The Downside of International Ties
March 7, 2011, 4:16 pm
Recent events in London have shown the difficulties that universities can run into when dealing with countries which have non-democratic governments. These events have provoked a media firestorm in the U.K. which so far shows little sign of abating.
Four points can be made. First, universities will be held to high standards. The British press has frequently made the point that British oil companies and arms industries have regularly interacted with non-democratic governments with relatively little opprobrium. In contrast, universities can draw strong criticism. But, though there may be an element of double standard in all this, given the values to which universities hold, it is more difficult to complain about this kind of critical reaction in the press and amongst the public, not least because, as Derek Bok has famously argued, universities are necessarily involved, either implicitly or explicitly, in moral education.
Second, universities do know this which is why they have set up institutions like Gift Oversight Committees. At most universities any potential donation which might seem problematic would be scrutinized by such a committee. These committees work to basic ground rules but they still have to exercise judgment. We live in an imperfect world and decisions can involve at least a measure of compromise. The difficulty comes in deciding what measure of compromise is appropriate, as even the most ferocious proponents of ethical standards acknowledge.
Third, universities may well become involved in more of these kinds of marginal judgments as they internationalize. Increasingly they will require what the Financial Times has called a foreign policy. For example, campuses and other teaching operations are appearing in countries which have poor human-rights records. Again, judgment has to be exercised. Although I doubt that any university would want to compromise on basic academic values like free speech in operations that they are setting up still there are cultural mores that can and should be respected.
Fourth, these kinds of judgment will only become more difficult in a time when many university budgets are under pressure. University management will not bend in the starker cases, I am sure, but, as many newspapers in the U.K. have commented, there might be a temptation to move the margins of a judgment when money is in such short supply.
How to square this particular circle? What is certain is that, in an international world, it is very helpful to have international judgments on issues like these which can be referenced and used as a standard and there are at least stirrings towards such a goal. Take the issue of academic freedom as just one instance. Many national organizations already provide narratives which address this issue. For example, there is a longstanding debate on academic freedom in the United States which reaches all the way from the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure on through the Kalven Report of 1967 to Cary Nelson’s latest attempt at finding clarity.
But we are also starting to see moves towards international compacts which often involve the defence of values like academic freedom. Like many other European and other universities my own university is a signatory to the 1988 Magna Charta. We need more of these kinds of international compacts which can act as ethical signposts. After all, as Robert Zimmer at Chicago argued in 2009, “we are stewards of [a] hard won legacy, and its preservation and enhancement is incumbent upon all.”
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
via chronicle.com
