What Universities Owe Democracy

by Ronald J. Daniels, Grant Shreve (With), Phillip Spector (With)

Universities have historically been integral to democracy. What can they do to reclaim this critical role? Universities play an indispensable role within modern democracies. But this role is often overlooked or too narrowly conceived, even by universities themselves. In What Universities Owe Democracy , Ronald J. Daniels, the president of Johns Hopkins University, argues that―at a moment when liberal democracy is endangered and more countries are heading toward autocracy than at any time in generations―it is critical for today's colleges and universities to reestablish their place in democracy. Drawing upon fields as varied as political science, economics, history, and sociology, Daniels identifies four distinct functions of American higher education that are key to liberal social mobility, citizenship education, the stewardship of facts, and the cultivation of pluralistic, diverse communities. By examining these roles over time, Daniels explains where colleges and universities have faltered in their execution of these functions―and what they can do going forward. Looking back on his decades of experience leading universities, Daniels offers bold prescriptions for how universities can act now to strengthen democracy. For those committed to democracy's future prospects, this book is a vital resource.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Politics

336 pages, Hardcover

Published October 5, 2021

Reviews

[Blair · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ron Daniels’ “What Universities Owe Democracy” proposes a case for America’s public and private universities to step-up and assist liberal democracy.

It’s clear that liberal democracies are under threat, in the United States and beyond. The world is seeing an increase in autocracies, a reduced tolerance for diverse opinions, a continued rise of identity politics, and a general decline in the trust of democratic institutions that have underpinned our Western culture for at least 250 years, since the founding of the United States of America.

Universities may well be in the right place at the right time to influence young minds. But the question arises as to whether they have the “right stuff” to make this happen.

Historically Universities have been “safe zones” for the “Purposeful Pluralism” that the author advocates. They have influenced young people at a time when they are forming life-skills, attitudes, and behaviour, largely apart from their families. It’s a logical place to start.

Building on this foundation, Daniels feels that Universities can help democracy by instituting the following four steps:

1. End legacy admissions and restore federal aid.
2. Institute a democracy requirement for graduation.
3. Embrace open science with guardrails.
4. Re-imagine student encounters on campus and infuse debate into campus programming.

But is this really enough? Or is it even possible?

While I enjoyed the book’s optimistic perspective, it breezed over the barriers that will restrict Universities from carrying out this mission. The first problem is the way society currently views liberal education. Students (and parents) are increasingly selecting subjects that are not associated with a liberal education over those subjects that are seen to be stronger guarantees of future desirable jobs, including:

1. Computer Science and Information Systems.
2. Engineering and Technology.
3. Business and Management Studies.
4. Medicine.
5. Economics and Econometrics.

A liberal education is not generally seen to be a path to achieve these goals and jobs, so it is seen to be less important to student - and their families. How can Universities counter this trend?

Further, many American conservatives, who account for approximately half of the Country’s population, are deeply suspicious about the role universities play in society, especially in the way admission decisions are made and the extent that free speech is constrained on campuses. Universities cannot fix these social problems alone and cannot ignore 50% of the American population.

While Universities have tried to fix the “Admission problem” of not having enough lower income students - by providing financial support - they have now created a “barbell” problem where the poor and rich are represented on campus, and the middle class are suffering. Ronald Daniels raises this issue but put forth little thought into how to solve this growing problem.

Although Daniels understands that “conservative students are more likely to avoid speaking up in social sciences and humanities classes out of fear of receiving a bad grade, there are also studies demonstrating that those fears are unjustified: faculty do not award conservative students worse grades than their liberal classmates.” Really?

I know from my discussions with University students in both the United States and Canada, that there is real fear among students to take views contrary to their professors. Democrats and Republicans have increasing difficulties talking with each in the street– so do you really believe that giving one party power to grade another, is going to make this a fair exchange - especially when the faculty is completely "protected" with tenure?

The subject is so important than it simply should not be glossed over with the idea that “the facts just don’t fit my narrative” (my quotes). I think Daniels is dead wrong on this matter.

Overall, I liked the idea that Universities can help restore some of our lost liberal democratic traditions. But I think the ideas on how to do this – while necessary – are far from sufficient to make this happen.

Universities first need deal with their own “Sacred cows” – such as how you provide for a fairly priced education for all, tenure and the ability to escape oversight, and how to train the actual educators to be more liberal and fair minded themselves and consider alternative viewpoints. Does the University monitor this or does it simply give the students the choice of selected a different professor when there is a dearth of Conversative options available? That’s like saying “You can have the car in any colour as long as it’s black.” There are few choices available.

Once Universities understand – and not glaze over – their own problems, then they can consider telling others how to fix their own problems.

