Publications

Since  establishing  itsfirst  campus  in  1868,the University  of  California (UC), California’s land-grant  university,developed into the nation’s first multi-campus systemin the United States,andistodaywidely recognized as the world’s premier network of public research universities. This short essay provides anhistorical brief on the role that shared  governance,  and  specifically  the  role  of  the  Academic  Senate, playedin  creating  an  academic  culture  of excellence and high achievementin pursuing itstripartite mission of teaching and learning, research and knowledge production, and public service. A key component in understanding the critical role of the Senate in UC’sevolution from  a  single  campus  in  Berkeley  to  now  a  ten-campus  system  is  the  university’sunusual  designation  as  a  public trust in the state constitution that, beginning in 1879,protected the university at critical times from external political pressuresand allowedthe university to develop aninternal academic cultureguided by the Academic Senate. By the 1920s, the emergence of California’s unique and innovative public system of higher education, with UC as the sole public provider  of  doctoral  degrees  and  state  funded  research,  also  helps  explain  the  ability  of  the  UC  system  to maintain itsmission  and formulate what  is  termed aOne  Universitymodel.  The  Academic  Senate  hascreatedcoherencyand shared valueswithin UC,and a culture and expectationfor faculty performance that is unique among universitiesaroundthe world. Thisessay also offersa brief reflection on the Academic Senate’spast influence, its current status,and prospective role. Theoverallintent is to provide context forthe current academic community and  higher  education  scholarsregarding  the past  and  future role  of  faculty  in  university  governance  and management, and what distinguishes UC in the pantheon of major research universities.

Since establishing its first campus in 1868, the University of California (UC), California’s land-grant university, developed into the nation’s first multi-campus systemin the United States, and is today widely recognized as the world’s premier network of public research universities. This short essay provides a historical brief on the role that shared governance, and specifically the role of the Academic Senate, played in creating an academic culture of excellence and high achievementin pursuing itstripartite mission of teaching and learning, research and knowledge production, and public service. A key component in understanding the critical role of the Senate in UC’s evolution from a single campus in Berkeley to now a ten-campus system is the university’s unusual designation as a public trust in the state constitution that, beginning in 1879, protected the university at critical times from external political pressures and allowed the university to develop an internal academic culture guided by the Academic Senate. By the 1920s, the emergence of California’s unique and innovative public system of higher education, with UC as the sole public provider of doctoral degrees and state funded research, also helps explain the ability of the UC system to maintain its mission and formulate what is termed a "One University" model. The Academic Senate has created coherency and shared values within UC, and a culture and expectation for faculty performance that is unique among universities around the world. This essay also offers a brief reflection on the Academic Senate’s past influence, its current status, and prospective role. The overall intent is to provide context forthe current academic community and higher education scholars regarding the past and future role of faculty in university governance and management, and what distinguishes UC in the pantheon of major research universities.

In  assessing  the  current  and  future  role  of  universities  in  the  nation-states in which they are chartered and funded, it is useful to ask, When are universities societal leaders as societal and constructive change agents,  and  when  are  they  followers,  reinforcing  the  existing  political  order?  As  discussed  in  the  book,  Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats and the Future of Higher Education,  the national political history and contemporary context is the dominant factor for shaping the leadership or follower role of universities – what  I  call  a  political  determinist  interpretation.  We often think of contemporary universities, and their students and faculty, as catalysts for societal progress --    the Free Speech and Civil Rights movements, Vietnam War protests, the anti-Apartheid movement, Tiananmen Square, and more recently the pro-democracy demonstrations   in Hong Kong. Universities can be, and have been, the locus for not only educating enlightened future leaders, but also for opposing oppression and dictatorships. But universities have also proved over their history to be tools for serving the privileged, and reinforcing the social class divisions of a society; they also have been factories for errant theories that reinforce the worst of  nationalist  tendencies.  Universities  are  both  unique  environments  for  educating  and  mentoring  free  thinkers,  entrepreneurs,  and  citizens  with,  for  example,  a  devotion  to  social  change,  or  for  creating conformists --    or all of the above. How might we assess whether universities are followers or leaders in their  societies?  This  essay  considers  this  question,  offering  a  framework  for  evaluating  the  follower  or  leader  role,  and  with  particular  attention  to  the  emergence  or,  in  some  cases,  re-emergence of  neo-nationalist leaders and autocratic governments.

