Basic HTML Version
INBRIEF
LOCKSTEP CONFORMITY
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
by
Stanley
R.
Rader
"~HE
TRENO
in modero educa–
tion
ha~
been a dangerous drift
into material:ism and collectiv–
ism. Colleges and univers1t1es have
grown so large that regimented
assemblyline processes have replaced
individualized instruction. The stu–
dent has lost bis identity. Develop–
ment of personality and initiative is
largely sacrificed."
Since Editor Herbert W. Arm–
strong wrote those words in these
pages a quarter century ago, things
have become even worse. Every–
where, it seems, colleges and univer–
sities are becoming more and more
alike, teaching in much the same
style, based on the same outlook.
Today, even more than 1955, colleges
and universities are in even greater
danger of losing their distinctive,
individual character and blending
into one, bland, homogenized mass.
1t would be a terrible tragedy if
higher education loses whatever di–
versity it has left.
It
would mean, in
one sense, a monopoly on ideas,
knowledge and values; only one gen–
eral philosophy of education would
prevail. Religious values in particular
would suffer- as higher education
has become less diverse, it has
become more materialistic and secu–
la r. Indeed, the state of higher educa–
tion throughout the world fits the
description of the decadent educators
of the ancient world made by the
apostle Paul- "they did not like to
retain God in their knowledge" (Ro–
mans 1:28).
The survival of independent, non–
state-supported, religiously oriented
colleges and universities thus takes
on vital importance. Such schools
generally provide the only alternative
to the large, state-supported universi–
ties whose academic approach is
wholly materialistic and secular.
While the secular government–
supported schools often provide ex-
10
cellent technical or professional edu–
cation, they cannot address them–
selves to the most important knowl–
edge of a ll- the origin, purpose and
destiny of man. lndeed,
because such
schools use government money, fhey
are in many countries forbidden by
law to address such questions
in
anything other than a sterile, value–
less or purely descriptive context.
fndependent colleges, as Kingman
Brewster, former president of Yale
has pointed out, ensure that govern–
ment alone will "never become the
final arbiter, the principal a llocator,
the controller of all the society's
resources devoted to the advance–
ment of knowledge and its transmis–
sion to succeeding generations."
But independentcollegesand univer–
sities are currently facing the worst–
ever threat to their independence. Gov–
ernment regulators are seeking to die–
tate educational policy. Sorne presti–
gious prívate universities, of course,
have long mortgaged their indepen–
dence to government grant money.
Only in the past few years have they
discovered that government funding
means government control.
Thus no less a figure than Derek
C. Bok, president of Harvard, warns
tbat current government regula–
tions- applied to schools such as
Harvard, which are heavily depen–
dent on research grants- "threaten
to impinge upon the diversity of the
system."
On the same lines, political scien–
tist Paul Seabury says,
"l
fear that
the federal government is employing
universities as devices for social engi–
neering, which may serve to homoge–
nize what has been a very diverse
academic system."
For example, according to a bu–
reaucratic interpretation of a civi l
rights law, a college cannot use
"Christian character" as a criteria in
its biring of teachers if it is not a
directly churcb-related school. The
rule, of course, strikes a blow for
mater ialism and secularism.
lt
mea ns that nonch urch related
schools are denied the right to foster
religious values.
Worse, federal policy makers a re
now trying to extend their domain to
that hardy band of independent col–
leges whicb have refused to accept
government aid or grant money.
Sincé independent colleges usually
must charge steep tuitions, many of
their students borrow money from
prívate banks. But if the loan is
backed up by the government, the
regulators argue that the college is
really government supported, an as–
sertion that a llows the government to
step in and dictate policy.
Yet the fact remains, that to be able
to teach the true values, a collegemust
be politically independent.
It
cannot be
subject to every regulatory fad. Educa–
tors should be able to set educational
policy-not bureaucrats. Schools
should be allowed to retain their dis–
tinctive character.
In particular, they must be free to
foster values, such as "Christian
character," which may not be social–
ly or politically fashionable.
It
would
be a dreary world indeed if every
college or university was a carbon–
copy of U .C. Berkeley.
Herbert W. Armstrong has writ–
ten on a number of occasions of a
discussion he had with the chancellor
of higher education in Oregon at _the
time of the found ing of Ambassador
College. The chancellor told M
r.
Armstrong how mucb he envied him
because Mr. Armstrong, by estab–
lishing a prívate nonstate-supported
college, could escape education's
"descent into materialism." The
chancellor, by contrast, though he
was the head of the state university
system, was helpless to do anything
about the evils of materialism or
secularism.
Today, the threat is much worse–
for the government would seek to
extend materialism to all higher edu–
cation. Should it succeed it will , as
Dallin Oakes, president of Brigham
Young University, has said, "destroy
cherished originality and diversity' '
and put in their place "uniformity,
mediocrity and compliance."
The
PLAIN TRUTH