Higher Education PLURALIST World - American … · communication wonders—proved to be a source of...

Higher Education in a PLURALIST

World:A Transatlantic View

MADELEINE GREEN,

American Council on Education

ANDRIS BARBLAN,

European University Association

American Council on EducationCenter for Institutional and International Initiatives

Copyright © July 2004

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Additional copies of this publication are available by sending a check or money order for $15 per copy, plus $6.95 shipping and handling (for orders of more than one copy, call the number below), to the following address:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757Fax: (301) 843-0159

When ordering, please specify Item #309838.A free electronic version of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore.

®

Table of Contents

Foreword i

Introduction: The Transatlantic Gap:False Hope and True Misunderstandings 1

Defining Pluralism 5

A Portrait of Pluralism 11

The Pluralistic Institution 15

The Institution as a Forum for Debate:San Francisco State University 16

The University as a Crossroads of Cultures:Babes-Bolyai University 22

The Institution as a Partner with Its Community:Bolton Institute 25

Conclusion 29

Transatlantic Dialogue Participants 31

Notes 33

n June 2003, the European University Association (EUA) and theAmerican Council on Education (ACE), in cooperation with theAssociation of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), organizedthe eighth session of the Transatlantic Dialogue, a cross-border conver-sation that both associations have been co-sponsoring since 1989. The

dialogues bring together approximately 30 presidents, rectors, and vice chancel-lors from the United States, Canada, and Europe to engage in an in-depth conver-sation on contemporary higher education issues.

This most recent conversation was held at Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg,Austria, the home of the Salzburg Seminar. The location seemed fitting, combin-ing 18th century rococo architectural splendor and a great sense of Austrian hos-pitality with a notable history of political debate. Since 1947, SchlossLeopoldskron has been a center for intellectual exchange in the heart of Europe,where discussions have explored areas of social, economic, and cultural develop-ment across the globe.

To this setting, EUA, ACE, and AUCC invited academic leaders representing avariety of colleges and universities from Canada, Europe, and the United States todiscuss the role of and challenges to colleges and universities in developing plu-ralist societies. Referring to a rich literature on universities’ capacity for changeand their ability to transform the social environment, participants comparedacross cultures and borders their own institutional experiences in a plural societyand tried to define a common ground for action.

Rather than provide a summary of the conversation, the organizers asked theevent’s two facilitators, Madeleine Green, vice president and director of ACE’sCenter for Institutional and International Initiatives, and Andris Barblan, the former secretary general of EUA, to write an essay that captured the discussionhighlights. This report reflects the richness of the conversation in Salzburg andshowcases the relevance and importance of the meeting’s theme to the future ofhigher education on both sides of the Atlantic.

ACE and EUA are pleased to offer this essay to their members and to otherswho are deeply concerned about the future of colleges and universities in a world

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n i

IForeword

challenged by ethnic conflicts and fundamentalism. Many may be asking theimportant question: How can academics, staff, and students contribute to a com-munity of tolerance and understanding? The essay that follows points to somepossible answers to this difficult question.

David Ward Eric FromentPresident PresidentAmerican Council on Education European University Association

Washington, Brussels, June 2004

i i H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N A P L U R A L I S T W O R L D

ince the first biennialmeeting of the Trans-atlantic Dialogue in1989, the climate formutual understanding

and collaboration across the Atlantichas changed in ways that no one couldhave predicted. When they met at theUniversité Laval in Quebec for the sev-enth meeting of the TransatlanticDialogue in June 2001, the 30 presi-dents, rectors, and vice chancellors ofEuropean and North American uni-versities who participated expectedtheir future to be characterized bynational or international partner-ships. These alliances would allowthem to join forces and invest in areasof mutual interest. A shrinking worldand new possibilities for collaborationwould help higher education meet thechallenges of growing technology,globalization, and competition. Theseminar participants agreed that thechanging external landscape wouldforce a redefinition of institutionalidentities, an investment in enhancingquality, and a redeployment of humanresources. The capacity to innovatewould become the decisive advantagefor survival in the brave new world ofhigher education.1

None of the participants at thatmeeting could have expected that avastly different version of the brave

new world would impose itself 10weeks later when, on 11 September2001, terrorists destroyed the symbolsof international finance and U.S. eco-nomic might in New York City. Whatseemed to be the Western world’sstrength—high-tech machines andcommunication wonders—proved tobe a source of vulnerability in waysthat were simply unimaginable.Countries on both shores of theAtlantic reacted in unison: “We are allAmericans!” The threat to modernitywould be met by nations with essentialcommon interests acting in unison.

Two years later, at the eighth ses-sion of the Transatlantic Dialogue inJune 2003 at the Salzburg Seminar inAustria, the common front had bro-ken. The United States had taken con-trasting positions with Europe andCanada, on not only interventions inIraq and the Middle East, but alsotrade negotiations at the World TradeOrganization (WTO) concerningservices, agriculture, and, in the caseof Canada, softwood lumber. The rifton the conditions needed for peace,safety, and prosperity was deepeningwith the U.S. war in Iraq and growinganger among other nations that theU.S. government was acting increas-ingly unilaterally in matters of tradeand foreign policy. As the worldbecame more threatening and the war

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1

S

Introduction:The Transatlantic Gap:False Hopes and True Misunderstandings

A Pluralistic HigherEducation Institution…

is open to all studentswho can benefit–—regardless of economic,cultural, or academicbackground. Thechallenge for highereducation is not inselecting students whowill be successful, but inensuring success forthose who chose to come.

AUGUSTINE GALLEGO, SanDiego Community CollegeDistrict

on terrorism became a reality, theUnited States seemed to divide theworld into supporters and enemies.America appeared to pose a questionto the world, as U.S. columnist CharlesKrauthammer put it: “Are you in thetrenches with us or not?”2 This posi-tion left little room for debate or nego-tiation.

In this Manichean context, divisionsgrew in a Europe unable to develop a unified foreign policy: Britain,Spain, and Italy aligned with theUnited States, whileFrance and Germanydeclined to do so. Inthe United Nationsdebate, Canadasought (unsuccess-fully) to broker amultilateral solu-tion. In the UnitedStates, these dis-agreements spurredintense media cover-age and rising publicopinion decryingFrench treacheryand German ingrati-tude. In Europe, the differences com-plicated EuropeanUnion (EU) negotia-tions to enlarge theUnion to include 10additional nations,most of which were still under commu-nist rule in 1989 (the year of the firstTransatlantic Dialogue). When theleaders of these 10 nations offeredstrong support to U.S. policy, many inBrussels insisted that entering the EUby May 2004 required allegiance to Europe that precluded a pro-American stand. Indeed, Europecould not become a community of

some 600 million people without rein-forcing its internal ties and gover-nance as well as its common foreignpolicy. That issue was central to thediscussions of the convention, whichin spring 2003 presented a constitu-tional treaty for an enlarged EU, bothstreamlined internally and consistentin its external positions.

Thus, between the 2001 and 2003sessions of the TransatlanticDialogue, Europe focused predomi-nantly on its own economic, social,

and political devel-opment. At the sametime, the UnitedStates remained pre-occupied with itsown security (whichincluded developinga coordinated region-al defense plan withCanada) and uncon-cerned with thegrowing criticismsof its policies fromother nations. Didthe universities—mirrors of society—reflect such develop-ments? Was theirplace in society nowbeing confined bytheir national bor-ders? Could academepresent a more uni-

versal view of diversity, in terms ofpeople, interests, and cultures? Wasnot higher education a laboratory for pluralism, where different opin-ions, identities, and creative innova-tions informed a changing society? Orwere European and North Americanhigher education taking differentpaths of development, for instancethrough the government-driven

2 H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N A P L U R A L I S T W O R L D

Was not higher

education a laboratory

for pluralism, where

different opinions,

identities, and creative

innovations informed

a changing society?


strives to meet all theneeds of the communitiesthat it serves.

RODERICK FLOUD, LondonMetropolitan University

Bologna process3 in Europe andthrough market-driven approaches inthe United States? And could Canadamediate between U.S. and Europeanmodels?

In the context of these apparenttransatlantic rifts, the June 2003Transatlantic Dialogue focused on thetheme Higher Education in a PluralistWorld. Background readings from awide range of sources set the stage foran intense discussion of the role ofhigher education in a world where thepluralistic basis of democracy seemed

to be increasingly fragile and to followa dramatically different trajectorythan that of only two years earlier.Thus, the 30 university leaders pres-ent in Austria had been asked to comeprepared to reflect on the definitionsand experiences of pluralism at theirinstitutions and on the academic andsocial engagement that connectedthem to an increasingly diverse set ofstakeholders. This essay draws on twodays of lively dialogue, as well as thevaluable conversations that occurredoutside the formal sessions.


s any veteran of conver-sations across borders,languages, and cul-tures will acknowl-edge, many discussions

stumble because of an absence ofshared definitions and common termi-nology. These difficulties are not lim-ited to international dialogues; theyoccur just as frequently in a nationalcontext in which there are many moreshared experiences and assumptions.Even on a single campus, individualsassign different meanings and bringdifferent value frameworks to termssuch as globalization, affirmativeaction, positive discrimination, or“Europeanization.”

