|
|
Universidad Francisco Marroquín
|
The contentious world we live in demands that we return to the classical or fundamental idea of a university: an institution of learning, of teaching and of research that is dedicated through its organization, orientation and function to academic excellence, and which has nothing to do with the deliberate search for solutions to the social problems of the moment.
Since this statement can so easily create misunderstanding, no sooner has it been said, than it is necessary to offer some explanations. Why is it necessary to emphasize that universities, because of their nature, are beyond the deliberate search for solutions to the social problems of the moment? The belief that it is the business of universities to look for solutions to these problems necessarily leads to the idea that it is the function of universities to carry out activities which correspond to government offices, which is evident even through a superficial analysis of the phrase "solutions to social problems".
The concept of solution does not have the same meaning within the context of social problems as it has within the context of scientific problems. Scientific problems are solved when someone presents a true description or theory. This is not so in the case of social problems. The solution of social problems requires (besides the pertinent information) the concerted action of groups or parties and, thereby, direct or indirect participation in a political process. It is not hard to imagine that even if universities throughout the world found solutions to the scientific aspects of the principle social problems, the world would remain underdeveloped because the required political action to solve them was lacking. Many believe, for example, that the science of economics long ago discovered the road that people must follow if they want to improve their lives; nevertheless, people have not traveled that road.
Therefore, if one insists that it is the direct or indirect function of universities to concern themselves with the solution of social problems, one is saying, though not explicitly, that the function of the university is political besides academic. This idea has the most harmful consequences for academic work, some of which will be discussed below.
On the other hand, if when one asserts that universities ought to worry about the solution to social problems, all one wants to say is that they should study economic, political, juridical and sociological questions that have a direct bearing on the solutions to social problems, then it is really not something worth saying.
The history of higher education shows that universities have always made important contributions to social welfare; additionally, that such contributions have never been the result of the "social sensitivity" or the concern of university people with solving the problems of their society. Such contributions have always been the result of "scientific sensitivity" -the devotion to the search for truth- as is clearly shown by the history of science. It could even be said that the social efficacy of academic work has been inversely proportional to the scholars' concern for the social conditions of the time in which they live.
It is not hard to find the reason for this. As we have suggested, the idea that it is the business of universities to worry about solving social problems necessarily involves the confusion of politics and academics. This confusion, which has been evident in most public universities in Latin America for more than half a century (and which threatens to "politicize" universities in other parts of the world), has only prevented universities from being socially efficient. By adopting political methods and criteria for the selection of personnel, for administration and for the evaluation of academic work, these universities have notoriously harmed teaching and research -precisely those university activities that are of collective benefit. The external or internal "politicization" of universities not only threatens the advance and diffusion of knowledge, it also threatens academic freedom.
As everyone knows, the political mind is basically interested in group or party action. This type of action cannot be carried out without common criteria, whatever the nature of such criteria. Politicians engage in "dialogues" in order to make deals, to agree upon courses of action, to see to it that a certain policy is adopted; however, they are not interested in "dialogues" to understand or discover truth. Politicians assume that they know the truth; their very profession demands this. Politicians, qua politicians, are interested neither in science nor art. Thus "academic politician" is a contradiction in terms.
For these reasons a university that is "politicized", externally or internally, is in danger of increasingly taking on the characteristics of a political party and of increasingly losing those of a place of higher learning. This is especially true if political activity is a main source of employment and social prestige, as is often the case in Latin America.