As political scientists at major universities are being quizzed about the Trumpian threat to liberal democracy, we might think about the role higher ed should play in the next four years.

     This afternoon the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that poli sci profs are 

being asked by journalists if Trump poses a threat to our democracy.

The article references a Harvard prof:  

"Political scientists are in the midst of an important moment, he said. As people outside academe look to scholars for answers, it’s more important than ever for political scientists to rethink what questions their research seeks to answer. Questions that offer solutions to saving and understanding Western democracies, the type of work Mr. Mounk does, may become more valuable in the world of academe than they were before, he said."

This article begs the question of the role of American higher education over the next 4-8 years.  Here, then, are a few of my thoughts on this question.r what they may be worth, are my some of own thoughts.

      The first decade and a half of the new millennium, by and large, has been a harrowing time for American higher education.  A leading culprit is the Internet.  This was by no means immediately apparent.  While most faculty members probably found online learning to be an inconvenience at best and a threat at worst, many administrators embraced online education as an opportunity to reach a whole new (national, and even international) market.

          It took Professor Clay Christensen of the Harvard Business School, the prophet of disruption theory, to explain that, for only the first time in higher education’s history, has a technology appeared that is capable of disrupting the established business model.  Prior to the Worldwide Web and distance education, would-be entrants into the higher ed industry confronted a high bar.  The physical-plant requirements alone barred many competitors.  Well-paid, inefficient faculty, who came with expectations of lifelong employment, drove the cost of instruction still higher.  Tuition increases outran inflation rates by a cross-country mile.  Enter the Internet.  Voila: disruption of the paradigm of a college education that had prevailed since the turn of the last century. (Christensen)

     Some effects of the disruption include the shift from 65 percent of the faculty on the tenure track in the 1970s to 35 percent or fewer today; the financial crisis besetting literally hundreds of tuition-driven private colleges; the rise of major for-profit players, such as the University of Phoenix Online, and the erasing of geographic barriers to aggressive competition (e.g., the University of Arizona Online).

     But increased competition is not the only, or even the most serious, challenge posed by the Internet to traditional higher education.  If the higher-education enterprise consists of more than merely vocational training… if it also includes the search for truth…, then the challenge of the net runs to the very heart and soul of the university.

     And at no time has this been clearer than in 2016, the year in which a television personality with no political, military or diplomatic experience… an entrepreneur who recognized an opportunity in the disarray of the Republican Party… a brash flim-flam man with no regard for the facts tweeted his way into the White House.

      It seems no exaggeration to suggest that, during the Trump presidency, America’s college campuses will be called upon to play the role of the monasteries in the Dark Ages.

        How serious is this situation in this second decade of the new century?  Consider that a Pew Research Center Survey released in mid-December 2016, a month after America’s most bizarre national election, revealed that 64 percent of Americans polled felt that fake news story cause “a great deal” of confusion about the actual facts regarding current events and issues.  Only about one respondent in 10 say they don’t feel a sense of confusion.  Perhaps more encouragingly, nearly one in four claim they are capable of detecting phony news; of course, it’s entirely possible that some or many of these folks overestimate the efficacy of their B.S. detectors.  Perhaps most discouraging was the admission of nearly a quarter of respondents that they themselves have knowingly shared false news stories.     
      “When it comes to how to prevent the spread of fake news, many Americans 

expect social networking sites, politicians and the public itself to do their share. Fully

 45% of U.S. adults say government, politicians and elected officials bear a great deal

 of responsibility for preventing made-up stories from gaining attention, on par with

 the 43% that say this of the public and the 42% who say this of social networking

 sites and search engines. Although the overall portion of Americans who place 

responsibility on each is about equal, individuals have different perspectives on how 

that responsibility should be distributed. Just 15% of Americans place a great deal of

responsibility on all three of these groups, while a majority (58%) feels instead that

one or two of them bear a great deal of responsibility.” (Pew)

       If higher education must differentiate itself from business and government in 

order to serve as a counterweight to them, one of the fundamental ways it must do so

 is in adhering to a strict code of truth-seeking and truth-telling. Even if particular

institutions of higher learning are unwilling to take unpopular stands on controversial

 issues, they must share consensus on this code or run the risk of abrogating their 

claims to being genuine educational institutions. Are we not entitled to expect a 

higher level of integrity from our universities than we anticipate when we turn on our

TVs?