The Character Model for the American University (Part II)
Aristotle’s understanding of phronesis is a form of practical reason while simultaneously connected with theoretical or scientific thinking to guide particular action. Phronesis paves a middle path between theoretical reason, which is too rigid and abstract to solve specific problems, and pragmatic calculation which is focused only on what works without understanding why.[i] Aristotle defines phronesis as the “ability to deliberate well about what sorts of things conduce to the good life in general,” but one can produce “no demonstration” of its first principles, even though “particular actions were true in practice.”[ii] Phronesis can never become a science (episteme), which is concerned about first principles that are always the same and true, because its attention to particulars precludes one from starting from universal premises or ending with comprehensive conclusions. Given its variable character, Aristotle instead categorizes phronesis as a deliberate intellectual virtue.
This exclusion of phronesis from the category of theoretical or scientific reason makes any positivist attempt to evaluate its effectiveness defective: there are no axioms from which one can reason to conclusions or first principles. Yet phronesis is not a type of circular reasoning. It is connected to theoretical reason by its intuitive recognition of first principles. For example, a person recognizes that murder is wrong because his or her moral intuition recognizes it as such, although the person does not possess scientific certainty about the wrongfulness of murder. This is different from circular reasoning–a person believes his or her view that murder is wrong because the person believes it to be true–for it does not confuses first principles when a person validates what he or she immediately apprehend. Of course, a person could work him- or herself into a state of doubt about the wrongfulness of murder, but Aristotle would say that such a person is being foolish because these types of experiences are starting points and not the conclusion of inquiry.[iii]
The inability of a person to distinguish and defend first principles is to acknowledge he or she is an incomplete being when compared to the morally experienced or mature person (phronimos). But what happens if there is no phronimos to whom one can turn? For Aristotle, the answer resides in character formation. The community educates its young in pre-rational version of virtues that are necessary for social stability and continuity, for, as Aristotle observes, such habituation “teaches right opinion about the first principle.”[iv] This pre-rational education orients young people towards phronesis where they eventually form an attachment to it. This incomplete or pre-rational phronesis is a person’s “common sense” that preserves both him- or herself and the community but not enough for either the person or society to achieve excellence.
While Americans value higher education, they value character even more. Asked what it takes a young person to succeed in the world, 61% say a good work ethic is extremely important and 57% say the same about knowing how to get along with people–only 42% say a college education.[v] The character model, based on a deliberative intellectual virtue that is both practical and theoretical therefore is uniquely suited for American higher education to make its case of its public value. Furthermore, the formation of character as both practical and theoretical reason allows American institutions of higher education to distinguish themselves from their societal competitors. Both businesses and governments employ theoretical reason but ultimately for pragmatic ends (i.e., economic, political): theoretical reason is reduced to a practical activity. By contrast, colleges and universities can orient students’ practical reasoning to theoretical ends without losing sight of the world of particulars, something which liberal education trends to neglect.[vi] Navigating between the extremes of unprincipled pragmatism and detached theoreticism, the character model highlights what American higher education can do better than other societal institutions: cultivate a character in students that requires both theoretical and practical reason.[vii]
Given the diversity of institutions in American higher education, there is no need to impose a single normative standard on all colleges and universities. Religious colleges may wish to incorporate theology into their understanding of a character, while public institutions may choose to focus on a responsible and engaged democratic citizenry. The character model allows flexibility for colleges and universities to select an understanding of what constitutes a flourishing human person for that institution and orient students, faculty, and administrators to cultivate practical and theoretical reason towards that end. What is critical is that the model forces colleges and universities to consider what type of character they want to foster in their communities. This is not to deny that colleges and universities should provide the skills and knowledge for their students to be productive members in the workforce or responsible and active citizens. These goals are important but should be secondary to the fostering of character, as only colleges and universities are uniquely situated in society to do this.
The character model therefore calls for a normative understanding of human flourishing specific to American higher education that includes both theoretical and practical reason and to orient colleges and universities in their teaching, research, and service towards that end. Other societal institutions, such as businesses and governments, lack a combination or balance between theoretical and practical reason and consequently are deficient in their understanding of human flourishing. American higher education is uniquely suited for this task because they have the resources to cultivate a specific character in their students and encourage their faculty and administrators to partake in this ethos. Within the university itself, the character model can help bridge the gap between programs that are too theoretical (e.g., liberal education) and practical (e.g., professional training). The need for both theoretical and practical reason obliges faculty and administrators to learn from each other and thereby overcome the programmatic fragmentation and content specialization that characterizes today’s higher education.
