In Ægean antiquity, before the rise of the academy and the philosophical schools, freemen studied Homer, mathematics, music, and gymnastics under the tutelage of Sophists, such as Protagoras and Gorgias. Then, as now, education risked becoming a handmaiden to expediency. Under the later Sophists, such as Thrasymachus and Hippias, education devolved into the development of skills useful for advancing political careers. Education served power; the disciplined search for truth yielded to the art of persuasion, and positive value was attached to the ability to "make the worst appear the better reason." The Sophists were criticized by Plato and Aristotle for their emphasis upon rhetoric, rather than pure knowledge, and for their acceptance of money--a judgment that has passed into history and has given the term sophist its present meaning.
In formal education, a guiding principle has been the ancient dictum passed on by Socrates, that a properly trained mind would turn toward virtue. This was reflected in the strong linkage between the church and formal education in medieval Europe. During the Renaissance, theorists such as Desiderius Erasmus, Thomas More, and George Buchanan encouraged an emphasis upon the classics and mathematics. The Reformation marked a democratization of formal education, and the classical-mathematical curriculum was expanded with the promotion of scientific inquiry. The seventeenth century witnessed a shift of emphasis from self-improvement to responsible behavior as a member of society. The emphasis is reflected in the works of theorists such as Jan Komensky (John Comenius), Jean Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, Friedrich Fröbel, Horace Mann, and Maria Montessori. During the twentieth century, a variety of learning strategies, such as John Dewey's application of experimental method in addressing the problems of a changing environment and the influence of B. F. Skinner's behaviorism upon programmed instruction, have lent structure to theory.
In the United States, the Morrill Act of 1862 gave to the states federal lands for the establishment of colleges offering programs in agriculture, engineering, and home economics, as well as in the traditional academic subjects. This further increased the breadth and accessibility of education in the United States. The Hatch Act of 1887 expanded the land-grant program by providing federal funds for research and experiment stations; the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 provided federal support for extension services. These acts contributed a practical dimension to public higher education in the United States and represented a significant departure from the European models upon which ours were based. Montanans are among the beneficiaries of the meddling of the federal government in the realm of education.
Cycles of change in the Ægean region and western Europe remind us of the vulnerability of education to exploitation. In Montana, we seem to be abandoning the idea that higher education has something to do with social responsibility, gravitating instead toward economically driven individualism--perhaps most vividly represented by elements of the me-first generation armed to the teeth and pursuing unlimited personal freedom. We seem to be oblivious to the ethics of the law of contract in a technological society as the basis of political and moral obligation. We seem to be abandoning the most enduring values in higher education: Our belief in the idea of progress obscures the lessons of the past; and the pursuit of pure knowledge, rigorous scientific inquiry, and enlightened pragmatism, are in danger of yielding to the rhetoric and calculating pragmatism of the later Sophists.
Across the country, we are witnessing increasing confusion among levels of abstraction; between science and technology; between knowledge and information; between right and wrong. W. B. Yeats' "The Second Coming" warns us that when "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/The ceremony of innocence is drowned;/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." Faced with the conflicting demands of mere anarchy, educational administrators seem less confident in their understanding of what it is that is being administered, and, in an atmosphere of uncertainty, opportunism and skill in damage control are often as highly valued as substance and ethical behavior. Modern education's concern for social responsibility, already dealt a blow with the post-Sputnik marginalization of the social sciences and humanities, has been further eroded across the spectrum of disciplines as the acquisition of contracts and grants is often more highly valued than either scholarship or the real-world impacts of the projects or programs for which the funds are ostensibly acquired. The culture of the university community is being transformed, and the disorientation and fragmentation associated with externally induced, non-adaptive change is reflected in growing faculty frustration and cynicism.
Rather than addressing these admittedly complex issues, the Montana University System (MUS) seems intent upon conforming to the destructive fashions and trends of the 1980s and 1990s. The Board of Regents' description of the "four elements of the education process" (getting in; getting through; getting a job; paying the way) is itself a bit of an attention getter. The Phase II restructuring resolution has abandoned the traditional values of higher education in favor of preparing students, faculty, and administrators for what are anticipated to be the harsh realities of the twenty-first century. The document is replete with phrases, such as "the elimination of remedial education;" "shortened time to degree;" "aggressive advising programs . . . with particular importance given to academic, financial, and career planning;" "high budget priority given to technology;" the statewide homogenization of curricula and standards; "graduation guarantees;" "new workforce realities;" "efficiency of administrative services;" "private-sector incentives and business practices;" "productivity gains;" "business logic;" "the productivity-savings-investment-productivity cycle;" "educational services would be chosen based on price and quality" "needs would be translated to requests for proposals;" "monopoly would give way to competition;" and, finally, "the goal is to create a competitive environment and get the best deal for the state." The document comfortably takes sophistry to a new level.
House Bill 229, which calls for a vote on an amendment to Article X, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution, would eliminate the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Higher Education and replace them with a department of education, a director, and a state education commission--all appointed by the Governor. The hazards inherent in this alternative form of governance are obvious. It directly draws the universities into the political arena and, given the priorities of Montana's elected officials, it is probable that the universities would be seen chiefly as instruments of economic development. A better choice would seem to be the retention of an independent Board of Regents, but with credentialling requirements that would better assure that the educational mission of the MUS is understood and appropriately supported.
Despite the important contributions of the MUS to the state, remarkably few of Montana's economic successes are directly attributable to the System. A high value is being attached to something that universities do poorly, and very little value is attached to the things that universities are chiefly designed to do, and could do well. Much of the declining public confidence in the MUS is based upon an upward spiral of promotional rhetoric and unfulfilled expectations in matters unrelated to the proper role of a public university. We should neither invite the MUS into the business world, nor should we invite the business world into ours. Our goals, objectives, and capabilities are different.
While we prepare students for employment, as well as for responsible citizenship, the chief objective of a university education is not job placement. Satisfactory placement is more a function of critical thinking, social skills, and integrity than intensive training within any particular discipline. The quantification of faculty contributions, while perhaps a useful metric of productivity, fails to gauge the more important qualitative contributions of faculty members in teaching, service, and research. The promotion of faculty efforts to secure external funding is generally less effective than the self-initiated efforts of faculty members, energized by fairness and purpose, to pursue their own research interests. The financial benefits accrued to the university are no less; those accrued to the faculty and the state are greater. While one welcomes efficiency in service units and in the management of the university's financial resources, this quality is less important than competence and honesty in academic administrators. As any experienced administrator knows, more productive energy is released through positive "chemistry" than through pro forma efficiency.
Our Rhodes Scholars, remarkable academic achievements, and practical contributions to the economy of the state suggest that the MUS can effectively function as a traditional university system, and that it is in the long-term interest of the state for it to do so. We understand and exploit technology as appropriate, and are acquainted with economic reality. There is no brave new world of technocapitalism to which the MUS must adjust; only an inexcusable sophistry that we should make every effort to reject.