Venter TENSION IN THE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Venter

TENSION IN THE

CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Spectator

“ A university is a com m unity involved in training potential scientists. They are guided in the direction of becom ing inde­

p end en t scientists by participating in scientific endeavour so th at ultim ately they will be able to practise th eir own professions in responsible fashion” .

A lthough m any philosophers hesitate nowadays to define a university, I feel th at the above definition is justified on norm a­

tive grounds and that it conveys the authentic historical tradition of the university accurately. In the late nineteen th century co n ­ cepts becam e w atered dow n to the p o in t w here great hesitation was felt abo u t the whole m a tte r o f the definition o f a university.

These new concepts, totalitarian in character, should be unac­

ceptable to the Christian thin ker from a norm ative p o in t of view.

I feel th at the problem s outlined in the previous three essays represent areas o f tension betw een the definitive characteristics of th e university and those tendencies in co ntem porary society which tend to negate definition. I t is no exaggeration to say th at the intrinsic n ature o f th e university is th reaten ed and may be lost. Because these threatening forces are o f necessity secular in n ature, it is a fact th a t the C hristian universities will be m ore susceptible to these threats. These threats will only show th em ­ selves m ore clearly once one has looked m ore closely at the logi­

cal consequences o f this definition of the university. A cautionary word at this stage: we have to rem em ber th a t this definition deals with a m atte r that falls firmly w ithin the field o f activity o f man — thus it is autom atically subject to m an’s im perfection. The definition does not state w hat a university is b u t what any university should strive to be, if it should w ant to be a good university. T herefore this can be regarded as the form ulation o f a norm which should be seen as functioning in the

“ A university is a c o m m u n ity ” . University work presupposes co m m unity-directed w ork from all its m em bers, be they m em bers of the council or first-year students. Everybody has to co n trib u te tow ards attaining live and viable com m unication. If this were n o t to happen the activities w ould be reduced to pers- pectiveless specialization. This w ould m ean th at the university w ould m erely be producing intellectual barbarians incapable o f norm ative introspection. Intellectual barbarism emerges only too clearly if we are to look at w hat is happening to n ature at the hands o f technological society. Mere training w itho u t m eaningful com m unication betw een scientists is em pty.

“ The university is involved in the training o f p otential scientists tow ards being independent scientists” . This task of guidance is the central concern of the university. It is im possible, however, to guide any stu d en t tow ards a full understanding o f science unless we have a clear understanding o f w hat the practice of science entails. The theory o f science therefore should form an integral p art o f any scientific endeavour at the university. For our purpose it should suffice to say th at the p ractitio n er of science should be able to find and give expression to the rela­

tionship betw een reality, norm and law. This underlies the didac­

tic purpose o f the university. A stu d e n t who is m erely supplied with the necessary ‘facts’ has not becom e an independent scientist — his facts will very quickly becom e obsolescent and worthless and he is an actual danger to society as a result o f his one-sidedness. Training in the fundam entals o f the basic sciences best fulfils th e dem ands o f guidance tow ards responsible scienti­

fic endeavour.

“The university is involved in training p o ten tial scientists by in­

volving them actively in the process o f scientific endeavour” . The first question con fro ntin g the person involved in tertiary education is the one dealing with the nature o f university train- sense of judging, converting, guiding.

ing. University training is seen as functioning in the direction of system atic autodidacticism un der the guidance of trained scient­

ists. This follows logically from the very nature of science: logi­

cal precision, m ethodical precision, im agination, strategic inge­

nuity , clear form ulation, precisely directed atten tio n . These qua­

lities can only be fully developed by meaningful particip ation in the process o f scientific endeavour. There is, how ever, also an organizational side to science, and it remains a serious fault to send a student into the world w ith ou t equipping him to cope w ith this side o f his occupation as well. At the university the m ain emphasis is on the student: whoever denies the stu d en t the right to participate meaningfully in the training process does n o t acknowledge the student as a hum an being b u t reduces him to the status o f malleable clay.