Thus, the 2003 Transatlantic semi-nar began by elaborating on the multi-ple dimensions of pluralism andexploring the similarities and differ-ences in interpretations among theparticipants. Indeed, definitionsproved to be significantly diverse. Forat least one European participant inthe seminar, the term that suppliedthe meeting’s focus—pluralism—didnot resonate at all.

Before the meeting, the seminarorganizers had asked participants todefine pluralism in the higher educa-tion context by completing the sen-tence, “A pluralistic higher educationinstitution...” To launch the discus-

sion, the organizers created a list ofsalient themes from the responsesthey received, which included the fol-lowing dimensions of pluralism inhigher education institutions:

• Diverse by race, ethnicity,gender.

• Socially diverse.• Politically diverse.• Multilingual.• Multigenerational.• International.• Open to different intellectual

approaches and perspectives.• Promoting academic freedom.• Providing safe space for debate.• Engaged with community stake-

holders.

As the seminar opened, the organiz-ers proposed an exercise in which theparticipants would vote on the mostimportant characteristics of pluralismfor higher education in their countriesas the decade ended. The vote revealedseveral strongly shared views, andsome divergences.

Of greatest importance for theEuropeans, Canadians, and Americanswas that institutions be open to differ-

ent intellectual perspectives. Closelyrelated to this dimension, andaffirmed by the votes, was that institu-tions serve as safe spaces for debate.

Clearly, the enduring function of


ADefining Pluralism


is characterized by aplurality of scientifictheories and methods, byan internationalizedfaculty and student body,and by cultural andlinguistic diversity.

GEORG WINCKLER,University of Vienna

higher education to foster unfetteredinquiry, and the debate and dissentthat accompanies that process, remaincentral in the eyes of academic leaderson both sides of the Atlantic. Theyshare the view that it is their obliga-tion to safeguard this tradition of intel-lectual pluralism by ensuring that thecampus continues to be safe from boththe threats posed by external groupsand intolerance and incivility withinthe institution’s community.

Another key dimension of pluralism—ranking second among participants—was that institutions maintain diver-

sity of race, gender, and ethnicity. Itis not surprising that the U.S. leadersassigned even greater importance tothis dimension than their Europeancounterparts. As one U.S. presidentput it, “Race is a defining characteris-tic in the United States; nothing else ison that level.” But these are hardlyissues confined to the United States.Certainly, issues of race and ethnicityare central to the North American dia-logue on higher education’s largerrole in society, and were even moreprominent in the United States assummer 2003 began, because of theimpending Supreme Court decisionon affirmative action.4 But they alsoare increasingly visible in Europe,where the population has diversifiedtremendously in the past 15 years.Today’s Europe includes a significantMuslim population, sizeable minoritylanguage groups, and immigrantsfrom poor and war-torn southeastEurope, as well as from African andAsian countries.

Some interesting differences in per-ceptions of pluralism also emerged.The Europeans considered engaging

with community stakeholders to bemore central to the pluralistic identity

of their institutions than did the NorthAmericans. This difference was some-what surprising, given the longstand-ing emphasis that North Americanpublic colleges and universities (espe-cially U.S. land-grant universities andcommunity colleges) have placed onpublic service and engagement withtheir communities. One U.S. presi-dent offered a possible explanation,suggesting that, for him, pluralism ismore of an internal institutional issue.Although engagement with communitystakeholders is vital for U.S. collegesand universities, connecting todiverse stakeholders is but one aspectof a complex series of commitmentswith external groups.

Far less surprising was an insistenceby the Europeans on international-

ization as a dimension of pluralism.The Bologna process has providedenormous energy and visibility for anagenda that will increase the culturaland linguistic diversity of Europeanhigher education institutions byenabling students to move freelyamong those institutions and bringingstudents from around the world intoEurope.

A third point of difference was theEuropean identification of social

diversity as important to a pluralisticinstitution. This divergence also mayreflect different social contexts inEurope and North America, specifi-cally, that social class figures lessprominently in the younger NorthAmerican societies, in which socio-economic status is much more likelyto be linked to race and ethnicity.

As the ensuing discussion revealed,different institutional missions andstudent populations refracted the con-cept of pluralism in different ways. At London Metropolitan University,



advances ourunderstanding of historyand the importance ofimagination in humanprogress, seeks to beboth central to socialstability and critical of thestatus quo, and is hometo both traditionaldisciplines and competingideas.

ROBERT SCOTT, AdelphiUniversity

which has a racially diverse studentpopulation and a mission to educatethe London workforce, pluralism is afunction of who the students are andwhere the university is located. At SanFrancisco State University, also a highly diverseurban institution, 25 percent of stu-dents were bornoutside the UnitedStates, 50 percentare from homes inwhich English is notthe first language,70 percent of stu-dents are non-white,and a similar per-centage of studentsare older than 22years of age. Suchdiversity inevitablyshapes the institu-tion’s culture, aswell as students’experience withinthe classroom.

For the Universityof Geneva, where40 percent of stu-dents hold foreignpassports, pluralismis tied to interna-tionalism. Similarly,an important dimen-sion of pluralism forPennsylvania StateUniversity is definedby the 4,000 inter-national students who enrich its stu-dent body. And for the “research” uni-versities (as the North Americans wouldcall them) or “classical” universities(in European parlance), internationalcooperation is an important means topromote intellectual pluralism.

As institutional leaders, the semi-nar participants largely focused on theinstitution as the unit of analysis. But abroader perspective also surfaced,with some participants noting thatgreat diversity exists across European

nations (in lan-guages, cultures,higher educationsystems, and laws)as well as withinthem. As one par-ticipant noted, atthe national, state,or provincial level,the concept of plu-ralism also appliesto institutional typeand mission. Withstatic or diminish-ing resources, in-creasing numbersof students to serve,and a student bodythat is increasinglydiverse in its level of prepara-tion, interests, andgoals, differentia-tion of institutionalmission is taking onurgency in the pub-lic policy debate.How should gov-ernment differenti-ate among missionsand thus allocatescarce resources tothose universities

most likely to stimulate high-qualityteaching and learning, excellentresearch, and maximum service tosociety?

As the discussion over the next fewdays was to reveal in greater depth, adynamic tension exists between


With static or

diminishing resources,

increasing numbers of

students to serve, and

a student body that is

increasingly diverse in

its level of preparation,

interests, and goals,

differentiation of

institutional mission is

taking on urgency in the

public policy debate.

the concept and the realization of pluralism—between diversity andunity, fragmentation and coherence,and pluralism and integration. Again,historical and cultural differencesshape the North American andEuropean perspectives. As immigrantsocieties, the populations of Canadaand the United States originate in dif-ferent nations, cultures, and lan-guages. Building unity from this plu-ralism has been a major task in bothcountries, where the current legalframeworks affirm equality, but histo-ry shapes the present. The U.S. historyof slavery and legalized discriminationagainst African Americans and NativeAmericans casts a long shadow overcurrent efforts to create a multiculturalsociety. In early 20th centuryAmerica, the minimization or eventhe elimination of difference wasembodied in the goal—or the myth, assome would say—of the “melting pot.”That metaphor now has been largelydisplaced by the “salad” or “stew”concept, in which the ingredientsretain their distinctiveness while com-bining into a coherent whole. InCanada, federal legislation enacted in1971 recognized multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic ofCanadian society. The legislationasserted the equality of all Canadians,while affirming ethno-cultural, racial,and religious diversity. But the legalframework does not guarantee a toler-ant or well-mixed society. As pluralismgrows in European nations, largelydue to immigration and the expansionof the EU, the same tensions betweenunity and diversity are surfacing.

The celebration of difference andidentity politics are two sides of thesame coin. These issues are played outon North American campuses, where

interest groups—political, cultural,racial, ethnic, and academic—claimtheir individuality and space to affirmtheir agenda and interests. At thesame time, institutions seek to fosterlearning, attitudes, and behaviors thatreinforce shared interests and valuesand affirm a sense of purpose andbelonging that transcends one’s nar-row community, however that isdefined.

Although not every Europeannation approaches European integra-tion in the same way or with equal fervor, those countries are makingsteady progress toward creating anintegrated and united continent. Thispush for European integrationincludes higher education, with theBologna process as the key driver ofthe changes that are required to makecourses of study compatible and toharmonize degree structures. But nei-ther integration nor harmonization iseasily accomplished. At the nationalpolitical level, the debate over accept-ing the European constitution high-lights the tendency of each nation toassert its independence. Similarly, thedevastating wars of only a decade agoin the former Yugoslavia are evidenceof the potential explosiveness ofmulti-ethnic societies.

The drive for integration withinEuropean nations—and the surround-ing tensions that result—is illustratedby the French debate over allowingMuslim girls to wear headscarves inschool. French schools have been thebattleground for the development of a lay society over the last 150 yearsand, in 1905, religious education wastotally banished from state-supportedschools. The prevailing belief was thatthe “Republic,” as a neutral organiza-tion of society, considered religion to



promotes the broadestrange of intellectualexploration, encouragesdebate, is comfortablewith alternative views,and welcomes peoplewho have variedpersonalities and a broadrange of personal,political, and demographiccharacteristics.