For me this missing section of this book, spoke loudest.

[Amy Finley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lovely blend of historical context and current challenges. American higher education has been a champion for democracy in ideals and practice since it’s existence. However, is that true today when democracy is increasingly unsteady? Really enjoyed the opportunity to hear the case for democracy but also specific and employable tactics for colleges and universities who want to double down on their commitment.

[Scott Heyman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly powerful. I appreciated the depth of history of how universities assumed certain responsibilities to promote democracy and constructive ideas of how to improve this from current conditions. I left feeling optimistic for the country and proud to be a JHU alumni.

[Duncan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Roles that universities play in democracy:
1. Promoting social mobility
2. Educating citizenship on democracy
3. Checking power with facts and knowledge
4. Modeling and promoting pluralism

How well are they performing at these today?
1. Not good. Lack of federal funding + legacy admissions = spots going to sometimes less qualified whiter richer students.
2. Not good. Entirely absent as a requirement.
3. Ok. Reproducibility crisis and right wing attacks eroding trust. Success of technology inspiring trust.
4. Not good. Universities are more diverse, but students only interact with people like themselves.

How these roles can be restored and improved:
1. End legacy admission, expand federal financial aid. Accessibility to all. NOT free to all (poor family tax dollars subsidize tuition of those who can afford it).
2. Institute democracy requirement for graduation. K-12 is not free from political influence. Academic freedom gives universities opportunity to provide this education. Must educate on democratic ideals, their moral and philosophical justifications, and how to act on these as citizens in democracy.
3. Embrace open science with guardrails. To researchers : show your work (transparency).
4. Reimagine student encounters on campus. Infuse debate into campus programming. Manufacture ways for students to interact with people with different viewpoints and how to talk across differences. Random first year roommates. Model healthy debate.

Good discussion, kinda dry, too long.

[Kate B · Rating 4 out of 5]

That universities, as an institution, are crucial to democracy is undoubtedly true and Daniels makes the argument well. He outlines the problems facing universities and prescriptions for overcoming these issues clearly and many of them seem like common sense reforms. But he glosses over the fact that there is so much distrust in universities that many people (conservatives especially) just want to tear the whole thing down, as we are seeing right now with federal funds being frozen. Obviously it was written before this came to a head, but given the length of the book and the relevance of the issue throughout the past decade at least, he misses an opportunity to explore broader pushback against his central assumption.

[Julie Tedjeske Crane · Rating 5 out of 5]

The core thesis of this book is that universities play a pivotal role in the success of liberal democracies. The primary author, Ron Daniels, is the president of Johns Hopkins University. Before that, he served as Provost of the University of Pennsylvania and Dean of the University of Toronto Law School. Daniels defines liberal democracy as combining two political traditions that are often at odds: democracy, which emphasizes popular opinion, and liberalism, which stresses individual freedom.

Daniels’ family fled Nazi persecution and settled in Canada. This background instills in him an unwavering belief in liberal democracy, which is evident throughout the book. Daniels completed writing shortly after the events of January 6th, when American democracy itself was under attack. Given this context, he continually emphasizes that we must not take this precious system of government for granted.

Rather than being a book about how society can improve its universities, Daniels switches things around so that, "the relevant question is not, How do we shape society to nourish the university? but rather, How does the university best foster democracy in our society?" The book focuses on "four key functions" of higher education in explaining how universities can help promote democracy:

"(1) launching meritorious individuals up the social ladder (social mobility),

(2) educating citizens for democracy (civic education),

(3) creating and disseminating knowledge (stewardship of facts), and

(4) cultivating the meaningful exchange of ideas across differences (pluralism)."

Social Mobility

Daniels views the American Dream as central to our shared culture. He defines the American Dream as believing upward social and economic mobility is possible given enough individual effort and talent. Of course, reality is more complex. Socioeconomic mobility in the U.S. lags behind other developed nations, with an "alarming stickiness" at the socioeconomic extremes – those born poor tend to stay poor, and those born rich tend to stay rich.

Contrary to popular notions, college degrees continue to support upward social mobility. Daniels cites a 2008 study showing that children from the lowest quintile income bracket are 3.8 times more likely to reach the top quintile if they have a college degree.

While most of What Universities Owe Democracy focuses on what universities can do for society, this section argues that society needs to do more to support higher education. Since the 1980s, higher education has been increasingly viewed as a private good, undeserving of public funding. As a consequence, government funding for higher education has plummeted. For instance, in the 1970s, the maximum Pell Grant covered nearly 70% of the average college costs. By 2020, that number had shrunk to under 25%. The 2008 financial crisis exacerbated the situation, leading to reduced state support for public education. Consequently, in-state tuition at four-year public universities surged 24% between 2009 and 2015. This tuition hike closely mirrors the decline in funding from state governments.