“ The university trains students so th a t they can jo in the profes­

sional world as responsible scientists practising their chosen p ro ­ fessions” . The university is n o t responsible for professional training — one can rath er see its task as the guidance o f students tow ards responsible action in those fields where scientific tho u gh t and endeavour can be seen as prerequisites. University training has to be relevant to the field th a t the studen t is going to e n te r, b u t in such a way th at the stu d en t will be enabled to go on developing and applying acquired knowledge in a scientifically responsible fashion.

It is quite possible th a t the reader will feel at this stage th at a norm atively qualified definition o f a university is m erely an idealized picture, w ith reality being quite different. It is indeed true th at reality is quite different. In fact, nothing is really Christian w ithin th e full sense th at can be ascribed to the con ­ cept. The PU for CHE will in tru th never be able to be m ore than m erely a sign o f our hope in Christ, so th a t we should n o t expect ou r idealistic salvation from it. But it rem ains our responsibility to see th at it does n o t degenerate into becom ing less than a sign o f grace. It has to go on practising its principles while it has the

freedom to do so. The whole idea o f th e interfaculty lectures of 1977 in giving perspectives on the fu tu re o f the university has been to underline this idea. To find the significance of this idea one has to look at the ideas of the speakers regarding the con ­ crete, historical, university reality.

The professionalist university

For the past 100 years the A m erican universities have been tra n s­

form ed into colleges for advanced professional training — insti­

tutions intend ed to supply the national econom y w ith schooled workers and useful skills — all aim ed at improving th e gross national p ro d u ct. These same tendencies are to be observed m ore and m ore in ou r ow n coun try.

Of all the negative influences th a t can be a ttrib u te d to this ten ­ dency, the training o f professionals full o f “ useful facts” at the expense o f training in the basic sciences is perhaps the worst.

This tendency has com pletely destroyed com m un ity form ing at th e university and has dum ped the university squarely in to the conflict o f interests raging arou nd it (and for th e tim e being it has landed on the side o f the political and econom ic establish­

m ent).

If we view these results in the light o f the d efinition o f the university we are struck by the fact th a t the m o dem profession- orien ted university is ignoring the traditio nal task o f the univer­

sity — th e calm and judicious training in scientific endeavour has been forced to m ake place for a frenetic cram m ing w ith facts, knowledge which can be m anipulated; professional specialization and mass p ro d u ctio n break up each e ffo rt to establish com m uni­

ties, and th e objective and purely scientific institu tion envisioned by the G erm an idealists o f th e early n in eteen th cen­

tury has been engulfed by a social service organization — “ rele­

vance” has been m oved o u t in favour o f “ c o m m itm e n t” .

The foregoing should m ake it clear why certain problem s have suddenly been m agnified in dealing w ith three basic aspects of the university: its stru cture, university didactics and th e relation­

ships betw een the university corps and society.

The stru ctu re o f th e university

In the lecture by Professor G errit Viljoen the in terp retatio n o f the term structure is striking. It clearly does n o t designate th at which some philosophers designate by the term being — rath er it has to do with th e very, concrete, coherence of elem ents and groupings w ithin the university. This view enables one to m ake a valuable analysis on th e one hand, o f the o ften conflicting te n ­ dencies to which th e university is inevitably subject, and also offers a clear basis on which to w ork at solving th e practical p ro ­ blems besetting a university. Tw o o f these problem s will be lo oked at m ore closely viz. th e problem o f au th ority and the p ro ­ blem o f society.

The traditional structure o f au th ority at the university is hier­

archic, and it is clear th a t Professor Viljoen is n o t an advocate o f th e dem ocratized structure at C ontinental universities. He does suggest several means of m aking decision-form ing and ex ecu tio n m ore stream-lined and efficient. It is quite clear, ho w ­ ever, th a t he is conscious o f m aking concessions to b o th sides.