GRAHAM SPANIER, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity

be a private matter that should notinterfere with education aimed to pre-pare students for citizenship. If, forexample, Catholics wanted their chil-dren to be schooled in a religious set-ting, they could create, at theirexpense, their own system of school-ing. (And indeed, they did so.)Members of the French NationalAssembly used the same argument ofneutral citizenship and equal condi-tions in a lay society when it recentlydebated a law that would ban conspic-uous religious symbols (includingheadscarves) from public schools.

Although the separation of churchand state represent important politi-cal values in both France and theUnited States, the approaches differmarkedly. The French view the repub-lican ideal of public secularism as away to promote the integration of different groups into society. This cul-tural value framework posits that reli-gious difference is a private matterand that the separation of church andstate requires that personal religioussymbols be kept out of the publicrealm. (It does not, however, precludethe availability of French state fundsto support religious schools.) The U.S.approach historically has been to sepa-rate “church and state,” so that publicfunds are not used to support religiousactivities or institutions. (That con-cept has been challenged by the Bushadministration and some state govern-

ments.) But in the United States, therights of the individual to express hisor her religion in a public setting arestrongly asserted.

Each approach has its price. In theUnited States, social fragmentationthrough the voluntary separation ofgroups within society can threaten thesense of a shared common good that isa cornerstone of a healthy democracy.In France, the price of official insis-tence on minimizing difference is thefailure to recognize and act on the consequences of that resolve and theseeming rejection of anything “un-republican.” Indeed, there are no simple solutions, either in higher education or in the larger society.While campuses seek to provide aforum for the conflicting views andneeds of different groups, and to builda sense of common purpose in the pursuit of knowledge, the path isfraught with difficulties. Are all views equally valid? If so, how do uni-versities deal with views that are unscientific or racist? What do we dowith those ideas, views, and scholar-ship that have been freely producedand expressed under the banner ofacademic freedom, but which areunenlightened or even dangerous? If not, then how do institutions decidewhich views are acceptable and whichare not? These and other questionswere the subject of the ensuing discus-sions.



guarantees that differentapproaches, methodolo-gies, and conflicting theories and scientificresults are presented andconfronted in teachingand research, thus avoiding domination byone school of thought orideology.

LUC WEBER, Université deGenève

s the opening seminarconversation richlyillustrated, pluralismhas many dimensions.The populations of the

United States, Europe, and Canada areall growing increasingly diverse. Onboth sides of the Atlantic, immigra-tion plays an important role in creat-ing diversity; in Europe, it is clearlythe single greatest factor in creatingethnic, cultural, and religious plural-ism. Both the United States andCanada have long histories as multi-racial and multi-ethnic societies. Inthe United States, the African-American population, largely descen-dants of slaves, has a history muchlonger than and different from that ofmore recent arrivals to the country.Both the United States and Canadahave small populations of “NativeAmericans” or “members of the firstnation,” as they are called in Canada.Their presence serves as a pointedreminder to their countries that eventhe current majority populations wereimmigrants at one time.

Immigration—legal and illegal—is the main driver of diversity inEurope, Canada, and the UnitedStates, with similar rates of immigra-tion relative to those populations (see“The Changing Face of Europe”).According to The Economist, approxi-

mately 1 million people a year enterthe United States legally, and abouthalf that number come in illegally.Approximately 1.2 million enter the EUlegally, and about 500,000 illegally.5

Canada’s illegal community is about 8 percent of the 800,000 immigrantswho legally enter the country eachyear. The total number of illegalinhabitants in Canada is estimated atbetween 100,000 and 200,000.6

Because immigration is vital toEurope’s future prosperity, it is likelyto be a continuing force in increasingthe diversity of European societies.With low birth rates and an aging pop-ulation, Europe needs immigrants tobolster a diminishing workforce.According to EU estimates, the num-ber of active persons in the workforcewill diminish by 19 million, or 8.8 per-cent, between 2010 and 2030.7 Theinflow of immigrants is a relativelynew phenomenon for Europe, a conti-nent that has been exporting peoplefor the last several centuries.

The growth of immigration inEurope has raised a host of issues.Acculturation of people of differentbackgrounds will challenge Europeansto shift their psychological and culturaloutlooks and references. As successivegenerations become more comfort-able with pluralistic societies, one canhope that such changes will facilitate

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n 1 1

AA Portrait of Pluralism


is one in which we areopen not only to personsof different cultures andcountries, but also to newideas.

ROBERT LACROIX,Université de Montréal

the cultural and social integration ofdiverse groups.

Fear that immigrants will takescarce jobs away from the native popu-lation, while unfounded, often fuels abacklash. Immigrants disproportion-ately work in low-wage jobs, or areunemployed. In Denmark, they aretwice as likely as natives to be unem-ployed, three times as likely inFinland, and four times as likely in theNetherlands.8 In Canada, it takesmore than 10 years for unemploymentamong immigrants to drop to the levelof native-born Canadians.9 A relatedchallenge is underemployment—connecting the growing pool of foreign-trained, highly educatedmigrants in Canada’s larger cities withappropriate-level jobs.

Societies continue to struggle withthese issues, emphasizing educationas the most important route to theacculturation of future citizens. Yetdifferent immigrant groups fare dif-ferently in educational achievement. AU.S. study showed much higher gradepoint averages for the children ofChinese, Korean, Vietnamese,Laotian, and Cambodian immigrantsthan for those of Mexican and Cubanorigin, even after adjusting for familyand school characteristics.10 InGermany, only 8 percent of Turkishchildren pass the Abitur, the academichigh school examination, comparedwith 12 percent of children of all for-eigners and 30 percent of Germans.Factors such as parents’ educationallevel, their linguistic capacity, and

1 2 H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N I N A P L U R A L I S T W O R L D

THE CHANGING FACE OF EUROPE

As the following statistics illustrate, immigration has altered the make-up of Europe:• In Germany, the foreign population—now nearly 10 percent of the total

population—grew from 4.5 million to 7.3 million between 1980 and 2002.11, 12

This group includes 1.9 million Turks.• In England, approximately 4.5 million of the 44.5 million inhabitants were born

outside the country, or just over 10 percent. Of the foreign-born population,approximately 3.4 million were born outside EU countries.

• In 2000, 11.3 percent of Sweden’s population was foreign-born, as was 10.4 percent of Austria’s inhabitants.

• The 1999 census showed that France’s population included 3.26 million foreign-born individuals and 4.3 million immigrants, out of a population of 60.7 million inhabitants in metropolitan France and its four overseas depart-ments.13, 14 Estimates of the Muslim population in France vary between 7 percent and 10 percent. (These data are not collected in the census.)

• The Greek census of 2001 recorded an increase of 1 million people over theprevious census, to 11 million. Of that increase, all but 40,000 residents wereattributable to immigration. According to Demetrios Papademetriou, co-directorof the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, DC, “In a decade, Greece hasjumped from being one of the world’s least immigrant-dense countries to beingnearly as immigrant-dense as the United States.”15

their employment in the new countryaffect their children’s educational per-formance.

Contrary to Europe, Canada, likethe United States, was built on immi-gration. In 2001, there were 5.4 mil-lion foreign-born persons out of a totalpopulation of 29.6 million, or about18 percent of the population.16 In1996, 4.9 million foreign-born indi-viduals resided in Canada. RecentCanadian census data show a very slowrate of population growth—with only a4 percent gain between 1996 and2001. Immigration was the mainsource of this growth.17 In recentyears, Asia has been the single great-est source of immigrants; of the 1.8 million people who migrated toCanada in the last decade, about halfwere from Asia. For Canada, as forEurope, immigration provides animportant way to meet workforceneeds, especially in high-demandareas such as technology. The countryalso has a high level of acceptance ofasylum seekers, given its more gener-ous definition of eligibility comparedto other countries.

An important dimension ofCanada’s pluralism is its linguisticdiversity; 17.3 million Canadiansspeak English as their first language,and 6.7 million speak French (the vastmajority in the province of Quebec).The predominance among Canadianimmigrants of English-speakers (83 percent) over French-speakers (7 percent) points to a decline in the proportion of French-speakingCanadians, unless immigration ofFrench-speakers increases.18

Linguistic diversity is also an issuein several European countries, andoften has been divisive, as in the casein Belgium. And, in the Balkans, the

legacy of the war in the formerYugoslavia has been a fight to createnew countries speaking “different”languages, even if these languagesoriginate from Serbo-Croatian, thecommon language spoken in the for-mer Yugoslav Federation before it col-lapsed. Thus, Bosnia, Croatia, andMacedonia justified their emergenceas distinct political entities throughlinguistic attributes. In Kosovo, theAlbanian-speaking majority took overall “national” agencies and institu-tions, and the Serb minority wasreduced to a negligible presence.