Daniels rejects the idea that higher education is not a social good. In response, he repeatedly points to George Washington's advocacy for a national university, which underscores that an educated citizenry is vital to the functioning of a liberal democracy.

Daniels opposes the idea of national free tuition because research suggests that such a policy would disproportionately benefit families with higher incomes. Instead, he supports increased direct funding for low- to middle-income undergraduates through expanded Pell Grants or similar programs. This approach, he suggests, could be combined with a greater emphasis on income-contingent loan programs for graduate students.

This section of the book closes with a prolonged argument against legacy admissions, a policy that mainly applies to only the most selective universities. Interestingly, Canadian and European universities do not engage in this practice. To illustrate, Daniels tells the story of working as a Dean at a Canadian law school. A donor asked for an admission bump for his child, which was denied. In response, the donor said: "If you really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the great Ivy League law schools in the United States, you better start acting like one."

Johns Hopkins ended legacy admissions in 2014. At that time, the main undergraduate campus had more legacy students than Pell Grant-eligible students. Now, those numbers are reversed. The university has also made significant progress in increasing the number of first-generation students, from 7 percent in 2009 to 16 percent in 2020.

Civic Education

Daniels quotes Sandra Day O'Connor, who said that "the practice of democracy is not passed down through the gene pool." Instead, civics is something that must be taught. Traditionally, K-12 education took on this responsibility. But recent experiences suggest this foundation may be inadequate. Daniels recounts setting up an orientation session for incoming first-year students on the importance of free speech and its role in the university. Based on student feedback, it became clear that many students had never encountered arguments for the concept of freedom of speech during their prior schooling. Given this knowledge gap, Daniels contends that universities must actively ensure students develop a robust understanding of civics.

Service-learning is one type of civics education that many students have been exposed to. A 2019 survey found that over half (53%) of first-year college students and a majority (60%) of seniors reported having classes that involved service learning. Experience with service learning and other types of volunteer work has nurtured a spirit of student volunteerism, with survey results showing increased community engagement compared to the 1980s. At the same time, these surveys also reveal a diminished sense of responsibility toward civic duties such as jury duty and staying informed about news and public affairs. Because service learning is insufficient, Daniels argues for a more comprehensive approach to civic education. He identifies four essential aspects of democratic citizenship education:

Knowledge: This encompasses a fundamental understanding of our system of government.

Skills: These include critical reasoning abilities and the capacity to translate ideas into action.

Values: These values encompass tolerance and a deep respect for equality.

Aspiration: This reflects a "disposition directed toward cooperation and collective action."

Daniels proposes that universities design courses comprehensively addressing all four dimensions of democratic citizenship. He notes that the specifics of these courses will vary based on the unique institutional cultures of different universities. He also acknowledges that developing such courses may be difficult in our highly polarized society due to the lack of consensus regarding core texts and foundational ideas that constitute good citizenship. That said, Daniels firmly believes this education is vital and should be mandatory. As he puts it: "When an education in democracy is optional, we should not be too surprised that the tenets of democracy itself appear, to many, also optional."

Stewardship of Facts

Daniels defines facts as "fragments of information that are neutral, objective, and verifiable." He acknowledges that interpreting facts is almost always necessary. Different constituencies often provide varying interpretations of facts. Liberal democracies rely on institutions that stand apart from the political realm to serve as experts. Experts can help the public determine what information is genuinely factual and the significance of particular facts within a broader context. The press is a prime example of such an institution. Daniels sees the modern university as another.

The large role of U.S. higher education in knowledge creation is a somewhat recent development. Early American colleges and universities focused primarily on preserving and transmitting existing knowledge. Their role expanded only during the emergence of research universities in the 1870s. (Johns Hopkins was the first such university.) The university's role as a knowledge creator accelerated during World War II, when the federal government started supporting academic research much more than before. In the post-war era, federal funding extended beyond defense-related research, expanding to fields like health research and basic science. Later, industry emerged as another significant source of research funding.

To establish legitimacy as experts, university-based researchers require independence and academic freedom. However, industry-funded research can pose challenges in this regard. Daniels cites studies showing that industry-sponsored faculty were more likely to prioritize research topics favorable to their sponsors. They also tended to favor conclusions aligned with their sponsors.

This section of the book concludes by exploring the open science movement, a crucial initiative for fostering transparency in research. One key component is open access, exemplified by the increasing availability of open-access journals and open articles within traditional journals. Open data also emphasizes sharing the research materials used to support published findings. Finally, open software promotes transparency by providing the tools used to analyze the data.

