Posts Tagged ‘university’


Every struggle in American society is a struggle over the meaning of freedom. Freedom is the keyword of American politics. It is the foundation for individual rights and our market economy. It is the guidepost for all institutions. Our many national heroes – Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, among others – used their power to protect and expand the freedoms of citizens. They spoke eloquently of freedom’s purposes in enhancing the ability of people from all backgrounds to control their lives. Freedom does not guarantee wealth and success, but it promises everyone a chance.

What are the protests about?

The protests around our state Capitol are at the center of our current national debate about freedom. Governor Scott Walker sincerely believes that our government is spending too much money on various programs, services, and employees. He was elected by citizens around the state who feel that excessive taxes and other contributions to government expenses are limiting their freedoms. We must take these feelings seriously. They are a powerful force in American politics today.

The critics of Governor Walker who are peacefully and passionately demonstrating at the Capitol are not insensitive to popular anger about excesses in government spending, particularly during a period of slow and uncertain economic growth. The union leaders, the teachers, the fire-fighters, and especially the students have accepted that they must make serious sacrifices in wages and benefits to support a fiscally sound society – one that lives within its means. Financial bankruptcy for the state would bankrupt every citizen’s freedom. Talking to hundreds of students in the last week, I am certain that our new generation of citizens, raised during a period of recession, understand this fact. They have shown themselves in the last week to be remarkably thoughtful, mature, and reasonable. I am proud of them.

The protesters at the Capitol and their sympathizers are defending their freedom to have some say in their own future. Ironically, their argument is similar to the one voiced by opponents of recent national health care legislation. Citizens object to government actions that deny ordinary men and women control over their lives. Citizens of all political stripes demand the respect to have their voices heard, their legitimate concerns addressed, and their interests represented in decision-making. Governor Walker’s breakneck efforts to balance the state budget by denying citizens any input in the process – through public discussion, open hearings, or negotiations – are an affront to the freedoms of hardworking citizens. The protests at the Capitol are not about the fiscal measures proposed by the governor. They are protests about freedom – the rights of men and women to be included in the process, to feel represented and respected even if they must accept sacrifices they would rather avoid.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison

This is the appropriate context for discussing another major issue, the future of one of Wisconsin’s greatest institutions, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. By almost every measure, this campus has been the leading public university of the last 100 years because it has done more than any other to enhance the freedoms of citizens. This has meant protections for free inquiry, experimentation, and entrepreneurship (“sifting and winnowing”) at times when the larger society frequently expressed intolerance. This has meant a consistent commitment to public service and outreach (“the Wisconsin Idea”) when other elite institution closed their doors to their communities. Most of all, freedom at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has meant a commitment to “shared governance” between all of the major stakeholders in the decisions of the institution. This is an attribute that still sets the University of Wisconsin-Madison apart from its peers. The university emphasizes openness and consensus in its efforts to form policies that bring students, faculty, and community members together for mutual benefit. The University of Wisconsin-Madison is a community, not a corporation.

For this vibrant community to survive in an environment of constrained resources and increased competition, the University of Wisconsin-Madison needs more freedom, as proposed by the Badger Partnership. More freedom for the campus will protect the ability of the institution to serve its students, faculty, and especially public constituencies. It will have the opposite effect of “privatization,” as it will renew the “sifting and winnowing,” “the Wisconsin Idea,” and the “shared governance” that make the University of Wisconsin-Madison such an important part of our state. Other campuses within the University of Wisconsin system deserve similar freedoms, based on their respective missions and capacities. The Madison campus hopes to set a positive precedent for all of its peers.

The promise of more freedom on campus

First, more freedom under the Badger Partnership will allow the university to allocate precious resources for the quality teaching, research innovation, and entrepreneurship that our society so desperately needs. Under the present system, the university is severely limited in its ability to reward merit in any of these areas. It is forced to follow hiring and contract policies that do not serve the needs of teaching, research, or community-building. More freedom for the campus will raise the standards for accountability, as faculty and administrators will now be judged by their ability to allocate resources for the university’s core missions – not standards set for other purposes. A freer campus will be a more dynamic, accountable, and humane campus, focused directly on its many stakeholders. A “sifting and winnowing” of the best ideas requires more control for the students, faculty, and staff.

