Public Service: Our New Mission

There's a new interest in community service on campus and some educators are organizing a national movement to promote it.

By Barry Checkoway

Higher education can contribute to civic engagement, but many universities have de-emphasized their civic mission. Whereas universities once promoted "education for democracy" or "knowledge for society," today it is hard to find top administrators consistently committed to this purpose or faculty members who consider it central to their work.

Among America’s institutions of higher education, research universities are strategically situated for civic engagement. Many early universities helped build the new nation. They were later joined by institutions whose leaders expressed strong social values. Charles Eliot of Harvard University, for example, wrote that "at bottom, most of the American institutions of higher education are filled with the democratic spirit." Other leaders argued that the route to a civil society went through the universities. It would be just as mistaken to conclude that these individual expressions became institutional behaviors, as it would to ignore that some universities practiced racial and religious discrimination. But the ideas were expressed nonetheless.

Those early universities have developed into institutions with immense resources. Modern research universities have faculty members with credentials in academic disciplines and professional fields—such as business and economic development, education and engineering, health and human services—that have great potential for problem solving and program planning. And they have large libraries, laboratories, and telecommunications facilities. They are more than educational institutions; they are also major employers, providers and consumers of goods and services, and powerful social and economic units, whose decisions affect communities regardless of the level of community involvement in knowledge development.

In the process of expanding, the universities transformed themselves from civic institutions into powerful research engines, which gave rise to major changes in their objectives and operations. The professionalization of the academic disciplines, the drive for Cold War supremacy and national security, and other factors caused the institutions to expand. As they did, they also became the target of public officials, business leaders, and other critics who have charged that much classroom teaching in universities does not develop civic competencies, that much research does not serve community needs, and that universities themselves have lost their sense of civic purpose.

Today’s college students want to provide direct community service, such as serving meals in a homeless shelter, but few aspire to leadership roles, such as organizing homeless people for more affordable housing. Nor are most students prepared to argue their beliefs about low-income housing policies for the nation. Indeed, studies show that the interest of entering undergraduate students in public causes is at an all-time low, and that their interest actually decreases during the college years.

Faculty members are ideally positioned to renew the civic mission of higher education, but many believe that the civic competencies of students are not central to their own responsibilities and that few rewards await them for trying to relate their research or teaching to civic purposes. Some faculty members comment on civic engagement as a subject of study, yet few suggest that they themselves have a role in causing the disengagement problem or finding its solution.

"Education for democracy" becomes more complex in a diverse society in which communities are "monocultural," with people having the same social and cultural characteristics, but also "multicultural," with significant group differences among them. The difficulty increases when some groups are underrepresented in civic life. For democracy to function successfully in the future, students must understand their own social identities, communicate with people who are different from themselves, and build bridges across cultural boundaries.

Today, there are stirrings of a national movement for democracy in American higher education. Many students participate in co-curricular activities with a civic purpose, some faculty members conduct community-based research and incorporate civic content into the curriculum, and several universities promote public engagement as an integral part of their institutional missions. But these efforts are isolated; they are not part of a serious strategy to renew the civic mission of our institutions.

Conferences at Wingspread

In 1998, 1999, and again in early 2000, higher education and civic leaders participated in a national conference series titled "Strategies for Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University" at the Wingspread conference center in Racine, Wisconsin.

Before the conferences, participants met in various venues to discuss whether the American research university should have a strategy for renewing its civic mission, and, if so, what that strategy should be. As a result of these conversations, participants became conscious of the need to come together. They agreed that preparing students for responsible citizenship and encouraging faculty members to develop knowledge for the improvement of society would make up their agenda.

They decided to focus on research universities because of the special status of these institutions in higher education. Faculty at research universities produce most of the world’s scholarly publications and prepare the professors who populate the nation’s colleges and universities. They also exercise disproportionate influence over other colleges and universities, such that their initiatives often spark changes in these other institutions, even when the changes are not appropriate. The participants thus saw research universities as vehicles for change in higher education; they believed that renewing the civic mission of these institutions could affect the entire educational system.

The conferences were coordinated by the University of Michigan’s Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning, with support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and cosponsored by the Association of American Universities, the American Association for Higher Education, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Campus Compact, the New England Resource Center for Higher Education, the University of Pennsylvania Center for Community Partnerships, and the Johnson Foundation.

The conference participants were current and potential leaders of a movement to promote civic renewal in the American research university. They included presidents, provosts, deans, and faculty members with extensive experience in higher education, as well as others who had played civic roles and worried about the future of universities from outside the walls of academe, such as leaders in civic agencies, professional associations, and private foundations. Among them were President John DiBiaggio of Tufts University, who was planning a new University College of Citizenship and Public Service; Edgar Beckham, who had directed the Ford Foundation’s campus diversity initiative; and Carol Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and a leading spokesperson for "democracy and diversity."

Conference planners developed framing questions that had significance beyond the event, such as

• What was, is, and should be the civic mission of the research university in a diverse democratic society?
• What civic competencies are needed to prepare students for active participation—that goes beyond community service to public engagement—in a diverse democracy?
• What are some ways of increasing the involvement of faculty members in scholarship, pedagogy, or other work that draws upon their professional expertise and also contributes to the civic mission?
• What institutional strategies have universities used to renew the civic mission, and what lessons can be learned from them?
• What specific strategies might promote civic renewal and public engagement as a national movement among research universities?

Conference participants drafted the Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American University. Prepared as a collaborative project with the leadership of Harry Boyte of the University of Minnesota and Elizabeth Hollander of Campus Compact, the declaration formulated the idea of an engaged university whose strategy would include efforts to conceptualize research as a public good, integrate civic content into the curriculum, and make knowledge more accessible to the public. Such a university would engage the faculty, modify the reward structure, change the academic culture, and develop leaders who could implement these goals.

