Report IOS Dialogue – The Submissive University

On the 18th of November Institutes for Open Society co-organised a Dialogue together with its platform Futures of Democracy on the topic of Democracy and the University. Prof. Dr. Flor Avelino and Dr. Maurits de Jongh engaged in conversation with Prof. Dr. Ingrid Robeyns on the concept of ‘The Submissive University’. This dialogue was structured around 3 different fundamental questions.

The University as an Ideal

What is, or should be, the role of the university in a democratic society? Moreover, does this ideal depend on how we understand democracy?

In 2020, Remco Bod, Rens Breuker and Ingrid Robeyns published a pamphlet formulating propositions about the working of the university in the Netherlands. In doing so the writers suggested building blocks for the transformation of the university. One where different types of science and scholarship can flourish, such as curiosity-driven and critical knowledge, and not just problem-solving knowledge and innovative applications. At its centre Bod, Breuker and Robeyns build upon a definition given by Robert Hutchins: “The best definition of a University that I have been able to think of is that it is a center of independent thought". 

In the discussion, Robeyns elaborates slightly on this definition. She explains that at its core the university should be a community of independent thought, protected to freely pursue truth and knowledge. She argues that this community is indispensable in its ability to share, produce and protect critical knowledge. Robeyns explains that, for her, community requires non-hierarchal relations. In this sense it is the direct opposite to the ways in which the universities in the Netherlands are currently structured. While Dutch Universities resemble privately owned companies, characterised by their top down management, community aims to emphasize the potential for a more egalitarian and independent ideal. 

Subsequently, a critical question regarding the independence of the university was raised. How independent do we want the university to be? Should the people outside of this community have a say? Robeyns responds by emphasizing the way society already has an influence on what universities do. For example, he amount of funding that is allocated to specific projects and disciplines already shows this. Moreover, the degree of free choice academics have in deciding what they want to research is restricted. So in an underfunded university, as is currently our situation, we have to resist the influence that is already inserted by society and should strive for the ideal of independence more vigorously.

We no longer see ourselves as co-owners of the university. As such, we have been conditioned towards passivity, and neoliberalism has depoliticised us.

Diagnosis of the Problem

How can we make sense of the concept of ‘submissiveness’ within the submissive university? How do we know how submissive we are, or is it impossible to know when you’re in the middle of it?

Robeyns argues that before university staff and students started to protest against the underfunding (in 2018), the sector has been lobbying for 20 years to redress its structural underfunding. Those diplomatic pressures had been insufficient to counter the underfunding, but after 4 years of visible protests the subsequent government restored the budget to roughly adequate levels. Yet this only lasted for 2 years, as the current coalition largely reversed those well-needed investments. Moreover, essential issues remain unrecognized. Work pressure is not sufficiently understood as a problem, and, as one participant notes, the high workload might even be a way in which submissiveness is imposed on the faculty. Yet the government needs to understand that they cannot have it both ways. If they continue to cut funding and worsen working conditions, then university staff might at some point refuse the structural unpaid overwork they do, and do less for society and students. That would negatively affect the quality of the teaching and feedback. 

One might wonder how cultural and ideological notions plays a role in the submissiveness we are experiencing. Robeyns diagnosis submissiveness through multiple lenses, one of them the centrality of ‘efficiency’ in how the universities are run. Our society has become increasingly neo-liberal, which created a set of ideas, norms, on how to behave, and efficiency is its central value. All of us grew up with these ideas being dominant. The relationship we have created between us and the University, has been one of employee and employer, rather than as members of the same community. We no longer see ourselves as co-owners of the university. As such, we have been conditioned towards passivity, and neoliberalism has depoliticised us. 

Questions were raised on the role of discomfort within the potential for change. It seems important to make space for discomfort. Robeyns points towards the fact that in order for us to have uncomfortable conversations, we first need to start conversations more generally. Do we still really talk to each other? How often are debates spontaneously organized? Robeyns worries about the loss of academic debate.

Action

What can we do to combat submissiveness? How do we cope with this vicious circle of submissiveness. More specifically, if we have been socialised in a certain way, how can we break out from this status-quo?

While Robeyns recognizes that she cannot provide a concrete blueprint to get us out of this problem, she does offer some insights on what she believes is crucial to change. Robeyns emphasizes that in order to protect democratic values, it is necessary to practice democratic skills within all spheres of public institutions. She mentions that this idea is clearly argued for in Lisa Herzog’s new book, ‘The Democratic Workplace’. Rather than organizing university around efficiency as a dominant value, we should also practice and experiment and learn about wider democratic values in the community of the university and the workplace it is for its faculty. 

IOS Futures of Democracy Podcast

Has the university become a submissive entity? Does our view of democracy change the way in which we understand the university? Is there a connection between the budget cuts in higher education in the Netherlands and a rising authoritarianism? In this episode, IOS Futures of Democracy hosts Maurits de Jongh and Caio Newton Abreu Agostinho speak with Ingrid Robeyns, Professor in Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University. Ingrid is a leading voice in the debate on the future of universities and democracy. Join us as we unpack the concept of ‘the submissive university’ from various perspectives. This episode is recorded in Dutch.