Democratic Education and Public Universities in America

Journal of College and Character

Volume 6, Issue 3 2005 Article 2

Terrell L. Strayhorn∗

∗Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Terrell L. Strayhorn

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss the democratic function of public higher education in America and to outline the role of the curriculum and campus climate toward that end. The last section provides on-campus examples. Democratic Education and Public Universities in America

It has long since been argued that education is necessary for inculcating basic democratic virtues (Dewey, 1916; Gutmann, 1987). In fact, since the founding of Harvard College in 1636, universities have served a primary purpose to cultivate common democratic virtues and to educate clergymen and state leaders (Lucas, 1996a). Education has often been relied upon as the engine most appropriate for the transmission of democratic values and continuation of democratic society.

Educated and responsible citizens are important to the functioning of democracy (Dewey, 1916; Gurasci, Cornwell, & et al., 1997). Gutmann (1987) suggests that education and politics should be both valued and pursued. In that sense, cultivating character and democracy are legitimate functions of education (Dewey, 1916; Guarasci, Cornwell, & et al., 1997; Gutmann, 1995). This is consistent with the logic of Aristotle, “The citizens of a state should always be educated to suit the constitution of their state” (Barker, 1958, p. 332).

The debates over the purposes and functions of higher education in America are all but over. Alongside other perennial policy issues like finance and access lies the policy questions—what do we do and what do we teach and how do we teach it? Present day accountability demands reflect high expectations of public higher education. The demands seem to reveal the schizophrenia of expectations—public higher education should be low cost and high quality, accessible to all but highly selective, and completely committed in three directions—teaching, research, and service (Gutmann, 1991).

What is a public university to do? At a time when states are cutting their support, needs and expectations continue to rise (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003). Accountability camps have grown vociferously critical of American higher education. While supplying fewer and fewer resources, policymakers and “outsiders” demand more proof of the personal and societal benefits of higher education (Engles, 1999; Lucas, 1996b). To remain vital to the preservation of a democratic society—and therefore worthy of public subsidy—higher education must recommit itself to the traditional purpose of educating and enhancing the capacity of citizens to function in democratic life (Dahl, 1956; Dewey, 1916; Gee & Rodin, 1999; Guarasci, Cornwell, & et al., 1997).

As many consider and reconsider the agenda of public higher education in the United States, most agree that we must examine the university’s role in creating a democratic citizenship. Gutmann (1987) argues that higher education is necessary for the continuation of democratic societies but should not be necessary for inculcating basic democratic doctrines. In her view, democratic education is a proper function of education as a social institution that fosters social reproduction. The responsibility of basic indoctrination is assigned to primary education while higher education is assigned the responsibility of promoting social responsibility, community, democratic decision making, and modeling the democratic state (Barker, 1958; Daxner, 2003; Gee & Rodin, 1999).

Several questions emerge when considering the purpose of higher education in the United States: 1. To what extent is democratic education a proper function of public higher education in America? 2. To what extent does the curriculum help students develop civic competencies and the ability to critically evaluate problems, policies, and processes? 3. To what extent does campus climate reflect the diversity and democratic principles of our society and prepare students for democratic citizenship?

This paper is designed to address these questions by synthesizing the literature on democratic education and the purposes of higher education in America. The first section presents a working definition of democratic education followed by historical accounts that assign responsibility for the transmission of democratic principles to higher education. The second section outlines the values and skills that are necessary for individuals to participate in democracy and highlights how these values are or might be reflected in the curriculum. The third section underscores the importance of contexts to the preparation of students for democratic citizenship. To be sure, diversity is an important campus climate issue with many democratic and social implications. The concluding section reinforces the notion that democratic education is a proper function of higher education and presents contemporary examples of how universities seek to prepare citizen-scholars.

Democratic Education and the University

Democratic education has been defined in both broad and narrow terms. Some authors cite that the term implies teaching that attunes learners to the democratic processes of government (Kyle & Jencks, 2002). Still others, like Gutmann (1987), suggest that democratic education is a political and educational ideal—chiefly concerned with how future citizens will be educated. For the purposes of this discussion, a working definition of democratic education will be the following: the learning processes and environments designed towards the preservation of democracy, the promotion of a common culture, the development of civic responsibility, the obligation to ethical behavior, and the enhancement of global perspectives (Lucas, 1996b).