The declaration imagined an institution whose students would develop their civic competencies, whose faculty members would promote public culture at their institutions, whose staff would contribute to community building, and whose administrators would articulate the purpose of research universities as agents of democracy.

"Research universities and leaders from all levels of our institutions need to rise to the occasion of our challenge as a democracy on the edge of a new millennium," stated the declaration. "We need to help catalyze and lead a national campaign or movement that reinvigorates the purposes and civic mission of our great research universities and higher education."

At the conference, participants formed working groups to devise strategies for renewing the civic mission. One group, for example, laid the foundation for a subsequent planning meeting and concept paper proposing a permanent Institute for Education for Democracy. The institute would enable representatives of communities, universities, and schools to promote education for democracy in a society that values diversity, with special emphasis on the role of the research university.

The institute would function as a facilitative agency for raising national consciousness about education for democracy among the broadest possible professional and public audiences. It would feature an annual meeting to enable educators to develop plans for their home communities, and it would serve as a source of access to national networks. In addition, it would sponsor courses on subjects such as "democracy and diversity," workshops on topics such as "how to change the academic culture," and collaborative research projects that would foster work unlikely to arise elsewhere in society.

Faculty Involvement

Participants agreed that faculty members must play key roles in renewing the civic mission of the research university. After all, the faculty manage curricula and teach courses with the potential to improve communities, and they provide consultation, technical assistance, and other services that draw on their academic knowledge and professional expertise. Without involving the faculty, nothing lasting will happen.

But even though some faculty members have a strong commitment to civic improvement, others believe that their research and teaching should remain distinct from their service, that public work is held in low regard and has few rewards, and that performing it might even jeopardize their careers. And the training most faculty receive in graduate school ignores civic content; after professors enter the academy, gatekeepers dissuade them from spending too much time in the community.

Pressures from department chairs and professional peers, from learned societies and disciplinary associations, and from the editors of scholarly journals reinforce these barriers. It is ironic that such obstacles persist when studies show that faculty members who engage in work outside the academy tend to have more funded research projects, more articles in peer-reviewed journals, and higher student evaluations of their teaching than their colleagues who do not. Such studies imply that civic engagement might actually make faculty members better researchers and teachers, findings that run contrary to the dominant culture of the university.

Faculty members at research universities are not unlike other workers. They want to do a good job, get paid for the work they do, and receive recognition for their efforts. They respond to the rewards they receive, but the present structure does not reward them very much for civic engagement.

Modifying the reward structure of the research university to accommodate civic work requires recognizing that creating new knowledge and publishing it in scholarly journals is only one way of knowing. Wingspread participants agreed that we need to broaden the criteria for evaluating excellence in scholarship and establish a new system for documenting and assessing activities. We must also change the way we train graduate students, the criteria for review of journal articles, and the priorities of funders that support the research enterprise.

The obvious insufficiency of the present structure does not, however, justify the inaction of individual faculty members regarding their responsibility for civic engagement. Faculty do many things that offer few rewards. The reward structure is an important institutional instrument, to be sure, but it is neither the only vehicle for behavioral change nor the one that best fits the civic situation. Faculty do respond to the rewards they receive, and the reward structure does need modification, but I believe that civic work should not require monetary reward. On the contrary, civic work should be a nonremunerative responsibility of membership in the commonwealth.

Democracy and Diversity

The Wingspread participants also discussed civic renewal in relation to the "democracy and diversity" objectives of the research university. Before long, one-third of the United States population will be of African, Asian, or Hispanic descent. As the numbers of people of color increase in a nation historically dominated by those of European descent, education for democracy will become more complex.

The campus diversity movement has led to an increase in traditionally underrepresented students, faculty, and administrators at U.S. research universities. Although their representation is not yet proportionate to their numbers in the U.S. population, they make up influential enclaves in some institutions and contribute to a growing consciousness that social diversity nurtures excellence in education.

Diversity is also basic to education for democracy. If democracy is about the participation of the people, and the people are increasingly diverse, then education in democracy must include education for diversity.

What competencies will students need for active participation in a diverse democracy? Some universities already require students to take a course with diversity content; such courses introduce students to specific cultural groups, intergroup dialogue methods, and social identity formation. Done well, these courses can contribute to some of the skills needed for involvement in a diverse society. Done badly, they can reinforce racial stereotypes and increase the prejudices they were designed to reduce.

Wingspread participants agreed that education for democracy will require approaches that recognize difference in cultural groups and explore ways to build bridges across cultural boundaries. Now is the time to make the connection between democracy and diversity in preparing people for the society of the future.

At Wingspread, participants raised important questions and formulated strategies for renewing the civic mission of the American research university. We imagined a university that prepares students for active participation in a diverse democratic society and whose curricula and courses develop civic competencies. We saw an institution that engages faculty in research and teaching that promotes public scholarship and education for democracy. We imagined a university that promotes public participation, makes knowledge more accessible, builds collaborative community partnerships, and provides leadership that shows consistent commitment to its civic purpose.

The very act of convening the Wingspread conferences affirmed that it is not merely a few isolated individuals who believe that we must renew the civic mission of the research university. Indeed, many people hold this belief, but they hold it as individuals, not as members of a group. If civic renewal were transformed from a private belief into a public issue, one that formed the core of a lasting movement for changing the university, the results would be extraordinary.

Barry Checkoway is professor of social work and urban planning at the University of Michigan and director of the university’s Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning.

 Printer-Friendly Page