Background

IAU Durban Conference, August 20-25, 200011th General Conference: Universities as Gateway to the FuturePlenary Panel III

Juan Ramon de la Fuente Rector, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico

Introduction It is my privilege to participate in this panel and respond with some my thoughts and reflections to the excellent presentations we heard yesterday from both Dr. Ikenberry and Dr. Serageldin, as well as to the very brief, but very insightful comments of the Chairman, Dr. Martin Meyerson. I will take a few seconds to also make some comments on the title of yesterday's and today's Panel discussions regarding the 'Stakeholders', because I found myself having a hard time trying to find a word for it in my own language, in Spanish. So, I talked to some my colleagues from the Spanish-speaking universities, but I guess they had more or less the same problem I had. I then went to the interpreters, who are excellent of course, but they also had a hard time finding a word in either French or Spanish. Let me tell you. I am usually not anxious about words, except when I hear what may sound like a neologism. That is perhaps because of my psychiatric background. But then, when I heard Dr. Meyerson telling us that it was a notion basically from the American Corporate World, I found some relief, because, of course, you probably agree with me that we can expect anything and everything from the American Corporate World. So, I congratulate the organizers for introducing, not only the word, but the notion of stakeholders in a Conference like this. It has been very relevant. It has created some controversy and I think that is very, very good. Two Points Now, both of the Speakers yesterday made very good points. As the bottom line of their presentations, they both were dealing with something that is of the concern of all of us, with financing of higher education. We have to be very clear when we talk about financing, because it is one thing we would like in theory and another thing when it happens in real life, given a wide range of differences within countries and between countries. Most of us would agree that we need to share the burden of financing of higher education with a number of partners whether they come from the business community, whether they are alumni, whether they come from international agencies or whether those contributions come from students and relatives who have the resources to contribute to financing higher education. A couple of points, at least, need to be stressed when we discuss these issues. One has to do with the fact that public higher education remains not only tied to the State, but it is an obligation of the state. I think we need to stress that as many times as needed, because sharing does not mean eluding such a responsibility. It happens, and it has happened, that when the notion of sharing is brought up, then it also gives the State the possibility of being somewhat elusive about its responsibility. A second point, that also needs to be stressed, is that those who contribute to finance higher education, expect something in exchange for their contribution. We need to very clear what those expectations are. Because, here I find, at least potentially, are conflicts and conflicts have broken out because of that. It was said yesterday that one of the risks, and I agree with Dr. Ikenberry, is the homogenization of higher education. This would be very bad, because we need to preserve and keep our pluralism between universities and within universities. And, if we measure exactly by the same standards, what is happening is directing us towards homogenization. So, we just need to be very cautious about it and be careful about it. University Autonomy There is, I think, a potential conflict when we talk about sharing the burden of financing higher education. It has to do with something that has been discussed here for the last three days and which is very important. It has to do with the autonomy of the university that needs to be preserved, that needs to be strengthened. Precisely because of sharing of responsibilities and, there again, I see a potential conflict. At the end of the day, we all need to be aware that, as academic leaders, we have the duty and the responsibility to negotiate with those external sources and to negotiate from the university's view point, main values, constant values. To negotiate from that perspective, when we are talking about financing support, is not easy. You need not only strong support from within university, but strong support from society at large. In order to do that you really need to have a very strong leadership. In addition to the institutional constraints, which were pointed out very clearly by Dr. Serageldin, are also external constraints that need to be taken into account. If you do not look at both institutional and external constraints cautiously and with an integrated perspective, then the risk is that governance may no longer function in the way we like it to function. It is important then to refer to governance at the same time as we refer to those aspects of financing higher education. The point of negotiation needs to be again brought up, because that is exactly what happened at the National University of Mexico last year. One of the largest public universities in the world, underwent one of its most severe crisis. What happened is that negotiation fell apart because it was divided between the institutional constraints and the external constraints and ended up in a very very serious conflict, which fortunately is now being superceded.. Higher Education, market-driven Another point I would like to make relates to the notion of market-driven higher education. True, this notion has acquired some legitimacy. But, it is also true, and we saw most acknowledged, that at least in some societies, the reason is beginning to question to what extent higher education should be market-driven. That, we cannot ignore. The issue is there, I mean the question is there, regardless of whether we are convinced by it or not. The question, to my mind is how is this notion interfering with those constant values that we have talked about the last three days? How is that interfering with the ethics of higher education? How is that interfering with the basic principles that inspire IAU some decades ago? Relevant and Outstanding Questions We have talked here about social responsibility. There are some relevant questions that need to be addressed again. Are markets sensitive to social needs? Are markets sensitive to people's needs? Is a university still a social institution? If so, I think we need to look at this cautiously. We need to work more on finding thorough answers to these questions. I don't think we have all the answers we would like. And, believe me, I am not a dogmatic iconoclast. I am not against a market economy. But, when we talk of such complex issues as higher education, in the context of the social responsibility of the universities, some of the questions have not been thoroughly replied to. Some of these issues are still open to debate. We must acknowledge that they are still debatable. Differences and Political Will I enjoyed very much Dr. Serageldin's brilliant presentation. The World Bank has come a long way with new important and very welcome concepts, such as social capital which, for instance, is essential to social sustainability. Here is indeed a different language and a new way to approach some of the problems from the World Bank's point of view. It is a much a better way to approach some of these complex issues. Also, his presentation contained some striking inequities that continue, prevail and reflect not only inequities in income, but also reflect a lack of political will to overcome some of them. I take just one of his figures to illustrate my point. When he showed that graph contrasting high income versus low-income countries, it showed in terms of income differences the former was forty-two times greater. When it comes to analyze research, the difference is 218 times more. The problem is not just a difference in income. It is also a problem of lack of political will. Research has not been given the priority. This, it needs to be given, despite the fact that there are differences in income. So, we need to look at least at both tracks. Finally, if education is a lifelong process we should not forget that market economy relies as much on short terms phenomena and immediate reactions. So, I'll just say that the presentations were excellent. Sometimes reality is a little more complex than it looks in such a light.