Pluralism

In this section, Daniels addresses problems of intolerance on university campuses head on. He notes that

"At a time when our democracy is ever more diverse and ever more polarized, our universities ought to be the world's models of how to talk to one another across the divides of identity and ideology. That they aren't — that universities have instead come to be seen as places of tension and fracturing — is a sign that we have failed to discharge one of our core contributions to liberal democracy."

Daniels views recent controversies over invited speakers as part of a larger problem. He believes that "claims of a speech crisis on campus" are "exaggerated," noting that disinvitations of speakers usually amount to a few dozen a year—a small number overall. At the same time, he concedes that, "an unmistakable pulse of dogmatism has surfaced on campus. Light, though perceptible, it appears in what I see as a growing impatience with opposing views, a reluctance to listen, and a resistance to compromise."

Daniels emphasizes the importance of interacting with people from different backgrounds and who hold different views. As he puts it: "Democracies require spaces for heterogeneous citizens to encounter one another and converse, argue, joke, and reason." Contemporary American society provides few opportunities for people to engage in such interactions. Often, a residential undergraduate college or university is one place where young people must interact with people from different backgrounds. However, it is not enough for students of various backgrounds to be present on the same campus. They must interact with one another constructively, which is part of the problem. As Daniels puts it, "structural diversity (numeracy of different groups) is no longer leading to interactional diversity."

Daniels blames changes in roommate selection for some of the decrease in interactions. Historically, college students were assigned a roommate. New technology allows students to select their roommates, which almost always means they choose someone like themselves.

He also addresses the issue of faculty political leanings, which skew liberal. For example, a study of faculty voter registration in several fields (including law) found 11.5 registered Democrats for every 1 Republican. This has consequences for public support. A recent survey found two-thirds of Republicans have little confidence in higher education, citing a perception of universities being "too liberal." This not only harms public trust but also disadvantages students, as both liberal and conservative students benefit from having intellectually diverse instructors.

Daniels proposes "purposeful pluralism" as a guiding principle to address these issues. One strategy could be to incorporate more debates into the higher education experience:

"To a striking degree, our campuses have come to be constructed around the isolated speaker rather than debate or exchange. Classes are predominantly taught by a single teacher or lecturer. Outside speakers brought to campus are usually just that: speakers. . . This is significant, I think, because it suggests to our students that the highest ideal of a thinker is proclamation, and that ideas are meant to be developed hermetically and then broadcast to the world rather than cultivated in an ongoing dialogue with others who might disagree or refine them. There are exceptions, of course, . . . [but] our universities too often model speaking to someone, rather than with someone, as the Platonic ideal of discourse."

Conclusion

This is a terrific book that frames the relationship between institutions of higher education and the larger society in a helpful way. There is a lot of detailed history as well as coverage of the current environment. Highly recommended.

[Sydney Jablonski · Rating 3 out of 5]

"It is imperative in this moment of democratic backsliding that our universities more self-consciously vindicate their obligations to this most precious and fragile form of self-governance."

Written by Canadian academic and current president of the Johns Hopkins University, this book makes the case for American universities to become more active stewards of liberal democracy, in a time where its principles are most at risk. Daniels pairs a thorough history of higher education with his own insights from a storied career to make a compelling argument that universities have been and must continue to be bastions for the principles of truth and equity.

In the middle of a very interesting academia rotation, I picked this book up from Purdue's online library on a whim. The first half was extremely engaging and I sped through it. The second half of this book felt a little more muddied, but that could also be attributed to the fact that I was able to devote a lot less focus to the second half of this book since my schedule dramatically picked up. The author makes an incredibly important argument, but it may be one that can only be fully appreciated by those in the higher education space.

[Denny]

In the grand scheme of things, I'm pretty closely aligned with Daniels politically and I strongly believe in the value of higher education (that's why I picked up this book in the first place) but man is this book VERY small 'L' liberal in the sense it's holding onto a very optimistic West Wing-style "we can fix things with rational debate" view of society.

I don't inherently disagree with his arguments, but the book's contents leave me wanting for more. For example, there's a whole section on the value of civic education but that's easier said that done in today's polarized climate. There's not much discussion on where we can even start putting together a curriculum on American civic values when those very values are constantly up for debate in the culture war. Then again, maybe that's just too tall an order to ask of one author. I don't want to be too pessimistic about this book, because it is at least valuable in getting the conversation started.