Higher education has mirrored thepolitical convulsions in Kosovo.Founded in 1962 as a bilingual institu-tion (Albanian and Serbo-Croatian),the University of Pristina began teach-ing only in Serbo-Croatian after a gov-ernment fiat in 1992. In 2000, afterNATO intervention, Albanian onceagain became the language of instruc-tion and the Serbs created their ownSerbian-speaking institution inMitrovica, with the financial and tech-nical support of the Belgrade govern-ment. In short, pluralism has beenreplaced by the reorganization of thecountry along ethnic and linguisticlines; people of different languagessimply no longer communicate—despite centuries of having a commonpast.

The United States provides a com-plex picture of pluralism, with immi-gration providing only part of thestory (see U.S. Trends in Immigration,next page). The implications of diver-sity for U.S. education are enormous.Currently, nearly 17 percent of U.S.children between the ages of 5 and 17speak a language other than English athome. To the extent that a growingproportion of immigrants in the



encourages theintellectual and socialinteraction of multipleperspectives, born of theexperiences of a diversecampus community—diverse in terms of race,ethnicity, gender,geography, class, and age.

JUAN MESTAS, University ofMichigan–Flint

United States (and in many othercountries) cluster at the lower end ofthe skill and education spectrums, theeducational system is challenged toovercome high drop-out and failurerates. Otherwise, the children of poorimmigrants will have less chance ofattaining higher education and thebenefits it brings. Additionally, theywill face complex obstacles in develop-ing an identity that synthesizes theirculture of origin and the culture oftheir new country.19

Thus, the challenge of providingequal educational opportunity to allcitizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, orsocioeconomic class is shared by theUnited States, Canada, and Europe.The United States has addressed historic inequities—most prominentlythose associated with race and ethnicity—since the end of official seg-regation in 1954. In Europe, some ofthe challenges that diversity brings,especially those associated with immi-

gration, are more recent. But theroute is an arduous one in all countries and, increasingly, the well-being ofnations, including those that are eco-nomically sound, depends on theirability to provide social, economic,and educational opportunities for allwho live or choose to live there.

A further challenge to primary andsecondary education is to turn the pluralism of the student body into apositive learning experience for all.For first- and second-generation immi-grant students, and non-immigrantstudents from marginalized groups,education is charged with helpingthem develop a positive identity,counter negative stereotypes from thedominant culture, and avert potentialalienation from an unwelcoming soci-ety. For students from the dominantculture, the challenge is to “broadenthe cultural horizons to incorporatethe changing perspectives, habits, andpotentials of its diverse newcomers.”22


U.S. TRENDS IN IMMIGRATION

• In 2000, foreign-born individuals accounted for 11.1 percent of the U.S.population of approximately 282 million.20

• Of the 13 million immigrants who came to the United States in the lastdecade, more than half (7.2 million) were from Latin America (includingMexico).

• Nearly 13 percent of Americans are black, most of whom are U.S. born,and a nearly equal percentage are Hispanic. The latter group includesboth U.S.- and foreign-born individuals.

• Asian-born persons or individuals of Asian descent constitute nearly 4 percent of the population, while other groups make up 2.5 percent.

• Population projections suggest that by 2020, blacks will constitute 13.5 percent of the population, and Hispanics will account for nearly 18 percent. In 2050, those numbers are projected to rise to 14.6 per-cent and 24.4 percent, respectively.21 The picture varies considerably by state; in a number of school districts already, the majority of studentsbelong to “minority” groups.


can combine manyaspects of knowledgeproduction, e.g.,independent research,professional education,lifelong learning, outreachto society, innovation, andcommercialization of newknowledge. It is an institution well founded inacademic values, in combination with a strongcommitment to sustain-able development in economic, social, andecological terms.

CHRISTINA ULLENIUS,Karlstad University


n his address at the 650thanniversary of CharlesUniversity in Prague in1998, Czech PresidentVaclav Havel encouraged

academics to find inspiration for theirwork in the two words that comprisethe word for university, universitas

(i.e., unum or “one”) and vertere (“toturn”). According to Havel, to “turnto the one” (ad unum vertere) is tosearch for the patterns in matter andsociety that provide a unifying frame-work for science and social organiza-tion. The drive for unity is a dynamicprocess that recognizes the fragmen-tation of knowledge and society. At thesame time, it is a call to explore com-plexity and create new points of commonality and shared rules ofbehavior. The university is the institu-tion created to undertake these tasks.

Given that, a central social role ofhigher education institutions is to recognize the diversity and complexityof the members of any group, probewhat makes them unique, and encour-age shared attitudes among faculty,staff, and students that lead to a com-munity of belonging and to commongoals. Individual identity has manydimensions—perceptions, desires, emo-tions, and opinions. Academics study

those individual characteristics inphysical, biological, or psychologicalterms. When shared among individu-als, these dimensions inform groupidentities, which can be examinedfrom a legal, social, or political per-spective, or in philosophical and theo-logical terms. Intellectual inquiryseeks to understand the human condi-tion and the world from as manyangles as there are disciplines, andfrom as many points of view as thereare observers. That is a key aspect ofacademic pluralism.

However, higher education is morethan a spectator of society; it is a partof its community and, indeed, an actorin its development. An institution’srole in society is not neutral. Seminarparticipants agreed that higher educa-tion’s capacity to stand apart fromsociety is increasingly balanced bygrowing connections to it. If highereducation institutions were ever anivory tower, that is certainly no longeran option. Where then does highereducation integration with its commu-nity begin and end? This questionbecame central to the TransatlanticDialogue debate.

The seminar provided multipleexamples of how institutions deal withthe many faces of pluralism, as partic-

I

The Pluralistic Institution


is characterized bydiversity of thought,attitudes, and cultures.

KERMIT L. HALL, UtahState University

ipants defined it. In some cases, insti-tutions mirrored the complexity oftheir community, with all its attendanttensions. At the same time, leaderspresent in Salzburg recognized theimperative of transcending these differences by providing opportunitiesfor institutional learning. They stressedthe need to create a kind of laboratorywithin their institutions to deal withthe conflicts of identity that prevailoutside its walls. In so doing, theyoften were able to address these con-flicts and tensions by enabling membersof the academic community to changetheir perspective to a more holisticand long-term view of the community.Additionally, they could capitalize onthese differences by using them to fur-ther their communities’ economic andsocial development.

The group defined several overlap-ping roles of the higher education

institution: as a forum fordebate, as a crossroads of cultures, and as a partner withits community. As a forum

for debate, the institutionfulfills its educational missionof providing a safe space for disagreement and acceptanceof difference. These debates,however, risk accentuatingthe differences among mem-

bers of the campus community andreducing group identity to a singleattribute—the Muslim, the Jew, theSerb, the female, or the disabled.

As a crossroads of cultures, ahigher education institution seekscommon ground to unite differences.It does so by focusing not on singlecharacteristics of individuals or theircultures (be they ethnic, social, lin-guistic, cultural, or political), but ontheir common human rights and char-acteristics. In this way, the institutionbuilds on differences that distinguishpeople from one another but do notimprison them within a single attribute.

As a partner with its community,the institution takes advantage of its internal diversity to enrich and stimulate social renewal. It serves as a catalyst for possible changes in soci-ety as a whole.


To the extent that higher educationaround the world asserts a common setof core values, the free expression ofdiverse ideas and viewpoints is per-haps the most frequently cited anddeeply cherished academic ideal.

Yet this paradigm is often difficult to realize in real life. Students and faculty bring their passions and ide-ologies to the campus, and discourse isnot always civil. While the saga of SanFrancisco State University (SFSU) is

THE INSTITUTION AS A FORUM FOR DEBATE: SAN FRANCISCO

STATE UNIVERSITY

The newly remodeled Cesar Chavez Student Center on thecampus of San Francisco State University.

Phot

o:Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Stat

e Un

iver

sity

not typical of most North American orEuropean campuses, it provides a richcase study of what can happen whenevents test the limits of free speechand challenge the notion that dis-agreement on a university campus canbe contained within the boundaries ofcivility. It also demonstrates how diffi-cult it is to separate the passions andaction of campus actors from those ofthe larger community, and of theworld.

In a brief presen-tation to the seminarparticipants, SFSUPresident RobertCorrigan describedthe campus whenhe assumed thepresidency in 1988.The memory of thelongest strike offaculty and studentsin the history ofU.S. higher educa-tion was still aliveon campus 20 yearslater; to be certain,the campus hadbeen permanentlychanged by the stu-dent activism andracial strife of the1960s. Anti-Semitism was a continu-ing issue, to some extent fuelled by theanti-Zionism of some Jewish faculty.SFSU had the first black studies pro-gram in the United States, and whenCorrigan arrived, the campus sufferedfrom ongoing tensions between sets ofracial and ethnic student groups:Koreans and Filipinos, Japanese andChinese, Arab Americans and Jews.