Perhaps we have becom e entangled in a scheme of reasoning that c a n n o t be conclusive, as a result o f the conflicts of pow er which can be encountered at a secular university. Perhaps one should rath e r begin at th e idea o f th e equal responsibility o f all, in­

cluding the stu d en t, w hen the m atte r o f the task of th e university is being considered. Perhaps it would be desirable th a t the stu ­ dents, who o ften com e to the university with the idea o f having a

“ good tim e ” , should participate m eaningfully in the process of exercising a u th o rity , as this will equip them m ore meaningfully for th eir later careers. Perhaps the question one should answer

should ideally deal with th e m a tte r o f the various fo rm s o f a u th o ­ rity , rath er than with the m atte r of how one could reconcile effectiveness with dem ocracy. Should the possession of a high academ ic rank necessarily be a b e tte r qualification for admission to a council than enthusiastic and real participation?

Perhaps the diffusion o f responsibility will result in m ore insight into the control o f science and th e atte n d an t problem s — which will perhaps then lessen resistance to “ incom prehensible deci­

sions” . Equally, it might be possible to persuade som ebody who is going to be influenced by a decision to participate actively in the process o f decision-making.

The problem o f form ing a com m unity is intim ately connected with the diffusion o f authority . A university com m unity is only really viable when all the m em bers are in com m unication with each o th e r and can give expression to the intrinsic task of the university. The gaps in the university society, as seen by Profes­

sor Viljoen, occur betw een academics and adm inistration, and be­

tween specialized academ ics. In my opinion there are also chasm s betw een professional academics and potential academics (stu ­ dents), and betw een higher authoritative bodies such as Council, Senate, and Faculty and the great m ajority of university m em bers. In w hat way should these chasms be bridged? In the first place there is a clear break betw een academics and m em bers o f adm inistrative staffs, resulting m ost probably from a com plete lack o f understanding o f each o th e r’s work. U nity m ight be achieved by dissem ination of info rm ation, m eetings for planning to g eth er on interm ediate levels and continual sensitization to each o th e r’s needs.

Secondly, Professor Viljoen gives some valuable pointers as to how interdisciplinary co-operation is to be achieved — which w ould help to eradicate specialistic subject loyalties. A question which persists is the one as to w hy the traditional subject and faculty divisions rem ain so tenaciously in our tim e. Why should

we regard it as absurd if a stu d en t should wish to take Physics and Afrikaans as m ajors? Why should Philosophy be locked up as it were in the Arts Faculty, and why is so little done to prom ote work on the theory o f th e sciences? T hirdly, if we do n o t succeed in letting the stu d en t assume real responsibility within society, the group for whom th e university exists will rem ain on the fringes o f society. F or the Christian university this has the danger th a t the larger num ber o f its m em bers will for ever be excluded from the closed com m unity o f the “ saints” . In the fou rth place, I find it encouraging th at Professor Viljoen should feel th at au th o rity should be relegated to the level where it can function m ost effectively. It w ould be really encouraging for the m ajority o f m em bers of the university (who are at present exclu­

ded from the processes of decision-making) if the highest body involved in decision-making had the responsibility o f reporting fully, so th a t dubious decisions could also be referred back to them for reconsideration.

As far as the com m unity spirit at the university is concerned:

we are a Christian university, after all, so why d o n ’t we pray to ­ gether at least once a week?

University Didactics

It remains enigm atic why it should take us so long to notice obvious tru th s — it is equally enigm atic th a t we should take so long to respond to these tru th s. It to o k the university all th e cen­

turies from th e Middle Ages until the eighteenth cen tury to rea­

lize th at university teachers needed training in teaching techni­

ques. Now, one and three-quarters o f a century later, Professor Preller has to state th at very little research has as yet been done in this field.

Professor Preller po in ts o u t the encyclopaedic place and co n ten t o f didactics and eventually also of tertiary didactics, science and

techniques. There is relevance in the fact th a t he ties tertiary didactics to a consideration o f the n atu re of the university. He also stresses the interdisciplinary natu re of tertiary didactics. He fu rth e r pleads th a t consideration o f tertiary didactics should be the concern o f the entire university.