Second, more freedom under the Badger Partnership will serve the “Wisconsin Idea.” The division of responsibilities created by the larger UW system has made it difficult at times for Madison to help diverse citizens in all corners of the state. Other parts of the UW system claim responsibility for outreach. Madison gets limited and highly constrained resources for many of the elements of Extension that the campus pioneered in the early twentieth century. For the prosperity of our state, all UW institutions must do more outreach. A freer Madison campus will renew its commitment to serving the larger community of the state, and it will re-allocate its own resources in this direction with efficiency and purpose. Take innovative teaching to non-traditional students, for example. A freer campus will have the flexibility to invest in online courses, new teaching technologies, and various other capabilities. A freer campus will also control and reinvest revenues from these activities, rather than losing them to the system bureaucracy. The university community is mobilized around renewing and extending the “Wisconsin Idea;” it only needs the freedom to make this possible.

Third, more freedom under the Badger Partnership will make the campus a model of “shared governance.” In present circumstances, students, faculty, and staff have very little control over the allocation of their resources. They are told to govern, but then restricted from making decisions that align budgets with priorities. This discourages participation in decision-making, it diminishes morale among the hardest working members of the community, and it chokes any serious discussion of goals. The misalignment of resources and governance is, in fact, a recipe for mediocrity. The resources follow rules made off-campus, not those who are doing the most for the campus and the larger community. Above all, the Badger Partnership will change this by requiring the University of Wisconsin-Madison to articulate its priorities in teaching, research, and service and then allocate its budget accordingly. Citizens around the state will be able to judge the university on the fulfillment of its goals and hold it accountable. Students, faculty, and staff will feel that they are really part of the decision-process, and they will have to perform. True “shared governance” under the Badger Partnership will make the University of Wisconsin-Madison the model community of freedom that it strives to become.

Public discussion

The whole world is indeed watching Madison. Our city and state have played this role many times before. In the past, we have shown leadership in efforts to expand the freedom of citizens so that they can produce more and live better lives. Our present struggles are the newest chapter in this proud history. Proposals to give the University of Wisconsin-Madison more freedom to fulfill its mission should not be accepted or rejected out of hand. Instead, they deserve serious public consideration, along with all other budget measures, in the coming months.

The solutions are not simple, and they are not without risk. The challenges we face are great, but so are the opportunities for reform and renewal. In the end, we must find new ways to protect the freedoms of hard-working citizens and innovative institutions. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan are, of course, revered for doing just that.



The greatest American victory of the post-1945 era was the victory of American universities. Before the Second World War American universities were mediocre in comparison to their international peers. Take two representative fields of research – atomic physics and political theory. For scholars and students of these fields in the 1930s, universities in Germany, England, France, and other countries had more to offer than their American counterparts. By the 1950s, however, almost no one in these fields would say the same. The United States became a dominant site for research and teaching in physics, political theory, and almost every other field.

The Second World War rocketed American universities ahead of all peers for two simple reasons. First, the immolation of Europe and Asia forced many of the best minds on these continents to flee to the United States. America offered one of the few sites of partial refuge from the storms of hatred, violence, and deprivation. Second, thanks to the war economy, and its postwar reverberations, the United States had more money – much more – to invest in higher education than anyone else. For the fifty years after the Pearl Harbor attack, Americans devoted more capital – public and private – to their universities than their counterparts in any other country. The global knowledge investment gap exceeded even the military investment gap.

After the Second World War American universities became wealthier, larger, and more numerous than anyone could have imagined before. They easily attracted the best faculty and student talent from around the world. They produced more research, graduated more students, and added more value to their society than their foreign peers because they had more of everything. American universities were not most effecient or most strategic; they were, simply, the most capitalized.

In the last decade things have changed drastically. American universities remain wealthy institutions with growing demand for their research and teaching. They remain the respected sources of accreditation for talent and achievement. That said, they no longer are immune to the slowdown in American economic growth. Regardless of how the United States emerges from the recent recession – the most profound economic decline since the Depression – public and private investments in universities will never return to their post-1945 levels. The United States will not have available resources for that previous level of investment, or anything near it, for the foreseeable future.

University leaders, professors, students, and parents need to stop denying this obvious fact. They need to spend less time focusing on short-term efforts to close budget shortfalls that will not go away, and turn their attention to major structural reforms that preserve quality and value in vastly different economic circumstances. To put it another way, universities need to make the hard choices they could avoid in the recent past, when the economics of growth meant they could try to do everything.

