American Association of 
University Professors

   Because Academic Freedom is not Free

UW-AAUP

Signed by more than 900 members of the University of Washington faculty, the following letter was presented to Governor Locke and separately to members of the 2020 Commission in June 1998. It was also published in the University of Washington Daily and the several Seattle area papers. Extensive press coverage about Open Letter, including a large article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, helped convince the 2020 Commission to proceed cautiously and the final report avoided the kinds of recommendations that seemed eminent when the Open Letter was drafted.

OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR GARY LOCKE AND THE 2020 COMMISSION
ON THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION


Higher education in the state of Washington is at a crossroads.
Earlier this year Governor Gary Locke appointed a blue ribbon commission
of business and civic leaders to develop plans to meet the state's higher
education needs for the next quarter century.  Recommendations are due in
September. The Washington Higher Education Roundtable, appointed by the
legislature, may be making recommendations at the same time. The
undersigned members of the faculty at the University of Washington address
this letter of concern to these committees as well as to the Governor and
legislature.
                            * * * *

These are troubling times for the University of Washington and for
higher education in Washington state.  Our state's future depends upon
providing increased access to affordable, high-quality public education.
But there are signs that those charged with designing the future of our
community colleges and universities are heading in disturbing directions.

Visions of education "without bricks and mortar," of education by
CD-ROM and internet, have dominated the initial meetings of the 202O
Commission.  In a recent speech at the UW law school, Wallace Loh,
ex-officio member of the Commission and Governor Locke's chief advisor on
higher education, added to the impression that the planners are bent on
replacing face-to-face classroom teaching with what he described as the
"brave new world of digital education." Governor Locke himself, in a
speech to graduating high school seniors, has anticipated the obsolescence
of the University as we know it, saying that in the future there will be
no need for "designer label" educations at prestigious institutions.

Hopefully these are merely exploratory remarks. But as faculty
members at the University of Washington (an institution we have never
regarded as "designer label"), we feel called upon to respond before
quixotic ideas harden into disastrous policies.

  Founded as a vital public center for the exchange of ideas, the
University of Washington has survived periodic economic challenges to
achieve its standing as an internationally renowned teaching and research
institution, on a par with private universities costing more than five
times as much. The University's national reputation is crucial not only
because UW is the Northwest's principal institution of higher learning,
but also because the undergraduate and graduate students who avail
themselves of its distinguished faculty and resources are themselves major
contributors to our teaching and scholarly community.

Declining rankings reduce our ability to recruit and produce the
finest scholars and educators in our state and, indeed, the world.  Is it
possible that a state that can afford to build world-class sports arenas
would turn its back on the world-class university that has served it for
so long and with such distinction?

  In the last 20 years Seattle has become a major U.S. city, the state of
Washington has grown, and its economy and population have expanded
rapidly. What has *not* grown proportionately is our investment in public
education.  Despite our industry and prosperity, Washington state invests
fewer dollars per capita in higher education than *any state in the nation
but one*.

Since the 1980s, the University of Washington has faced successive
budget cuts, pay freezes, and hiring freezes. Other states, notably
Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, also faced economic
hardships. But their elected officials wisely saw their universities as
bearing the promise of the future.  Those states protected--and continue
to protect--these vital assets. Meanwhile, the University of Washington
has struggled to maintain its reputation.  Its successes thus far testify
to the loyalties and capabilities of its faculty, administration,
students, and staff.

DISTURBING AGENDAS

Unfortunately Washington's policy makers now seem to be
considering a number of risky alternatives to the excellent system of
public education we already have. Calls for "downsizing,"  productivity
increases, and greater "accountability" carelessly echo corporate fads
without taking into account the already downsized nature of the state's
universities and colleges.

The University of Washington and its employees are *already*
accountable through a range of public channels, and their achievements in
providing high-quality education at what is already a uniquely low cost
speaks for itself. As students know well, education is not a product, but
a process, and increased "productivity" means larger classes, fewer
resources, less contact with instructors and other students, and the loss
of valued teachers and researchers.

