The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On the Politics of University Autonomy
My new paper thinking through the political calculus of independent universities
Public and private universities are currently being scrutinized by politicians and political activists in ways that they have not been in many years. Moreover, government officials at both the state and federal level are intervening in the internal affairs of universities in ways that are nearly unprecedented.
These political interventions were predictable (indeed, I was among those predicting them), but they pose extraordinary challenges to traditional ways in which universities have operated and to the future of higher education in America. The normative and public policy questions surrounding greater political supervision of universities are difficult and real.
In a new paper I take a more empirical and positive political theory approach to our current situation. There is an extensive literature on the politics of "independent" government institutions, from the judiciary to bureaucracies to central banks to international organizations. The conceptual apparatus and logic of those models can be turned toward thinking about the political conditions and political boundaries of university autonomy from government interventions.
This paper on "The Bounded Independence of American Universities" is, I believe, the first effort to develop an empirical model of university independence. It emphasizes that the lessons from other contexts apply to universities as well. No matter how normatively attractive an independent judiciary or an independent university might be, institutional independence is a political construct and must be maintained through political effort. And "independent" institutions are always politically vulnerable to being rendered less independent if they become too politically costly. Strategic university leaders should recognize that university autonomy is politically contingent and cannot simply be assumed. Unfortunately, university faculty and administrators have become forgetful that university independence, like judicial independence, rests on political foundations.
From the abstract:
State universities are agents of the state. As such, they are subject to the same political dynamics as other state institutions. There are normative reasons for preferring that some state institutions enjoy a substantial degree of independence from ordinary political forces, but there are significant political challenges to achieving such independence. Universities are no different. Achieving and preserving some degree of independence from political control for universities is an ongoing political task, and the independence of universities from political influence and intervention is bounded and contingent.
And from the conclusion:
The fact that university autonomy is politically bounded and conditional does not mean that independence is not real. It just means that there are limits. Those limits are not themselves fixed, but they are not necessarily under the control of the university. Universities can do what they can to demonstrate their societal value. They can persuade critical stakeholders that continued autonomy is important to generating that societal value. Like all agents, they must convince their principals that they are faithful agents whose interests largely align with those of the principals and who exercise their discretion in a prudential fashion. They must cultivate allies who share an interest in the relative autonomy of universities and can exert political pressure on their behalf. The conditions for university autonomy must be cultivated over time, and sometimes the terms of institutional independence have to be renegotiated to better conform to the political environment within which universities operate.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you accept tax dollars you are not independent. This means student loans, research grants, etc. etc.
The premise that universities have independence is a pipe dream. Funding controls America universities just like any other institution. Thomas Kuhn discussed this intimately.
So, in other words, 74 million Americans who receive Social Security “are not independent”?
Okay.
Poor reasoning, faulty reasoning.
Does not follow.
They are indeed not as independent as if they had their own retirement accounts.
But government controls banks, and banks are too big to fail, so government controls them too.
Seems like government is the root of the problem, again.
I wonder where this "government" you're referring to comes from.
No you don't. You only wonder why no one else bows and scrapes to its magnificent munificence as much as you do.
As long as it does things he likes. If it doesn't, fuck The People, fuck Vox Populi Vox Dei, off to the courts.
Which I have no problem with, but I am not fair weather friends to massive power grabs, cloyingly in the name of The People.
I've said several times in recent months, I hope they learn their lesson, as someone with the gift of gab and The People behind him, does the thing they like, break rules -- why be beholden to dead white male standards?
Whoa! We only meant when we do it!
Let's face it, though, when power eventually shifts, resume bashing dead white male founding fathers, and how it should be waved away in one way or the other, to the delights of tyrants in kindergarten or not yet born.
Interesting article. It highlights the failing of most current institutions - they have entirely dropped the ball on "convinc[ing] their principals that they are faithful agents".
Any organisation not explicitly right wing sooner or later becomes left wing.
They march through all institutions, like ants.
As long as government considers itself the pinnacle, their behavior will be authoritarian. As long as public funds are given, their will be control.
However, the laws are written and interpreted in such a way as to produce a type of slavery for these institutions.
Hillsdale avoids these issues, why not Harvard too ?
Hillsdale is an institution of higher learning.
Harvard is an institution of political graft and influence.
That is why not.
Their abstention from federal funds is part of their independence.
However, another part of it is simply being small and under the radar. If they were loud, powerful, and hostile enough to make the current administration uncomfortable, the administration would find some way to go after them.
It's not like CBS and the big law firms were living off federal research grants and student loans.
Harassment lawsuits, bogus investigations about discrimination or financing, banning agencies from sharing data with their personnel, declaring their degrees "fake" and firing federal employees who are Hillsdale alumni for listing the degree on their job application, declaring them to be in league with anti-semites, banning them from having international students, etc.
They've escaped all that by not pissing off Trump or by not rising to his awareness level.
Because the guy in the White House likes conservatives and attacks people and institutions he perceives as liberal or otherwise not loyal to him. Duh.
No. There's very little conservative about him, and very little evidence that he likes conservatives — well, that he likes anybody, but he at least approves of people bowing to him.
"The conditions for university autonomy must be cultivated over time, and sometimes the terms of institutional independence have to be renegotiated to better conform to the political environment within which universities operate."
Ooooorrrrrrr . . . have a good football team.
When the Department of Education goes away, and all federal student loans end, and all federal grants of any kind stop, then no school will have to worry about this again.
How about congress ends it "recess" and gets to work?
Nice thought but no.
It would greatly reduce the scope of the problem, but governments try to regulate everything and everybody, even organizations that scrupulously avoid government money.
States have tried to forbid the teaching of certain languages, even by private tutors. States still try to put rails and minimums on home-school curriculum.
If Hillsdale tried to assert their "independence" to the point of saying only Anglo females can teach English or only Asian-American males can have a microscope in their lab, they'd soon find out that no refusal of funds will save them from getting dragged into court.
This is a fine essay that describes a world other than the one we are in.
No ally can protect you when your ostensible principles are not discharging their duties in good faith.
But that's not even the issue, is it? We don't have the state governments, we have the federal government abusing process to attain authority never given to them.
This universities are faced with a small group that is NOT their constituents. This group may cloak themselves in populism, but they are a small minority an elite that is anti-intellectual and anti-culture. We've seen this before from the left.
This time the radicals have no real agenda or coherent philosophy other than reactionary lets own the libs by destroying anything that makes them happy.
Like all agents, they must convince their principals that they are faithful agents whose interests largely align with those of the principals and who exercise their discretion in a prudential fashion.
But their interests often will not align with those of their principals, especially when, as now, their principals are highly partisan and care little for anything that contradicts the views they want to promote.
Should universities really try to promote the political interests of those in power?
"Should universities really try to promote the political interests of those in power?"
No, they need to convince those in power that they are faithful agents. Which is a difference.
Interesting paper. Nice bit about Columbia in 1971.
I thought a reference to Bob Jones would've been appropriate though if we're talking about universities and the federal government and "persuasian".
Enlarge the question. Is liberty better served, or worse served, if government shares social power with civil institutions which government does not control? There was a time when conservatives thought the answer was self-evidently, "better served."
What changed? Was it the principle, the character of the government, something else?