Universiteter i alliancer efterlyser ny overenskomst med samfundet

Universitetspolitik på højere plan - som når universiteter går sammen i alliancer - virker fjernt for den enkelte forsker eller studerende. Det danske Rektorkollegiet, nu kaldet Danske Universiteter, fremkommer af og til med politiske udtalelser som svar på høring om nye lovgivningsmæssige tiltag. Internationalt finders alliancer som Universitas 21, LERU og (som rektor Ralf Hemmingsen har engageret KU i) IARIS. Men hvilke interesser varetager disse? Hvorfor ser vi alliancer, der minder om flyselskabernes alliancer i kampen om at kapre kunder, blomstre op nu? Og er deres ideologi anderledes end markedspladsens?
En forklaring på alliancerne lyder globaliseringen og kampen på det internationale marked for uddannelser (derfor har videnskabsministeriet også et globaliseringspolitisk kontor). I international universitetspolitik udkæmpes der de samme, med John Krejslers ord, 'diskursive slag' som vi ser herhjemme mellem en demokratisk-Humboldt'sk vision om universitetets egenart og rolle, og en markeds- og effektivitetsorienteret diskurs.
Formålene med de tre nævnte alliancer er samarbejde om forskning og uddannelse mellem de enkelte partnere. Da de engelske universiteter Oxford og Cambridge (som også er med i LERU) tilsluttede sig IARIS hed det at: "In the longer term, we plan to seek corporate/ foundation/ government support for research projects; perhaps convene a forum to share knowledge about the commercialisation of research and the legal and academic framework in each country; work jointly on benchmarking; and develop shared positions on key public policy issues." (Guardian 17/1-2006).
LERU skriver om sig selv "The League of European Research Universities was founded in 2002 as an association of twelve research-intensive universities sharing the values of high-quality teaching within an environment of internationally competitive research. In 2006, membership was extended to twenty institutions."
Den 18/9 udgav LERU et position paper forfattet af universitetslederne Geoffrey Boulton (Edinburgh) og Colin Lucas (Oxford), kaldet "What are universities for?" (her) som advarer imod de alt for diffuse ideer om alle de roller, et moderne universit skal opfylde. Dette manifest kritiserer således tanken om universiteter som hovedkraften i innovationsprocesser, selvom universiteter bestemt bidrager med at gøde jorden for innovation, ikke mindst gennem produktion af human capital. Her understreger LERU-forfatterne betydningen af samfundsvidenskab og humaniora, også hvis man skal kunne møde udfordringer som omvæltende teknologier, trusler mod sundhed, retssamfund, klima og miljø. I dansk sammenhæng er det relevant at citere fra de afsluttende afsnit:

"A current danger in many countries stems from the financial benefits that come to a university through research funding mechanisms. These can be such powerful drivers of behaviour and corporate motivation that top-down mechanisms are driving some institutions close to becoming strongly managed research institutes, squeezing out diversity of function and undermining teaching and learning.

Political boldness is also required. The freedom to enquire, to debate, to criticise and to speak truth to power, whether it be the power of government, of those that fund the university, or those who manage it, is central to the vitality of the university and its utility to society. It is crucial that rectors and university governing boards understand this essential source of institutional strength, that they are steadfast in its support, strong in its defence and are not seduced by the fallacy of managerial primacy: that things that make management difficult necessarily need to be removed or reformed. An easily governed university is no university at all."

"Although there has been widespread recognition of the value of university autonomy in permitting institutions to act decisively and flexibly in response to need or opportunity, and where state control is recognised as having been a barrier to development, freedom is necessarily accompanied by calls for greater accountability. However, accountability can often be control by another name. Increasingly bureaucratic mechanisms of accountability have been established to verify that the trust implied in freedom from control is justified. Detailed regulations, memoranda, instructions, guidance, and lists of “best practice” flood into institutions, too frequently focussing on processes rather than outcomes."

"Quality assurance does not measure the quality of education, merely some of the second-order issues associated with education. Their principal result is to impose unproductive bureaucratic burdens. It is vital to understand that such mechanisms can ultimately undermine the outcomes that are a university’s principal benefit to society. The challenge to universities, government and society is to articulate a compact that recognises the value of autonomy and freedom and supports them, but is able to assess the value and benefit without oppressive mechanisms that undermine a university’s potential."

"Whilst universities should be funded for how well they do the things that make them what they are, it is too easy to develop one or two lines of funding, driven by metrics that stand proxy for deeper, elusive qualities, that so drive university behaviour that they pour excessive efforts into the satisfaction of the metric rather than the properties metrics attempt to measure. Such metrics can also have the perverse consequence of driving out much of the creative diversity of behaviour that is one of the university’s great strengths."

"Universities are not just supermarkets for a variety of public and private goods that are currently in demand, and whose value is defined by their perceived aggregate financial value. We assert that they have a deeper, fundamental role that permits them to adapt and respond to the changing values and needs of successive generations, and from which the outputs cherished by governments are but secondary derivatives. To define the university enterprise by these specific outputs, and to fund it only through metrics that measure them, is to misunderstand the nature of the enterprise and its potential to deliver social benefit. These issues of function and purpose are important, and need to be explicit."

At New Public Management ikke er ensbetydende med God Offentlig Forvaltning må man håbe efterhånden er gået op for de fleste, også Sanders embedsmænd. (Det er fx for komisk at se DTU lade sin egen ranking notere på Børsen, blive afsløret, og straks efter styrtdykke i "kurs"). Må derfor de danske universiteter, i IARIS eller hvilke andre alliancer de vil indgå i, arbejde for en sådan besindelse på universiteterne som et sammenhængende gode - for det civile såvel som det statslige og private liv - så en mere fornuftig overenskomst med samfundet kan opnås.