The character model thus forces students, faculty, and administrators to think about what should constitute the core mission of their institution and explain it to a public that already believes character is the critical factor for a person’s success. By making character central to their mission, colleges and universities can not only organize themselves intellectually and practically around this objective but also make a public case about the value of higher education that is different from workforce preparedness or democratic citizenship. Colleges and universities cannot compete with businesses and governments in these economic and political goals because these activities primarily employ practical rather than theoretical reason, whereas the higher education can do both. By informing the public that only they are uniquely suited to cultivate a certain type of character that requires both theoretical and practical reason, colleges and universities can hopefully improve the public’s understanding of their value in society.
[i] Beiner 1983; Barber 1988; Salkever 1990; Steinberger 1993. For more about phronesis, see Trepanier 2013.
[ii] Aristotle 1990, 1140a24-1140b30; 1142a11-30; 1146b35-1146a7. Translations are mine own.
[iii] Ibid., 1095b6.
[iv] Ibid., 1151a15-20.
[v] PEW 2011, 50.
[vi] Trepanier 2017a.
[vii] Religious institutions also may be able to play a public role similar to the universities in cultivating a character in its members that uses both practical and theoretical reason. However, public support for religion has declined whereas higher education institutions, albeit questioned, has not. Putnam and Campbell 2010; Jones 2016.
References
Angulo, A.J. 2016. Diploma Mills: How For-Profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Apple, Michael. 2001. “Comparing Neoliberal Projects and Inequality in Education.” Comparative Education 37, no. 4: 409-23.
Aristotle. 1990. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barber, Benjamin. 1988. The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beiner, Ronald. 1983. Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ben-Porath, Sigal R. 2017. Free Speech on Campus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bok, Derek. 2004. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Byrd, Carson. 2017. Poison in the Ivy: Race Relations and the Reproduction of Inequality on Elite College Campuses. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Canaan, Joyce E. and Wesley Shumar. 2015. Structure and Agency in the Neoliberal University. New York: Routledge.
Caplan, Bryan. 2018. The Case Against Education: Why Education is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chemerinsky, Eriwin and Howard Gillman. 2017. Free Speech on Campus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cooper, Peter. 2016. “Master the Skills, Not the Clock.” U.S. News & World Report. (February 17). Available at https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2016/02/17/the-approaching-revolution-of-competency-based-higher-education.
Cottom, Tressie McMillan. 2017. Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. New York: The New Press.
Clynes, Tom. 2017. “Peter Thiel Thinks You Should Skip College, And He’ll Even Pay You for Your Troubles.” (February 22). Newsweek. Available at http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/03/peter-thiel-fellowship-college-higher-education-559261.html.
Daugherty, Lindsay, Van L. Davis, and Trey Miller. 2015. Competency-Based Education Programs in Texas: An Innovative Approach to Higher Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Fain, Paul. 2016. “American Public U’s New Comptency-Based Degrees Do Not Rely on Credit-Hour Standard.” Inside Higher Ed. (March 16). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/16/american-public-us-new-competency-based-degrees-do-not-rely-credit-hour-standard.
Finkelstein, Martin J., Valerie Martin Conley, Jack H. Schuster. 2016. The Faculty Factor: Reassessing the American Academy in a Turbulent Era. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
—. 2014. “So Much To Do, So Little Time.” Inside Higher Ed. (April 9). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings.
Flaherty, Colleen. 2016. “Rethinking Gen Ed.” Inside Higher Ed. (March 10). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/10/undergraduate-curricular-reform-efforts-harvard-and-duke-suggest-theres-no-one-way.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. 2011. The Fall of Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giroux, Henry. 2001. “Introduction: Critical Education or Training: Beyond the Commodification of Higher Education.” In Beyond the Corporate University. Edited by Henry A. Giroux and Kostas Myrsiades. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield: 1-11.
—. 2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review 72, no. 4 (December): 425-464.
Gould, Eric. 2003. The University in a Corporate Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gross, Neil and Solon Simmons. 2014. Professors and Their Politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Hacker, Andrew and Claudia Dreifu. 2010. Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids–And What We Can Do About. New York: Times Book.
Hart Research Associates. 2016. Recent Trends in General Education Design, Learning Outcomes, and Teaching Approaches: Key Findings from a Survey among Administrators at AAC&U Member Institutions. (January 19). Association of American Colleges and Universities. Available at https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/publications/recent-trends-general-education-design-learning-outcomes-and.
Herbst, Jurgen. 2004. “The Yale Report of 1828.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 11, no. 2: 213–231.
Hentschke, Guilbert C. and Vicente M. Lechuga. 2012. For-Profit Colleges and Universities: Their Markets, Regulations, Performance, and Place in Higher Education. Herndon, VA: Stylus.
Hill, David and Ravi Kumar. 2009. Global Neoliberalism and Education and Its Consequences. New York: Routledge.