It is far to o seldom seen and realized th at, because the university is a hum an in stitu tio n , its nature should be found in its task.

A university is a society w ith a very specific and special task. The u nity o f the direction of the university is im plicit in this. W ho­

ever has com e to grasp the fact th at the university has as its cen ­ tral task the training o f p o ten tial scholars will no longer have to search for the link betw een research and teaching. A stu d e n t, as a p o ten tial p rac titio n e r o f science, will have to participate in the research going on, and research m ust therefore be directed tow ards this purpose. This supports Professor Preller’s c o n te n ­ tion th at whoever analyses the n ature o f the university correctly will be rew arded with insight in to w hat the principle underlying tertiary didactics should be. We should be careful n o t to becom e to o pretentiou s at this p o in t, as Professor Viljoen has rem inded us o f the fact th a t th e universities are n o t th e only institu tion s offering tertiary education. These o th e r institu tio n s are also sup­

posed to fu nction w ithin the fram ew ork o f tertiary education.

Because m ost o f these are professionally slanted, we m ight leam m uch from them as far as the practical training of the stu d e n t is concerned.

T he interdisciplinary n ature a ttrib u te d to tertiary didactics by Professor Preller has th e encouraging im plication th a t th e m any faceted creature, m an, may be approached from m ore than one angle in any particu lar study. Training m odels established in this fashion m ay finally co n trib u te m eaningfully tow ards developing a stu d en t as a scientist. The stu d en t is, a fte r all, a com plete hum an being even though only one facet o f his en tirety may be actively involved in the training process. Professor Preller’s ap­

proach is an a tte m p t to balance tertiary didactics betw een p h ilo ­ sophical grounding and technical skill. This approach, this in te ­

grated vision, can be o f great significance in our efforts to esta­

blish integrated training program m es at th e university.

R eflection on tertiary didactics should n o t be restricted to the dep artm en t devoted to it at the university. This is n ot only be­

cause tertiary didactics has an interdisciplinary nature, b u t be­

cause training in th e sciences differs from departm ent to dep art­

m ent. The philosopher, the historian and th e m athem atician do n o t have laboratories — the physicist does. For this reason each group o f subjects should give rise to vivid reflection on this m a t­

ter. In this reflection on the Christian n atu re of the didactics o f th e subject, the same integral ch aracter th a t Professor Preller claims for the subject in general should be preserved. A philo­

sophical theory o f science should be ju st as im p o rtan t as a psy­

chological theory o f science, or the uses o f technological training aids. A nd n o t least im p o rta n t is the fact th a t the results of these reflections should be rep o rted in some way to the researchers w ithin the dep artm en t o f tertiary didactics. I hope th at this will soon give rise to tw o conclusions: Firstly th a t the system in which th e lectu rer is a talking book and the stu d en t a passive tape recorder will be rejected. Secondly th a t university research topics should be determ ined by teaching and training needs.

Once we have brought this integral effo rt in teaching m ethods in to being, we m ight easily succum b to th e tem p tatio n o f m aking the university a place where students can be guided tow ards full m atu rity . T he university is n o t in loco parentis. Scientific training should involve m an in his en tirety . T he cultivation of h o nesty in scientific endeavour should inculcate honesty in o th er spheres as well. The fact th a t th e sexes mingle on the basis of being colleagues in science con trib u tes to th e norm al develop­

m en t o f relationships betw een the sexes. This happens incidental­

ly — th e university is n o t prim arily inten ded to teach people to be honest in their incom e tax returns and to have constructive relationships with o th e r people.