To be sure, democratic education becomes a function of most if not all social institutions— such as libraries, churches, and government agencies (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003). However, many people consider the public university as one of the most significant social institutions designed for social reproduction, economic development, and the generation of new knowledge (Ayers & Miller, 1998; Baer, 1999; Daxner, 2003). Therefore, it is particularly incumbent upon public universities to shoulder their responsibility for the transmission of democratic values and the improvement of society.

Service to society and civic responsibility are among the most important themes in public higher education in America (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003). The historical raison d'être for public higher education in America is that since education benefits all of society, it should be supported by public dollars (Lorenzen, 2002). The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education concluded that higher education benefits both the individual and society by providing an educated citizenry and a skilled workforce. Society benefits from the services of public institutions as well as the contributions of educated citizens. Therefore, education is supported as a public good through general taxation for the benefit of all. Higher education, in turn, is obligated to be responsive to the needs of society and accountable to the use of public tax funds (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003; Labaree, 1997).

Higher education is particularly able to ensure the transmission of democratic virtues because the skills required of democracy are educable (Daxner, 2003; Dewey, 1916; Parker, 2001; Portelli & Solomon, 2001). For all differences of opinion, scholars generally argue that higher education is about the business of teaching and learning and that student development is one of the foremost outcomes (Duderstadt & Womack, 2002; Gutmann, 1991; Lucas, 1996b). In this line of thought, Gutmann (1987, 1991) maintains that education can be subsumed under the concept of political socialization defined as the critical processes by which societies transmit political attitudes, behaviors, and values to citizens. Teaching and research are clear examples of such critical processes (Barr & Tagg, 1995).

It has been a traditional mission of higher education in the United States to promote civic responsibility (Baer, 1999; Duderstadt & Womack, 2003; Evans & Reason, 2001). The Student Personnel Point of View (ACE, 1983) emphasizes the civic mission and purpose of higher education—to assist the student in making his or her contribution to the improvement of society. Reflecting the changes in society that followed World War II, the American Council on Education revised the statement to emphasize education for democratic citizenship and the application of education to solve social ills.

It goes without question that all social institutions in a democratic society have a responsibility to improve the policies, practices, and processes that are a part of its fabric. Societies rely on courts to establish justice and to enforce laws to the end of maintaining peace and settling civil unrest. Societies depend on government agencies to guarantee domestic tranquility and to promote the general welfare of all people. Similarly, societies look to education to transmit and preserve values, customs, and skills needed to participate in democratic life.

Democratic Education and the Curriculum

Horace Mann was quoted in 1848 saying, “It may be an easy thing to make a republic, but it is a very laborious thing to make republicans; and woe to the republic that rests upon no better foundations than ignorance, selfishness, and passion” (Labaree, 1997, p. 44). His comments highlight a central tension of democratic education and theory—what is needed to make democratic citizens and how are they made? What values and skills are necessary for “citizen participation” (Boggs, 2000, pg. ix)?

Classical theorists suggest that critical engagement and developing a sense of agency over the forces that impact life are crucial to democratic education (Freire, 1970; Gutmann, 1995). The curriculum, then, must empower people to understand and change, when necessary, forces that impact life chances and experiences. Such an understanding places a premium on egalitarian relations over authoritarian relations that constitute the normative paradigm—that is, teacher knows best and gives the student what they need. Classroom climates and curricula that are open to the free expression of opinions and controversy are prescribed over environments that encourage conformity and agreement (Parker, 2001). In essence, the curriculum must demonstrate how democracy allows for critical examination and systemic analyses.

Toward the end of developing democratic citizens, the curriculum must promote academic freedom (Freire, 1970; Gutmann, 1995; Parker, 2001), encourage participation in democratic processes (Dahl, 1956; Gutmann, 1987; Labaree, 1997; Sartori, 1962), and encourage dialogue, critique, dissent, and social justice (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970, Giroux, 2001, 2002). In societies trying to be democracies students must “come to understand liberty and pluralism, citizen rights and responsibilities, and the rule of law” (Parker, 2001). These are a few of the values necessary for individuals to participate in a democratic society.

The next challenge of educators after identifying the values and skills necessary for democratic life is to incorporate those concepts into the curriculum (Osborne, 1991). The central consideration is how the curriculum—what is taught—espouses the values and skills necessary for democracy. Put differently, the curriculum must be designed to teach people to be responsible citizens and active participants in democracy.

