion­able uni­ver­sity spon­sor­ship deals. In one case, in June 2011, Deutsche Bank had to with­draw from a con­tro­ver­sial spon­sor­ship arrange­ment because of jus­ti­fied pub­lic crit­i­cism. This shows that spon­sor­ship involv­ing spe­cific vested inter­ests and secret deals – in con­trast to altru­is­tic patron­age and dona­tion by bene­fac­tors – rep­re­sents a threat to the impar­tial­ity of uni­ver­sity research and teach­ing. The very aca­d­e­mic ethos is at risk.

As cit­i­zens, researchers, aca­d­e­mics and stu­dents, we appeal to the lead­ers of the uni­ver­si­ties and all who bear respon­si­bil­ity for our edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions, at home and abroad, to safe­guard the pre­cious her­itage of free and inde­pen­dent schol­ar­ship, and to avoid endan­ger­ing the aca­d­e­mic ethos in con­tro­ver­sial collaborations.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to International appeal for the protection of academic independence

  1. Pingback: Links 3/4/13 « naked capitalism | Fifth Estate

  2. Pingback: International Appeal for the Protection of Academic Independence « Homologus

  3. H. Alexander Ivey says:

    Quite agree with the point of this blog, but will quib­ble, or rather, strongly add, that the pur­pose of a uni­ver­sity or school is to prove to their stu­dents that, in exchange for the student’s time and money, the stu­dent will be taught a skill and, with the post­ing of the student’s grades and cer­tifi­cate, other peo­ple can be sure of that student’s level of knowl­edge in the field of knowl­edge the stu­dent stud­ied in. In other words, the first uni­ver­si­ties were estab­lished due to pres­sure from the pay­ing stu­dents to ensure that their money and time was not wasted by fraud­u­lent or incom­pe­tent “teachers”.

    Hav­ing a school link its fund­ing to insti­tu­tions that desire a goal that is at odds to the student’s goal of get­ting and prov­ing he has got­ten a level of skill by attend­ing and pass­ing his courses, is wrong, and a betrayal of one of the main pur­poses of form­ing an accred­ited school or uni­ver­sity in the first place.

  4. Steve Keen says:

    Alexan­der, Uni­ver­si­ties also evolved out of the monas­ter­ies that kept learn­ing and schol­ar­ship alive after the col­lapse of the Roman Empire, and those two tasks–learning and scholarship–are the ones Uni­ver­si­ties are now find­ing are being attacked by treat­ing them as pro­duc­ers sell­ing a prod­uct called edu­ca­tion and accred­i­ta­tion to pay­ing cus­tomers. That process of com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion, com­bined with gov­ern­ments using it to cut back on their own fund­ing, is one of the rea­sons why Uni­ver­si­ties are fail­ing to do what you want them to do.

  5. Lyonwiss says:

    The whole uni­ver­sity sys­tem has become a whore house: fee for ser­vice. The ser­vice is sell­ing meal-tickets and the fees or pay­ments are dic­tated by busi­ness profit, where the rev­enue is mostly stu­dent fees and the cost is mostly aca­d­e­mic salaries. Profit max­i­miza­tion requires issu­ing as many meal-tickets as pos­si­ble at the low­est cost. Since there are no mea­sures of stan­dards, it is eco­nom­i­cally ratio­nal to lower stan­dards to save on the cost of pro­duc­tion. Meal-tickets are for jobs or voca­tion, not edu­ca­tion or think­ing skills. Mil­lions of grad­u­ates can­not find jobs for which they are trained, but have no skills to cre­ate the jobs themselves.

    Uni­ver­sity rev­enue is also sub­si­dized by gov­ern­ment grants and busi­ness dona­tions, which largely deter­mine the research bud­get. Since research is the main cri­te­rion for pro­mo­tion and other career prospects, grants and dona­tions largely con­trol the direc­tions of aca­d­e­mic research (as noticed at Zurich). For exam­ple, since busi­ness favours free-markets and dereg­u­la­tion, it sim­ply (a) give grants and dona­tions only to neo­clas­si­cal eco­nom­ics research and (b) finance the pres­ti­gious jour­nals to accept only those research papers. Before long, gov­ern­ment bureau­crats and all pol­icy mak­ers are trained to accept the neo­clas­si­cal eco­nomic par­a­digm. This pro­vides a deeper expla­na­tion for the global finan­cial crisis.

    Change will not be easy. Sup­pose a bright econ­o­mist (like Steve) has dis­cov­ered the right eco­nomic the­ory and is given the oppor­tu­nity to teach it at a uni­ver­sity. None of those grad­u­ates are likely to be able to get a job, because they won’t “fit in”, as they will ques­tion orders and debate poli­cies with their supe­ri­ors who must know bet­ter. If any­one thinks the gov­ern­ment or busi­ness puts truths or right answers above all else, then they are incred­i­bly naive. The intel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion has taken sev­eral decades to put in place and it will take
    sev­eral decades to dis­man­tle, even if there is a will to do so.