University and society

Professor W.P. Esterhuyse unravels the relationship betw een the academ ic corps and society by means of an analysis of tw o phenom ena: the scientification of society and the socializing of science. These tw o phenom ena co n stitu te an increasing inter­

dependence betw een the academ ic corps and society. This in te r­

dependence takes on form in the political uses and abuses of science, and the dem and on the scientist to ju stify him self in the eyes of society and m ake him self intelligible to society. It also leads to the tendency to have politically instigated policy deci­

sions as far as the developm ent of the sciences is concerned. In futu re the m eaning o f the university lies in a m oral preparedness to choose betw een as y et unrealized technical possibilities.

The m ost pressing p a rt o f the problem s o f the contem porary university is perhaps to be found in this very ethical futurologi­

cal aspect. The university is in the pow erful position of shaping the thoughts o f an age group th a t is particularly receptive and susceptible to im pressions, and irresponsible behaviour on the p a rt o f the university is inevitably only going to show its m alevo­

lent influence after tw enty years or so. On the o th er hand the university is in a peculiarly helpless situ ation , since th e people who make available the m oney to finance research dem and a h and in the decisions involving the nature and type o f the research to be u n dertaken . In this way the state, the com m ercial sector and professional groups obtain unheard-of pow er over the universities as tim e goes on. This is a real th reat to the critical function o f the university and to the prep aration m entio ned by Professor Esterhuyse.

The University will only be able to safeguard its auton o m y if it (1) talks m eaningfully to the donors, th e state and the colleges for professional training, so th a t a clear form ulation of m utual expectations can be arrived at; (2) secs to it th at university train ­ ing rem ains relevant even though it m ight n o t be specifically

directed at professional training and (3) clearly understands that the unity of science and life descends from God — and th a t the coherence sought by the scientist will be found only if the scientist keeps to this fundam ental law in his practice of science.

The freedom of the university has never been entirely safe from threats. One can therefore expect of the future th at this free­

dom will n o t be entirely safe, b u t will only change in degree.

Some universities will jo in the establishm ent while others will rebel against it. The Christian university will feel itself to be m ore and m ore isolated in this co ntex t because it can n o t be defined in opposition to the world. The Christian university does have sym ­ pathy with the liberalistic struggle for the freedom of the univer­

sity, as well as for the socialistic effo rt to m ake the university m ore involved with society, b u t is n ot able to follow the golden m ean, because Christianity is no m ere golden m ean betw een op ­ posing poles b u t rather the narrow , lonely and totally d ifferent way o f submission.

The Christian university finds itself confron ted with a num ber of problem s involving its conscience. These emerged from the dis­

cussion.

(a) Do the technically detailed subjects so o ften studied at p o st­

graduate level really fit in w ith the real n ature o f the university, which should give an overview and perspective?

(b) Does n o t th e exaggerated stress on sport and recreation which is seen as p art o f the function of the university rather negate the idea of sovereignty which at a Christian university should be ac­

corded to everybody, especially as far as th eir spending of th eir free tim e is concerned?

(c) How can we ju stify the fact th a t discussion o f dissertations and theses is relegated to secrecy, so th at there can be no pos­

sibility of defence and/or appeal or even interdisciplinary criti­

cism?

(d) Have we really reflected seriously on the im plications th at the fundam ental tenets of the university pose as regards the structure o f au th o rity and didactics? The form al setup and spatial o rien ta­

tion at our university do n ot exactly subscribe to our being C hristian — no m ore th an any o th er university, in fact.

(e) Are we really fully involved in the agonizing problem s facing us in these tim es? Are we being relevant? If this were so, why should it be so difficult to find a few periods on the tim etable which could be devoted to serious reflection? Why can n o t a course on th e fundam ental theory of knowledge be in stitu ted as a full tw o-year course?

(f) Would one n o t be justified in thinking that the com m unity character should be m uch stronger at a C hristian university?

Why w ould it seem th at this university is unable to n u rtu re a living com m unity as a result of its size, the fragm entation of its activities, the establishm ent of a u th o rity , didactic assum ptions and especially the lack of enthusiasm for com m unity reflection on the m eaning o f the term “C hristian university” ?