Thus, pedagogy is central to this conversation as well. For democratic education, pedagogies must be grounded in democratic values (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2002; Parker, 2001). Toward the goal of cultivating democratic citizens, teaching must be fashioned to create critical and safe environments for open dialogue and engagement (Barber, 2001). Democratic education allows space for all voices (Carlson & Apple, 1999). To this, Gutmann said, “a civic education is repressive when it fails to teach appreciation and respect” (1995, p. 2). Higher education, then, must be a sanctuary of non-repression (Gutmann, 1991, 1995).

The curriculum must reflect a “common set of civic values” (Gutmann, 1995, p. 1). In that way, democracy becomes relevant to English, science, math, and sociology. The curriculum not only focuses on the values that are important to a democratic society but it underscores the policy implications across disciplines. A democratic curriculum has as its goal not just mastery of subject matter but democratic citizenship as well. This moves the position of democracy from being just a form of government to a way of life. Consistent with Greene’s (1995) notion, this demands that we broaden our concept of democracy beyond the political realm of society.

The curriculum for democratic education is at all times multicultural (Ayers & Miller, 1998; Greene, 1991, 1995). Such a curriculum taught to all students puts multicultural education in service to democratic values. It supports one of the most basic lessons of democratic education: “that all individuals, regardless of their cultural identifications, have equal civic standing” (Gutmann, 1995, p. 3). Equality, mutual respect, and understanding are both necessary and lacking in the democratic society in which we live (Kyle & Jenks, 2002). By teaching the skills and virtues of citizenship, public universities can contribute to bringing democracy closer to its own ideal.

Blake and Moore (2000) posit that a comprehensive effort to educate students who are simultaneously home in the world and also prepared to engage their duty as citizens in a global society must be the focus of teaching. The logic of this argument follows that while we may be born free—and that is well debated—we are not born citizens (Barker, 1958). Those who are citizens require extensive education (Dewey, 1916). Dewey spoke to this point by saying, “[Democracy] has to be enacted anew in every generation, in every year, in every day…in all social forms and institutions.” The curriculum must reinforce these democratic, universalistic values.

This is not done without challenge. In the last century there has been a move away from civic and humanistic education towards professional and vocational training (Apple, 1999; Bourdieu, 1998; Portelli & Solomon, 2001). Specialization and departmentalization (Daxner, 2002; Osborne, 1991), patriotism (Giroux, 2002; Parker, 2001), and commercialization (Giroux, 2001; Portelli & Solomon, 2001; Saltman, 2000) threaten democratic education. For democratic education to remain true to its character academic freedom must be preserved and dissonance cannot be equated with treason (Hughes, 2002). Democratic education must be as free as the society it hopes to produce. Portelli and Solomon (2001) emphasize that democratic education cannot be an instrument of hegemony and the curriculum must promote the virtues of equality, freedom, and justice.

Democratic Education and Campus Climate

Campus climate has become another buzzword of the academy alongside multiculturalism, diversity, and student development (Brown, 1972; Bloland, Stamatakos, & Rodgers, 1994). Any serious consideration of these terms requires one to set forth a definition to explain how the author wishes to operationalize the term. For the purposes of this paper, campus climate refers to the out-of-classroom experiences and environments that characterize higher education. In a sense, campus climate is the curriculum of the campus-at-large. This differs from other definitions of campus climate that refer specifically to student issues of supreme relevance to student affairs professionals (Bloland, Stamatakos, & Rodgers, 1996). It is apparent that the working definition aforementioned is broader and refers to issues of learning, diversity, student life, and campus decision-making.

Political theorists and philosophers like de Tocqueville and Hartz praise America for its equality and liberty. Such a description points out that members of a democratic society have both individual and collective identities. American colleges promote the ascendancy of the individual (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976). The extent to which higher education can promote the importance of “the collective” will reflect in the ability of students to participate in democratic life. Lucey (2002) says, “The challenge to democracy’s college is to create a climate that nurtures in its students a strong ethic of civic engagement” (p. 28). Colleges should create an atmosphere in which campus decision making and life mirrors the best qualities of engagement in a democratic society.