Shortly after his arrival, he estab-lished a Commission on HumanRelations and charged it with studying

how the campus community (stu-dents, faculty, staff, and administra-tion) deals with human relations, bothinside and outside the classroom,focusing on tensions that arise frominteractions involving race, ethnicity,gender, sexual orientation, disability,or religion. In its final report, thecommittee made a series of recom-mendations that included creating acabinet-level officer for human rela-tions, conducting workshops on diver-

sity, strengtheningcurricular require-ments focusing onissues of pluralism,increasing effortsto attract and retainethnic minority students, and adopt-ing “Principles ofGood Conduct for aMulticultural Uni-versity.” As Corrigannoted, the value ofthis exercise wasfound not only in these recommen-dations and theirsubsequent imple-mentation, but also in the fact that “the commission

put issues on the table that causedpeople to reexamine their values. Itspotlighted the importance of workingtoward respect and understanding ofall segments of our exceptionallydiverse campus.”23

Fast forward to 1994 and thefirestorm created by a mural of Mal-colm X, a leader of the black Muslimmovement of the 1960s. Commis-sioned by the student-run governingboard of the student union, the muralwas to be painted on a wall near the


…when Corrigan

arrived, the campus

suffered from ongoing

tensions between sets

of racial and ethnic

student groups…


encourages research,scholarship, and creativeactivities that address orare influenced by diversecultures within [theinstitution’s] ownboundaries and beyond;welcomes and supportsstudents, faculty, and stafffrom diverse culturalbackgrounds; andfacilitates opportunitiesfor students, faculty, andstaff to engage ininternational experiences.

SHARON STEPHENS BREHM,Indiana University


student union, next to a mural ofCesar Chavez, the nationally knownleader of the California farm workersunion. The mural of Malcolm X, whichhad not been reviewed and approvedby a student-based group, as requiredby university procedures, containedanti-Semitic images. When the newsof the contents of the mural leakedout, the telephone calls, letters, andfaxes came to the president’s office by the hundreds, and the media

descended on campus. Corriganimmediately issued a statement indi-cating that this was not a free speechissue, but a matter of what a publicuniversity would allow as a permanentart installation on a publicly ownedbuilding.

Corrigan also saw that the crisisprovided an opportunity for learning,and he decided to give the students achance to resolve the crisis them-selves. The president brought a team

On September 9, 2002, the Canadianmedia portrayed Concordia University’sHall Building, in downtown Montreal, asdivided between two high-voltage fac-tions. One of the factions was Hillel,Concordia’s Jewish student association,which had invited former Israeli PrimeMinister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak.The other group was made up of pro-Palestinian activists, outraged that theright-wing Israeli politician was beinggiven a forum at their university. AcrossCanada and the United States, the public saw shocking images of riot police pushing back an angry mob andthen the massive, plate-glass windowfaçade being smashed, an act that ledthe university to cancel Netanyahu’sappearance. How could this Canadianuniversity, a bastion of civil discoursesince the 1960s, succumb to such violence? The Concordia administrationwas criticized by all sides—for allowingNetanyahu to speak in the first place, forcanceling the speech when the situationheated up, and for being both too toughand too lenient with the protestors.Concordia’s Board of Governors immedi-ately imposed a “cooling-off period”

(also much criticized), during which timeno public meetings, speeches, exhibits,installations, information tables, orposters dealing with Israeli-Palestinianissues were permitted. All universityclubs also were banned from setting upinformation tables in the Hall Buildinglobby. Five months later, the Concordiaadministration issued a report outliningstrategies to ensure a peaceful and safecampus, clearer rules for acceptableadvertising of events, new committees toimplement the plan, and a strategy todeal with the students who had beeninvolved in the riot. Some of these students had been charged by policeand had stood before a tribunal of theiruniversity peers in closed hearings todetermine their punishment. Penaltiesranged from community service to expul-sion from the university. In the midst ofthe hearings, the pro-Palestinian studentunion leadership (since replaced in anelection) tried to ban Hillel as a campusgroup, and Hillel, in return, launched alawsuit against the student union.

A year and half later, Concordia isfinding a successful balance within itscommunity. Charles Bertrand, known for

CANADIAN CAMPUSES FACE CONFLICT OVER THE MIDDLE EAST24


together to mediate, hoping either fora decision by the artist to remove theoffending aspects, or for the studentunion governing board to withdrawthe mural. Neither happened, and themural was unveiled. After a few days ofangry protests on campus, and thepresence of media waiting for news-worthy drama, Corrigan announcedthat the mural would be painted over.He continued to speak out about hate-ful speech and behavior, and reminded

the public—as well as the vast majorityof students who repudiated suchbehavior—of SFSU’s central role as aplace of debate, not hate.

SFSU weathered the events ofSeptember 11, 2001, calmly, and likeother U.S. presidents, Corrigan tookthe opportunity to make strong publicstatements affirming the university’scommitment to free speech, mutualrespect, and the promotion of peaceon campus. However, another crisis

his no-nonsense approach to conflictresolution, was appointed vice-rector forstudent life and interim dean of stu-dents. In late March 2003, the studentbody decisively voted for a new slate ofexecutives for the Concordia StudentUnion, with a 47 percent increase invoter turnout from the general election ayear earlier.

“I think we have to be less naïve,”Bertrand said. “We live in Canada, whereeveryone has the right to speak, butthere are people who want to destabilizethe debate.” The university must providea forum for open discussion, he argued,but it also must enforce existing rulesand regulations regarding behavior oncampus, to ensure that “nothing crossesthe line into hate.” If that means moni-toring posters and information tables,and diffusing potentially violent situationsby banning certain people from campus,he added, that will happen, even if “theuniversity is loathe to do it.”

Events at Concordia were a wake-upcall to Canadian universities, particularlythose in larger cities with diverse popu-lations, alerting them to the challengesof protecting freedom of speech for all

voices. What restrictions, if any, couldthey place on the right of members ofthe university community to speak theirminds, even when what they say gravelyoffends some other members of thatcommunity?

Concordia was not the only institu-tion where tensions played out and freespeech became an issue. Both Muslimand Jewish students and faculty on several campuses complained of feelingintimidated. A professor at the Universitédu Québec in Montreal who had writtenin defense of Israel was blocked fromentering his classroom when studentprotesters chanted anti-Israeli and per-sonally defamatory slogans. Jewish stu-dents felt intimidated to speak their viewof the right of Israel to exist. In February2003, a Jewish student association atYork University invited Daniel Pipes, anAmerican academic whose web site listsfaculty members reported to him asbeing anti-Israeli, to speak. The highlypoliticized visit was rescheduled by uni-versity officials to a venue with tightsecurity. Amid protests, Pipes’ presenta-tion sparked extraordinary discussionand debate.


helps studentsunderstand and celebratethe rich diversity ofpeoples and cultures, bothwithin and outside theircountry's borders, byproviding a variety ofexperiences, learningenvironments, and faculty,staff, and student rolemodels.

BETTE LANDMAN, ArcadiaUniversity

flared up in the following year, thistime over tensions between Arab-American and Jewish students concerning the Israeli-Palestinianconflict. In March and April 2002,hostile but non-violent rallies eruptedon campus. Two events, however,marred the spring. The disseminationof a flyer containing anti-Semitic lan-guage provided a flashpoint for con-flict on campus, re-igniting the issueof hate speech at SFSU. Once again,Corrigan was on the front lines,ensuring the re-moval of the flyersby students and staffand speaking force-fully against hatred.Emotions peaked onMay 7, when an eventsponsored by stu-dents in Hillel endedin a non-violent but threatening con-frontation betweenpro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian students.One faculty mem-ber, head of SFSU’sJewish Studies pro-grams, wrote anemotional accountof that event that,among other things,described the university as “a placethat teaches anti-Semitism, hatred forAmerica, and hatred, above all else,for the Jewish State of Israel.” Helikened the campus to the WeimarRepublic, “with brown shirts it cannotcontrol.” The account was sent by e-mail to colleagues around the nation,and soon was posted on a number ofwidely read web-logs. Corrigan foundhimself condemned by both sides, for

either doing too much or too little,deluged by both supportive andthreatening e-mails from around theworld, and scrutinized by the media.He met with student and communitygroups, sought to educate the media,and once again, convened a task forceon inter-group relations, which hecharged with developing a long-termaction plan to address the conflict athand. The task force had a two-monthtime frame to complete its work.

The process ofhealing and educa-tion began withcommencement cer-emonies at the endof May 2002, withthe invocation deliv-ered by both a rabbiand the president ofthe Islamic Societyof San Francisco.Other initiatives toaddress campus con-f lict included aretreat for SFSU stu-dent leaders onimproving campusclimate, and work-shops for faculty tohelp them facilitateclassroom discus-sions on turbulentworld issues. At the

recommendation of the task force, thefollowing academic year was designat-ed the “Year of Civil Discourse” with acomprehensive schedule of forums onthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict andrelated issues concerning inter-grouprelations, U.S. policy, and workshopson activism and free speech in a cli-mate of civility.

As the events of SFSU illustrate,higher education is no haven from


…higher education is

no haven from

intolerance and

incivility. Indeed, it is

a microcosm of the

conflicts boiling

around it…


is open to a large numberof students from allgenerations and from allover the world, openinginternal debate of allkinds, and promotingdialogue and work withall parts of society.

ERIC FROMENT, EuropeanUniversity Association

intolerance and incivility. Indeed, it isa microcosm of the conflicts boilingaround it, and students do not leavetheir passions or prejudices at thedoor. The SFSU case highlights sever-al lessons that illuminate the complex-ity of the pluralistic campus.

