Universidad Francisco Marroquín
Guatemala

V. The University and Social Service

As we have seen, if one believes that it is the responsibility of universities to worry about solutions to social problems, one is naturally led to confuse the categories of politics and academics. We have already pointed out some of the implications this idea has for academic work. In addition, the idea that it is a primary or secondary function of the university to worry about solutions to social problems naturally implies the notion that universities are centers of social service -dispensaries of culture, instead of centers of opportunity for individual improvement and for the training of leaders in science and culture.

The implications of conceiving universities as centers of social service are as clear and harmful as the implications of thinking that universities have political responsibilities or that they should carry out activities that belong to state offices.

Centers of social service are created to give various types of assistance, according to clearly defined criteria, indiscriminately to those who request it. On the other hand, universities (whether or not they are state institutions) are not created to serve their community -despite the fact that they do serve the community when they efficiently perform their academic function.

What is being denied when one asserts that universities do not exist to serve their community? One is denying that universities can both fulfill their academic function and, at the same time, respond to a will that assigns them a specific service. If we asked ourselves the reason for their being or the what for of their existence, we would have to answer that universities exist to transmit and to search for advanced knowledge; to advance and strengthen the arts and the sciences; to raise the cultural level of the community -all of this guided by the conviction that scientific and cultural progress result in collective benefit, as evident from the positive impact of universities on their societies and the world at large.

However, the following could be argued,

Granting it is true that, in general, universities are at the service of the arts and the sciences, why can it not be equally true to assert that they exist to serve their community? Why do people search for and transmit knowledge? Is it not to benefit their community, to serve it? Is it possible to justify the existence of universities in any other way?

Those who assert that universities exist to serve the community are not really answering the question concerning the reason for the existence of universities. Instead, what they have in mind are the benefits which, as a matter of course, university work provides society. A moment's reflection is enough to make clear that it is only in an indirect or derived sense that universities exist to serve their community. Indeed, when they fulfill their function well, they do serve their community.

Consider the following example:

Judicial power exists to administer justice, and we would all agree that the administration of justice benefits everyone. However, what would happen if judges believed that their function was not merely to administer justice impartially, but also to "serve" the community? Would they be, by virtue of such motivation, in a better position to administer justice? What would happen if the judge qua judge were motivated by considerations regarding the consequences of his judicial decision for society -considerations which are foreign to the law? Is it not reasonable to think that the criteria of impartiality, universality and certainty which are essential to the administration of justice would be weakened or diluted when mixed with criteria which are logically more distant and far less clear and precise? Is it not equally reasonable to think that because of this the administration of justice would suffer and, consequently, so would social well-being? Justice serves society, but the judge serves justice.

The application of these considerations to the function of universities, and especially to the work of professors, seems to us clear and straightforward. Science serves society, but the university serves science.

There are also other reasons, both theoretical and practical, for holding that it is a mistake to think that universities exist to serve their community. The concept of "institutional obligation" (which is implicit in the idea that at least part of the mission of universities is to provide social services, and which is explicitly expressed in ideas about the obligations of abstract entities) originated in the attribution of obligations to personalized collectives such as The State, The Church or The University. These obligations, however, are primarily those of individuals.

It is evident that, strictly speaking, only individuals can have obligations. The personification of abstract entities, which is so common in ordinary language, can be seen in expressions such as "The State ought to try...", or "The Church is concerned about...", or "The University wants to make it known...". This is a logical mistake which ordinarily goes unnoticed because it generally does not create any confusion. In most cases it is simply a question of inexact use of language and does not generate any theoretical inferences or have any practical consequences.

On the other hand, when this type of personification provides the starting point or basis for a doctrine, it is worthwhile noting especially since it appears that the personification of The State and The Collective lies at the ideological root of totalitarian doctrines and of contemporary ideas about the obligations of society.

As we have suggested, the value of the social service rendered by universities is and has always been in direct proportion to their academic excellence and not to their "social sensitivity". And it is precisely academic excellence that is placed at risk when institutions of higher education are conceived as institutions of social service.

The concepts of "service", "redemption" or "liberation" of the people or society presuppose the existence of someone who deserves our compassion; someone from whom little ought to be asked and to whom it is necessary to give generously. Social service is, fundamentally, the fulfillment of moral obligations by the person who serves; it does not imply the fulfillment of requisites or the exercise of responsibilities by the one being served, as is the case with higher education.

If, as it seems, even the fulfillment of moral and social obligations involves some kind of selection or choice, one must not be surprised at the fact that the opportunity to receive a higher education is selective by nature. We all know that universities throughout the world differentiate between those who are capable and those who are incapable of taking advantage of the opportunity of personal improvement that higher education represents.

Consequently, if one is to accept the idea that social service is a basic function of universities, rather than an indirect or derived one, then one would have to reduce the inevitable differentiation to its lowest level, offering the opportunity of university study to all who fulfill minimum requirements, such as having a high school diploma. University work would also have to be adapted to the conditions and interests of the students, instead of asking the students to satisfy the requirements of the university. The university would have to lower itself to their level instead of fixing a level at which students must aim.

It is well-known that excellence in the sciences and the arts is not something everyone seeks, and that not all who seek it can attain it, due to the inclinations and limitations of each individual. In order to be consistent with their orientation, those universities which are conceived fundamentally as centers of social service will have to sacrifice the ideal of academic excellence. Paradoxically, in their attempt to live up to a mistaken ideal of social service, they will thereby diminish their chances of being socially effective.