This calls to question, “What must be the qualities of a college that prepares students effectively for productive citizenship?” To this Lucey (2002) and others suggest that colleges, as microcosms of society, must model what is best about our diverse, democratic, and pragmatic society. Diversity—that is, difference of all accounts—is critical to democratic education. Developing an appreciation and understanding of difference must be an end of democratic education. Participation in the formal and in-formal processes of governance is just as essential for students as it is for faculty and administrators. The various college constituencies should have an opportunity to provide input into major campus decisions— supporters and dissenters (Glen, 2001). Again, education of the democratic sort ought to mirror the principles of democracy—the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, many educators were questioning the success of American colleges and universities in preparing students for citizenship. However, post-September 11 reports indicate that the need to prepare students for citizenship has a special resonance that it did not have in earlier statements (Ayers & Miller, 1998; Flaherty, 2002; Giroux, 2002; Hughes, 2002). Most conclude that the events of September 11 provide educators with an opportunity to recover schools as democratic public realms in which students can engage in dialogue and “critique around the meaning of democratic values, the relationship between learning and civic engagement, and the connection between schooling, what it means to be a citizen, and the responsibilities one has to the larger world” (Hughes, 2002, p. 1142).

It is increasingly clear that campus climate and curriculum are not mutually exclusive. While the curriculum outlines the skills, tasks, and abilities that must be taught, the campus environment provides a context for application of the curriculum (Komives, Woodard, & Associates, 1996). There can be little question that the ideal method of teaching the significance of diversity in the workplace and broader society is to create living, learning, and working environments in which students must thrive. Such creations wed the curriculum and the extracurriculum towards the purposes of education (Altizer, 1996).

The point of campus climate is to reflect the diversity of the greater society including racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological differences (Baer, 1999; Blake & Moore, 2000; Greene, 1991). Diversity helps students to realize the responsibility for not only their own individual experience but for the collective experience of all. The logic of diversity is simple—the more we live, learn, and work together the better we can live, learn, and work together (Greene, 1995; Gutmann, 1991; Parker, 2001).

Examples of Democratic Education

So far this paper has attempted to present a cogent argument for democratic education in public higher education. This argument has been based upon a synthesis of the theory and relevant literature about the purposes of higher education and democratic education. To move from the ceremony of theory to the substance of application, this section presents vignettes of programs on public campuses that were designed towards the purpose of democratic citizenship and education.

Administrators at Rutgers University designed the Citizenship and Service Education Program (CSEP). Nearly 1000 students enroll in the program each year. The CSEP is under the direction of the Dean for Undergraduate Education. Courses offered through the program have a service component and have democratic citizenship as an objective (Barber, 2001).

At public universities like the University of Minnesota and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), engineering professors have put forth projects that cultivate a relationship with the community. For example, undergraduate environmental engineering students at Virginia Tech created a novel solution to water treatment problems for residents of Appalachia. Their project involved working with the residents, city planners and administrators, and engineering students in other specialty areas like mechanical and civil engineering (Nancy Love, personal communication, September 22).

At the University of Maryland, with the support of Governor Glendening and Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a commitment has been made to the idea of “the engaged university”—an idea embodied in a civil society initiative that sparked the Democracy Collaborative (DC). The DC is dedicated to the proposition that academic institutions enhance rather than compromise their educational programs when they engage actively in civic, economic, and social issues that face local, national, and global communities (Barber, 2001). Other such programs may be underway at institutions that are reprioritizing towards civic responsibility and democratic education (Baer, 1999).

Conclusion

Democratic education is a proper function of higher education. By no means is it the only function of higher education. As our world grows increasingly complex, our borders blurry, and our differences more visible, the civic function of higher education will become more central to our mission. This will not mark the incoming of a new mission for higher education but rather a revitalization of the traditional mission. Events like September 11 and the war against Iraq heighten the need for security and safety, understanding and respect of all people around the globe. Democratic education, then, may be the bedrock upon which these “citizens of the world” are built.

References

Altizer, A. (1996). A model for increasing collaboration between academic and student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 6(1), 56-61.

American Council on Education (ACE). (1949). The student personnel point of view. (rev. ed.). American Council on Education Studies (Series VI, Vol. XIII, No.13). Washington, DC: Author.

Apple, M. W. (1999). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. London: Routeledge.

Ayers, W., & Miller, T. (1998). A light in dark times: Maxine Green and the unfinished conversation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Baer, M. (1999). Associations discuss efforts to promote civic responsibility. Higher education and national affairs, 48(9), 1-6.