First, no campus is an island. Theconcept of campus as forum requires abroad definition of whom the forumserves and who participates. The ten-sions among student and facultygroups mirror those in the surround-ing community and larger society. Thecampus is a microcosm of society, alaboratory for modeling disagree-ment, and a parade ground fordebaters to demonstrate commitmentto their cause. While the spotlight mayshine on campus activities, the actorsare deeply connected to the worldbeyond. Furthermore, the university’sborders—both physical and virtual—arehighly permeable. Thanks to mediacoverage and the Internet, the SFSUconflicts were hardly a campus matter;they were exposed to the broader com-munity. As technology matured, thehundreds of faxes turned into thou-sands of e-mails, and it was possiblefor students, community members,alumni, and the public to follow eventsand participate in the debate online.

A second lesson centers on thenature of the debate: There are limita-tions to the “let’s agree to disagree”approach that underpins multicultur-alism. Can this forum really expectpeople to set aside their passions,their moral choices, their “urgen-cies,” as Fish put it, and consider themno different from the urgencies oftheir opponents?25 The kind of passions and views that fuelled thevarious explosions at SFSU were hardly the kind that could have been

easily tamed into a polite dis-cussion. The challenge for leaders,then, is to understand and managethese paradoxes, neither condoningreprehensible views by silence, nor silencing the debate.

A third lesson, perhaps the mostobvious, is that leadership—by presi-dents and many others—matters. Theactive presence of President Corriganplayed a key role in keeping all partiestalking; disseminating accurate infor-mation to the campus community andbeyond, in an effort to dispel thecountless rumors that emerge fromsuch conflicts; and communicatingwith the media, community groups,and on-campus constituencies. Hedepended on a leadership team thatbrought experience in student affairs,media relations, and legal issues,among others. But others must assumeleadership roles as well: students,community members, faculty, andstaff. The conflict over the Malcolm Xportrait might have ended differentlyhad the student leaders worked out asolution that did not force the admin-istration to paint over the mural. Atevery turn of events, leaders can esca-late or de-escalate matters, or they canseek to avoid further conflict.

Clashes around the Arab-Israeliconflict are unlikely to diminish in thenear future, although at times theymay be quiescent. Thus, the continualchallenge for campus leaders is tostrive to create an atmosphere that isboth open and civil, and to ensure thatall students and faculty feel safe to bewho they are and to express their opin-ions. But, to quote SFSU PresidentRobert Corrigan, “Hate speech is notfree speech.” Campuses are not safefrom the pathologies of the societiesthat created them.



respects a search fortruth that is pursued bymany voices, in manycultures, in severallanguages, and across theboundaries that too oftendivide the human family.

PETER MACKINNON,University ofSaskatchewan

THE UNIVERSITY AS A CROSSROADS OF CULTURES: BABES-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY


The transformation of Babes-BolyaiUniversity in Cluj, Romania, illus-trates how a higher education institu-tion can strive to model an inclusive,multicultural society. Today, the uni-versity serves as a crossroads of cul-tures in a region with a long history ofvaried ethnic and linguistic groupswhose mutual mistrust often createdpolitical havoc.

Transylvania is indeed a crossroadregion of southeast Europe, whereRomanians, Hungarians, and Germanshave fought over the centuries to con-trol a mountain region bordering the

Ottoman Empire. Jews and Roms(Gypsies) also have long been impor-tant minorities in the area. Dependingon the ruling group, higher educationwas conducted in German, Hungarian,or Romanian. After World War II, twouniversities existed in Cluj, JanosBolyai for the Hungarians and VictorBabes for the Romanians; these insti-tutions merged in 1956. TheCeausescu regime, however, slowlyreduced the importance of theHungarian section of the merged uni-versity, thus allowing the Romaniansection to dominate. The December1989 revolution provided the stage for

young Romanian professors to issue amanifesto for university reform,requesting recognition of the rights ofthe Hungarian community and multi-cultural activities at the university.

The political changes in Romaniacreated an opportunity for the newrector, Andrei Marga, to lead the insti-tution in new directions, specificallyto abandon ethnic quotas that hadbeen supported by a fierce national-ism. This nationalism led to the balka-nization of the institution, with eachgroup fighting for its own interests.This internecine warfare provided the

government with opportuni-ties to exert the kind of con-trol it had prior to the 1989revolution. In 1995, the university adopted a charterreorganizing the institutioninto three languages ofstudy—Romanian, Hungarian,and German. In so doing, theuniversity recognized itsinheritance of the academic

history of Transylvania as a whole.This opening to a multicultural andmultilingual institution led to massivegrowth—from 5,800 students in 1989to some 41,000 students in 2003.

The transformation of Babes-BolyaiUniversity highlights the question ofhow higher education institutions canfoster the development of an open andinclusive society beyond their walls by embracing shared norms withinthem. The University of Bilgi inIstanbul faces this same dilemma;Turkey’s secular policies forbidwomen from wearing the Islamic veilon university premises. Thus, the uni-

Babes-Bolyai University’s beginning dates back to 1581,when a university was founded in Cluj.

Phot

o:Ba

bes-

Boly

ai U

nive

rsity

versity faces the question of how it canpersuade students to set aside suchsymbols of their religious affiliation tosupport the shared norms of the com-munity over individual expression.Can this be accomplished, askedTurkish rector Lale Duruiz, by con-vincing students that this approach isbest for society, rather than by pres-sure or exclusion?

In response, Marga explained thatBabes-Bolyai University chose to create adiverse student body not through quotasreflecting the power structure in the

larger society, but rather by basingadmission on individual merit.Because reform focused on the rights ofindividuals to access education, groupidentity was de-emphasized and inter-community conflicts were in factreduced. All those interested in enteringthe university and contributing to theprovince’s cultural development—including Jews, Roms, and Ukrainians—made Transylvanian cultural diversityan asset rather than a disadvantage.

To succeed, conditions and proce-dures also had to change. For instance,


According to a March 2004 article inThe Chronicle of Higher Education, “Byany standard, the Roms of Central andEastern Europe are a disenfranchisedminority.”26 Roms account for some10 percent of the population inSlovakia, 5 to 6 percent in Hungary,and 3 percent in the Czech Republic.Hungarian government figures showthat while 90 percent of Hungarianstudents start secondary education,fewer than one-third of Roma childrendo the same, and only 4 to 5 percentof them complete it. Estimates by theHungarian Ministry of Education putthe number of certified Roma teachersat five to 10, out of a total populationof 110,000.

Raising the educational level ofEastern and Central Europe’s Romapopulation is especially important in lightof the accession of several countrieswith significant Gypsy populations to theEuropean Union. Unless the economicand educational prospects of the Romsimprove, those countries are unlikely tobe included in the EU’s agreements forthe free movement of labor.

The task is monumental. Romacommunities are extremely poor,socially marginalized, and, in somecountries, tracked into separate schoolprograms. Six hundred of Hungary’s3,500 elementary schools maintainspecial Roma programs. While they aredesigned to provide remedial instruc-tion, these programs have beenunsuccessful in raising the educationalattainment of their students. Romastudents in Central and EasternEuropean countries are far more likelythan other students to be placed inschools for the mentally retarded,often because of their poor skills in thedominant national language.

Thus, increasing the number ofRoma university graduates requires amassive effort to address the socialand economic issues that preventthem from making it through the edu-cational pipeline. Additionally, theRoma are not a single group; theybelong to various groups with differentlanguages. As is often the case inaddressing complex problems, onesize never fits all.

THE ROMA MINORITY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE


is an indispensablehotbed for cultivating avigorous democraticsociety.

JOCHEN FRIED, SalzburgSeminar

the Ministry of Education had to grantgreater autonomy to the university sothat it could develop its identity on itsown terms. In 1998, a shift to lumpsum budgeting reinforced the institu-tion’s ability to be proactive.Moreover, linguistic requirementsthat once permitted the university toexclude students arbitrarily werereplaced by admissions criteria basedon students’ secondary school marks.The new procedures were easier toaccept in light of the overall growth of the university, as the number ofplaces for the traditional curriculumoffered in Romanian and Hungariangrew. This also allowed for the development of curricula taught inGerman and Hebrew. Pluralism wasfurther reinforced by offering tenureto teaching staff from Hungary,Germany, or any other democraticcountry and by selecting academicleaders according to criteria linked to management and administrativecompetencies, rather than age andlanguage.

In short, Babes-Bolyai Universityproposed a reconfigured set of rulesfor managing cultural pluralism, thussetting an example in a local commu-nity still divided by ethnic identifica-tion. In a way, the institution was reinventing usual behavior, showingthat a multicultural society does notnecessarily breed chaos and conflict. Apluralistic culture, it indicated, result-ed from trusting—not controlling—citizens. For David Ward, president ofthe American Council on Education,this was a good example of an institu-tional arrangement that created con-

nected space in which people were freeto interact. For Robert Giroux, presi-dent of the Association of Universitiesand Colleges of Canada, the Cluj

example evoked Canadian codes ofconduct for a pluralistic society: free-dom of behavior and speech on a per-sonal level, transforming the individ-ual into a responsible citizen.