Jones, Robert P. 2016. The End of White Protestant America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy. 2017. “Disenchanted Professionals: The Politics of Faculty Governance in the Neoliberal Academy.” Perspectives on Politics. 15, no. 1: 100-15.
Kimball, Bruce.2010. The Liberal Arts Tradition, A Documentary History. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
King-White, Ryan. 2018. Sport and the Neoliberal University: Profit, Politics, and Pedagogy. New Buswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kirkpatrick, Kirk. 2013. “The Third Era of Liberal Education.” In Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Edited by Lee Trepanier. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books: 1-36.
Middleman, James H. 2017. The Implausible Dream: World-Class Universities and the Repurposing of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Newfield, Christopher. 2016a. “The Nation’s Electoral Divisions Highlight Questions about the Roel of Public Universities.” Insider Higher Ed. (November 18). Available at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/11/08/nations-electoral-divisions-highlight-questions-about-role-public-universities.
Newfield, Christopher. 2016b. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Quintana, Chris. 2017. “A Polarized Campus Struggles to Understand How Racial Tensions Became National News.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 2). Available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Polarized-Campus-Struggles/240260.
PEW Research Center. 2011. Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Access, Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. (May 16). Available at http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/05/higher-ed-report.pdf.
—. 2014. “6 Key Findings About Going to College.” Pew Research Center. (February 11). Available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/11/6-key-findings-about-going-to-college/.
—. 2017a. “Five Facts About Students Loans.” Pew Research Center. (August 24). Available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/5-facts-about-student-loans/.
—. 2017b. “Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions.” Pew Research Center. (July 10). Available at http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/.
Powers, J.B. 2003. “Commercializing Academic Research: Resource Effects of Performance of University Technology Transfer.” The Journal of Higher Education 74, no. 1: 26-50.
Rasmussen, Karen, Pamela Northrup, and Robin Colson. 2016. Handbook of Research on Competency-Based Education in University Setting. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
Rawlings, Hunter. 2015. “College is Not a Commodity. Stop Treating It Like One.” Washington Post. (June 9). Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/09/college-is-not-a-commodity-stop-treating-it-like-one/?utm_term=.0c238b642c2f.
Riley, Naomi Schaefer. 2011. The Faculty Lounges, and Other Reasons, Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Paid for. Lanham, MD: Ivan R. Dee.
Ross, Tom. 2017. Blackballed: The Black and White Politics of Race on America’s Campuses. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Salkever, Stephen G. 1990. Finding the Mean: Theory and Practice in Aristotelian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Scruton, Roger. 2017. “The Threat of Free Speech in the University.” Modern Age 59, no. 3 (Summer 2017): 7-16.
Selingo, Jeffrey J. 2015. “Higher Ed as a Commodity? Colleges Have Only Themselves to Blame.” Washington Post. (June 16). Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/16/higher-ed-as-a-commodity-colleges-have-only-themselves-to-blame/?utm_term=.9f00a87df402.
Putnam, Robert and David Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Slater, Tom. 2016. Unsafe Spaces: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus. London: Palgrave.
Srigley, Ron. 2015. “Dear Parents: Everything You Need to Know About Your Son’s and Daughter’s University but Don’t.” Los Angeles Review of Books. (December 9). Available at https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dear-parents-everything-you-need-to-know-about-your-son-and-daughters-university-but-dont/#!.
—. 2018. “Whose University Is It Anyway?” Los Angeles Review of Books (February 22). Available at https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/whose-university-is-it-anyway/.
Steinberger, Peter J. 1993. The Concept of Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Steiner, Elizabeth. 1984. “Toward a Conception of the Role of the Arts in Liberal Education.” Studies in Art Education. 26, no. 1: 5-13.
Taylor, Mark. 2010. Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming Our Colleges and Universities. New York: Knopf.
Trepanier, Lee. 2013. “A Philosophy of Prudence and the Purpose of Higher Education Today.” In The Relevance of Higher Education. Edited by Timothy Simpson. Lexington Books: 1-23.
—. 2017a. Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
—. 2017b. “The Relevance of Political Philosophy and Political Science.” In Why the Humanities Matter Today: In Defense of Liberal Education. Edited by Lee Trepanier. Lexington Books: 127-44.
—. 2017c. “SoTL as a Subfield for Political Science Graduate Programs,” Journal of Political Science Education. 13, no.2 (2017): 138-51.
Tuchman, Gaye. 2011. Wannabe U: Inside the Corporate University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Villasenor, John. 2017. “Views Among College Students Regarding the First Amendment: Results from a New Survey.” Brookings. (September 18). Available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/.
Voorhees, Richard. 2001. Measuring What Matters: Competency-Based Learning Models in Higher Education: New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Warner, Marina. 2014. “Why I Quit.” London Review of Books. (September 11). Available at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/marina-warner/diary.
Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.