  6. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    The whole uni­ver­sity system?

    There are still arts, phi­los­o­phy and lit­er­a­ture degrees aren’t there?

  7. koonyeow says:

    Why don’t they hire a lawyer and chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the Uni­ver­sity of Zurich/UBS agreement?

    Per­son­ally I think it is very hard to have free­dom of mind with­out finan­cial free­dom (due to our fear of death), unless one prac­tices Sto­icism; some­thing which Seneca had achieved.

  8. Lyonwiss says:

    @ TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth March 5, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    It is the whole sys­tem, regard­less of indi­vid­ual dis­ci­plines, which runs as fee for ser­vice. Uni­ver­si­ties have to close down depart­ments which do not earn enough fees for the ser­vice they provide.

    The arts, phi­los­o­phy and lit­er­a­ture depart­ments have been shrink­ing for a long time, con­stantly strug­gling with finances. Depart­ments, such as the clas­sics, have been closed down in most universities.

    Meal-tickets are needed by most to pay off stu­dent loans, as an eco­nomic imper­a­tive. To the extent that there are still jobs for arts grad­u­ates, the arts fac­ul­ties still exist. Not many are pre­pared to spend tens of thou­sands of dol­lars “for the love of knowledge”.

  9. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    Well, for can­di­date suit­abil­ity, the finance indus­try needs to know that grad­u­ates are able to estab­lish a feel­ing of self impor­tance after being sub­jected to 3yr of mun­danly bor­ing banal sub­jects in busi­ness degrees.

  10. Steve Keen says:

    In fact, David Williamson was on ABC radio last night mak­ing pre­cisely these points about cre­ative arts fund­ing. I heard it by acci­dent last night while dri­ving back from Cen­ten­nial Park, and it was excellent:

    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/they-kill-us-for-their-sport-williamson-laments-arts-funding-cuts-20121115-29ejt.html

    http://www.stagewhispers.com.au/stage-briefs/david-williamson-lecture-screen-abc

    And as for the com­ment “would have loved a class where I get to build a dynamic model of the econ­omy”, that’s what Min­sky is designed for: I gave lec­tures in Mex­ico in Novem­ber where I had stu­dents build the Good­win model in about 20 min­utes in a com­puter lab, and a basic com­par­i­son of Endoge­nous Money and Loan­able Funds in another 20 minutes.

    Speak­ing of which… Fund­ing has slowed down quite a bit. If you’d like to help speed it up:

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2123355930/minsky-reforming-economics-with-visual-monetary-mo

  11. Bhaskara II says:

    Calvin and Hobbs Cartoon:

    It’s no sur­prise to me that nobody’s sold a a house on this street for six years.”

    http://assets.amuniversal.com/db323e60c10e012fdd6d001dd8b71c47

  12. Lyonwiss says:

    David Williamson con­firmed the par­lous sit­u­a­tion of fund­ing for arts edu­ca­tion and argued for the impor­tance of train­ing in fos­ter­ing cre­ativ­ity in the arts. But he pro­vided no argu­ments for why sports shouldn’t get much more fund­ing than the arts (accord­ing the cur­rent phi­los­o­phy), as he was preach­ing to the converted.

    Accord­ing to one ques­tioner, a uni­ver­sity VC actu­ally admit­ted that a uni­ver­sity is “in the busi­ness of sell­ing cre­den­tials”, i.e. degrees, qual­i­fi­ca­tions or meal-tickets. So long as this remains the rai­son d’etre for uni­ver­si­ties, eco­nomic ratio­nal­ism will con­tinue to destroy the true mean­ing of university.

    The great­est dan­ger is the loss of intel­lec­tual integrity, lead­ing to uni­ver­si­ties being pro­pa­ganda machines for a fas­cist state. Arts, through var­i­ous forms, help us be con­scious or aware of human treach­ery and the capac­ity to cre­ate dis­as­ters. For this rea­son at least, it is more impor­tant than sport.

    We need pri­vately funded uni­ver­si­ties, inde­pen­dent of gov­ern­ment or busi­ness, where stu­dents are selected by merit for real edu­ca­tion funded by free schol­ar­ships, with­out any inten­tion of jobs or careers. This could over­come the intel­lec­tual cor­rup­tion caused by money pulling the strings. The Uni­ver­sity of Zurich is resist­ing fur­ther cor­rup­tion, but still does not have full independence.

  13. Steve Keen says:

    Yes, that was close to the nature of Uni­ver­si­ties in Aus­tralia before the 1980s “reforms” turned it into a poor clone of the cor­po­rate sector.

    Here’s a depress­ingly accu­rate car­toon from Doones­bury on pre­cisely this topic:

    http://assets.amuniversal.com/975e8ab0634001301a1f001dd8b71c47

    Divert scarce resources from instruc­tion to mar­ket­ing”… Indeed.

Leave a Reply