Barber, B. R. (2001). The "engaged university" in a disengaged society: Realistic goal or bad joke? Retrieved October 1, 2003, from www.diversityweb.org/Digest/Sm01/engaged.html

Barker, E. (1958). The politics of Aristotle. London: Oxford University Press.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25.

Blake, J. H., & Moore, E. L. (2000). Diversity requirements: The teaching experience and impact on students. Liberal Education, 86(2), 6-12.

Bloland, P.A., Stamatakos, L.C., & Rodgers, R.R. (1994). Reform in student affairs: A critique of student development. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse.

Bloland, P.A., Stamatakos, L.C., & Rodgers, R.R. (1996). Redirecting the role of student affairs to focus on student learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37 (2), 217- 226.

Boggs, C. (2000). The end of politics. New York: Guilford Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance. New York: Free Press.

Brown, R.D. (1972). Student development in tomorrows higher education. Washington: American College Personnel Association.

Brubacher, J.S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition. New York: Harper & Row.

Carlson, D., & Apple, M. (1999). Power-knowledge-pedagogy: The meaning of democratic education in unsettling times. Boulder: Westview Press.

Dahl, R. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Daxner, M. (2003, October). Creating civil societies: The university's role. The Presidency.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: McMillan.

Duderstadt, J. J., & Womack, F. W. (2003). The future of the public university in America: Beyond the crossroads. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Engles, M. (1999). The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 359-377.

Flaherty, J. (2002, August 4). What should you get out of college? New York Times.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continnum.

Gee, E. G., & Rodin, J. (1999). Democracy and a new declaration from higher education. Retrieved September 29, 2003, from www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op- Eds/Gee2.html

Giroux, H. A. (2001). Stealing innocence: Corporate cultures war on children. New York: Palgrave Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2002). Democracy, freedom, and justice after September 11th: Rethinking the role of educators and the politics of schooling. Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1138- 1162.

Glen, D. (2001, December 3). The war on campus: Will academic freedom survive. The Nation, 11.

Greene, M. (1991). The demands of diversity: Implications for public policy. In D. H. Finifter & J. R. Thelin (Eds.), The uneasy public policy triangle in higher education: Quality, diversity, and budgetary efficiency (pp. 26-33). New York: McMillan.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essay on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guarasci, R., Cornwell, G. H., & et al. (1997). Democratic education in an age of difference: Redefining citizenship in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gutmann, A. (1991). What counts as quality in higher education? In D. H. Finifter & J. R. Thelin (Eds.), The uneasy public policy triangle in higher education: Quality, diversity, and budgetary efficiency (pp. 45-53). New York: McMillan.

Gutmann, A. (1995). Challenges of multiculturalism in democratic education. Philosophy of Education, 1-18.

Hughes, M. (2002, January 15). A post-September 11 mandate for education. The New York Times.

Kyle, K., & Jenks, C. (2002). The theoretical and historical case for democratic education in the United States. Educational Studies, 33(2), 150-169.

Komives, S.R., Woodard, D.B., & Associates. (1996). Student services: A handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39-81.

Lorenzen, M. (2002). Education: Public or private goods? Retrieved October 1, 2003, from www.libraryreference.org/publicgoods.html

Lucas, C. J. (1996a). American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martins Press.

Lucas, C. J. (1996b). Crisis in the academy: Rethinking higher education in America. New York: St. Martins Press.

Lucey, C. A. (2002, July/Aug). Civic engagement, shared governance, and community colleges. Academe, 88, 27-31.

Osborne, K. (1991). Teaching for democratic society. Toronto: Our Schools Ourselves/Lorimer.

Parker, W. C. (2001). Educating democratic citizens: A broad view. Theory into practice, 40(1), 6-13.

Portelli, J. P., & Solomon, R. P. (2001). The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.

Saltman, J. (2000). Collateral damage: Corporatizing public schools-A threat to democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Sartori, G. (1962). Democratic theory. Detroit: Greenwood Publishing Company.

Author Note

Terrell L. Strayhorn, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Higher Education and Student Affairs Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. This research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for ELPS 6064: Higher Education in the United States, Don G. Creamer, Professor.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Terrell L. Strayhorn, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. E-mail: [email protected]