The Democratic Role of the University and Contemporary Challenges

Abstract

Education has always been crucial for the protection and cultivation of democracy, for example by developing the skills and transmitting the knowledge needed for political decision-making and deliberation. In this article, it is asked how universities can best serve democracy in contemporary society, which is under new type of threats: fake news and information chaos, illiberal ideas about democracy and marketization of ever more sectors of society. To reflect on this question, arguments based on three different models of democracy are selected: the liberal, participatory and discourse democratic models. In each case, key notions are teased out, and the implications they have for the democratic role of the university are considered. In the case of liberal democracy, the key ideas are scientific neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, and academic freedom. The meaning and relevance of these ideas in the context of the university are discussed. It is argued that while in a liberal democracy the emphasis is on freedom from social engagement, it is possible to argue in liberal terms for academic resistance to forces opposing the constitutive values of the university, which provide conditions for honest and responsible search for knowledge. From a liberal viewpoint, such resistance would primarily be in the form of developing intellectual virtues and regulatory procedures, such as scientific integrity and policies to prevent conflict of interests and to protect academic freedom. On the other hand, it is argued that liberalism is not sensitive to threats rooted in the marketization of governance and education, which increasingly characterizes the university and may thwart its democratic role. This clash of the market, which breeds acquisitive and consumerist ideas about education, and the vision of the citizen who is politically conscious and actively engaged, motivates the participatory view on the democratic role of the university. From this perspective, both university teachers and students should be concerned about social matters and fight against injustices. It is argued that while this approach can foster important democratic skills it can be difficult to channel this engagement in such a way that it is consistent with the constitutive values of the university which should be the guiding ideal. It is also argued that participatory ideas about civic engagement do not provide a useful guidance in the effort to resist the marketization of university practices which poses the main threat to the democratic culture and democratic role of the university. For that, a deeper theoretical analysis of the causes and dynamics of this development are needed. It is argued that such analysis can be found in discourse democratic theory which implies both ideas about civic competencies and the social processes at work. From a discourse theoretical perspective, the most important civic skills that need to be developed in a democratic society are critical thinking, communicative competencies and deliberative reasoning. These competencies need to be transferred into the social institutions and practices that sustain the democratic culture. This culture and these practices are undermined by the increased dominance of instrumental rationality, which is gradually colonizing all domains of society, including the universities. It is argued that the discourse theoretical view provides sound guidance as to the democratic role of the university, preserving the strengths of the other two views while avoiding their flaws. The discourse democratic view defends the liberal values of the university and recognizes the threats of the instrumental rationalization and marketization of university practices that the liberal view tends to ignore. The discourse democratic view also emphasizes the fostering of capacities for democratic participation but regards them more in terms of thoughtful reasoning than civic engagement. This aims at strengthening the domains of communicative rationality in general, but in particular the public sphere and democratic institutions which provide a more realistic and permanent resistance to the contemporary threats to democracy than civic activism.