ABSTRACT
Few who have been watching the landscape of the U.S. university over the past decade could argue that the university as an institution is not in the midst of signifi cant changes. These changes have originated from external publics, who are demanding that faculty teach more, conduct less “pure” research, and be evaluated by new and less secure standards of accountability. Central administrators, charged by regents and legislators with implementing shifts in faculty roles and rewards, with downsizing, and with collecting data to demonstrate accountability, have met with varying degrees of success, yet their collective efforts signal that plans are well underway for altering the university in fundamental ways. Are we sure that these changes are in the best interest of both the institution and society? (For a sample discussion of these changes, see Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Guskin, 1996; Sewall, 1996.)
Little public or academic debate has accompanied this alteration of how we do business. The name of the public is invoked, however, by regents and legislators as they demand streamlined organizations and cut budgets. It is diffi cult to argue against the changes because the
purported goal is the improvement of undergraduate education. Some faculty fi nd the goal an admirable one and support administrative mandates. The resistance of many faculty, on the other hand, is widely noted and often resented. Administrators view the resistance of faculty as a sign of faculty members’ parochial and entrenched professional interests. (See Guskin, 1996, on administrator and faculty approaches to change.) The resistance, however, refl ects an uneaseeven hostility-with the implications these changes have for the traditional role of the university. We should view faculty reaction as a signal that differing expectations of the university need to be held up for public and scholarly scrutiny. If we do not honestly acknowledge the real reasons behind mandates, if we do not clearly assess the social and political context driving changes, and if we do not identify all of the possible models for the role the university could play as an institution, the de facto result may be unsatisfactory or worse. The solution is to begin a discussion of the mission of the university, not as a particular organizational entity but as a social institution with a critical role to play. What is that role?