Hong Kong and Singapore are island city-states that exude the complicated tensions of postcolonial nationalism. Both are influenced directly or indirectly by the long shadow of China’s rising nationalism and geopolitical power and, in the case of Hong Kong, subject to Beijing’s edicts under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Both have productive economies dependent on global trade, and each has similar rates of population density--Hong Kong’s population is 7.4 million and Singapore is home to 5.8 million people.  It remains to be seen whether Hong Kong’s peripheral nationalist identity will be retained, or whether the increasingly assertive influence and control by mainland China will prevail and fully assimilate Hong Kong. But it is apparent that Hong Kong is at a turning point. Throughout 2019, protesters filled the streets of the city, worried about declining civil liberties, specifically Beijing’s refusal to provide universal suffrage as promised previously in law and the disqualification of prodemocracy candidates, along with the growing control of Hong Kong’s government and universities by Chinese central government designates and fears of an ever-expanding crackdown on dissent. Singapore provides a less dramatic but relevant example of the tension caused by the influx of foreign national students and academics who often displace native citizens, combined with government-enforced efforts to control dissent in universities. And like Hong Kong, the long shadow of China influences the role universities are allowed to play in civil society. The following is an excerpt from book Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats and the Future of Higher Education (Johns Hopkins University Press) that explores the implications of nationalist movements on universities in Hong Kong and Singapore. In both, university leaders, and their academic communities, value academic freedom and the idea of independent scholarship. Yet the political environment is severe enough, and the opportunity costs great enough, that they, thus far, remain generally neutral institutions in a debate over civil liberties and the future of their island states. The exception is the key role students have played in the protest movement in Hong Kong, but for how long?

In Neo-nationalism and Universities, John Aubrey Douglass provides the first significant examination of the rise of neo-nationalism and its impact on the missions, activities, behaviors, and productivity of leading national universities. Douglass presents a major comparative exploration of the role of national politics and norms in shaping the role of universities in nation-states—and vice versa. He also explores when universities are societal leaders or followers: When they are agents of social and economic change, or simply agents reinforcing and supporting an existing social and political order. In a series of case studies, Douglass and contributors examine troubling trends that threaten the societal role of universities, including attacks on civil liberties, free speech, and the validity of science; the firing and jailing of academics; anti-immigrant rhetoric; and restrictions on visas with consequences for the mobility of academic talent. The book also offers recommendations to preserve the autonomy and academic freedom of universities and their constituents. Neo-nationalism and Universities is written for a broad public readership interested and concerned about the rise of nationalist movements, illiberal democracies, and autocratic leaders.

In the discourse that swirled in the mid-1800s around the creation of new American public universities, three major and interrelated tensions became evident: the first related to the continued debate regarding the proper curricular balance between practical education and classical studies; the second focused on the appropriate autonomy of institutions intended to serve the public interest in a society often racked by sectarian and class conflict; and the third centered on the degree to which these public institutions should be selective in their admissions and representative of the state’s population. Reflecting the diversity of cultural and political differences of the states, a variety of organizational approaches could be found in mid-century America. However, by the 1870s, a distinct path did emerge, influenced by the passage of the Land-Grant College Act of 1862. The act forced states to more actively define the character of their state education systems and the purpose of their public universities. The origins and early development of a state university in Michigan offers an informative window into each of these tensions. The responses offered by Michigan significantly influenced the rise of the American public university, and the character of its social responsibilities.