Even riskier, some policy makers appear to have decided that
higher education must undergo the rigorous reorganization endured by the
health care professions.  They would like to convince the public that
colleges and universities should be supplanted by a profit-driven,
digitalized "knowledge industry,"  and that teachers should be subject to
the same kinds of limitations that healthcare providers have experienced
under the rule of HMOs.  This prospect is frightening--deeply contrary to
the foundations of higher education and its role fostering a free and
democratic society.

  In addition there is a growing fascination with "digital education." In
his April 27 speech Governor Locke made the surprising claim that the
research university and its national prestige are *irrelevant* to a coming
"Information Age" in which Washingtonians will simply buy their
"knowledge" in "bite-sized"  chunks through private technology. A few
weeks later, Wallace Loh spoke enthusiastically of a "virtual university,"
where education will be delivered electronically, and anonymously, to
students seated at "the kitchen table."

Although "distance learning" presents important opportunities to
specific kinds of individuals, including full-time workers seeking
continuing education, for most students it imposes serious limitations.
One of the problems with the newest crop of distance-learning institutions
is that they are motivated entirely by profit.  They admit students into
their programs regardless of whether or not they have suitable faculty and
resources to confer degrees.  The value and efficacy of degrees attained
through such unconventional means are entirely unproven.  When advanced
education is turned into a business, it is the buyer--or student--who must
beware.

While costly fantasies of this kind present a mouth-watering
bonanza to software manufacturers and other corporate sponsors, what they
bode for education is nothing short of disastrous.  Public money diverted
from "live" education into techno-substitutes will further erode students'
access to the low-cost, high-quality education upon which their *real*
futures depend. It is absurd to pretend that the reputation or ranking of
an institution of higher learning can be ignored.  The free market in
education-commodities that some foresee, will, in the manner of all
markets, result in a range of products with different values and
price-tags.

In reality a privileged few will continue to enjoy the personal
and economic benefits of face-to-face instruction at schools like
Stanford, UC Berkeley, and M.I.T. The less fortunate citizens of our state
will make do with downsized and underfunded campuses or settle for
inferior and dehumanizing "virtual"  alternatives. Chances are that
neither will qualify the students of the future to compete for the kind of
jobs they want.

EDUCATION IS NOT OBSOLETE

Far from obsolete, the University of Washington is a vibrant,
living community wherein diverse individuals blend an extraordinary range
of skills and motivations.  Its public spaces are unique: the classroom,
the seminar, the student union, the lecture hall, even the corridors.
Education, moreover, is not reducible to the downloading of information,
much less to the passive and solitary activity of staring at a screen.
Education is an intersubjective and social process, involving hands-on
activity, spontaneity, and the communal experience of sharing in the
learning enterprise.

Education is also not the exclusive province of the young.  The
thousands of older students demanding access to higher learning are doing
so, not only to enhance their careers and keep pace with technology, but
also to be stimulated, revitalized, and rejuvenated by the one area in
public life that values ideas for their own sake.

  As University of Washington faculty we are profoundly committed to
meeting these needs and fulfilling the goals of a liberal education.  We
seek to cultivate the active, independent, critical faculties, ethical
capacities, flexible intelligences, and analytical skills without which
neither democracy, nor freedom, nor creativity can thrive.  *This* kind of
teaching involves personal contact and sustained exchange.

  The people of our state need real, not factitious, access to higher
learning and good jobs. Fortunately, it is not too late.  Governor Locke
and members of the 2020 Commission, we urge you to support learning as a
human and social practice, an enrichment of soul and mind, the entitlement
of all citizens in a democracy, and not a profit-making commodity to be
offered on the cheapest terms to the highest bidder.

The University of Washington is a vital resource to our community,
not a factory, not a corporation, and not a software package. Its
excellence and integrity are not only assets that we as a community *can*
afford to maintain, but also assets that we *cannot* afford to squander.

Sincerely,