Other parts of American society have adjusted – or tried to adjust – in recent years. Those that continued to rely on growth and avoid reforms failed miserably. The American automotive industry is a case in point. Inefficiencies, excess, uneven quality, and poor management allowed once tiny foreign competitors to eat Detroit’s lunch. Why should American universities be immune from the same dynamic? The Economist Magazine asks this jarring question in its September 4 issue: “Will American universities go the way of its car companies?”

There are no easy answers to what American universities should do next, but everyone should agree that they cannot continue to do more of the same. Here are 3 areas of much-needed reform, areas where universities have stubbornly clung to old models despite all the changes around them. Universities should preserve inherited wisdom, but they must think more creatively about adaptation and adjustment…or they will join the Detroit junk heaps:

1. Teaching: Enter a college lecture hall or seminar room today. With the addition of a little new technology, these spaces look as they did 25 years ago. (In many cases, they are exactly the same places, without much renovation, from 25 years ago!) The fundamental assumption remains that education revolves around a given group of students arriving in the same place at the same time to learn from a professor at the front of the room. Is that really the best model for education today? Aren’t there alternatives that might improve quality, access, and reduce cost? Shouldn’t universities do more to experiment with alternatives?

2. Specialization: Anyone who has spent even a little time at an American university knows that scholars do not talk very much to one another about their research. When scholars on the same campus confer, it is usually about administrative matters, discussed in endless committee meetings designed to make everyone feel special. Each professor is the master of his or her own defined specialization. Departments organize curricula around specializations, guarding their own disciplinary prerogatives. For all the talk of interdisciplinarity, the incentives of the American university are in separation, specialization, and uniqueness. Shouldn’t universities do more to emphasize substantive collaboration in research and teaching? Shouldn’t they re-think the structures of authority and the appropriate roles for departments? Shouldn’t universities contemplate new organizational models for research, teaching, and administration?

3. Public mission: American universities generally rely on a very self-centered justification for their mission. They claim they are great and that, by virtue of their greatness, they make everyone who comes through – student and researcher – great as well. Despite all the economic difficulties of recent years, university leaders ask governments, tuition payers, and donors to give ever greater amounts of money to support this asserted greatness. I find this pathetic. Universities need to define and serve a public mission that is much more tangible. In a time when so many Americans are contemplating the things they must now give up, universities must offer a better defense for their value. They need to jettison the empty rhetoric about unfettered inquiry (an unpersuasive myth), and articulate clear ways in which universities will work to improve the world around them. Citizens, faculty, students, and governments must then hold universities accountable to these claims. In a world of constrained resources, there will be no sacred cows. Academics better get used to that.

The future of American universities, like the future of all legacy institutions, is quite uncertain. Universities have been a very privileged part of America’s recent history, and it is plainful for them to adjust to a more demanding environment. After the Second World War prosperity made American universities great, and they furthered that prosperity. Now, in less prosperous times, the challenge is to be better, not bigger. The future of American universities will turn on how well they adjust, experiment, and reform. Victory will not come from following the tried and true tactics.

This blog post initially appeared on

Featured Book

The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America's Highest Office

Why have recent presidents failed to bring promised change? This book charts the rise and fall of the American presidency, from the limited role envisaged by the Founding Fathers to its current status as the most powerful job in the world. The presidency is a victim of its own success -- the vastness of the job makes it almost impossible to fulfill the expectations placed upon it. As managers of the world's largest economy and military, contemporary presidents must react to a truly globalized world in a twenty-four-hour news cycle. There is little room left for bold vision. The Impossible Presidency traces America's disenchantment with our recent presidents to the inevitable mismatch between presidential promises and the structural limitations of the office.

More at the book website >

About Jeremi Suri
twitter facebook rss feed

Jeremi Suri holds the Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a professor in the University's Department of History and the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Professor Suri is the author and editor of nine books on contemporary politics and foreign policy. Professor Suri's research and teaching have received numerous prizes. In 2007 Smithsonian Magazine named him one of America's "Top Young Innovators" in the Arts and Sciences. His writings appear widely in blogs and print media. Professor Suri is also a frequent public lecturer and guest on radio and television programs.