Of course, the actions of Babes-Bolyai University also had some far-reaching repercussions. A newnational law granted autonomy to allinstitutions and resulted in differenti-ated institutional missions and pro-files. The prospect of such institution-al differentiation led to some opposi-tion, mainly from smaller and lessenterprising universities, so that in2002, a new public finance bill waspassed that once again reduced insti-tutional autonomy. The new billrequired the Ministry of Education toapprove universities’ financial expen-ditures, whether government funds orthose privately earned. Within theuniversity, some nationalists alsosought to block social innovation andthe institution’s evolution into amulti-polar cultural organization.However, this proved to be a lostcause, because students and profes-sors at Babes-Bolyai had alreadyespoused the new perceptions,processes, and trends of multiculturalchange. Most rejected the defensiveattitudes underpinning monoculturalviews and promoted multiculturalunderstanding. Today, Babes-BolyaiUniversity encourages members of itscommunity to embrace cultural diver-sity as an advantage, and to view it as ameans of ongoing enrichment andinstitutional improvement.

In assessing the university’s successin fostering a multicultural environ-ment, Marga cited four pieces of evidence. First, the university hasincreased the size and diversity of itsstudent body. Second, since 1993,



offers to its diversestudent population theprograms and coursesthat meet their needs andcultures, [delivered] by anadministration and afaculty that represent theethnic, racial, religious,and social composition ofthe student population.

ROBERT GIROUX,Association of Universitiesand Colleges of Canada

In his essay on the social responsibilityof higher education, background read-ing for the seminar, William Sullivannoted that, as “advocates of civicengagement remind us, campuseseducate their students for citizenshipmost effectively to the degree thatthey become the sites for constructiveexchange and cooperation amongdiverse groups of citizens from thelarger community.”27 The BoltonInstitute in Lancashire in the UnitedKingdom provided a case study of suchan engaged institution. Situated innorthwest England, Bolton is a histor-ical center of the first industrial revolution, when Lancashire was amanufacturing area where cotton waswoven, cut, and designed for the worldmarkets. Lancashire’s developmenthas been deeply influenced by the upsand downs of the textile industry inBritain and Europe. Today, the areasupports a low-wage economy, but isopen and willing to experiment withnew reindustrialization processes.

Higher education represents a keytool for such development. Indeed,from the early 19th century, educa-tional opportunities for working peo-ple were considered essential to theprosperity of industrial regions. In 1824, the town of Bolton opened a Mechanics Institute that addressedthe needs of the textile economy,enabling workers to upgrade theirlearning in drawing, weaving, patterndesign, and various branches of related fields. A century later, theUniversity of Manchester provideduniversity extension lectures inBolton, thus enhancing the town’sacademic status. After World War II,its landscape was further enriched,when a new Training College forteachers of technical and commercialsubjects was added to the olderTechnical College and the College of Art. In 1963, the Technical Collegeestablished the Bolton Institute of Technology to develop a true university environment, offering a


no student or faculty member has fileda complaint concerning ethnic dis-crimination. Third, the rectordescribed a new climate of multicul-turalism, reflected in new academicwork and publications. Fourth, aseries of external evaluations havecorroborated that Babes-Bolyai hasbecome a focus for political change inthe region.

For the Salzburg participants,Babes-Bolyai illustrated the ability ofuniversities to serve an integrative

function, enhancing cultural identitiesby considering them from humanisticand individual points of view. At thecenter of the system is the free and responsible human being, whose attributes—whether Hungarian,Romanian, or German—are secondaryto his or her essence as a citizen of thecommunity. Viewed this way, the insti-tution becomes a true crossroads of

cultures, an autonomous entity thatthrives on differences.

THE INSTITUTION AS A PARTNER WITH ITS COMMUNITY:BOLTON INSTITUTE

wide variety of subjects such as lan-guages, business, philosophy, sociol-ogy, mechanical engineering, thevisual arts, psychology, and literature.

In 1982, all these institutionsmerged into the Bolton Institute,which received its “taught degree”awarding powers in 1990 and researchdegree awarding powers in 1994 (theequivalent of university status).28

However, the institution remains trueto its past by constant cross-fertilizationof theory and practice and deepengagement with economic, profes-sional, and social communities.

The Bolton Institute recently adopt-ed a positioning statement that proposes a vision for the institute’srole in society and describes a set ofstrategies to achieve this vision.Faculty members, staff, and studentsconsider being “hands-on” within thecommunity and “innovation-driven”in research and education as the coreelements of a new breed of university,in which the pluralism of people, situ-ations, and ideas is the starting pointfor engagement with the social, eco-nomic, and political life of the commu-nity. The institute does not claim thatthe goals it has set are appropriate forall universities, but that they are cor-rect for Bolton and exemplify a newgeneration of universities that worksmore closely with their constituencies

and communities to meettheir needs. Bolton aims toserve the individual studentwhile developing the capacityto promote change andgrowth among its stakeholdercommunities.

As Mollie Temple, the prin-cipal at Bolton, noted inSalzburg, “[T]he institute rep-resent[s] the social context in

which it finds itself, thus bringing tothe community the questions that itmay not even raise itself.” For exam-ple, a recent study conducted byBolton for the local governmentauthority on the feasibility of creatinga cultural zone within the town haspresented many challenging and excit-ing possibilities for the future ofLancashire. The institute is leading aproject to provide value-added eco-nomic activity within an InnovationZone across the most disadvantageddistricts in the area. Current researchalso is investigating ways to improvethe health and economic status oflocal minority ethnic communities.

Bolton’s student body mirrors thepluralism of the surrounding commu-nity. Seventy percent of its studentsenter the institution without the nor-mal academic A-level qualification.Forty-six percent belong to lowersocioeconomic groups. Nearly half are part-time, and more than half areadult students. Twenty percent arenon-white, and 11 percent are fromcountries outside Europe. To servethis diversity, Bolton brings its courses to the community; 20 percentof its full-time students study in theworkplace.

In light of Bolton’s close connectionto community needs, it is no surprisethat its curriculum and pedagogy are


Bolton Institute includes a home for technical textiles com-panies on its campus.

Phot

o:Bo

lton

Inst

itute

grounded in practice. Faculty areactively engaged in research, workingwith partners to develop knowledge,not simply applying existing knowl-edge to community problems and issues.This concept of engaged research con-siderably differs from the traditionalmodel, bringing the community in asactive partner rather than mere recip-ient of the knowledge generated by researchers. For example, a currentproject of the institute’s Centre forMaterials Research and Innovationseeks to improve theefficacy of wounddressings by creat-ing “smart” materi-als that adapt to thehealing stage of thewound. The researchteam, which includesnursing and psy-chology facultymembers, is usingthe clinical prac-tices of institutestaff and studentswho are in local hos-pitals to help guidethe project.

Another exampleof engagement withthe community is aproject of Bolton’sDepartment of Product Design toincorporate the needs of disabled users into the design ofhousehold products. The departmenthas a longstanding partnership withRemploy, a respected and well-knownfurniture manufacturer, which employsmostly disabled workers and is thepartner in the current project.Similarly, Bolton’s Department forConstruction is undertaking a nation-al research project to identify the edu-

cation and training needs of disabledworkers in the building industry. Thisindustry has been inaccessible to dis-abled people in the past and the proj-ect has both practical and awareness-raising objectives. Again, the partnersinclude industry representatives, dis-abled people, and other educationproviders.

Engagement is central to teachingand research at the Bolton Institute.This engagement permits Bolton tomake a real contribution to social and

economic develop-ment and, at thesame time, to beresponsive to the“market”—insofaras the marketreflects local indus-try needs and jobd e v e l o p m e n t .Bolton embodiesthe values thatSullivan believes tobe endangered inhigher educationtoday. He is sharplycritical of profes-sions that havesought legitimacyby emphasizing the“ s p e c i a l i z e d ,expert knowledge

and skills they provide in the market” at the expense of “stressing the socialimportance of the knowledge they provide and the functions theyperform of the community.”29 Thesame values and behaviors can beattributed to institutions, which are susceptible to being increasinglydriven by the market, rather than bytheir own sense of higher purpose.Bolton believes it is possible to be successful in the marketplace while


Bolton aims to serve the

individual student while

developing the capacity

to promote change and

growth among its

stakeholder communities.


is focused on developingindividual students tobecome critical thinkersand full contributingcitizens, who use theirability to learn … toassess and act oncompeting ideas that canenhance a community'ssocial, cultural,environmental, andeconomic condition.

BONNIE PATTERSON, TrentUniversity

continuing to engage in self-critical,socially useful learning and knowedge creation. Many students and con-stituent groups have a practicalmotive for seeking institute services.It is the task of the Bolton Institute toensure that critical, reflective practiceand engagement infuse pedagogic,research, and corporate activities.

Bolton’s successes in seeking aca-demic excellence for vocationally

oriented education illustrates animportant lesson derived from a plu-ralistic society: There is no singlemodel of excellence. Bolton has notmodeled itself along the lines of theclassical university, but it prizes excel-lence in teaching, relevance to thelarger society, and research andinquiry that advances its ability to fulfill its mission.



is proactive in shapingand contributing to thegrowth and well-being ofits partners andcommunities, practicesinclusion, celebratesdiversity, and designsinnovative solutions tomeet its own needs andthose of its partners.