[Ray Gasser · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a time when our democracy is looking more like an authoritarian regime, this book describes those things that strengthened our democracy that had its creation through higher education in the US. The author explores four imperatives to help to push back against this assault on democracy: 1. Ending legacy admissions and restoring and reinvesting in federal financial aid to promote social mobility, 2. educating for citizenship by instituting a democracy requirement for graduation 3. checking power with facts and knowledge through open science with guardrails and greater scrutiny 4. modeling and promoting pluralism by reimaging student encounters on campus and infusing debate into campus programming. This book has me questioning how I lead one of the largest housing programs in the country all to ensure our democracy remains a democracy. And not to advocate a specific political view but to ensure that we can debate our views openly and with regard to one another.

[Alex Lambert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some really timely ideas here fueling my confirmation bias that we are experiencing a slip toward autocracy worldwide, and it is incumbent upon us to actually do something about it.

President Daniels’s is one of the most structured and followable arguments the topic I have read. He argues the need for and the way for increased access to education, ensuring that universities are grounded in truth seeking, and intentional pluralism. I particularly loved his argument for the latter being that universities were never meant to be referees for academic arguments, deciding which side is best, but they need to establishes places and guidelines where arguments can happen and flourish. We need to reemphasize debate amongst diverse thought rather than have lecturers and presentations be the main mode of education.

Makes me excited to go back to school and play my part in the process.

[Harold · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book, with a few clear ideas, best encapsulated in the concluding chapter: 1. End Legacy Admission 2. Institute a Democracy Requirement for Graduation; 3 Embrace open science with guardrails; and 4 Reimagine student encounters on campus and infuse debate into campus programming Each of the conclusions is supported by a long chapter, tracing to idea as far back as he can to the founding of American Universities, and in some cases to the rest of the world.

As a result, the book has a bit too much history. I don’t really need to know the inception of College Dorm life to grasp the relevance to today’s world. Indeed I don’t think it helps. In this case the history is a tough shell to crack to get the meat, but there is certainly much food for thought here.

[Chris Vogt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly carefully researched and well written and makes a lot of good points. Would have liked to see a bit more constructive, concrete proposals and careful analysis of present moment instead of long sections of history of higher education (which were interesting but did not answer many questions about what to do now). Does not engage very directly with critics of free speech and debate models of university who see this approach as an element of “whiteness”. I think that must be engaged if his proposal is to move forward.

[Henry Emurian · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Audiobook] I was skeptical going into this book, but was pleased. At the very least, it gives something to think about.

[Sarah Kercsmar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book made some good points, but I found it to be heavy on rhetoric and light on tangible action steps.

[Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Undeniably, a very important book to read

[Nora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and eye-opening

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Needed this right now | Narrative of what should be | And what should not be

[Craig · Rating 3 out of 5]

Daniels gives interesting history on these 4 topics, and they're worth discussing these issues.

Regarding changing admissions: I agree on ending legacy admissions, but those are a relatively small fraction of admissions to only a small fraction of (the highest-prestige) universities.

[Henry Yuen · Rating 4 out of 5]

President of Johns Hopkins University discusses his view of the fraying support for democracy in the US and around the world, and the vital role that universities have for keeping democracy healthy and for fostering democratic ideals and pro-socialness in the populace. In his view, universities have been dropping the ball on this for the last few decades, which he thinks is one contributor to the poor state of democracy in America. Short read, some interesting history about higher education in the United States.

[Micah · Rating 5 out of 5]

I spent much of this year sitting on university committees and arguing in meetings at the student union. Unfortunately, the core purpose of universities and the roles of their students’ associations was rarely a topic of discussion.

In a new era of neoliberalism it is ever more important that those with their hands on the steering wheels of tertiary education can reflect upon the engine in which they are driving.
This book is an absolute must for those drivers.

[Craig Becker · Rating 5 out of 5]

What Universities Owe Democracy Excellent and essential book. As a professor, I found it especially interesting. It was interesting to learn that George Washington wanted national universities. It was also interesting to know how universities have helped shape our nation. Although I was aware that things happened on campus, such as the shaping of young minds and getting young people to interact with new experiences, I was excited to learn more about its value in helping to generate a better society.

As an early college president noted, it was important for campuses to cause a "collision of views" because it helped cultivate respect and better ideas. I also agree with and support Daniels's vision for creating a campus with more debate about ideas rather than just single speakers with views on social issues. Daniels's ideas to design campus experiences for diversity interactions also seem essential.

These ideas were recommended because universities are ending many of these practices to expose students to new situations. As Daniels noted, the university should model how to handle diverse perspectives, not just provide students with new experiences and stand back expecting good things to happen. Helping students become exposed to and then learn how to handle different viewpoints with respect better seems like something that would benefit society and something we can all support. I hope the ideas proposed to get traction.