Ieditorially speaking
It is easy these days to feel that we do not amount to much-or worse, perhaps, that no one or nothing else does either. In other times such despondency might have given rise to greater effort. Now the psychological tide pulls toward nihilism and solipsism, draining the intellect of confidence, depleting our reserve of desire. Admittedly-and perhaps fortnnately-this is an emotionally dominated movement, as deceptive as it is debilitating, as irrational as it is self-indulgent. It is not the kind of response that has helped solve problems in the past. There is little reason to believe it can help us now. But perhaps we can resist the stock, and simplistic answers our impulses and t,he social pressures of the moment urge upon us and stand back from our interests, ambitions, and prejudices long enough to examine our situation with whatever detachment and objectivit,~ we can muster. It is not that detached objectivity is sufficient in itself, rather that it frees the mind from the shackles of provincialism long enough to explore alternative avenues and to imagine more creative models. In this spirit then, we might take a more analytical look a t what it is we are inclined to be despondent over, namely, our inability to convince ourselves, our students, or the public that the university can handle the job it has ahead of it. To do this we might consider first the nature of our successes and t,hen the probable cause of what many see.as our greatest failure. Though we hardly need to be reminded of it,, the inescapable fact is that, despite many inequities, the American societ,y has provided more opportunities for personal fulfillment, more of the decencies of life, and more individual freedom for more of its people than any other society in history. Much of this has been made possible by our unprecedented economic development. Recent careful studies of this development show convincingly that the single most important factor contributing to our pre-eminence in this area is t,he availability of higher education to large numbers of our citizens. I n his book, "The American Challenge," the French economics-analyst, J. J. Servan-Schrieber concludes that the principal reason the democracies of Western Europe have fallen so far behind the U S . in productivity is because they failed to make a massive investment in widely accessible higher education. He also cont,ends that France and her neighbors lack more than engineers. They lack vast numbers of well-trained citizens who could have created, developed, produced, and marketed goods and services on something like the American level. Thus, higher education's contribution to the in-
creased competency of our creative.leve1 work force has to be regarded as a commendable accomplishment. It should be convincing evidence that our colleges and universities can produce. Little need be added on these pages to document the success of higher edncation in the areas of science and engineering, nor to acknowledge important failures in the applicat,ion of science especially in safeguarding the environment and in the development of weapons. Perhaps it is failures such as these, depending as they do on the inadequacy of the human conscience, that have tended to erase the success record of higher education and to cause a crisis of self-confidence in the minds of many educators. However, as disappoint,ing and disconcerting as the recognition that higher education has been unable to improve much on human nature must be, it is a fact that despite this, life does go on, man continues to seek a better world, and higher education has answers that can enrich t,he lives of millions. A current danger is the possibilit,~that too many faculty members will replace the truly valuable in their courses with the truly trivial. Nevertheless, there is great momentum among young people everywhere for the creation of a new moral code-a code that will accelerate and sustain the movement toward a society richer in humanism and less committed to achievement, status, and affluence t,han the present one. In effect, this code will require what might be called an upgrading of human nature. The search for its components is taking place on all our campuses today. In every course, in nearly every dorm rap session,.in bars and "happenings," students are probing, debating, questioning, experiment,ing. Frustrated and impadient with the universit,~for its failure to provide workable principles and guidelines for their code, they vascillate between challenging the system and turning off or turning on. Few facn1t)y members can feel comfortable in encouraging what appears to be such naive idealism; yet few do not share this magnificant dream and none would say it should not be reached for. Regardless of the outcome, the search will be deadly difficult. Many will become casualties, many more will abandon it. A few will persist. In any case the faculty, despite all its misgivings and lack of confidence, will have to play the role of the good physician-healer, t,eacher, adviser, friend. And even though higher educat,ion does not have a college or a department with this as its mission, nevert,heless the university will be the primary source of whatever principles and guidelines emerge in this wonderful search for a new-sense of morality. WTL
Volume 48, Number 2, February 1971
/
83