MOLLIE TEMPLE, BoltonInstitute


s the lengthy list of thedimensions of plural-ism created by the seminar participantsillustrated, the Salzburg

meeting could have explored many different roles played by higher educa-tion institutions in a pluralistic socie-ty. Instead, the conversation focusedon institutions as organizationalactors, communities of students, fac-ulty, and stakeholders, and as modelsfor the larger society.As institutions, theyparticipate in internaland external dialogues—conversations that arenot mutually exclusive,as shown by the three institutional case studies; they comple-ment and support oneanother. However, theneed for common understanding andjoint positions inside or outside theuniversity changes according to theissues at hand, the cultural context,and the moment in time.

One dimension of the dialogue andengagement with groups outside theinstitution that was also pervasive inSalzburg was the international one.For many institutions represented atthe seminar, global engagement wasessential to education in a pluralist

world. The relatively scant attentionpaid to internationalization in thisessay is by no means a reflection of its relative importance. The topic,rich and complex unto itself, has beenanalyzed in many other publicationsand venues. But it is worth noting,even in passing, that the Salzburg conversation richly illustrated thatfostering pluralism inside the univer-sity and connecting to the pluralism ofits surrounding community or the

larger world requiresimilar approaches.These approaches arecharacterized by open-ness and flexibility, aclear sense of purpose,and institutional self-confidence. Opennessand f lexibility permitinstitutions to gatherpeople and opinions,

problems and programs. One mightcall this the inclusive institution.Purpose and confidence allow themultiplicity of topics, views, and com-mitments that makes the universitymore than the sum of its parts, andthat gives the institution an individualidentity and the capacity to transcenddivisions in order to act as a whole—creating the coherent institution.Creating an institution that is bothinclusive and coherent, that serves its

A

Conclusion


celebrates differencesand individualities whilestrengthening itsaffiliation with thecommunity andchanneling diversitytoward commonpurposes.

ANDRÉE SURSOCK,European UniversityAssociation


people and its purpose, requiresinspired leadership, strong institu-tional autonomy, and clear personalintegrity from staff and students.

The challenge to higher educationinstitutions in a pluralist society isboth to be responsive to the needs ofsociety while also anticipating thoseneeds and to create a path to new waysof being, doing, and thinking. To doboth, institutions must confront theirown assumptions and those widelyshared in the larger society. They mustask themselves difficult questionsabout their goals, strategies, and

accomplishments, so that they canpropose early solutions to the prob-lems emerging from a continuallychanging and increasingly complexworld. If the first few years of the 21stcentury are any indication of thefuture, the defining challenge for theglobe will be to create and sustainpeaceful pluralist communities,nations, and regions. History hasshown how daunting that challengecan be, and the astronomical cost offailure. The stakes are high for highereducation and for the globe.

CANADARobert J. Giroux, Presidentand CEOAssociation of Universitiesand Colleges of CanadaRobert Lacroix, RecteurUniversité de MontréalPeter MacKinnon,President and Vice-ChancellorUniversity ofSaskatchewanBonnie Patterson,President and Vice-ChancellorTrent University

UNITED STATESSharon Stephens Brehm,ChancellorIndiana UniversityRobert A. Corrigan,PresidentSan Francisco StateUniversityAugustine P. Gallego,Chancellor and CEOSan Diego CommunityCollege DistrictMadeleine F. Green, VicePresident and Director,Center for Institutionaland InternationalInitiativesAmerican Council onEducationKermit Hall, PresidentUtah State UniversityAlex B. Johnson, PresidentMetropolitan Campus,Cuyahoga CommunityCollege

Bette E. Landman,PresidentArcadia UniversityJuan E. Mestas, ChancellorUniversity of Michigan-FlintM. Lee Pelton, PresidentWillamette UniversityRobert A. Scott, PresidentAdelphi UniversityGraham B. Spanier,PresidentPennsylvania StateUniversityDavid Ward, PresidentAmerican Council onEducation

EUROPEAndris Barblan, SecretaryGeneralEuropean UniversityAssociationRinaldo Bertolino, RectorUniversità degli Studi diTorinoLale Duruiz, RectorIstanbul Bilgi UniversityRoderick Floud, ViceChancellorLondon MetropolitanUniversityEric Froment, PresidentEuropean UniversityAssociationAndrei Marga, RectorBabes-Bolyai UniversityMaria Helena Vaz deCarvalho Nazaré, RectorUniversidade de Aveiro

Andrée Sursock, DeputySecretary GeneralEuropean UniversityAssociationMollie Temple, PrincipalBolton InstituteChristina Ullenius, RectorKarlstad UniversityLuc E. Weber, FormerRector and ProfessorUniversité de GenèveLesley Wilson, SecretaryGeneralEuropean UniversityAssociationGeorg Winckler, RectorUniversity of ViennaFrans Zwarts, RectorRijksuniversiteitGroningen

HOSTS FROM THESALZBURG SEMINARJochen Fried, Director,Universities ProjectSalzburg SeminarHélène Kamensky,Coordinator, RussianProgram UniversitiesProjectSalzburg SeminarOlin Robison, PresidentSalzburg Seminar


Transatlantic DialogueParticipantsSalzburg SeminarSalzburg,AustriaJune 2003

1 For a report on the seventh Transatlantic Dialogue, see Green, M., Eckel, P., and Barblan,

A. (2001). The brave new world of higher education: A transatlantic view. Washington, DC:American Council on Education. http://www.acenet.edu.2

Ash, T. G. (2003, February 13). Anti-Europeanism in America. New York Review ofBooks, 50 (2).3

The Bologna process refers to a 1999 agreement of 30 European ministers of education tocreate common degree structures in Europe, enabling European students to move morefreely among those institutions, making European higher education institutions moreattractive to students outside the continent.4

Two cases had been brought against the University of Michigan that challenged its use ofracial preferences to achieve racial and ethnic diversity in its undergraduate programs andlaw school. A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was pending at the time of the June 2003Transatlantic Dialogue.5

(2002, November 2). The longest journey: A survey of migration. The Economist, 5.6

Jimenez, M. (2003, November 15). 200,000 illegal immigrants toiling in Canada’s under-ground economy. The Globe and Mail.7

(2003, July). Pour une immigration réussie. Agenda Social, 3-4.http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_agenda6_fr.pdf.8

Ibid., 9.9

Beauchesne, E. (2003, August 25). New Canadians find it tougher to join Labour Force.Calgary Herald.10

The Economist, 10.11

It is difficult to compare statistics from one country to another because of disparate definitions. In Germany, “foreign” refers to anyone in the resident population who is a non-citizen and not of German descent. In the United States, “foreign persons” refers to all foreign-born persons in the resident population, including both naturalized citizens andnon-citizens. See Grieco, E. (2002, July 1). Defining “foreign born” and “foreigner” in inter-national migration statistics. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=34.12

Federal Statistical Office of Germany. (2003). Population, by sex and citizenship.Wiesbaden: Author. http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/bevoe/bev_tab4.htm.13

An immigrant is defined by the French as a person born abroad and of foreign nationalityat birth.14

Desplanques, G. (2001, June 12). Facts on France: Population of France.http://www.ambafrance-zm.org/5france/ficheanglais/facts/pop_fr.html.15

The Economist, 5.16

Statistics Canada. (2003, May 13). Immigration population by place of birth and period ofimmigration. http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo25.htm.17

Ray, B. (2002). Canada: Policy legacies, new directions, and future challenges.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=20.18

Jedwab, J. (2002, February 26). Immigration and the vitality of Canada’s official language communities: Policy, demography, and identity. Ottawa: Government of Canada.19

Suárez-Orozco, C. (2004). Formulating identity in a globalized world. In M. M. Suárez-Orozco and D. B. Qin-Hilliard (Eds.), Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Notes


20 U.S. Census Bureau. QT-P14. Nativity, citizenship, year of entry, and region of birth,

2000. Refer to http://factfinder.census.gov and search for “QT-P14.”21

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic ori-gin. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/.22

Suárez-Orozco, C., op. cit., 197.23

Corrigan, R. (1995, Spring). Diversity, public perception, and institutional voice. LiberalEducation, 20-31.24

See Farr, M. (2003, May 14). When cultures collide on campus: Defending free speech intense times. University Affairs; Statistics Canada. Immigration population by place of birth;and Farr, M. (2003, March). Report aims to protect free speech at Concordia. UniversityAffairs, 38.25

Fish , S. (2000). What’s sauce for one goose: The logic of academic freedom. In S. E. Kahnand D. Pavlich (Eds.), Academic freedom and the inclusive university. Vancouver: Universityof British Columbia Press.26

Ibid.27

Sullivan, W. (2000) Institutional identity and social responsibility in higher education. InT. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education (p. 20). Phoenix, AZ: AmericanCouncil on Education/Oryx Press.28

Not all U.K. higher education institutions have the right to award degrees, either forcourses of instruction (taught degrees) or for research.29

Sullivan, op. cit., 25.

Date post:	13-Oct-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangtram
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Higher Education PLURALIST World - American … · communication wonders—proved to be a source of...

Documents