For Faculties:
A Cure for Depression
The psychological depression that grips a wide segment of facultv and academic administrators is as understandable as ic is debilitating. Enrollments are dropping, financial s u ~ ~ oisr tdiminishing, iohs for maduates are declining, reidntment and skep%ckm toward higher education continues, heightened by the general despair of the time. For the most part academicians are responding either with panic-"react immediately to every breeze that blows"-or with a lordly indifference that borders on callousness. Analysts of the academic psyche have suggested that the failure to develop a realistic self-conception makes the academic mind more vulnerable and less ahle to handle these problems than it need he. The great majority of academicians apparently see themselves much as did the college or university professor of 50 vears ago. At that time the academv was a minoritv " component of the society, catering to a small, generally affluent and culturallv established . m o w. of students. Neither the governmend nor the general puhlic was much concerned with what happened on the campus. In this setting, the respected university professor was a scholar, dedicated to his own research interests and to teaching his apprentices. The revered college teacher was a cultivated, urbane, hut discipline-centered and reflective individual. The great majority of college and university professors lived happy and productive lives, cloistered in their own small gardens, cultivating flowers for their own enjoyment. While quality of work and thought, and the search for truth were their primary goals, harmony and collegiality were the words for the day. About 25 years ago this country became committed in earnest to universal higher education. The assumption was that at least 90% of all citizens could henefit themselves and society as a whole by having some formal education beyond high school. For many, higher education was seen as the most likely path to economic opportunity and individual fulfillment. Huge resources supported the expansion of all aspects of higher education, and with this came not only many times more students and faculty (80,000 faculty in 1930; 294,000 in 1960) hut many more obligations both to students and to the society. Colleges and universities were now expected to educate i e , cultivate) students from a much wider range of backgrounds and cultures than ever before. They also were expected to equip these students to find their way on the "path to economic opportunity." In addition, the universities were expected to provide the society itself with ideas and mechanisms for creating the expansion and the opportunities needed to enable the burgeoning supply of maduates to find jobs and fulfillment. To do all this was expecting a great-deal from American higher education, considering its history and traditions. It prohahly is fair to
Ieditorially speaking
say that those faculty memhers who view themselves as cloistered gardners have never quite adjusted to the new situation. For most of the past 25 years American higher education was ahle to function even though a sizeable segment of its faculty did not embrace completely the newly assigned mission of educating everyman. Now that general economic and political conditions demand more stringent accountability, the faculty probably will have to make some accommodation if higher education is to continue to flourish. Undoubtedly some faculty memhers would happily return to the academe of 50 years ago. Others prohahly never will he satisfied unless we recreate the boom days of the mid-1960's when among other things, less desirable faculty assignments frequently were handled by temporary and less well-prepared individuals. For what must he obvious economic and cultural reasons neither of these is a realistic possibility for the near future. Perhaps a more productive approach is to recognize that more faculty time and effort will have to he devoted to the education of undergraduates, and to scholarly activity or service that could have a more immediate impact on the society at large. This is not to say that the fundamental research effort is to he emasculated, rather that a halance he established among teaching, fundamental research and service more consistent with the mission of higher education and the needs of those who are paying the hills. The academy will not turn the corner in accomplishing its mission of educating everyman until there is respect and communication among faculty memhers from all kinds of institutions. This includes the two- and the fouryear colleges and the universities. The two-year college faculties have a quality of expertise in reaching and motivating students that is comparable to the subject matter expertise of the faculties in four-year colleges and universities. All groups can henefit from mutual and continuous interaction. There is no aspiration of the American society deeper than that of developing a citzenry capable of applying rational and analytical thought to personal and public prohlems. Having provided massive support to higher education as an investment to this end, the American people are now asking some serious questions of faculties and administrators. The amount and nature of continuing support may well depend on the kinds of answers they receive. The people want to respect and trust the academic community. If the academic community really wants this respect and trust, the road would appear to he open. '
Volume 51. Number 4. April 1974
WTL
/
217
