“I teach computer science, and that is all,” wrote Boaz Barak, of Harvard University, in a recent op-ed in The New York Times.a The main point of the op-ed was to protest the growing politicization of U.S. higher education, especially at elite universities, where we have seen many faculty members proceed from scholarship to advocacy.
But in spite of the provocative title, the content of Barak’s op-ed is quite more nuanced. “We should not normalize bringing one’s ideology to the classroom,” wrote Barak, and I could not agree more. But he also wrote that “The interaction of computer science and policy sometimes arises in my classes, and I make sure to present multiple perspectives.” Here, Barak is advocating fairness and balance, rather than neutrality and avoidance of non-technical topics. And, again, I could not agree more.
Following the Cambridge Analytica Scandal in 2016, we decided in 2018 to introduce at Rice University a computer science course on computing, ethics, and society. The course started as an elective, but eventually, with the strong encouragement of our students, became a required course. The course focuses on the societal, economical, and political impacts of computing. We cannot avoid controversial topics, but we present the issues from multiple perspectives, focusing on the cultivation of societal responsibility. Thus, we teach computer science, but that is definitely not all. This is critical, I believe, in view of Barak’s acknowledgement of the declining trust by the public in higher education, and his exhortation “for us academics to step up the long overdue work of restoring trust in universities.”
The loss of popular trust in higher education is a complicated phenomenon, but I believe academia bears some responsibility for it. What is the fundamental purpose of higher education? This is a topic of much debate these days, sometimes framed as a choice between the purpose of truth and the purpose of social justice. Others have argued that the purpose of universities is not truth, rather it is inquiry. I believe those who advocate truth, inquiry, or social justice as the purpose of higher education are getting it wrong. I believe the purpose of universities was best expressed in the American Association of University Professors’ influential 1940 statement on academic freedom: “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good.”b This is not to say that truth, inquiry, and social justice are not goals of higher education; rather, they are means toward an end, which is the public good.
From where I sit, however, it seems that rather than pursue the public good, elite academic institutions are often pursuing money and prestige. I am not arguing that money and prestige are unimportant, but they should always be considered means and not ends. The end should be to promote the public good. I believe higher education does make a significant contribution to the public good, but this raison d’être has disappeared from our academic discourse. No wonder the public does not see higher education in these terms. Only following the unwarranted attacks by the U.S. administration on Harvard University did the latter put on its home page the motto of “Research Powers Progress.”
As an example of the shriveling of the public-good discourse, consider the “Broader Impacts” criteria for funding research proposal by the U.S. National Science Foundation. As required by U.S. law, which goes back to 1996 (42 USC 1862p-14c), “The Foundation shall apply a broader impacts review criterion to identify and demonstrate project support of the following goals.” The code enumerates seven goals, starting with “increasing the economic competitiveness of the United States,” and ending with “expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.” In other words, NSF-funded research should contribute to the public good. But over the years, as we ceased talking about the public good, Broader Impacts became all about broadening participation. The latter is critical to the health of the STEM field, but it should not be, I believe, the sole focus of our public-good discourse.
A similar narrowing of the discourse took place also in elite universities, where moral virtue was signaled solely via the diversity, inclusion, and equity (DEI) flag. While the focus on the underrepresentation of women and minority groups in STEM is of great importance, we ignored the elephant in the room, which is the underrepresentation of working-class and rural Americans in elite higher education. No wonder many Americans lost trust in higher education.
How to rebuild public trust in higher education? Start by reclaiming our mission for public good.
Join the Discussion (0)
Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment